Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2022-05-18 HPC Packet
iliwater 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 May 18th, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of April 20th, 2022 regular meeting V. 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. VI. 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. 2022-25: Consideration of a Variance for a front porch. Property located at 107 Laurel St E in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review district. Eric Hansen of Fresh Start Builders, applicant and Ryan and Mary Collier, property owners. VII. PUBLIC HEARING VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3. Case No. 2022-22: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new residence on the property located at 1008 5th St S in the Neighborhood Conversation District. Spencer Middleton and Sofie Cohen, property owners. --Tabled from April IX. NEW BUSINESS 4. Case No. 2022-31: Consideration of a Design permit for store front modifications. Property located at 223 Main St S in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review district and the Historic Central Business Height Overlay district. White Bear Ventures, property owners. Materials available Monday. 5. Case No. 2020-27. Consideration of an Amendment to previous Design Permit for rooftop improvements. Property located at 223 Main St S in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District and the Historical Central Business Height Overlay District. White Bear Ventures, property owners. X. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 6. Union Art Alley 7. Policy for Packet Add -On Materials -No packet materials 8. Annual Training Flyer XI. FYI 9. Stillwater Historic Homes Tour Materials XII. ADJOURNMENT i I I \ i's'Ater THE OIRTIIPLACE OF NINNESOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING April 20, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairwoman Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Larson, Thueson, Walls, Councilmember Junker Absent: Commissioner Holmes Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Gladhill APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of March 16, 2022 Regular Meeting Motion by Commissioner Thueson, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2022 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA 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. 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. 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. 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. Commissioner Mino requested that Case No. 2022-23, Design Permit for window replacement at 101 Pine St W, be pulled from the Consent Agenda and placed under New Business. Commissioner Thueson requested that Case No. 2020-32, Design Permit modification for 220 Chestnut St E, be pulled from the Consent Agenda and placed under New Business. Motion by Commissioner Walls, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to adopt the Consent Agenda as amended. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 20, 2022 City Planner Wittman explained that in April, 2021 the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed a Building Demolition/Design Permit request for the partial demolition, renovation and addition of the structure at 1008 5th Street South. The applicants were proposing to remove greater than 30% of the circa 1906 constructed, single -story residence. The reason for the proposed demolition was due to improper grading which had resulted in portions of the structure sinking below grade; sill and floor joist ground contact; rotted ceiling joists; cracked girder beam; and basement 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. The property owner then obtained a building permit, removed portions of the home, and began framing a new roof for the structure. Due to a combination of factors suggesting greater foundation issues than originally anticipated, the property owners have determined that full demolition and reconstruction are necessary. In its current state, the home is a public nuisance and a hazard. Detailed renderings of the proposed new home were submitted today and staff feels the design conforms to the guidelines set forth for new construction in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Staff recommends approval of the Building Demolition Permit and the Design Permit for the new home. Commissioner Finwall asked why a bigger foundation can't be added under existing house. Ms. Wittman replied there are concerns about cost and that moving/jacking up the structure will tweak the wooden elements further out of alignment. The house is not square. Spencer Middleton, applicant, stated they tried to make the renovation work but the contractor said due to many factors it would be very costly and time consuming to renovate the footings and foundation, and he was unwilling to do so. Chair Mino opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Mino closed the public hearing. She asked about proposed finishes and materials. Mr. Middleton stated the exterior will have horizontal lap siding in dark green with 4" exposure. The roof will be standing seam black metal, and window trim will be black. Mr. Middleton added and Ms. Wittman confirmed that the site plan is substantially the same as previously approved in 2021. She showed the new renderings and site plan. The applicant verbally indicated the materials will be identical to the materials already approved. This could be made a condition of approval if the HPC desires. Commissioner Thueson pointed out the challenge of comparing the project with the Conservation District Design Guidelines because of seeing the new renderings for the first time tonight. Ms. Wittman stated building demolition permits may not be approved until there is a new design that substantially conforms to the Neighborhood Conservation District, but the Commission may table consideration of the overall action to request final details of the plans, or may develop conditions that are similar to the previous approval if the Commission would approve of the demolition. Chair Mino recognized there are existing safety concerns and that construction costs should be a consideration as well. Commissioner Heimdahl appreciated the applicants' substantial efforts to preserve the building and their willingness to consider sustainability measures including salvage. Commissioner Finwall recognized the applicants' attempts to preserve the structure and the need for demolition. She said if the Commission had reviewed this as a clean slate it probably would not have approved the design. Mr. Middleton answered that they are building a single story home because the original intent was to renovate the existing single story home which would not support a second story. Page 2 of 6 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 20, 2022 Ms. Wittman pointed out there are single story structures across the street. Commissioner Larson remarked it is important that the massing and scale of the new home be compatible with others on the street, but the original intent was to save the single story historic home. He finds the proposed new home acceptable as a great improvement over the previously approved plans. However the lack of detail on drawings and a site plan is concerning. The applicant could be asked to submit a final site plan and detailed drawings, for staff approval. Commissioner Thueson agreed the lack of a site plan is challenging. He asked Ms. Wittman to elaborate on the conditions of the foundation. Mr. Middleton noted that the newer house design was based on the existing footprint of the front half of the house that would have been retained. Councilmember Junker commented the application should be tabled due to outstanding questions. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Chair Mino, to approve the demolition permit based on the findings regarding safety and stability of the structure, and to table consideration of the amended design permit for the design of the new home. Motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Thueson voting nay. Former HPC Commissioner Jeff Johnson noted there is now an opportunity to look at a different design if the applicants wish, since the lines of the original home are no longer restricting the design. NEW BUSINESS 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. Ms. Wittman explained the case. Washington County is seeking to construct and install custom aluminum storm windows on the Washington County Historic Courthouse. With the exception of windows on the old jail that 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. It is unknown whether or not the Courthouse windows were ever protected by storm windows. 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. Protection of the historic features of the courthouse is vital to the long-term preservation of the structure. One public comment was received from former HPC Commissioner Jeff Johnson voicing concern about the addition of aluminum windows, suggesting it will change the character of the structure. The applicant stated they have submitted the plans to both the Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for review. Staff recommends approving the requested Design Permit with two conditions. Chair Mino asked the applicant about their interactions with SHPO, why the storm windows will not be wood, and why the frames will be black since the interior is brown. Alex McKinney, applicant, Washington County Parks Manager, said the windows have deteriorated and storm windows were strongly recommended to take care of mold and rot. They have consulted with MNHS, which provided $55,000 for this project, and SHPO, which will issue final approval. It is a standard brown color, not black (wrong in packet) that will closely match the existing. Anodized aluminum was chosen for durability. An exact match would have cost another $40,000. The storms are the exact windows that are on the National Register -listed Federal Building in Minneapolis. Commissioner Larson asked if the existing windows are operable. Mr. McKinney replied most are, but some of the basement windows are not. In some areas where ventilation is needed, the design allows Page 3 of 6 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 20, 2022 the bottom half to be taken out and replaced with a screen but most will be set in place. He also confirmed that the new windows will match the existing mullion patterns. Commissioner Heimdahl stated if MNHS and SHPO approve the design, he is OK with that. Scott Peterson, contractor, stated the windows will not obscure the views and it is a high quality window that has been used in hundreds of federal buildings throughout the U.S. Jeff Johnson, former HPC Commissioner, observed that the mullions will line up, however they still will look different. Also, the storm window will mount out to the masonry creating a larger, undivided reflective surface of glass. It would be nice to reduce the amount of glass by adding a horizontal mullion to get the 4 over 4 look rather than the 1 over 1 look. Mr. Peterson stated the existing windows were poorly designed, allowing moisture to get in and necessitating rebuilding many of the window sashes. This type of window was suggested to keep water away from all the wood components. The interior dividers will be seen between the glass but not on the surface of the glass due to the cost and need to protect the components from weather. Therefore it will not completely mimic the existing window patterns. Commissioner Larson said he understands the economics involved and would defer to the historical experts at SHPO assuming they approve the project. Chair Mino agreed. Motion by Chair Mino, seconded by Commissioner Heimdahl, to approve the Design Permit for window replacement at 101 Pine St W with the two staff recommended conditions, adding Condition #3 that the applicant must obtain MNHS and SHPO approval prior to installation. All in favor. 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. Ms. Wittman reviewed the case. In 2021 the City approved a Design Permit for the construction of a new apartment building at 200 Chestnut Street East. During the review, the HPC expressed concern for a 5'8" retaining wall proposed to be located along the Union Alley sidewalk. After redesign of the wall plan to a combination of 2-4' retaining wall with fencing and landscaping, the HPC found that the plan conformed to the Downtown Design Review District standards and added to an enhanced pedestrian experience. Since 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 the wall along Union Alley. Additionally, the terrace area was repurposed to accommodate stormwater drainage on site through a green roof system. 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 (chest height) will be a mixture of plantings specific designed specifically to accommodate rain water on the site; they will set in a 12" deep planter. Below the wall at sidewalk grade, there will be six 8" wide planters with vining plants designed to grow up the textured wall. Staff determined the wall to be substantially compliant with the intent of the HPC's approval. Staff recommends the Commission review and find the proposed 4'6" wall substantially compliant with the original approved Design Permit. Commissioner Thueson remarked that bricked up windows of buildings across Union Alley could be opened in the future so this design needs to fit that context. Commissioner Heimdahl noted there was talk of creating an Art Alley down Union Alley so the applicant might consider public art in the future. Ms. Wittman clarified that the Art Alley would be in the next block to the north. She discussed with the applicant the potential for some sort of art along the wall. Page 4 of 6 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 20, 2022 Councilmember Junker remarked that nearly 5' of concrete running almost the length of the alley is impersonal and cold, a big change from concept approval. He would like to see more detail i.e. brick. Commissioner Walls and Chair Mino agreed it is unappealing from a pedestrian standpoint. They would like it to look less like a parking garage wall. Bob Loken, ESG Architecture & Design, responded that the wall is to be poured with a formliner in the pattern of boards, but a brick pattern could be used instead. Councilmember Junker said the Crosby Hotel bricked the Mulberry facade of their parking garage to eliminate the parking garage look. Commissioner Larson said the wall stands out as different from the rest of the building. He suggested a different pattern may help but would not like to see fake brick next to the real brick. Mr. Loken replied they may be able to create staggered recesses in the wall or use both poured and non -poured forms. Joel Hauck, applicant, reminded the Commission the wall is bookended and balanced by the brick structures and runs along 1/3 of the block. Chair Mino commented the previous design had a more dynamic pedestrian feel which was preferable. Ms. Wittman said staff will continue to work with the applicant given the Commission's feedback. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Forum Conference July 13-17 Ms. Wittman asked if any Commissioners want to attend. Scholarships are available. Discussion of Election of Officers Ms. Wittman shared that in May Commissioner Walls is resigning and a new Chair and Vice Chair will need to be elected. Commission Requests Chair Mino asked the status of the local designation program. Ms. Wittman replied she will discuss this with Community Development Director Gladhill and new staff. Chair Mino asked how late applicants may submit materials for meetings. Ms. Wittman replied because it is a public meeting, people may submit anytime or bring materials to a meeting. Deadlines can be discussed with Mr. Gladhill and future staff. FYI Ms. Wittman reported that she and Commissioner Thueson spoke to the Stillwater Women's Reading Club with a Powerpoint presentation designed so any Commissioners and staff could present it. Ms. Wittman also shared that the digitization of historic public records, with the Stillwater Public Library, will continue this year with early 1920's-30s sewer maps with hand drawn records. Commissioner Finwall and the Commission recognized City Planner Wittman for her dedicated service, this being her last meeting with the HPC before she leaves to work for the City of Forest Lake. Page 5 of 6 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 20, 2022 Chair Mino thanked Commissioner Walls for his service on the HPC. Councilmember Junker reported that three candidates were interviewed for Commissioner Walls's seat. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Walls, seconded by Chair Mino, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Amy Mino, Chair ATTEST: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director Page 6 of 6 illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: May 13, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Variance Request in Downtown Design Review District; Variance to Front Yard Setback for Front Porch at 107 Laurel St E BACKGROUND The Owners of 107 Laurel St E are requesting a Variance to the Front Yard Setback in order to construct a front porch. The site is located in the Downtown Design Review District. All Variances within the Downtown Design Review District shall be reviewed by the HPC prior to formal consideration by the Planning Commission. Front porches are ordinarily approved administratively by Staff, except in these circumstances where the proposal does not fully comply with other Zoning Regulations such as setbacks and maximum lot coverage requirements. The site is also located in the Neighborhood Conservation District and is part of the City's Heirloom and Landmark Sites Program. The Stillwater Design Guidelines encourage front porches as an important design element and character element of older single-family areas of Stillwater. It is not uncommon to see historical patterns of front porches constructed up to the front property line in these neighborhoods. Additions of porches to increase the living areas of homes is well documented in the Stillwater Design Guidelines as part of the historic pattern and evolution of Stillwater. Porches provide a transition from the public street to the private space of the building. An excerpt from the Stillwater Design Guidelines specific to porches is included in this Staff Report for reference. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the HPC concur that the requested Variance and associated front porch complies with the Stillwater Design Guidelines for the Downtown Design Review District. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the requested Variance from the standpoint of compliance with the Stillwater Design Guidelines for the Downtown Design Review District. illwa ter r _lot -", l'l 01-,.. '...' • i-• • ,. . • , ...4,,, . ••,, 14, , ' ',Jo,. . _ ,. • ,, 1,, , .. , : _ .,. iii iiii 4. I* . - i ____: _ .... _, 3••• The Birthplace of Minnesota \ 0-- __. ... , .,,,, .3.3‘"" - ',.S.,,..., ,, ''•'.3!'t -`. • ?• • '' •-,..- „.-4,-,. -.-- ...,.. '''..i_ic '.'"•-•:- . v-,•;,, .., .. . , Laurel St E 45 90 180 Feet ' • "WI; r•_ . (iPtort General Site Location 011°Al : • X I e\ , A 1/41n . . ... A, lia j i '4111hunifitwi;„. 1 - , • . 3,- ^ Iii- ----,r,‘ . :„,....,.....,.,... „, , 0 ::'?-‘11::,...,„..7..._: . - " , _ 6 • 3 ..33432,10 NEP :flii• .61 • 1.I-2:4,.I. ! \1 •4_A"- mil?MA1C,Il,34.,N.T1IIlmL---.1e13z.0.41.:-1&.,„ ' -f13 1111,11g. r a.E. . WW1 - • .. II ... --"- _•' -.__4" ' ' -: at • .. ' 4. r:-;..;iAIi.7V- Ii4 %- -A.;• '. -.,..'--• . .p.-'• , - 44.4. 444t41' :4 I .g c. •. I_••` . `. 0a...--p1,'r.... A:. _ . • 1, I I.-.i17...=,,,_ 'AEI= Nom _mIm ir--, 111 issir, it S104. .... r uw-Asommer- A Collier Porch 001 scale: 1/16"=1' Laurel Street 100,-o" Lot Coverage Calculations: - Existing House: 1385 SF - Existing Attached garage: 486 SF - Existing Shed: 80SF - Open Porch Addition: 135 SF Existing Lot Coverage: 1951 SF New Total Lot Coverage: 2086 SF Lot Total (According to Washington County Assessors): 8276 Total Coverage Now: 23.5% Total Coverage Proposed: 25% Collier Addition FRESH START BUILDERS DESIGN PLANS ARE PROVIDED FOR Ryan and Mary Collier ■,� F���I FRESH START COMPANIES, INC. THE FAIR USE OF THE CLIENT IN COMPLETING THE PROJECT AS 1-1901 0 Site Plan 107 Laurel Street East SIXTH AVE S ■T��T LISTED. DESIGN PLANS REMAIN THE Stillwater, MN / I STILLWATER, MN 55082 P: 651.430.2412 F: 651.304.1242 PROPERTY OF FRESH START BUILDERS AND CANNOT BE USED OR DRAWN BY: ERIC HANSEN, AKBD B U L ❑ E R S WWW.FRESHSTARTMN.COM REUSED WITHOUT PERMISSION. i 1 r 2/2,1 tn 12"Dia. Conc. Pier Ftgs. x 48" Deep. Flair Btm. to 1 b" Existing Windows & Entry Door / I Simpson DDT-1Z Tension Tie As Req. By Code With 1/2" x b" Lag Screws gi I fi 0 @ I 16" O.G. Staggered 1 /2 ,l'i 12"Dia. Conc. Pier Ftgs. x 48" Deep. S Simpson BC5 2-3/6 Post tts. I Flair Btm. to 18" ToBeam Connector '11_) i—1 6 x b Treaded Posts With x 3-2x8 Treated Seam c;+ I L CZ\ Galv. Post Anchor 2 x 8 Treated Ledger Board Fastened To House Rim 10'-2 1 /2" 20 -5" PORCH FOUNDATION PLAN 1/4"=11-0" 2 x 8 Treated Jois Proposed Porch T&G Fir Decking And T&G Beadboard Ceiling / I b x 6 Permacast Turned Posts / Hand Frame This With Spandrels ( By Vintage / Area With Barrel Vault Woodworks) between Posts b' / 2 - 2 x 10 Beam Abv. Wraped With 1x Miratec Cr) Walk To Be Removed Existing Concrete 20'-5" 1/2 Elevation Existing Retaining Wall 1.,(1 V \ #1\il V 116 \V V Existing Concrete Walk Existing Concrete Walk And Steps — -1 PROPOSED PORCH FLOOR PLAN 1/4"=t-0" 1 Foot Offset From Corners 2/2 ,11 33 tr) • 17171IPZIII.II I I 'sting Concrete Steps__ Existing Retaining Walls Collier Residence 107 Laurel Street Stillwater, MN FRESH START BUILDERS DATE: 4/6/2022 SHEET: Existing Windows Soffit & Fascia To Match fisting andre s By tang Wood b X b P'erfnacast urned Posts &G Fird ckin 1 x 10 Painted Finish Rim 1 1' I, 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1_ 1 I 11 1 1 1 II II II IL II 11IL 11 Spandrels By Vintange Wood Works 6 x 6 Permacast Turned Posts T&G Fir decking r 1 x 10 Painted Finish Rim FRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 3/16"=1'-0" Left Side Sim. 3/16"=1'-0" Shingles To Match Existing 15# Asphalt Felt 1/2" Plywood Roof Shthg. Roof Trusses @ 24"O.C. 1 x 4 Pine Sub Fascia 1 x 8 Miratec Fascia Painted 3/8" Beadboard Soffit Painted Step With 7 1/2"Max Max Riser 12" Dia.x 48" Conc. Pier Footing Flawed At Btm. To 18" Flashing 12 uC�l I V 2 x Ledger Boards Lag P screwed To The house Stud Wall With 3/8" x 5" Torx r—Screws @ 16" O.C. 2-2x10 Beam IllIIIlIIlIlll i Spandrels By Vintange Wood Works 6 x 6 Permacast Turned Posts T&G Fir decking 2 x 8 Treated Joists 10" O.C. Simpson UUI-1L Tension Ties / \ CROSS SECTION 3/16"=1'-0" Collier Residence 107 Laurel Street Stillwater, MN FRESH START BUILDERS DATE: 4/b/2022 SHEET: 5.12.8 Porches, Steps, and Decks Porches are an exterior living space that mark the transition between the private house and public street. Some only cover the entry, while others wrap around the building. Porches and steps are exposed to the weather and receive hard use. Some buildings have had a succession of replacements that reflect different styles of architecture. In reconstructing a missing porch, it is important to select posts and railings of appropriate scale and detail. Avoid using undersized ready-made trim. Scroll bracket Turned post Wood steps 11 Shed roof Spindleprete Railing Baluster Porch skirt Maintain and Conserve a. Porches, steps, and handrails that are appropriate to the building and its architectural development should be conserved and retained. Repair and Replacement b. Historic porches, steps, or handrails that require complete rebuilding or partial replacement should be reconstructed using historical research to determine an appropriate design. Reconstructions should be compatible with the period and style of the building in material, design, and detail. Concrete should not be used to replace wood porch floors or steps. Railings c. The original spacing, section, and profile of railings and balusters should be maintained in replacement or repair. Unless historical evidence indicates, reconstruction should include a bottom rail and balusters should not be nailed directly to the step or deck. Metal railings should not be used to replace wood railings. The entry porch at 1206S. 3rd Street features a spindle frieze. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 78 Posts and Columns d. If replacement is necessary, porch posts and columns should be replaced with units that replicate the original materials, size, and scale. Elaborate details such as carving, turning, gouging, or stamping may be simplified if necessary. Wood posts should not be replaced with metal posts or supports. Decks e. Decks should be constructed only at the rear of the building or where most inconspicuous from the public street Railings, steps, and other deck details should be compatible with the architectural character of the building. Porch Enclosure f. Historically unenclosed front porches should not be enclosed. 5.12.9 Fire Stairs a. The detailing of fire stairs should be simple and compatible with the period and style of the building. In consultation with the building official, fire stairs should be located as inconspicuously as possible. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 79 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA May 13, 2022 Chair Amy Mino and HPC Commissioners Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director 1008 5th Street South Building Design Permit for 1008 5th Street South (Case No. 2022-22) Applicant: Landowner: BACKGROUND Sofie Cohen and Districts: Neighborhood Spencer Middleton Conservation District Sofie Cohen Designation: N/A As the Commission may recall, on April 13, 2022, the Commission approved a full demolition of the structure at 1008 5th Street South. Originally, the Commission had previously approved a partial demolition in April of 2021. However, due to a variety of structural concerns with the original foundation, leading to other structural issues with the Building, a full demolition was approved. At that time, it was noted that a new Design Permit would be required per City Code, as the project is located within the Neighborhood Conservation District. The Commission requested additional clarification due to the relatively short period of time to review revised plans. Said plans with additional detail are now attached for your review. 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. According to the Applicant's Narrative, the primary changes from the 2021 Application (partial demolition/partial remodeling) are: 1. The roof structure was changed from a hip roof to a gable roof 2. The height of the central portion of the roof was increased (overall height and mass has increased) 3. A bay window was added to the front of the home Staff Conclusions As noted above, the height and mass has minimally increased from the 2021 design approval. Many of the homes in the area are either 1.5 story or 2 story homes, consistent with the character of homes of the era of this neighborhood. This may not be the preferred design, but is not uncommon in Stillwater and was the original design of the existing home on the site. The Commission did recommend that the Applicant consider a 2 story home since the project now involved a full demolition of the existing structure. 1.5 story or 2 story homes are encouraged by the Design Guidelines (indirectly; not explicitly noted), but not outright prohibited. A more detailed analysis is included below. Neighborhood and Streets 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 roof is designed as a gabled roof. This is a design change from the original proposal. The HPC should discuss the appropriateness of this design change. Building height should be considered in choosing roof forms, architectural style, and relating to context. A gabled 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 and retaining walls. When retaining walls are 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. Case No. 2022-22 Page 2 of 4 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 new structure massing and street front. 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. 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. Consider front porch elements in the design of infill structures. The design does include a minimal covered front porch, but mainly a covered entryway. 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. 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. Case No. 2022-22 Page 3 of 4 In new building design, consider appropriate materials, textures and colors, and their relationship to other buildings of the neighborhood. Use masonry and stone No masonry or stone is proposed. The house is situated authentically. on rusticated concrete block. This will remain exposed in the front of the home. RECOMMENDATION Based on previous discussions and approvals, Staff recommends approval of the Design Permit with 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 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 Community Development Department. 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. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Design Permit for 1008 5th St S with the six (6) conditions listed above. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Applicant Materials April 21, 2021 HPC Minutes April 20, 2022 DRAFT HPC Minutes Stillwater Design Guidelines — Neighborhood Conservation District Excerpt Cc: Sofie Cohen Spencer Middleton Case No. 2022-22 Page 4 of 4 1020 Subject: Application for design approval for 1008 5th St S Applicants: Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton 4/29/2022 Dear Heritage Preservation Commission, We are writing to request design approval for redeveloping the soon -to -be -demolished house at 1008 5th St S. Last month you gave us approval for the demolition of our unsalvageable house structure, and this month we are excited to share with you the house we plan to build as a replacement. Since being granted design approval when we met last year, we made some slight design changes to improve the look and usability of the property. Because we designed this house intending to restore the remaining structure where it stood, our proposed footprint is substantially similar to what was already approved; the new foundation for the front portion of the house will be poured within the same setbacks as the existing foundation. Our color scheme, architectural details, and the materials we intend to use are the same as what was approved last year. The primary changes from last year's application to this year's application are: • The roof structure was changed from a hip roof to a gable roof • The height of the central portion of the roof was increased • A bay window bump -out in the front of the house with a shed roof was added Despite our numerous setbacks, we are still 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 — — Q Drainage Swale ) Native/Natural ' • EE 'n Z4 l\ ' Native/Natural <— a 012" Pine i • 1 2" Pine�====================-==== • • 80' o 0 Turf 1 2" Pine �====================_==== �/� ( ) ��� �i� 20" M l ================ 0 a p e �'�Patio >tlot Turf 400 Sq. Ft. ` J Driveway 350 Sq. Ft. Native/Natural re q , . 110 \ "\O Turf IpPP�, `� �O�� -- Q , , , Lot Size: 10,800 Sq. Ft. House Footprint: 2700 Sq. Ft. Lot Coverage: 25% Driveway/Walkways 590 Sq. Ft. Patio: 400 Sq. Ft. Roof Coverage: 3271 Sq. Ft. Total Impermeable: 4261 Sq. Ft. Scale: 3/16" = 1' iii Sheet # Middleton 0 Gim Middleton Sofie Cohen 8c Spencer Vicc Landscape Plan v Buzz ey, Inc. oo eton Of: 1117 Broadway St N m CD 1008 5th St S Drawn:4/27/2022 Stillwater, MN v, Stillwater, V \ A-1 , , 135' f 64'-6" 4' +6" 20' 19'-6" 26 -5" 55'-6" 10' 0 12" Pine 19'-6" 23'-8" 15' 80' 012" Pine _ 2'-8" 14'-5" (/) --+ 7'-1" P0" Maple (-1) 012" Pine 26-1' 24-4" 26'-5" 36' ► 10'-4" 1_ 1 Lot Size: 10,800 Sq. Ft. House Footprint: 2700 Sq. Ft. Lot Coverage: 25% Driveway/Walkways 590 Sq. Ft. Patio: 400 Sq. Ft. Roof Coverage: 3271 Sq. Ft. Scale: 3/16" = Total Impermeable: 4261 Sq. Ft. 1' 0 Sheet # 0 Gim Middleton O Sofie Cohen 8c Spencer V icc Site Plan v Buzz Chickley, Inc. eton Of: 1117 Broadway St N 3 1008 5th St S Drawn:4/29/2022 Stillwater, MN < v, Stillwater, V \ A - 2 f'Rr may+ r. F•- nw %r }� + e - 1• T. r • T r • P' . r 'F� 1- r- 1.� P. 7+, Ir fl .- M. r• .- .+ • r.. T. .r r^ ..-. {'� ..1.' 1M. - rw T ••+ r. . .. 7- 1r., pp - 7r?. , r r . •-P �. r''+� yp .A r�rri - - -- -- - r'I-".^1..-,.. ilrar p..�.r . .1111IMi/1 IrMiaaMial� wiaMlawwirAaM ■ a siPlb F r .rirlwaArNrMiiMrarwmO .wMiwirll w�.iliNINIrrYa r INI�rurlliriluYf rawN neumMi arifi riNirimIlrMrrl I--- - riRieoil rliarirrurAiriNrll�✓Zi rriir��• �r inai - rrl--- ---- f� W0014arMo lei irk r�rwir�r•MMr r dia�r limaurliakali Wr r�a�ri1 ii�iiri . r r- f- �1.�'w� r►rr r+ — ii -�r-�. �,..,�•.rr�,.rrr �-r-r- r' +--f►-t+r -� , r.r T.. r- 1W-7, r r- , • f r... 1* + - '. - r�-n�r-f� --r•.-r- 1 1 '- r',r . _ ,-' ! — ..or—r'.-1.r'1+ r F F" o.• w 7+ . 1w . • n _ - rr n.-}. r.. - r.' /P r r fT• m- r T r• r r 1 .. �r w'_lw'•'Y^'r _ Y� . F T'w-•!. r 1°^ T �r� r R s-' r . r. ►� l+ r'. r A r^ r + East Elevation 1008 5th St. S. Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton North Elevation 1008 5th St. N. Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton Sofie Cohen & Spencer Middleton 1008 5th St S Stillwater, MN o West Elevation 1008 5th St. N. Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton Cohen/Middleton Design Comparison Previous Design Approved sheik# ❑ Sim Midieton m KC Sofie Cohen East Elevation or. BuzzChickley, Inc. Broadway St N 1 I0I08 5th St S Drawn:toStillwater, MN , huzzchiddey@gmail.mm in Stillwater, MN Revised Design East Elevation 1008 5th St. S. 5ofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton 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) 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 Mino 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 S, 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 i \ Ater THE OIRTIIPLACE OF NINNESOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING April 20, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairwoman Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Larson, Thueson, Walls, Councilmember Junker Absent: Commissioner Holmes Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Gladhill APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of March 16, 2022 Regular Meetin Motion by Commissioner Thueson, seconded by Commission inwa March 16, 2022 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA approve the minutes of the Case No. 2022-18: Consideration of a P -sign L T for . oftop solar panels. Property located at 102 2nd St S in the Downtown S ' - . Des i Review District. Ross Larson of Nordic Luv LLC, property owner and Colin Bua el of Ener: olar, applicant. Case No. 2022-21: Consideration Property located at 10 Grandma Vincenza P applicant. Case No. 2022-23: Cons' 101 Pine St W in the Down esign - - mit for exterior sign lighting on storefront. S in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District. ty owner and Cecilia Loome of Black Letter Books LLC, a Design Permit for window replacement. Property located at Stillwater Design Review District. Alex McKinney representing Washington County, property owner. 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. Commissioner Mino requested that Case No. 2022-23, Design Permit for window replacement at 101 Pine St W, be pulled from the Consent Agenda and placed under New Business. Commissioner Thueson requested that Case No. 2020-32, Design Permit modification for 220 Chestnut St E, be pulled from the Consent Agenda and placed under New Business. Motion by Commissioner Walls, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to adopt the Consent Agenda as amended. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 20, 2022 City Planner Wittman explained that in April, 2021 the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed a Building Demolition/Design Permit request for the partial demolition, renovation and addition of the structure at 1008 5th Street South. The applicants were proposing to remove greater than 30% of the circa 1906 constructed, single -story residence. The reason for the proposed demolition was due to improper grading which had resulted in portions of the structure sinking below grade; sill and floor joist ground contact; rotted ceiling joists; cracked girder beam; and basement 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. The property owner then obtained a building permit, removed portions of the home, and began framing a new roof for the structure. Due to a combination of factors suggesting greater foundation issues than originally anticipated, the property owners have determined that full demolition and reconstruction are necessary. In its current state, the home is a public nuisance and a hazard. Detailed renderings of the proposed new home were submitted today and staff feels the design conforms to the guidelines set forth for new construction in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Staff recommends approval of the Building Demolition Permit and the Design Permit for the ne ome. Commissioner Finwall asked why a bigger foundation can't b - s ed under existing house. Ms. Wittman replied there are concerns about cost and t t ovin ' . cking up the structure will tweak the wooden elements further out of alignment. ouse is n • • uare. Spencer Middleton, applicant, stated they tried to due to many factors it would be very costly and time c foundation, and he was unwilling to do so. Chair Mino opened the public hearing. There hearing. She asked about proposed fin. - • and t •rials. Mr. Middleton stated the exterior roof will be standing seam black Mr. Middleton added and M previously approved in indicated the material condition of approval if t Commissioner Thueson poin District Design Guidelines beca ovation work but the contractor said ing to renovate the footings and omments. Chair Mino closed the public al lap siding in dark green with 4" exposure. The trim will be black. nfirmed that the site plan is substantially the same as he new renderings and site plan. The applicant verbally 1 to the materials already approved. This could be made a the challenge of comparing the project with the Conservation e of seeing the new renderings for the first time tonight. Ms. Wittman stated building demolition permits may not be approved until there is a new design that substantially conforms to the Neighborhood Conservation District, but the Commission may table consideration of the overall action to request final details of the plans, or may develop conditions that are similar to the previous approval if the Commission would approve of the demolition. Chair Mino recognized there are existing safety concerns and that construction costs should be a consideration as well. Commissioner Heimdahl appreciated the applicants' substantial efforts to preserve the building and their willingness to consider sustainability measures including salvage. Commissioner Finwall recognized the applicants' attempts to preserve the structure and the need for demolition. She said if the Commission had reviewed this as a clean slate it probably would not have approved the design. Mr. Middleton answered that they are building a single story home because the original intent was to renovate the existing single story home which would not support a second story. Page 2 of 6 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting April 20, 2022 Ms. Wittman pointed out there are single story structures across the street. Commissioner Larson remarked it is important that the massing and scale of the new home be compatible with others on the street, but the original intent was to save the single story historic home. He finds the proposed new home acceptable as a great improvement over the previously approved plans. However the lack of detail on drawings and a site plan is concerning. The applicant could be asked to submit a final site plan and detailed drawings, for staff approval. Commissioner Thueson agreed the lack of a site plan is challenging. He asked Ms. Wittman to elaborate on the conditions of the foundation. Mr. Middleton noted that the newer house design was based on the existing footprint of the front half of the house that would have been retained. Councilmember Junker commented the application should be tabled due to outstanding questions. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Chair Mino, to approve the demolition permit based on the findings regarding safety and stability of the structure, and to table ideration of the amended design permit for the design of the new home. Motion passed 6-1 with C . issioner Thueson voting nay. Former HPC Commissioner Jeff Johnson noted there is no design if the applicants wish, since the lines of the origi NEW BUSINESS op . tunity to look at a different ome are longer restricting the design. Case No. 2022-23: Consideration of a Design Permit for .w replacement. Property located at 101 Pine St W in the Downtown Stillwater Design Re istric -x McKinney representing Washington County, property owner. Ms. Wittman explained the case. Was aluminum storm windows on the windows on the old jail that hav well as one original window locate is unknown whether or no and horizontal mullions window. At all points will have a continuous bea is vital to the long-term pres n Co'is seeking to construct and install custom ty Historic Courthouse. With the exception of em, all of the first and second floor windows, as a - -nt, are proposed to have storm windows added. It se windows were ever protected by storm windows. Vertical exterior of all windows in a pattern to match the original windows meet original window framing and trim, the windows ed sealant. Protection of the historic features of the courthouse of the structure. One public comment was received from former HPC Commissioner Jeff Johnson - oicing concern about the addition of aluminum windows, suggesting it will change the character of the structure. The applicant stated they have submitted the plans to both the Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for review. Staff recommends approving the requested Design Permit with two conditions. Chair Mino asked the applicant about their interactions with SHPO, why the storm windows will not be wood, and why the frames will be black since the interior is brown. Alex McKinney, applicant, Washington County Parks Manager, said the windows have deteriorated and storm windows were strongly recommended to take care of mold and rot. They have consulted with MNHS, which provided $55,000 for this project, and SHPO, which will issue final approval. It is a standard brown color, not black (wrong in packet) that will closely match the existing. Anodized aluminum was chosen for durability. An exact match would have cost another $40,000. The storms are the exact windows that are on the National Register -listed Federal Building in Minneapolis. Commissioner Larson asked if the existing windows are operable. Mr. McKinney replied most are, but some of the basement windows are not. In some areas where ventilation is needed, the design allows Page 3 of 6 I11war THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: May 13, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Design Permit Request for Store Front Improvements at 223 Main St S; Case of White Bear Ventures, LLC INTRODUCTION White Bear Ventures, LLC (Richard and Brenda Farrell) have applied for a Design Permit to repair and reconstruct the storefront at 223 Main St S. Additionally, a later add to the request, is to complete brick repair and tuckpointing on various portions of the building. DISTRICT(S): • Stillwater Commercial Historic District (Contributing Building) • Downtown Design Review District SPECIFIC REQUEST Consideration of a Design Permit for the installation of: • Storefront Improvements (original request) a. Existing plywood panel (in poor condition) removed and replaced with wood paneling b. Existing first floor brick wall (not original to building) and associated metal storefront glazing to be removed and replaced with wood paneling and metal storefront glazing i. Instead of angled brick wall, the front wall is proposed to be flush with the sidewalk • Brick repair and tuckpointing (added request) APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES City Code Section Design Permit Standards for Review, Sec. 31-509(f) indicates the HPC shall utilize the following applicable standards: • Architectural Character: i. The suitability of the building for the intended purpose. ii. The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines. iii. The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development. ■ Outdoor advertising: The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. ■ Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. The Downtown Design Manual section pertaining to Materials, Colors, Lighting and Signs and Graphics is attached for Commission review. ANALYSIS The property is subject to the guidelines set forth in the Commercial Historic District Design Manual, as identified in the Stillwater Downtown Plan. The following applicable guidelines can help assist the HPC in determining compliance with the guidelines as well as design consistency, detailing and materials with the existing structure and the previously approved Design Permit. DETAILING, FACADE OPENINGS, AND MATERIALS ■ ■ The size and proportion of windows and door openings...should be similar to those on the adjacent facades. Facade should be composed of materials similar to original adjacent facades. While the ground -level facade is not original, the improvements appear to blend and be consistent with adjacent facades. The Owner has attempted to replicate good examples of adjacent building storefront improvements. ■ Manufactured siding, signs, canopies, filler panels of wood or shingles, stucco, concrete or glass block, and fiberglass are among non -historic materials or treatments that may be appropriate for removal during rehabilitation This standard appears to support the proposed changes to the storefront. ■ Historic windows and sashes should be repaired rather than replaced The storefront windows being replaced are not original. ■ All historic entry and storefront components should be retained, including recessed features, display windows and hoods, cast iron or other The existing storefront is not original. Reasonable conditions on the Design Permit include, but are not necessarily limited to the following. columns, sidelights, fanlights, and tilework or paving, ■ Entry openings should not be enlarged or reduced to fit a new door. New entry openings should not be introduced into principal elevations. ■ Historic doors (and hardware) should be repaired rather than replaced. If replacement of original or historic doors is necessary, the replacement should be compatible with the material, design, and hardware of similar historic models. ■ If there are no historic models available for replacement or replication, the new door should be of simple design with a single -light design. Wood - framed, painted wood doors and wood framing are preferred. Avoid solid or residential -type doors. ■ Avoid clear -finish aluminum doors and doorframes, aluminum windows (and their accessories) • The front fagade shall not use clear -finish aluminum. Aluminum frames must utilize a color and texture consistent with the surrounding historical character. MASONRY ■ Original mortar joint size and profile should be retained and/or reduplicated in repointing. Mortar mixtures should duplicate the original in lime, sand and cement proportion and should duplicate the original mortar in color and texture. ■ Mortar joins should be carefully washed after setup to retain the neatness of the joint lines and keep extraneous mortar off of masonry lines. Appropriate conditions of approval have been added. SIGNS AND GRAPHICS ■ The storefront sign should be used to display the primary name of the business only. Any proposed signs will be reviewed administratively for compliance with applicable rules and regulations. ■ Use simple, bold letting with sufficient contract between the lettering and the background. ■ The maximum area of the sign is regulated by the sign ordinance. ■ Use painted wood where practicable. ■ Design the sign shape to fit and fill the available space. Consider using long narrow signs spanning the full width of the facade. ■ Reuse of existing mounting brackets, studs or holes is desirable. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The HPC has several alternatives related to these this request: A. Approve. If the HPC finds the attached request conforms to the standards of design review for the Downtown Design Review District, the purpose of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, the heritage preservation ordinance, then then Commission could move to approve. Staff would recommend the following minimum conditions for approval: 1. The designs shall be consistent with those on file in the Community Development Department, except as modified herein. 2. The storefront sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in size. 3. Details of the storefront lettering dimensions, material, and size shall be submitted for review with conformance to the Zoning Code and Downtown Design Review District guidelines prior to the release of a sign permit. 4. Disturbance to the exterior wall face shall be done in a fashion as to prevent damage and water intrusion. Any existing drill holes not utilized will be patched. 5. All brick repair must salvage existing brick for reuse whenever possible. Replacement brick shall match existing brick in color and texture. Mortar shall match existing mortar in terms of color, texture and composition. 6. Prior to the release of a building permit, the applicant and/or property owner shall provide proof of conformance to the approved Design Permit. 7. Prior to the release of a sign permit, the applicant and/or property owner shall provide proof of conformance to the approved Design Permit. 8. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the standards of design review for the Downtown Design Review District, the purpose of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, and the heritage preservation ordinance, then the Commission could deny the request with or without prejudice. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. The denial, with prejudice, would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the requests could be tabled until January meeting and direct the applicant to modify the request for greater consistency with the Downtown Design Review guidelines. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION According to City Code Section 31-209(h), upon a finding by the design review committee that the application, subject to any conditions imposed, will meet the standards of design review, secure the purpose of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan and the heritage preservation ordinance, the design review committee may approve the design permit, subject to conditions as it deems necessary. If a finding is made that the permit would violate the standards of design review, it must deny the application. Staff finds with certain conditions the proposed improvements conforms to the standards set forth for design review and for therefore recommend conditional approval with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. ACTION: Motion to approve the Design Permit for 223 Main St S for storefront improvements, brick repair and tuckpointing, with the conditions outlined in Alternative A. Attachments: Applicant Submittal Downtown Design Review District Guidelines cc: White Bear Ventures, Attn: Brenda Farrell iliwater Planning Department 216 4th Street North Stillwater MN 55082 651-430-8820 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us PlanningDept@ci.stillwater.mn.us HERITAGE PRESERVATION APPLICATION Heritage Preservation Commission ACTION REQUESTED X Design Permit X Demolition Permit Heritage Preservation Use Variance Case No. Date Filed: Base Fee: Base Fee + Tech fee $25 Receipt No.: DISTRICT X Downtown Historic District Downtown Overlay District Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District • The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted with any application. Any incomplete application or supporting material will cause your application to be rejected by the City. • Only one copy of supporting materials is required. However, any documents larger than 11 x 17 must be submitted in paper and in pdf format. (emailed or on a thumb drive) • Review the `Checklist for Design and Demolition Applications' for the complete list of required items. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project 223, MAIN STREET S, STILLWATER, MN Assessor's Parcel No. 28.030.20.41.0029 (PIN Number) Zoning District Overlay District Description of Project REMOVE EXISTING ANGLED WALL AND WINDOWS ON THE MAIN LEVEL OVERLOOKING THE MAIN STREET AND REPLACE WITH A STRAIGHT WALL AND STOREFRONT WINDOWS PARALLEL TO THE STREET. THE NEW MAIN ENTRY WILL BE RECESSED. THE PROPOSED CHANGE WILL VISUALLY INTEGRATE THE PROPERTY BETTER WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BUILDING. THE PROPOSED CHANGE RETAINS THE HISTORIC ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING WHILE ADDING NEW WOOD PANELING TO MATCH THE EXISTING COLUMNS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BUILDING. Updated 8/2021 i11water 216 4th Street North Stillwater MN 55082 651-430-8820 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us PlarmingDept@ci.stillwater.mn.us Planning Department APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DISCLOSURE Please check each box to indicate you agree to the following statements: 9d I understand that all information submitted for this application is subject to the Data Practices Act and that all data is presumed public data and can be made available to the public. X I understand the City has the ultimate authority to determine what may be considered non-public data. X I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in, is to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. X I hereby state I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used. Minn. Stat. § 13.37 allows certain data to be considered non-public data because it contains a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process (1) that was supplied by me or an organization contracted by me, (2) that is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy, and (3) that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. Please list any materials you believe meet the criteria above and are therefore non-public data. NOT APPLICABLE By signing I agree to the statements above. By signing I agree to the statements above. Required Required (If other than property owner) Property Owner WHITE BEAR VENTURES Representative Mailing Address 4763 LAKE AVENUE Mailing Address City - State — Zip WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110 City - State — Zip Telephone No. Telephone No. Email Email Signature Signature u i • reale (Signature is required) Updated 8/2021 Date 4/21/2022 Page 1 of 1 From Brenda Farrell 223 Main Street South Stillwater MN 55082 To Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 216 4th Street N Stillwater MN 55082 Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission, I am filing this application for main level exterior upgrade of the building located on 223 Main Street South, Stillwater Minnesota 55082. The building will have an apparel shop as a tenant on the main level. We would like to update the storefront wall on the main level to remove the angled wall and replace with a straight wall with glazing and paneling. The intent is to keep with the character of the existing building and also integrate better with the adjacent storefront on both sides. The main entry will be recessed similar to Brian's Restaurant and Stillwater Proper. The fire department connection will be integrated with the new facade. All of these changes will be made within the property line of the building. Thank you for your consideration, Brenda Farrell 219 St Croix Scenic Bywy Stillwater, Minnesota (p . Street View - Nov 2021 crater 223 1, Stilly. Google � 3�rnr�t Image capture: Nov 2021 © 2022 Google United States Terms Privacy Report a probl SCOPE OF EXTERIOR WORK LIMITED TO RED DASHED LINE EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY AND FASCIA TO REMAIN EXISTING BRICK TO REMAIN EXISTING WINDOWS ON 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR TO REMAIN EXISTING COLUMNS TO REMAIN EXISTING PLYWOOD PANEL TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH WOOD PANELING EXISTING BRICK WALL APPEARS TO BE A NEWER ADD ON AND NOT ORIGINAL TO THE BUILDING. THE ANGLED BRICK WALL, PLANTERS AND ASSOCIATED METAL STOREFRONT GLAZING TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH WOOD PANELING AND METAL STOREFRONT GLAZING EXISTING METAL DOOR AND FRAME TO REMAIN 223 MAIN STREET SOUTH - EXISTING VIEW OF THE PROPERTY FROM MAIN STREET AUROMJRA ARCHITECTS O EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" n1n1n1n11111J • SIDEWALK PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" SCOPE OF EXTERIOR i"""` WORK LIMITED TO RED DASHED LINE EXISTING RAMP TO REMAIN BLUE DASHED LINE SHOWS THE EXISTING ANGLED BRICK WALL AND ASSOCIATED SOFFIT TO BE REMOVED 223 MAIN STREET SOUTH - EXTERIOR ELEVATION AND PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN SCALE -1 /8" = 1'-0" DATE - 4-19-2022 •Y` AUROMIRA ARCHITECTS SCOPE OF EXTERIOR WORK LIMITED TO RED DASHED LINE NEW WOOD TRIM, COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING WINDOW FRAME ON 2ND FLOOR .11111111111111 111 111 111111111111111111111 �..- NEW WOOD PANEL, COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT WOOD COLUMN ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BUILDING ON FIRST FLOOR EXISTING FIRE DEPT CONNECTED TO BE REPLACED WITH A NEW _ - CONNECTION THAT IS INTEGRATED WITH THE WOOD PANEL FACADE 111111111llllll 1111111111111lllll 1111111111111ll 111111111111E i 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 111 i1J L1J L1J i1J ii1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 • � r EXISTING RAMP TO REMAIN BLUE DASHED LINE SHOWS THE EXISTING ANGLED BRICK WALL AND ASSOCIATED SOFFIT TO BE REMOVED RECESSED ENTRYWAY, SIMILAR TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET 223 MAIN STREET SOUTH Previous repairs were completed by an unqualified contractor who took no care to match the original mortar color, creating an unsightly appearance. 01 - ME . _ .. . - a -T ti __E-._ rTZ-- +f I .- We have provided an alternate cost for the south and east elevation. We have provided an allowance for cracked and deteriorated brick replacement. Highlighted in yellow. After rebuilding the stair step crack, we highly recommend solid cutting and tuckpointing the highlighted area of the wall. The cost for tuckpointing is in the alternates. This building is a solid composite masonry structure, built with 3 to 4 wythes of brick. To properly repair this structural crack, we will have to remove approx.. 2 to 3 brick on either side of the crack. The brick will be removed, exposing the interior of the wall. 5. STILLWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT (DDRD) DESIGN GIIDELINES - 5.1 STILLWATER COMMERCIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT (SCHD) The Stillwater Commercial Historic District, at the heart of the Downtown Design Review District, was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1992.4 4 Norene Roberts, "Stillwater Commercial Historic District National Register of Historic Places Nomination," 1992. On file, CDD. The NRHP is a listing of properties identified as having cultural significance at a national, state or local level and that have met criteria for listing a defined by the Secretary of the Interior. The NRHP listing requires review of projects that receive federal funds to consider the impact on historic and prehistoric resources. Federal tax credits are available for certified rehabilitation of qualifying properties within the district. Rehabilitation work must meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. (SOI). Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 37 The Stillwater Commercial Historic District is also a locally designated historic district. As shown in Figure 4, the historic district encompasses the area that parallels the river along Water and S. and N. Main streets, and the cross -streets of Mulberry, Commercial, Myrtle, Chestnut, Olive, and Nelson. The local district includes 56 contributing buildings, two contributing sites, three contributing structures, and one contributing object. According to the National Register of Historic Places nomination (1992), the eleven -block district is significant in the areas of architecture and commerce. Contributing properties in the historic district, which retain a good level of exterior historic integrity, include primarily brick commercial buildings, one to three stories in height, which represent a variety of architectural styles from 1860 to 1940. The oldest remaining downtown core along North and South Main Street includes buildings dating from between 1864 and 1875; some feature stone exterior walls with brick -faced facades. In addition to historic one-, two - and three-story commercial buildings of various types, there are also examples of 1860s and 1870s Greek Revival and Italianate style dwellings at and just outside the edges of the district, and buildings related to historic lumber, rail, manufacturing and institutional uses are also well represented. At left, the Brunswick House (1848) at 114 E. Chestnut Street, and the commercial development just outside the SCHD boundary. 5.1.1 Review of Contributing and Non- contributing Properties in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District The HPC uses the guidelines to review all Design Permit applications for new infill construction, additions, and exterior alterations to contributing properties within the Stillwater Commercial Historic District and in the surrounding portion of the Downtown Design Review District. The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation may also be consulted (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2). If determined to be maintenance -related and within certain budget limits, some projects may receive administrative review and approval from City staff. A non- contributing property (classified as such because of loss of exterior historic integrity or properties built within the past 50 years) also requires a Design Permit and is reviewed with the Guidelines to the extent applicable. In some cases, SOI standards may be applied if it appears the work could have a negative impact on adjacent properties in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 38 0 0.05 0.1 1 l 0.2 Miles Author: HKGi July 30, 2021 • Individually -listed National Register of Historic Places Property Stillwater Commercial Historic District (SCHD, NRHP) Q Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCD) Downtown Design Review Overlay District (DDRD) 7,4 Area within DDRD and NCD Figure 4. Stillwater Downtown Design Review Overlay District, including Stillwater Commercial Historic District. The Downtown Design Review District includes commercial, former industrial, residential and institutional buildings, as well as historic parks, public stairs, stone retaining walls, and other distinctive viewshed and landscape features. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 39 5.2 DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT (DDRD OVERLAY DISTRICT) Section 31-404 of the Stillwater City Code notes: The downtown design review overlay district is established to conserve and enhance downtown Stillwater's appearance, preserve its historical and architectural assets, protect and encourage areas of existing or potential scenic value, and assist property owners. It promotes working together effectively when new construction, renovation, and restoration are proposed. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that building alterations emphasize the design and materials of the original building and remove inconsistent materials and features, that new construction maintains the scale and character of existing buildings and that downtown pedestrian quality is maintained and enhanced. The Downtown Design Review District (DDRD Overlay District) includes the Stillwater Commercial Historic District shown on Figure 1 and Figure 4. These districts contain most of the city's late 19th- and early 20th-century commercial buildings. The surrounding DDRD with a total of approximately 300 commercial, residential, institutional, and industrial properties, includes new construction since ca. 1975, most notably residential and office buildings. Overlapping portions of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCD) include many 19th- and early 20th-century residential properties. Pioneer Park is among historically significant public open spaces in the DDRD, in addition to Lowell Park. Commercial properties in the DDRD outside the Stillwater Commercial Historic District span the period ca. 1885-1970 as well as more recent construction. One of the oldest commercial buildings in the SCHD: 132 S. Main Street (1869), in 2021. The HPC uses the Design Guidelines to review all Design Permit applications for new construction, exterior alterations and additions. Features of the following are regulated by Standards in the Stillwater City Code: • Building height, volume and setback • Signs and Awnings • Lighting • Parking • Streetscape Design If determined to be primarily maintenance -related and within certain budget limits, some projects may receive administrative review and approval from City staff. All building alterations and development in the DDRD are subject to City zoning regulations. Base zoning districts underlying the DDRD overlay district primarily include Central Business District (CBD), Two Family Residential (RB), and Public Administration (PA). Individually designated NRHP properties within the DDRD, outside of the Stillwater Commercial Historic District, have not been individually designated as local landmarks. NRHP properties include the Washington County Courthouse, Ivory McKusick House, Mortimer Webster House, Roscoe Hersey House, Austin Jenks House, and Staples Mill (see Figure 4). 5.2.1 Historic Residential Properties in the DDRD The Downtown Design Review District Guidelines or Historic Residential Design Guidelines may also apply to residential buildings, including some properties currently in commercial use that were historically used as dwellings. The Design Review Permit Process includes review of proposed alterations to exterior features such as porches, windows, siding, and decorative trim and additions. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 40 5.3 NON-RESIDENTIAL: ALTERATIONS The Downtown Design Review District surrounding Stillwater's Main Street and the downtown riverfront represents more than 150 years of the city's development. The restored masonry storefronts and industrial building facades are evidence of property owners' interest in historic preservation since the early 1970s. Ranging in height from one to three stories, excellent examples of Italianate, Queen Anne, and Commercial styles are executed in red and yellow brick and limestone. Each historic commercial building is unique, with a great variety of storefronts, window treatments and rooflines located on each block. Roofline parapets are executed in in wood, metal or brick, and masonry plaques bear the names of early businesses. Storefronts are often flanked by cast iron or wood columns and upper -story windows are framed by brick corbelling and ornate stone and brick hoods. In the past, some historic storefronts and facades were remodeled, resulting in removal of decorative trim and window and storefront alterations. In recent years, however, many building owners have completely restored historic storefronts and facades. Photographs and archival research have aided these efforts. Historic photographs, available at the Minnesota Historical Society, the Washington County Historical Society, the John Runk photo collection at the Stillwater Public Library, Washington County Historical Society and the Minnesota Historical Society, show Stillwater's streetscape changes over time. Exterior maintenance and rehabilitation, new infill construction and upgraded signs and lighting are ongoing in the district today. As detailed in Chapter 3, many of Stillwater's commercial and industrial buildings retain special style or character associated with a period (or periods) of construction. Typically there is a two-part horizontal division with glazed (or once -glazed) storefronts at the first story. The storefronts —the facades of individual shops —usually support a band of uniformly sized windows surmounted by a decorative cornice. Parapet Corbeled Cornice Pier Window with double -hang 1-over-1 sash Sid Transom Display Window Double -deaf doors Kickplate Parts ofa Building: Historic Commercial Design Guidelines also apply to features of former factory and other industrial buildings within the Downtown Design Review District. A prominent stone or concrete foundation, flat roof, simple cornice treatment, and symmetrically arranged windows with one -over -one sash are typical characteristics of some. Smithson -,r-.,_. 0.0-nalY T 1111111iinaili■ . . ■ • •■ Box Factory, 323 S. Main Street (1910), in 1936. Runk/MNHS Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 41 5.3.1 General Guidelines a. Conserve and enhance the historic appearance of Stillwater's commercial and industrial buildings. Windows, entries, and decorative historic features such as columns, brackets, cornices, and parapets should be retained in repair or renovation projects. b. Historic storefronts should be repaired or restored rather than replaced, when possible. c. Conserve historic wood, stone, brick, tile, terra cotta, metal and glass, and other surfaces. d. Missing or severely deteriorated features should be replaced with new materials that reflect the size, style, and detail of the original. Appropriate substitute materials are acceptable. e. Retain and conserve alterations and additions that have developed significance over the course of the building's history. f. Restoration or rehabilitation projects should not borrow designs, materials, or colors from periods inappropriate to the historic design. g. Where possible, determine the historic appearance the property of through photographic and archival research and building inspection, and use the information in planning improvements. Alterations that have not have historical significance may be removed. Lumbermen's Exchange, 101 S. Water Street (1890). MNHS Majestic Theatre, 229 S. Main Street (1910). Mosier Bros Block (1888) and the adjoining Jarchow and York Block (1890) at Chestnut and S. Main Streets, shown in 1915. MNHS Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 42 5.3.2 Masonry Deteriorated brick, stone, mortar, and other materials should be replaced with material used in original construction or with materials that resemble the appearance of the original as closely as possible. The advice of a skilled mason should be sought for repair projects. Cleaning and l/aterproofang a. Masonry cleaning should be conducted only to halt deterioration and by means such as low-pressure water, soft brushes, and/or appropriate chemical treatment. Sandblasting should not be used under any circumstances. Waterproof and water repellent coatings should not be used unless there is evidence of past water penetration. Repointing b. Original mortar joint size and profile should be retained and/or reduplicated in repointing. Mortar mixtures should duplicate the original in lime, sand, and cement proportion and should duplicate the original mortar in color and texture. c. Mortar joints should be carefully washed after setup to retain the neatness of the joint lines and keep extraneous mortar off of masonry surfaces. Painting and Paint Removal d. The historic color and texture of masonry surfaces should be retained and unpainted stone and brick surfaces should not be painted. The removal of paint from painted masonry surfaces should only be attempted if unpainted surfaces are historically appropriate and if removal can be accomplished without damage to the masonry. e. Historic painted signs and features such as masonry anchors should be conserved. Resurfacing f. Historic masonry surfaces should not be covered with other materials, including stucco, brick or stone veneer, or vinyl or aluminum products. Above: locally quarried limestone and many types of brick, including locally burned yellow brick, are among Stillwater's distinctive early building materials. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 43 5.3.3 Roofs, Cornices, and Parapets The historic roofline including the coping, cornice, parapet, and other elements are character -defining features and should be appropriately maintained. a. Whether constructed of wood, brick, pressed sheet metal, limestone or other stone, or terra cotta, no part of the historic cornice or parapet should be covered or removed. b. Historic masonry copings at the parapet should be maintained. Where coping is missing on common (party) walls, metal coping with an appropriate painted finish is acceptable. It should not extend on the exterior building wall farther than the approximate width of a single brick or masonry unit. c. Rooftop equipment, including air conditioning units that project above the roofline, should be set back from the parapet and primary building elevation. Equipment should be concealed with appropriate materials and wherever possible should not be visible from the street level. (See also Chapter 5, Section 5.5.2, Rooftop Equipment, Utility Areas and Mechanical Equipment.) Rooftop equipment should be set back as far as possible. Excelsior Block (1882) at 118-126 N. Main Street features a corbeled brick cornice and stone date and name plaques. 5.3.4 Removal of Non -historic Features a. Manufactured siding, signs, canopies, filler panels of wood or shingles, stucco, concrete or glass block, and fiberglass are among non -historic materials or treatments that may be appropriate for removal during building rehabilitation. 5.3.5 Replacement of Missing Features a. Missing materials and features, as shown in historic photographs or other evidence, may be replicated and replaced as appropriate. Replacement materials or features should replicate the size, scale, design, material, and texture of the original and be based on historical documentation. b. Avoid adding features that cannot be substantiated by historical evidence. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 44 5.3.6 Windows Windows and window tarn give character and expression to the building exterior. Their size and spacing are important elements of the historic facade. Maintain and Conserve a. Wherever feasible, historic windows and sash should be repaired rather than replaced, especially on principal elevations. b. Existing window openings should be retained. Window openings should not be enlarged or reduced to fit new sash. Window openings should not be filled in with wood, brick, or any other material New Windows: Side and Shape c. New window openings should not be introduced into principal elevations. d. Where appropriate, in limited instances such as on secondary facades, new windows should be compatible with existing historic windows and trim. New Sash e. Historic wood and metal sash should be repaired and conserved wherever possible. f. Replacement sash, if installed, should duplicate the existing or other appropriate historic models. Whenever possible, choose new units of wood, rather than metal. If metal is selected, it should have a baked enamel or other appropriate factory finish. g. The size and number of lights (panes of glass) in each sash should not be altered. New sash, if installed, should replicate the existing or other appropriate historic models. h. Crank -out or fixed single -pane units should be not be used to replace double -hung sash. Segmental -arched hood or lintel Casing Bottom rail Corbel Meeting rail Glazing (Lights) Sill Parts of an Italianate style window shown with 2-over-2, double - hung sash. 222 — 224 E. Chestnut Street, ca. 1882. Molded stone lintels and stone sills frame slender windows with double -hung sash. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 45 Window Trim i. Retain all decorative trim around the windows, including lintels, pediments, and hoods. j. If window replacement is necessary, the original trim profile should be replicated. Storm Windows k. Repair and retain historic wood storms wherever possible. 1. Consider adding appropriately designed storm windows to protect historic sash. m. If replacement windows are needed, they should not have vertical or horizontal divisions that conflict with the divisions of the historic sash and should be flush with existing trim. If combination metal storms must be installed, they should have a baked enamel factory finish. Shutters and Blinds n. Shutters and blinds should not be installed on buildings not originally designed for them. o. Where appropriate, shutters should appear to be operable and should be mounted to the window casing. Shutters should be constructed of wood. Security p. Historic trim or other architectural features should not be removed for the installation of security bars or grills on principal elevations. 214 — 218 N. Main (ca. 1884) Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 46 5.3.7 Entries and Storefronts Prominent first floor display windows and distinctive entries facing the street are typical of Stillwater's historic commercial buildings, whether free-standing or part ofa large, multi -unit property. a. All historic entry and storefront components should be retained, including recessed features, display windows and hoods, cast iron or other columns, sidelights, fanlights, and tilework or paving, b. Entry openings should not be enlarged or reduced to fit a new door. New entry openings should not be introduced into principal elevations. c. Historic doors (and hardware) should be repaired rather than replaced. If replacement of original or historic doors is necessary, the replacement should be compatible with the material, design, and hardware of similar historic models. d. If there are no historic models available for replacement or replication, the new door should be of simple design with a single -light design. Wood -framed, painted wood doors and wood framing are preferred. Avoid solid or residential -type doors. e. Avoid clear -finish aluminum doors and doorframes, aluminum windows (and their accessories). f. Historic garage openings, where present, and service doors should be conserved. If removal is necessary, materials used to fill the opening should be compatible with the material, design, and hardware of the surrounding facade. Restored storefront at 330 S. Main Street; building dates from ca. 1885. Restored storefront, ca. 1884, at 216 S. Main Street. Restored storefront at 208 S. Main Street. The building dates from ca. 1904. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 47 5.3.8 New Systems in Existing Buildings a. Historic materials should not be damaged or obscured to accommodate new heating, ventilating, and other mechanical systems. b. Mechanical and electrical equipment should not be placed on primary, character -defining facades. c. Rooftop equipment, including air conditioning units that project above the roofline, should be set back from the primary building elevation and screened with appropriate materials. (See also Chapter 5, Section 5.5.2, Rooftop Equipment, Utility Areas and Mechanical Equipment.) 5.3.9 Firestairs a. The detailing of firestairs should be compatible with the period and style of the building. b. As permitted by the Stillwater City Code, stairs should be located as inconspicuously as possible. Electrical equipment should be placed on non primary facades wherever possible. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 48 5.4 NON-RESIDENTIAL: ADDITIONS Compatible additions provide for current and future needs and the continued use of existing historic buildings. Additions must be carefully designed to relate to protect the historic and architectural character of the building and streetscape. The historic district conveys a sense of time and place associated Stillwater's history but is also dynamic, with alterations and additions to existing structures and new construction occurring over time. Well - executed design and construction details should assist in understanding the evolution of the building. Refer to applicable Design Standards for height, volume, setback, parking, signs, and other requirements (see Stillwater City Code). 5.4.1 General Guidelines a. New additions should conform to the size, scale, massing, height, materials, and facade proportions of the historic building and surrounding buildings and pedestrian spaces. (Refer to the Stillwater City Code, as some provisions of the base zoning district may not be allowed by the overlay district.) b. New additions should be designed to result in no or minimal loss of historic fabric. Character -defining features of the original historic building should not be destroyed, damaged, or obscured. c. A new addition should be compatible with the design of the historic building, but also be identifiable as a product of its own time. At the Lora Hotel at 403 S. Main Street, the facade of the two- story red brick building (which dates from the 1980s) was restored and features new display windows. A new penthouse above has simple exterior cladding and window openings. Joseph Wolf Brewery in ca 1890. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 49 5.4.2 Building Guidelines Materials and Details d. Materials and details used in new additions should be compatible with those of the primary historic building. Roofs e. The skyline or roof profile should relate to the predominant roof shapes of the historic building. Roofing materials should be appropriate to the design of the building and the visibility of the roof. f. Roof hardware including skylights, vents, and metal pipe chimneys should not be placed on the front roof plane and should be buffered from view wherever possible. Windows and Entries g. The proportion, size, rhythm, and detailing of windows and entries should be visually compatible with that of the existing historic building. The rhythm of solids to voids created by openings in the facade of the new structure should also be visually compatible. 5.4.3 Site Guidelines h. i. 1• Additions should be inconspicuous elevation preferably at the rear. New additions should be compatible with the setback of the existing historic building and the adjacent streetscape. Additions should not destroy character -defining site features, including topography, mature vegetation, and significant views and vistas. located of the on the most historic building, Strllwater's Main Street historic rooflines and upper -story windows exhibit a variety of styles and materials. This N. Main Street block shows the integration of old and new buildings with varying setbacks. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 50 5.5 NON-RESIDENTIAL: NEW CONSTRUCTION Guidelines for new construction projects in the DDRD are intended to encourage a high standard of new design while conserving the scale and character of Stillwater's historic buildings and streetscapes. Pedestrian -oriented design that maintains and improves the scale, walkability and general accessibility of downtown streets and spaces is especially important. See applicable Design Standards for height, volume, and setback, parking requirements, and other requirements (see Stillwater City Code). Depending on location, a Design Permit application for new residential construction in the DDRD could potentially refer to three sets of guidelines: those for NCD, DDRD, and historic residential properties. CDD staff will determine which guidelines are applicable. New infill construction within primarily residential blocks of the DDRD should follow the Neighborhood Conservation Guidelines and may also refer to the New Construction section of the Historic Residential Design Guidelines. See also the Stillwater City Code for applicable Standards. 5.5.1 General Guidelines a. New construction design proposals within the Downtown Design Review District should relate to the massing, scale, size, height, and materials of existing historic buildings and the pedestrian -oriented streetscape. b. As appropriate, larger building masses should be subdivided into smaller units related in size to traditional buildings within the historic downtown. The pattern of features such as window and entry openings also establishes building scale. The Hotel Crosby, 232N. Main Street (2018). A sense ofhuman scale is established at street level by building height and width, and by window and entry openings across the facade. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 51 g• c. Design proposals should demonstrate compatibility with adjacent cornice lines, floor -to -floor heights where strongly expressed, sign bands, and any other elements that unify the street elevation. d. New construction should reflect the placement and orientation of adjacent historic buildings In most cases, new buildings should be built to the lot line (see Stillwater City Code) e. Where appropriate in the commercial streetscape, the primary facade should maintain the traditional division of an articulated storefront or entry-level story, an upper facade with regularly -spaced windows, and a well -demarcated roofline. f. Exterior materials should complement the type, color, and texture of materials historically used in the district. Acceptable exterior materials include stone, brick, rusticated concrete block, and decorative terra cotta and stucco. As noted in the Standards, a minimum of sixty percent (60%) of the street level Main Street facade shall be transparent and thirty percent (30%) on side streets or rear facades (see Stillwater City Code). Landscape Design Refer to the Stillwater City Code. Parking Refer to the Stillwater City Code. New construction, whether infill or freestanding structures, should reflect the scale and character of the existing streetscape, including the pattern ofrooflines, windows and entries. 5.5.2 Building Guidelines Height a. The height of new buildings should conform to the height of buildings on the surrounding block street face(s). See the Stillwater City Code for specific freestanding and infill building requirements). Step- downs in building height, wall -plane offsets, and other variations in building massing should be used to provide a visual transition when the height of new construction exceeds that of adjacent historic buildings by more than one-half story. Roofs b. Roofs should be flat or slightly sloped with appropriately detailed parapets and/or cornices. Roof components should be scaled to relate in size and proportion to adjacent buildings. c. Roof materials should be similar in terms of form, color, and texture to traditionally used in the district. Windows, Entries, and Storefronts d. Windows, entries, and storefronts should be compatible with surrounding historic buildings in alignment, type and proportion. Features such as divided lights, transoms, signbands, and bulkheads are typical of many historic storefronts and should be included in new design where appropriate. Stillwater's commercial core is comprised of one- and two-story buildings, many with prominent parapets above flat or slightly sloping roofs. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 52 e. f. g• Recessed entries are appropriate for new construction in the DDRD. Window sash or frames should be wood, vinyl -clad, or appropriately colored metal. Wood -framed, painted wood doors and wood framing systems are preferable to aluminum systems. Exterior Color h. Building color should be compatible with historic materials, building type and style, and the surrounding area context. i. The masonry exterior of new infill buildings should not be painted (see Stillwater City Code). Rooftop Equipment, Utility Areas and Mechanical Equipment 1• Wherever possible, rooftop mechanical equipment, including air conditioning units that project above the roofline, should be set back from building elevations. Equipment should be screened from street -level views with appropriate materials. k. Exterior trash and storage areas, service yards, loading areas, transformers and air conditioning units should be screened from views from nearby streets and adjacent structures in a manner that is compatible with the building and site design. 1. Minimize the visual impact of mechanical equipment adjacent to pedestrian alleys and service entrances. 114 S. Main (ca. 1885, 1928). New designs should refer to the traditional organization of the entry and storefront. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 53 f. g• 5.6 SIGNS, AWNINGS, AND LIGHTING Signs, awnings, and lighting in the DDRD are subject to City sign regulations within the Stillwater City Code. The following guidelines provide additional direction for signs, awnings, and lighting to ensure appropriate preservation and enhancement of the historic character of the DDRD. 5.6.1 Signs Existing Historic Signs a. The maintenance and restoration of any existing historic sign is encouraged in lieu of replacement. Architectural Signs b. Preserve existing architectural signs. c. Promote the use of original building names in new signage. d. New buildings are encouraged to incorporate an architectural sign. Graphic Design Signs e. Where existing historic painted wall signs can still be found, leave them exposed or restore them to their original colors. Graphic design signs should have a historic theme. Graphic design signs should not advertise a new business or company. Signage on E. Chestnut Street, looking west, in ca. 1930. MNHS/Runk. Window Signs These design guidelines are only applicable to window signs that cover more than one-third of the total area of the window in which the sign is displayed. Window signs that cover one-third or less of the window area do not require a sign permit. h. Leave the window display space clear. Insert signs at the base and/or head of the window. i. The size of sign lettering and images should generally be small since it should be oriented to visibility by pedestrians. j. Lettering formed with neon may be used on the inside of the window provided the size, light intensity, color and style are consistent with the theme of the building. k. Display street numbers on or directly above the door. 1. Display business hours directly on the inside of the door or in an adjacent window. Multi -tenant Signs m. View the building as a whole and plan a unified sign design strategy to take advantage of all possible sign locations. n. The use of a common directory is encouraged. Installation of Signs on Historic Buildings o. The impact of the installation of any sign on a historic building should be minimized and must allow the building facade to return to its original condition upon sign removal. Reuse of existing mounting brackets, studs or holes is encouraged. p• Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 54 5.6.2 Awnings a. Retractable shed awnings are encouraged; fixed awnings should mimic the profile of operable units (one to one pitch). b. The width of awnings should fit the geometry of the building facade. They should not extend across multiple storefronts of different buildings, but should reflect the window or door openings. c. Canvas, canvas blend, and acrylics that resemble canvas are appropriate materials for awnings and canopies; vinyl, metal, glass and shiny materials are generally not appropriate. d. Awnings with stripes or other patterns may be appropriate if there is not signage on the awning and the pattern is complementary with surrounding awnings on the same block face. e. Awnings should be mounted on the frame of a window or door opening rather than the wall surrounding the opening. f. Awnings should not obscure transom windows. Awnings should be mounted below the transom windows on the horizontal window frame feature that separates the display window from the transom window. Awnings and signband at Bronson & Folsom Grocery Store, S. Main Street, in ca. 1900, MNHS. Awnings at the Lumbermen's Exchange, 101 S. Water Street (1890). Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 55 5.6.3 Lighting Lighting is also subject to the regulations and standards of Stillwater City Code. General Summary of Lighting Standards a. Historic lighting should be repaired and retained wherever possible. b. Lighting should highlight building elements, signs, or other features rather than attract attention to itself. c. Lighting should have an even, indirect, and preferably warm level of illumination. d. New light fixtures should be of simple contemporary design. 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. C&&(JAL L1V'NG roe • 11 DNIE AND C:AOD11V Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 56 Jenn Sundberg From: Tim Gladhill Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 12:45 PM To: Jenn Sundberg Subject: Fwd: 223 Main Street and HPC Review Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Can you add this comment to the packet? Tim Gladhill Community Development Director City of Stillwater tgladhill@ci.stillwater.mn.us www.ci.stillwater.mn.us 651-430-8821 tgladhill@ci.stillwater.mn.us From: Cynthia Marie Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 12:28:58 PM To: 'Planning Dept' <planningdept@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Cc: Tim Gladhill <tgladhill@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: 223 Main Street and HPC Review [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. Greetings Mr. Gladhill and HPC, Exciting to see applicants for facade improvements of Contributing properties in our National Historic District. Having great passion and experience for preservation and innovation, I offer these comments for consideration when reviewing 223 Main Street project and others as they come along. Thank you in advance for listening. When reviewing submissions under the DDRD and the Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, the ideal goal is Restoration and Reconstruction based on historical evidence in the field and photographs based on the Period of Significance. DUE DILEGENCE: PHOTOS- Was there research on the original structure's facade? Evidence of research? There is a photo of the facade from Period of Significance 1906-1910 or shortly thereafter from the interior looking toward main street. This photo depicts the reconstruction template of the storefront as well as most likely confirming what is behind the existing 1980's(?) wood transom/sign panel. FIELD WORK- Selective Demolition- see Restoration. RESTORATION: a discovery investigation under the 'Outfitters' 1980's(?) false front would most likely expose/reveal original construction and evidence of original materials (hopefully) including the leaded glass transom (see adjacent buildings), steel beam, columns and details. Highly encourage HPC to review with the applicant when a qualified contractor performs selective demolition is underway to expose the original construction. These materials and details can be salvaged and restored rather than inserting the typical wood panels as shown in the application. i RECONSTRUCTION: For the lower portion of the storefront infill- Details of the proposed storefront material and specifications should be clearly presented/submitted for review and approval (after the transom has been revealed) for compliance to design standards. TYPICAL WOOD PANEL DETAIL: Curious as to why is the design default to the same painted wood and panel detail with more recent rehabilitation efforts in the last 3 years? This same detail can be found on at least 4 buildings. Where is the precedence in applying this detail in so many buildings? COLOR: Curious as to why the paint color black is more often used recently and also brilliant color palettes matching business logos? Paint color actually can be found with field investigation revealed during period of significance timeframe by scraping the wood surface resulting in a vibrant, original main street. Color is typically for the whole building, not broken into segments based on leased business (logo's). TUCK POINTING: In the DDRD, '...match exactly as original, color and type of tuckpointing...'. Currently there are examples downtown where compliance is not met during construction. Wondering who provides the oversight of compliance in the historic district and suggest consideration of someone to take responsibility to confirm compliance along the way. DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION: consider recommending and including experts in historic restoration and reconstruction to be a part of the design team. SIGNAGE: When the glass transom (hopefully) is exposed under the 1980's false front, the sign band area will most likely not be there. Therefore, the examples of hanging signs may be more appropriate to the period of significance. Suggest signage to be considered during time of original application with project, not later as this plays a large role in the holistic design. 32 SF of signage seems extraordinary. RESTORATION of OTHER FACADE FEATURES: are you asking applicant to address deferred maintenance- cleaning of masonry fagade, repainting as a condition of approval? Suggest a holistic review of fagades in the National Historic District. Yours in Preservation and Innovation, Cynthia Marie AIA 2 illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: May 16, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Design Permit #2020-27 REVISION Request for Store Front Improvements at 223 Main St S; Case of White Bear Ventures, LLC INTRODUCTION White Bear Ventures, LLC (Richard and Brenda Farrell) have requested a revision to a previously approved Design Permit. Conditions of approval included, but were not limited to the following: • The maximum height and area of the rooftop improvements shall not exceed the code compliant minimums for ADA accessibility. • The exterior facade shall be a dark, subdued standing seam metal. • The chimney shall be repaired to its full height. • The color of the exterior window frame shall be dark and subdued. In addition to HPC Case #2020-27, the Owner also requested a Variance to Building Height from the Planning Commission in 2021 (CPC Case #2021-34), which was ultimately denied. The Planning Commission found that adding a fourth story as a `penthouse space' is counter to the Downtown Height Overlay District's intent to limit structures in this area to three (3) stories. It is further noted that Staff recently discovered that several rooftop improvements were being constructed without proper Building Permits. Additionally, improvements appear to be inconsistent with the Design Permit Approval. Staff is attempting to work with the Owner to find reasonable solutions, but needs certain design approvals/direction from the HPC. Finally, it is noted that Staff did meet with the Property Owner at the end of 2021 as a new Contractor was hired to complete the project and outlined the need for proper permits and approvals. The Owner is requesting the following changes to the Design Permit: • Use fiber -cement panels in lieu of standing seam metal panels on the elevator tower • Convert the existing storage building into a rooftop bar (for private use) 0 Also utilizing the fiber cement panels Staff is attempting to aide and assist in moving this project forward, but only recently learned of the planned revisions. That being said, Staff has not had the ordinary timeframe to fully vet this new/revised request. Therefore, this Staff Report is not the same high -quality Staff would typically bring forward at this juncture. Staff is simply attempting to find middle ground and find a solution to move this project forward. DISTRICT(S): • Stillwater Commercial Historic District (Contributing Building) • Downtown Design Review District SPECIFIC REQUEST Consideration of a Design Permit for the installation of: ■ Storefront Improvements (original request) a. Existing plywood panel (in poor condition) removed and replaced with wood paneling b. Existing first floor brick wall (not original to building) and associated metal storefront glazing to be removed and replaced with wood paneling and metal storefront glazing i. Instead of angled brick wall, the front wall is proposed to be flush with the sidewalk ■ Brick repair and tuckpointing (added request) APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES City Code Section Design Permit Standards for Review, Sec. 31-509(f) indicates the HPC shall utilize the following applicable standards: ■ Architectural Character: i. The suitability of the building for the intended purpose. ii. The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines. iii. The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development. ■ Outdoor advertising: The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. ■ Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. ANALYSIS While Staff believes there is room for compromise and balance with economic development goals, Staff is concerned about the use of fiber -cement siding panels. While these materials are appropriate in more residential settings, Staff is concerned that this might not be an appropriate material in the Stillwater Historic Downtown District. It is not common to see this material within this District. Additionally, this type of material is not specifically listed as appropriate in the Design Guidelines. In fact, other similar faux materials intended to replicate more historic materials are deemed inappropriate. Note — for context only, the Owner has already purchased the materials and are currently being stored at the Property. Additionally, the conversion of the storage shed (adding gabled roof and adding roll up doors) appears inconsistent with previous clarification from HPC that only the minimum necessary improvement for ADA Accessibility Compliance was allowed. Additionally, the Planning Commission denied (upheld by City Council) any rooftop structures for recreational use. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The HPC has several alternatives related to these this request: A. Approve. If the HPC finds the attached request conforms to the standards of design review for the Downtown Design Review District, the purpose of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, the heritage preservation ordinance, then then Commission could move to approve. Approve in part. B. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the standards of design review for the Downtown Design Review District, the purpose of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, and the heritage preservation ordinance, then the Commission could deny the request with or without prejudice. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. The denial, with prejudice, would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. C. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the requests could be tabled until January meeting and direct the applicant to modify the request for greater consistency with the Downtown Design Review guidelines. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION According to City Code Section 31-209(h), upon a finding by the design review committee that the application, subject to any conditions imposed, will meet the standards of design review, secure the purpose of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan and the heritage preservation ordinance, the design review committee may approve the design permit, subject to conditions as it deems necessary. If a finding is made that the permit would violate the standards of design review, it must deny the application. ACTION: Motion to approve/deny the Design Permit revisions for 223 Main St S for rooftop improvements. Attachments: Applicant Submittal cc: White Bear Ventures, Attn: Brenda Farrell i ------- JAMES HARDY BOARD AND BATTON JAMES HARDY BOARD AND BATTON _ - ' alpte o-� _,� J1• 4- ?Mate. JAMES HARDY BOARD AND BATTON JAMES HARDY BOARD AND BATTON ROLLUP DOOR isassEW r air e wt..- Pr -Air pm . ✓ - + : wig �, arot__ ._shasst4 Am is> Jo amps" sa toga-- ion „se ram At i i m 4 i oratories eastiosalivi So' a Awe sr ea see 'Fa se late 4°' • der.. r ye- • e "'�-�r •Lo—tr,:.‘„,%,,,.•,...-•:eit„, • • • .400. , , '97 • X -1-ardie® Trim Batten Hardie® Panel r�1 L• . • < > Union Art Alley We have turned around the stinkiest, dirtiest, and most vandalized alley in Stillwater. It is now clean, well lit, vibrant, and fun. This has been a great transformation story, but we think we can do one better. Sara Jespersen, owner of The Lumberjack, in partnership with Heather Rutledge, director of ArtReach St Croix, and local Union Alley businesses would like to create Union Art Alley! We believe infusing this space with art can create a point of pride, a fun and colorful place for photo ops, and a vibrant ever -changing space for storytelling through the visual arts. How do we do it? 1. Get city permission & parameters for project. This will include shutting down the alley to through traffic as we did last Spring/Summer/Fall. 2. Get business buy -in. Sara will talk to all the building owners to see if they would be willing to host murals on their buildings. 3. Heather is reaching out to colleagues around the country to gather best practices and sample waivers to use when formulating the project's structure. 4. ArtReach St. Croix will work on securing artists and funds necessary to pay them for their contributions. Funding partners will be important. 5. Sara will do on -site coordination and communication with Heather for projects. 6. All artists will need permits to paint. ArtReach can coordinate this with business owners and the city, if required. Let's make it free and easy, but with guidelines that protect the historic brick and honor the project's vision. Why do we do it? Humans have always used art to express themselves to future generations. The desire to speak beyond one's self and leave a mark runs deep in the soul. Collectively, we wish to shed light on the beauty and struggles of our day. Union Alley that runs from Commercial Street to Myrtle Street has long been a throw away part of our beautiful city. Something to be hidden, an easy place to throw trash, and a dark dingy spot for hiding. We have an opportunity now to showcase the art that is in the soul of our community. To become a destination for photos, expression, and colorful enjoyment. This may have started as a simple clean up, but we want it to become a social movement in our community where artists are free to express themselves and work to spread the messages of our day to each other. We will document this ephemeral project for those who will come after us. Please consider our project for a new Union Art Alley, a little place with expansive art. Union Alley Before , 11111% ii'1111.1 141111. -211 Matt= •IMIls"? •••• MOM 1.1•11 sea *I • .1111111 iffMV, r" • 7 Present Future #111SITRAPIDC111 #DOBIGTHINGS ii11was The Birthplace of Minnesota ATTENTION All City of Stillwater Boards and Commission members are invited to attend a training on Tuesday, June 14, 2022 6 PM at City Hall Council Chambers Presenter: Kori Land, City Attorney DETAILS: Time: 6PM — 7 PM 7 PM — 9 PM Attendees: All Boards & Commissions Heritage Preservation Commission & Planning Commission Topics: Conduct of Meetings Conflicts of Interest Data Practices Act/Social Media Municipal Planning/Zoning Public Hearings Having you join in person is preferred however zoom will be available To participate, go online to www.zoomgov.com/loin or call 1-646-828-7666. Enter the following when prompted: Meeting ID: 161 666 4550 Passcode: 530429 Please email regrets to Beth Wolf, City Clerk at bwolf@ci.stillwater.mn.us 216 4th Street North, Stillwater Minnesota — 651-430-8800 — www.ci.stillwater.mn.us FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE News Release Brent T. Peterson, Executive Director brent.peterson@wchsmn.org 651-439-5956 Brining History Back Together: Stillwater Historic House Tour Sunday May 22nd Noon to 5pm — The Washington County Historical Society is putting history back together with this year's Historic House Tour. The Stillwater Historic Homes Tour on Sunday May 22nd from Noon to 5pm. This tour will have nine very distinct houses that span more than a half a century. Houses on the tour include the 1853 Warden's House Museum; The Glock House at 821 W. Pine Street was built in 1899; The Joseph and Anna Eichten House at 215 Pine St W., two unique and relatively untouched examples of homes in the Dutchtown neighborhood of Stillwater. House Tour co-chair Sheila Hause, "The Washington County Historical Society always does a great job in presenting their historic homes tour. It is something I always look forward to. The preparation and time the homeowners put in to presenting their homes is greatly appreciated. How wonderful that the homeowners put so much care and love into preserving their beautiful homes." "These houses show the transformation of Stillwater, from a rough and tumble lumber town to a gentler, river city," according to Brent Peterson, Executive Director of the Washington County Historical Society. "The differences really put you in the timeline of the history of Stillwater and show the beauty of each era." Each house on the tour has a local business sponsor, showing again how the business community rises up to help the area's unique heritage. The funds raised will go to the preservation and dissemination of local and regional history. Tickets are available the day of the tour at the Warden's House Museum, 602 North Main Street and at the Washington County Heritage Center at 1862 S. Greeley Street, and the tickets $25 each. For more information contact the Historical Society at 651-439-5956 or visit www.wchsmn.org to order your tickets online The Washington County Historical Society collects, preserves, and disseminates the history of the county and state of Minnesota. Founded in 1934, the Washington County Historical Society is a donor -supported nonprofit organization with more than 750 individual family and business members. WCHS is supported by individual gifts, membership fees, and foundation grants. For more information, please visit www.wchsmn.org. 1924 1ST ST N 1881 PARK AND ENTER ON HAZEL ST SPONSORED BY: Valley Bookseller 303 4TH ST N Aurora Staples Inn 1884 Special Tour Hours 3PM-5PM SPONSORED BY. Rose Floral 306 OLIVE ST W Rivertown Inn B&B O'Brien House 1892 Special Tour Hours 1 PM-5PM SPONSORED BY: RM Realty ohs �6 �O P6 dj Gifford Vicki LO o `u� bac h E Stonebridge Apartments Q Marathon GasQ ® Stonebridge Elementary School lor I.teatlowl,rk Or Linden St W Look, 5i 0 O W Elm SI H Hickory SI w Z ` The Harbor ear Schulenburg Park Poplar St W Moore St W Sycamore St W St Croix Ave W Stillwater Ave W Linden St W Mulberry SI W Aspen St W Elm SI W 51 f m 3 3 3 Myrtle St W or'sLutheran N• Cream 9 lurch (ELCA)v e SIW - m � I, I $ y g Les Family Foods® olive 51 w Oak St W N 821 PINE ST W 1899 SPONSORED BY: Lowell Inn 0 Willard St W m Abbott S1 W Churchill SI W 51 Stillwater Country Club n o. m• F Stillwater Ave 51 Pioneer Park Lowell Park® Water Street Inn Lowell Inn - Hotel 8 Restaurant 51 Stillwater Wdlardyy W N Z 0 U Houlton S 0� Cro1xR� 9Stillwater Lift Bridge. Historic Site yooN2 voa SE m£ 51 Oasis Cafe CO Churchill St W Chu r • ill St E 319 PINE ST W Ann Bean B&B 1879 SPONSORED BY: Therapeutic Hands Massage 215 PINE ST W 1892 SPONSORED BY: Ziggy's On Main 2011 SCHULENBERG ALLEY 1860-62 PARK ON ALDER ST SPONSORED BY: Alfresco 602 MAIN ST N Warden's House 1853 SPONSORED BY: Johnny's TV 221 CHESTNUT ST E Special Tour Hours 1 PM-5PM SPONSORED BY: Tilted Tiki