Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-06-15 HPC Packetiliwater .HE BIATHOLACE of M,N.Eso.n 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 4h 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 June 15th, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of May 18th, 2022 regular meeting IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement of may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Heritage Preservation Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 2. Case No. 2022-42. Request for Design Permit for Window Replacement at 125 Main St S; Case of Nordik LUV, LLC VI. PUBLIC HEARING VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3. Case No. 2020-27. Consideration Design Permit Amendment for rooftop improvements. Property located at 223 Main St S; Case of White Bear Ventures. - Tabled in part from the May Meeting 4. Case No. 2020-32. Request for Design Permit Amendment for 200 Chestnut Apartments for Union Alley Wall; Case of Reuter Walton. — Tabled from the May Meeting VIII. NEW BUSINESS 5. Case No. 2022-30. Request for Design Permit for Building Addition at 1204 4th Ave S.; Case of Michael & Nicole Willenbring 6. Case No. 2022-40. Request for Design Permit for Storefront Painting at 120 Main St S.; Case of Scandinavian North IX. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS X. FYI XI. ADJOURNMENT tt 11wakr The Birthplace of Minnesota 216 4th Street N, Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 18, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairwoman Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Holmes, Larson, Summers, Thueson, Councilmember Junker Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion by Chair Mino, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to elect Commissioner Thueson as Chair and Commissioner Heimdahl as Vice Chair. All in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of April 20, 2022 Regular Meeting Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Heimdahl, to approve the minutes of the April 20, 2022 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA 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. Chair Thueson requested that Case No. 2022-25, Variance for a front porch at 107 Laurel St E, be pulled from the Consent Agenda and placed under New Business. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 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 Mr. Gladhill reminded the Commission that on April 13, 2022, the HPC approved a full demolition due to a variety of structural concerns with the original foundation, therefore a new Design Permit is required per City Code. The new design is for a single -story home with Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 attached, recessed garage. The home 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. Staff recommends approval of the Design Permit with six conditions. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to approve Case No. 2022-22, Design Permit for a new residence at 1008 5th St S, with the six staff -recommended conditions. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS 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. Mr. Gladhill explained the case. The applicants are requesting a Variance to the Front Yard Setback in order to construct a front porch. He stated that historic photos of the Greek Revival style house indicate a front porch was present at one point. 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, approve the design permit and recommend the approval of the requested Variance by the Planning Commission. Ryan Collier, property owner, showed historic photos depicting a kitchen bump -out, rear porch and front porch. He explained his continuing, historically accurate renovation of the house. Commissioner Summers asked, regarding the dormer, what is driving the shift from the original style? Eric Hansen, Fresh Start Builders, stated the issue is that the transom over the door allows for only 16" of space between the sill of the second story windows and the trim on the transom. They would like to have a beaded ceiling with lights. The dormer is designed to accommodate a barrel vault on the inside to allow for the transom to stay as is and have an appropriate ceiling. Mr. Collier added that the dormer on the front mimics the small dormer on the side porch. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to recommend that the Planning Commission approve Case No. 2022-25, Variance for a front porch at 107 Laurel St E, noting it is relative to setbacks of adjacent homes. All in favor. Case No. 2022-31: Consideration of a Design permit for storefront 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. Mr. Gladhill explained the application for a Design Permit to repair and reconstruct the storefront at 223 Main St S. Additionally, a later add -on to the request is to complete brick repair and tuck -pointing on various portions of the building. The existing plywood panel is in poor condition and would be removed and replaced with wood paneling, and the existing first floor brick wall (not original to building) and associated metal storefront glazing would be removed and replaced with wood paneling and metal storefront glazing. If transom windows exist behind the wood, staff would prefer the transom windows be maintained. Instead of angled brick wall, the front wall will still be recessed but will be more angled to be almost flush Page 2 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 with the sidewalk. Staff finds with certain conditions the proposed improvements conform to the standards set forth for design review and therefore recommends approval with eight conditions. Brenda Farrell, White Bear Ventures, applicant, stated the previous contractor failed to meet City requirements and cost them a large amount of money. She introduced Steve King, their new contractor. She stated, and Mr. King agreed, there are no transom windows behind the wood panels. Commissioner Holmes asked if transom windows could be added to enhance the design. Ms. Farrell replied they are committed to this building and to Stillwater. The front door needs to be replaced, sidewalk is heaving, they are going to have the fire hydrant removed and attached to the building, and will spend about $100,000 to replace some of the brick so there is probably no problem doing transom windows if that is what the HPC wants. They will keep the entrance ramped for handicapped accessibility. The tenant wants to be in by September 15 so there is not a lot of time to delay. Commissioner Heimdahl commended the work already done and urged the applicant to look at the storefront as the gateway to one of the most historic buildings downtown, basing design off its neighbors rather than what was previously done to this building. He added that being within the historic district opens the possibility of tax incentives for property owners. Commissioner Finwall asked if there is time to table the case for further discussion of transom window design and signage, and still accommodate the new tenant. Mr. Gladhill replied that would require extending the 60 day time limit. Mr. King asked if it would meet approval if they installed a small transom and left room for signage. Ms. Farrell added, for instance, if they committed to 75% transom, 25% signage for that whole band? Commissioner Holmes suggested approving the design permit with a condition that the final design include 75% transom and no more than 25% sign band/wood, and ask staff to work with the applicant on final design. Commissioner Larson suggested the design carry similar horizontal lines as neighboring buildings to get the proportion correct, and that the storefront windows be as large and undivided as possible. Commissioner Finwall asked if the Commission could approve the design permit in part, so the applicant can start removing the existing storefront and the HPC could review final plans next month. Ms. Farrell responded that, due to COVID supply issues, if they can't get the window order placed, there would be plywood there for the whole fall season. Commissioner Heimdahl agreed the HPC could approve the design permit in part, so the applicant can start work, but bring back an updated sign and storefront proposal to the next meeting. Commissioner Summers acknowledged the timeline constraints. He strongly recommended the HPC grant contingent approval, with further review by a few members of the Commission so the applicant may meet their timeframe as best they can. Page 3 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 Commissioner Finwall recommended that Conditions #2 and 7 that pertain to signs be removed and a Condition be added stating that a future storefront sign would come back to the HPC for approval. Mr. Gladhill stated a single -tenant storefront sign may be administratively approved. It also can be on the Consent Agenda so the HPC would see it. Commissioner Summers stated he is reluctant to go outside the standard process unless there is a compelling reason. He is not sure he would support requiring the HPC to review a sign if that would not normally be the case. Commissioner Mino stated she hesitates also, but the sign would be reviewed and approved by staff and would be on the Consent Agenda at the next meeting so the HPC would still be looking at it. Commissioner Holmes stated that if staff are entrusted to enforce the sign ordinance, the HPC need not be designing signs by committee for single tenants. Commissioner Finwall noted the signage is part of the overall design and is a Condition of approval which is why she brought it up. She feels a bit pressured to pass this. Normally the HPC would review the entire plan. Motion by Commissioner Summers, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to approve Case No. 2022- 31, Design permit for storefront modifications at 223 Main St S, with the eight conditions recommended by staff, contingent that City will work together with the owner to reach a reasonable outcome, and adding Condition #9 stating that the front facade be modified to incorporate transom windows with a sign band on top that will look substantially similar in scale and materials to the neighboring buildings on the north and south sides. All in favor. 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. Mr. Gladhill stated that White Bear Ventures, LLC (Richard and Brenda Farrell) has requested a revision to a previously approved Design Permit. In addition to HPC Case #2020-27, the applicants 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 stories. 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. The City issued a stop work order. Staff met 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. Staff is attempting to work with the applicants to find reasonable solutions, but needs direction from the HPC. The applicant is requesting the following changes to the Design Permit: 1) Use fiber -cement panels in lieu of standing seam metal panels on the elevator tower; and 2) Convert the existing storage building into a rooftop bar (for private use), also utilizing the fiber cement panels. Staff is attempting to assist in moving this project forward, but only recently learned of the planned revisions. Staff has not had the ordinary timeframe to fully vet this new/revised request. Page 4 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 Councilmember Junker asked what is the maximum height allowed for an elevator tower. Brenda Farrell, White Bear Ventures, applicant, stated the elevator shaft is 14'1" tall, which is the height needed to get the elevator car up that high. Mr. Gladhill added that an elevator shaft like this for certain mechanical equipment is exempted from height restrictions. The HPC previously approved a design permit for the elevator shaft; this review is about the external materials. Ms. Farrell stated she had no idea that the metal was a requirement. The previous contractor helped her measure and ordered the Hardy siding. She accepts responsibility for this error but feels it looks much better. The product has been there for a year. They also added a small dormer on top. The shed is primarily for storage of outdoor furniture, with some storage for glasses and for beverages. There was a third structure which was torn down - it was the original elevator shaft on the river side. Commissioner Larson stated he reviewed the meeting minutes and drawings from 2020. What is now on the roof is completely different than what was approved. As an owner, Ms. Farrell has an obligation to know what's going on. The HPC required that the elevator shaft be reduced to the absolute minimum for exiting the stair and the elevator legally. The HPC clearly stated the City does not allow storage to be on roofs when it exceeds height restrictions. What is allowed is access to the roof. Ms. Farrell responded that the original building permit was for it to be able to go all the way to the back of the stairwell. Commissioner Larson quoted meeting minutes from November 18, 2020 adding a condition of approval that the maximum height and area of the rooftop improvements shall not exceed the compliant minimums for ADA accessibility. It also required dark subdued standing seam metal. Part of the previous City Planner's rationale for recommending approval was that the project would be reducing the number of structures on the roof. Today there are two structures which are not what was agreed to, and he is not comfortable accepting that second structure. Commissioner Finwall asked if it was a condition in 2020 that one of the structures be removed. Commissioner Larson replied it was not a condition, it was how the project was presented by the applicant at the time. Ms. Farrell stated to be very clear, there was no construction done other than that small dormer. The structure has always been there, it is not something they built. Commissioner Larson responded, before it was to be removed and now it isn't. Why? Ms. Farrell replied she can't speak to what the contractor stated. Unfortunately the contractor made all sorts of promises and didn't fulfill them. Commissioner Larson pointed out there is a signed agreement with the City, signed by "Owner's Representative" that outlines all the items agreed on. Councilmember Junker remarked there probably is a video recording of that meeting. Ms. Farrell commented she and her husband have built and remodeled many houses. She had no idea about the contractor errors. The current building permit allows them to build all the Page 5 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 way to the end of the elevator shaft. She is asking that they be able to use the existing storage shed and not tear it down, thus spending more money on the roof. Mr. Gladhill remarked in the future, perhaps design permits should be signed not only by the applicant but also by the property owner. Commissioner Larson continued that he has more issues with the big picture, the multiple structures there, than with the materials. But the materials agreed to are the same materials the HPC has required of many others in the downtown area. He asked what would be the consequence for the owner if the structure with the gable were removed as agreed upon. Ms. Farrell replied it would cost at least $20-25,000. The product is already there and on order. Mr. Gladhill clarified that, in the City's scanned files on record, there is no active permit for any of the rooftop improvements. There is an application, and he has had significant conversations with the building official, but the City has not issued a building permit for any rooftop improvements. Chairman Thueson agreed with Commissioner Larson's desire to stay with the original plans. Commissioner Finwall pointed out the HPC is looking at more than a modification to materials. The case could be tabled and the applicant directed to bring back the full proposal, including everything they wish to do. Ms. Farrell noted the tip of the structure can barely be seen from the street. If they have to remove it, the HPC should understand they will not proceed with any of the additional money proposed to be spent on the facade or brick to make this building look beautiful for the City. It's extremely unfortunate that the HPC expects this 100 square foot building that can't be seen, to be torn down. Commissioner Finwall asked if the applicant could bring back a new application. Mr. Gladhill stated there's not an application per se to move forward on this amendment. He hears Commission consensus that the elevator shaft needs to be standing seam metal. Maybe the issue of what to do with that other small building could be brought back at a later time. That would at least give them direction so they can finish up the elevator shaft. Ms. Farrell reiterated that the two small dormers could be removed and then that structure would be identical to what it has always been. Commissioner Larson stated he thinks the applicant is under the impression it was approved as a larger structure but he understands, based on minutes, that it was to be reduced in size as much as possible. That needs clarification. Chairman Thueson stated due to the confusion, he would feel better if the HPC tables the case and gives staff more time to provide a recommendation. Commissioner Mino stated she is comfortable tabling it but the applicant needs to look back at discussion that took place when this originally came before the HPC. Ms. Farrell replied she is not arguing about what happened two years ago. She is asking consideration of a small building that has been there. Page 6 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 Councilmember Junker remarked that the City takes rooftops extremely seriously from the standpoint of height. With the elevator shaft and the stair vestibule, the consolidation of eliminating the third structure was discussed thoroughly as minutes indicate. Mr. Gladhill recommended tabling the case which would still allow the applicant to proceed with the elevator shaft based on previous conditions. Ms. Farrell showed pictures of nearby rooftops with mechanical structures that refute the integrity that the City strives for in rooftops. She is trying to make this building as beautiful as possible. Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to table Case No. 2020-27, Amendment to previous Design Permit for rooftop improvements at 223 Main St S, with the understanding that the elevator shaft building will follow the original design permit with metal siding, and any modification to the second building, if it is to remain, will come back before the Commission. All in favor. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Union Art Alley Sara Jespersen, owner of The Lumberjack, shared a proposal to create Union Art Alley, in partnership with Heather Rutledge, director of ArtReach St Croix, and local Union Alley businesses. They would like to create a vibrant ever -changing space for storytelling through the visual arts. They did a quick study on what would be the safest way to affix art to the historic buildings. The art could be printed on banners affixed to some buildings; chalk art could be used for the brick because it would eventually wash away, and they could direct paint on cinder block which would improve the appearance. The art could follow a theme and be approved by a subcommittee. The idea is to feature local artists while preserving the historic nature of downtown. Councilmember Junker suggested the cinder block section could be a permanent mural that depicts the historic nature of Stillwater. He loves the idea. Commissioner Heimdahl noted that a subcommittee of the HPC is drafting guidelines and best practices for public art. Commissioner Finwall added that the subcommittee has been researching current mural requirements and the sign code. Currently the code requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a mural which seems extensive. There are 18 murals right now throughout the City. What is proposed might not meet current guidelines but it is a great idea. Commissioner Holmes wondered if a CUP could be placed over the entire alley that would allow looser guidelines for creativity to attract artists. He also would like to see many different mediums included, such as sculptures and overhead art. Commissioner Larson voiced support, although the permanence of painting brick is a concern. Ms. Jespersen replied there would be a different application on every building because each building is a different surface. The historic brick would not be touched unless chalk is OK. Commissioner Larson commented there is a shrink wrap product that can be applied to brick but can also be removed. Page 7 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 Mr. Gladhill stated staff will work with Ms. Jespersen for further refinement of the proposal building by building, possibly as a CUP. Policy for Packet Add -On Materials Mr. Gladhill noted that day -of submittal creates confusion. The agenda is published on Friday. Staff would like to make the end of business day on Monday the cut-off for adding new materials for cases that are already on the agenda. Public comments could be accepted until Wednesday. Commission consensus was in agreement. Mr. Gladhill will discuss it further with other staff. Annual Training Flyer Mr. Gladhill reminded the Commission of the annual Boards and Commissions training on June 14. City Parking Ramp Vandalism Mitigation Mr. Gladhill reported that the City Council has been discussing an issue in the parking ramp adjacent to the Lowell Inn. There is a brick pillar that individuals jump on and then up onto the Lowell Inn roof and cause damage by throwing rocks down the roof drain causing costly repairs. The City Facilities Manager is asking for approval to extend a block wall up to the roof line and further out to prevent trespassing on top of the roof. Staff would like direction on whether a block/CMU wall painted to match would be acceptable. Councilmember Junker added that this issue came to the City's attention last June. The Lowell Inn has spent over $41,000 cleaning up the damage. It would be a cinder block straight wall to match the wall next to it and the brick bump -out would be removed. The Lowell Inn supports the concept. Commissioner Larson stated he believes the bump -out is structural, with a concrete reinforced pilaster inside of it that goes all the way down. He agreed something taller needs to be there. Ideally it would be lightweight, black, non -climbable vertical black steel as opposed to a big concrete wall. FYI Stillwater Historic Homes Tour Materials Mr. Gladhill shared information on the Stillwater Historic House Tour scheduled for May 22, 2022. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m. ATTEST: Matt Thueson, Chair Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director Page 8 of 8 illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: June 7, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: CD Case No. 2022-42: Request for Design Permit for Window Replacement in the Downtown Design Review District/Historic Downtown Stillwater District at 125 Main St S; Case of Nordik LUV, LLC BACKGROUND The Property Owner is requesting a Design Permit for the replacement of three (3) windows on the upper level, front fagade. These do not appear to be original windows and the Property Owner plans to replace with same design. The window openings will remain, only the windows themselves will be replaced. The windows would be framed with a 0.050 think aluminum frame. The Subject Property is located within the following Zoning Districts. • CBD: Central Business District (primary/underlying Zoning District) • Downtown Stillwater Historic District (National Registry of Historic Places) — Contributing Building • Downtown Design Review District The following standards are required. • Proposed alterations to a heritage preservation site shall conform to the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation • Proposed alterations shall conform to special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the City Council • Avoid infill panels when providing new windows in existing masonry openings. Additionally, City Code directs the HPC to make the following findings when approving Design Permits. • The proposed building alteration or new construction, including its appurtenances, does not materially impar the architectural or historic integrity of the building and site, adjacent buildings and sites, or the neighborhood as a whole • Granting the design permit will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter and does not negatively alter the essential character and significance of the building, site, and its surroundings. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation recommend repair of the windows over replacement. However, these are not original windows. Additionally, the HPC's policy over the past several years (through a series of ordinance amendments) to allow replacement in certain circumstances. The replacement of these windows would not be out of character for second story windows in the vicinity. Staff believes that this project would be keeping in the spirit and intent of this chapter and does not negatively alter the essential character and significance of the building, site and its surroundings. While the City encourages the preservation of existing conditions, replacement of these non -original windows with a like kind and size window does not materially impair the architectural or historic integrity of the building and site, adjacent buildings and sites, or the neighborhood as a whole. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Design Permit for window replacement. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Design Permit for window replacement with the following conditions. 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department on file as CD Case No. 2022-42 2. 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. 41" RO V 7 O 0 0 O O DH - HISTORIC SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" z Head el Jamb ie Sill Checkrail SPECIFICATIONS Line #: 1 Qty: 3 Mark Unit: DH - Historic Product Line: Ultimate Unit Description: Double Hung G2 Rough Opening: 41" X 96 3/4" Frame Size: 40" X 96 1/4" Masonry Opening: 40 1/2" X 96 1/2" Sash Opening: 41" X 96 3/4" Inside Opening: 41" X 96 3/4" Exterior Finish: Stone White Interior Finish: Stained Interior Finish, Espresso Call Number: None Glass Information: IG, Low E2 w/Argon, Black Divider Type: None Hardware Color: Bronze Screen Surround Color: Stone White Jamb Depth: 4 9/16" Interior Trim: None MARVIN®tj PROJ/JOB: Ross Larson - 125 Main ST S Stillwater,M / Nordic Luv DIST/DEALER: KELLY ENTERPRISE DRAWN:SHAUN KELLY QUOTE#: 4WNWHVL PK VER: 0003.11.00 CREATED:05/17/2022 REVISION: SHEET 1 OF 5 O 1 1 Head \ 2 SCALE: 3" = 1-0" MARVIN® PROJ/JOB: Ross Larson - 125 Main ST S Stillwater,M / Nordic Luv DIST/DEALER: KELLY ENTERPRISE DRAWN:SHAUN KELLY QUOTE#: 4WNWHVL PK VER: 0003.11.00 CREATED:05/17/2022 REVISION: SHEET 2 OF 5 RO H MO Jamb SCALE: 3" = 1-0" MARVIN® PROJ/JOB: Ross Larson - 125 Main ST S Stillwater,M / Nordic Luv DIST/DEALER: KELLY ENTERPRISE DRAWN:SHAUN KELLY QUOTE#: 4WNWHVL PK VER: 0003.11.00 CREATED:05/17/2022 REVISION: SHEET 3 OF 5 11 Sill \ 4 SCALE: 3" = 1-0" MARVIN® PROJ/JOB: Ross Larson - 125 Main ST S Stillwater,M / Nordic Luv DIST/DEALER: KELLY ENTERPRISE DRAWN:SHAUN KELLY QUOTE#: 4WNWHVL PK VER: 0003.11.00 CREATED:05/17/2022 REVISION: SHEET 4 OF 5 51 Checkrail % SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" MARVIN® PROJ/JOB: Ross Larson - 125 Main ST S Stillwater,M / Nordic Luv DIST/DEALER: KELLY ENTERPRISE DRAWN:SHAUN KELLY QUOTE#: 4WNWHVL PK VER: 0003.11.00 CREATED:05/17/2022 REVISION: SHEET 5 OF 5 illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: June 7, 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 At the May 18, 2022 HPC Meeting, the HPC approved a request for a Design Permit Amendment in part (elevator tower w/standing seam metal panels with dark, muted color) and tabled in part (storage shed/recreational room/private rooftop bar). 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: • Convert the existing storage building into a rooftop bar (for private use) DISTRICT(S): • CBD: Central Business District (primary/underlying Zoning District) • Stillwater Commercial Historic District (Contributing Building) • Downtown Design Review District 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. • Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. ANALYSIS 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. 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. 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 •Lo—tr,:.‘„,%,,,.•,...-•:eit„, • • • .400. , , '97 • Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 Commissioner Finwall recommended that Conditions #2 and 7 that pertain to signs be removed and a Condition be added stating that a future storefront sign would come back to the HPC for approval. Mr. Gladhill stated a single -tenant storefront sign may be administratively approved. It also can be on the Consent Agenda so the HPC would see it. Commissioner Summers stated he is reluctant to go outside the standard process unless there is a compelling reason. He is not sure he would support requiring the HPC to review a sign if that would not normally be the case. Commissioner Mino stated she hesitates also, but the sign would be reviewed and approved by staff and would be on the Consent Agenda at the next meeting so the HPC would still be looking at it. Commissioner Holmes stated that if staff are entrusted to enforce the sign ordinance, the HPC need not be designing signs by committee for single tenants Commissioner Finwall noted the signage is part of the 11 design and is a Condition of approval which is why she brought it up. She feels apres • d to pass this. Normally the HPC would review the entire plan. Motion by Commissioner Summers, seconded by C iss r Mino, to approve Case No. 2022- 31, Design permit for storefront modifications at ain St S, with the eight conditions recommended by staff, contingent that Ci reasonable outcome, and adding Conditio incorporate transom windows with a sign ban and materials to the neighboring bu. Case No. 2020-27: Considera improvements. Property located District and the Historical owners. Mr. Gladhill stated th a revision to a previou applicants also requested ill wo' ogether with the owner to reach a the front facade be modified to will look substantially similar in scale orth and south sides. All in favor. ent to previous Design Permit for rooftop Main S in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review s Height Overlay District. White Bear Ventures. property Ventures, LLC (Richard and Brenda Farrell) has requested ved Design Permit. In addition to HPC Case #2020-27, the lance 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 stories. 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. The City issued a stop work order. Staff met 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. Staff is attempting to work with the applicants to find reasonable solutions, but needs direction from the HPC. The applicant is requesting the following changes to the Design Permit: 1) Use fiber -cement panels in lieu of standing seam metal panels on the elevator tower; and 2) Convert the existing storage building into a rooftop bar (for private use), also utilizing the fiber cement panels. Staff is attempting to assist in moving this project forward, but only recently learned of the planned revisions. Staff has not had the ordinary timeframe to fully vet this new/revised request. Page 4 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 Councilmember Junker asked what is the maximum height allowed for an elevator tower. Brenda Farrell, White Bear Ventures, applicant, stated the elevator shaft is 14'1" tall, which is the height needed to get the elevator car up that high. Mr. Gladhill added that an elevator shaft like this for certain mechanical equipment is exempted from height restrictions. The HPC previously approved a design permit for the elevator shaft; this review is about the external materials. Ms. Farrell stated she had no idea that the metal was a requirement. The previous contractor helped her measure and ordered the Hardy siding. She accepts responsibility for this error but feels it looks much better. The product has been there for a year. They also added a small dormer on top. The shed is primarily for storage of outdoor furniture, with some storage for glasses and for beverages. There was a third structure which was torn down - it was the original elevator shaft on the river side. Commissioner Larson stated he reviewed the meeting minu is now on the roof is completely different than what wa has an obligation to know what's going on. The HPC req to the absolute minimum for exiting the stair and t levat the City does not allow storage to be on roofs n it exc allowed is access to the roof. nd drawings from 2020. What roved. As an owner, Ms. Farrell t the elevator shaft be reduced or .11y. The HPC clearly stated eeds 'ght restrictions. What is Ms. Farrell responded that the original building pewas for it to be able to go all the way to the back of the stairwell. Commissioner Larson quoted meeting min approval that the maximum hei compliant minimums for ADA Part of the previous City Pla would be reducing the number are not what was agr Commissioner Fin removed. ember 18, 2020 adding a condition of e rooftop improvements shall not exceed the o required dark subdued standing seam metal. recommending approval was that the project ctures on the roof. Today there are two structures which of comfortable accepting that second structure. s a condition in 2020 that one of the structures be Commissioner Larson re. - was not a condition, it was how the project was presented by the applicant at the time. Ms. Farrell stated to be very clear, there was no construction done other than that small dormer. The structure has always been there, it is not something they built. Commissioner Larson responded, before it was to be removed and now it isn't. Why? Ms. Farrell replied she can't speak to what the contractor stated. Unfortunately the contractor made all sorts of promises and didn't fulfill them. Commissioner Larson pointed out there is a signed agreement with the City, signed by "Owner's Representative" that outlines all the items agreed on. Councilmember Junker remarked there probably is a video recording of that meeting. Ms. Farrell commented she and her husband have built and remodeled many houses. She had no idea about the contractor errors. The current building permit allows them to build all the Page 5 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 way to the end of the elevator shaft. She is asking that they be able to use the existing storage shed and not tear it down, thus spending more money on the roof. Mr. Gladhill remarked in the future, perhaps design permits should be signed not only by the applicant but also by the property owner. Commissioner Larson continued that he has more issues with the big picture, the multiple structures there, than with the materials. But the materials agreed to are the same materials the HPC has required of many others in the downtown area. He asked what would be the consequence for the owner if the structure with the gable were removed as agreed upon. Ms. Farrell replied it would cost at least $20-25,000. The product is already there and on order. Mr. Gladhill clarified that, in the City's scanned files on record, there is no active permit for any of the rooftop improvements. There is an application, and he has had significant conversations with the building official, but the City has not issued a building permit for any rooftop improvements. Chairman Thueson agreed with Commissioner Larson's ► - to stay with the original plans. Commissioner Finwall pointed out the HPC is lookin The case could be tabled and the applicant direc everything they wish to do. Ms. Farrell noted the tip of the structure can bar remove it, the HPC should understand th proposed to be spent on the facade or bri It's extremely unfortunate that the . ' C exp : is to be torn down. Commissioner Finwall aske Mr. Gladhill stated there' hears Commission co the issue of what That would at least Ms. Farrell reiterated th more t bring bac a modification to materials. e full proposal, including e seen from the street. If they have to ed with any of the additional money h building look beautiful for the City. square foot building that can't be seen, Id bring back a new application. plication per se to move forward on this amendment. He elevator shaft needs to be standing seam metal. Maybe oth small building could be brought back at a later time. ction so they can finish up the elevator shaft. o small dormers could be removed and then that structure would be identical to what as always been. Commissioner Larson stated he thinks the applicant is under the impression it was approved as a larger structure but he understands, based on minutes, that it was to be reduced in size as much as possible. That needs clarification. Chairman Thueson stated due to the confusion, he would feel better if the HPC tables the case and gives staff more time to provide a recommendation. Commissioner Mino stated she is comfortable tabling it but the applicant needs to look back at discussion that took place when this originally came before the HPC. Ms. Farrell replied she is not arguing about what happened two years ago. She is asking consideration of a small building that has been there. Page 6 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 18, 2022 Councilmember Junker remarked that the City takes rooftops extremely seriously from the standpoint of height. With the elevator shaft and the stair vestibule, the consolidation of eliminating the third structure was discussed thoroughly as minutes indicate. Mr. Gladhill recommended tabling the case which would still allow the applicant to proceed with the elevator shaft based on previous conditions. Ms. Farrell showed pictures of nearby rooftops with mechanical structures that refute the integrity that the City strives for in rooftops. She is trying to make this building as beautiful as possible. Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to table Case No. 2020-27, Amendment to previous Design Permit for rooftop improvements at 223 Main St S, with the understanding that the elevator shaft building will follow the original design permit with metal siding, and any modification to the second building, if it is to remain, will come back before the Commission. All in favor. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Union Art Alley Sara Jespersen, owner of The Lumberjack, sha partnership with Heather Rutledge, director businesses. They would like to create a vibrant the visual arts. They did a quick study on buildings. The art could be printed on ba used for the brick because it would block which would improve the a subcommittee. The idea is downtown. Councilmember Junke depicts the historic Commissioner Heim practices for public art. Commissioner Finwall ad . i that the subcommittee has been researching current mural requirements and the sign code. Currently the code requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a mural which seems extensive. There are 18 murals right now throughout the City. What is proposed might not meet current guidelines but it is a great idea. Commissioner Holmes wondered if a CUP could be placed over the entire alley that would allow looser guidelines for creativity to attract artists. He also would like to see many different mediums included, such as sculptures and overhead art. Commissioner Larson voiced support, although the permanence of painting brick is a concern. Ms. Jespersen replied there would be a different application on every building because each building is a different surface. The historic brick would not be touched unless chalk is OK. Commissioner Larson commented there is a shrink wrap product that can be applied to brick but can also be removed. ntua nce. local osal toeate Union Art Alley, in ch St Croix, and local Union Alley anging space for storytelling through e safest way to affix art to the historic some buildings; chalk art could be h a . y, and they could direct paint on cinder e art could follow a theme and be approved by tists while preserving the historic nature of cinder block section could be a permanent mural that He loves the idea. t a subcommittee of the HPC is drafting guidelines and best Page 7 of 8 illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: June 7, 2022 TO: Honorable HPC Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: HPC Case No. 2020-32: Request for Design Permit Amendment for 200 Chestnut Apartments BACKGROUND In 2021, the City approved a Design Permit for the construction of a new apartment building to be located at 200 Chestnut Street East. During the Heritage Preservation Commission's review of the design of the new building, the HPC expressed concern for a 5'8" retaining wall proposed to be located along the Union Alley sidewalk. After redesigning the wall plan to a combination of 2-4' retaining wall with fencing and landscaping, the HPC noted the plan more conformed to the Downtown Design Review District standards and added to an enhanced pedestrian experience. Since the time of HPC approval, the property owner had to modify the design plan to accommodate the underground parking. This necessitated raising the basement elevation which increased the height of the terrace (and subsequently) wall along Union Alley. Additionally, the terrace area was repurposed to accommodate stormwater drainage (through a green roof system) on the site. The building permit plans submitted now show a 4'6" wall with horizontal railing above. The wall will be stamped in a vertical, woodgrain pattern. The Commission reviewed this proposal at the April 20, 2022 HPC Meeting and directed further design revisions. DRAFT minutes from that meeting reflect discussion of brick and brick alternatives as well as incorporation of public art as part of the proposed Union Alley Art Alley project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the HPC provide final direction on the Union Alley Wall Design for 200 Chestnut Apartments. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve/deny (choose action) the request for Design Permit Amendment for 200 Chestnut Apartments as presented. Alternatively, the Commission can direct further modifications to the proposed elevation. Exhibit A EXCERPT from DRAFT HPC Minutes dated April 20, 2022 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. 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. Tim Gladhill From: Joel Hauck <> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 11:01 AM To: Tim Gladhill; Bob Loken Subject: RE: HPC Follow Up - 200 Chestnut Street East [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. Morning Tim, Thank you again for your time last week. I am terribly sorry our team didn't follow up as requested in regards to our aversion to 'thin brick'. The proposed design has chosen to use varied concrete finishes and recesses in lieu of thin brick for the following reasons; Durability / Long Term Maintenance o Thin brick is a surface applied product that in our experience does not hold up long term to Minnesota climate. This wall in question is directly adjacent to the ROW and be impacted by seasonal salting and shoveling. Selecting a less porous material like Cast in Place Concrete will alleviate long term maintenance concerns. o The vegetation planned along this wall is better suited to grow on a cast in place surface in lieu of a thin - brick surface. The growth over time could erode the grout in thin -brick causing cracking and potential spalling of the thin -brick finish. Less joints between materials provides a stronger barrier against the plant growth deteriorating the wall over time. - Aesthetics / Pedestrian Appearance o Thin brick products do not provide a cavity for weeping water and often results in efflorescent (white salty deposit) over time. This results in a unsightly appearance that would not be desired. o A thin -brick material would not provide an adequate match to the existing full face brick material used on the project. The thin -brick would be noticeable different from the adjacent brick finish resulting in a undesirable look along the Alley. o A Cast in Place Concrete wall surface is ideal for multiple mediums to be attached, or painted onto the surface. Our team will work with the local art community as proposed in the latest rendering to provide art that will further enhance the varied expression we are trying to achieve. Let me know if you have any questions. Joel Hauck, AIA Architect (MN) I Senior Associate 500 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1080, Minneapolis, MN 55415 esG 1 From: Tim Gladhill <tgladhill@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 2:53 PM To: Joel Hauck Bob Loken Subject: RE: HPC Follow Up - 200 Chestnut Street East Joel and Bob: Please use the link below to schedule some time where the 3 of us (and anyone else you would like to join) to chat about HPC direction and reasonable solutions. Only one of you should make the appointment request, so please coordinate schedules. • calendly.com/tgladhill Sincerely, Iliwater_ TH E El RTH PLAC E pF Y IN HE 50 TA Tim Gladhill City of Stillwater Community Development Director tgladhill@ci.stillwater.mn.us www.ci.stillwater.mn.us https://www.facebook.com/StillwaterMinnesota P: 651-430-8821 Schedule a Meeting: calendly.com/tgladhill From: Abbi Wittman <awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 12:45 PM To: 'Joel Hauck' Bob Loken Cc: Tim Gladhill <tgladhill@ci.stillwater.mn.us>; Jenn Sundberg <jundberg@ci.stillwater.mn.us> Subject: HPC Follow Up - 200 Chestnut Street East Hi Bob and Joel. Thanks for attending last evening's meeting. As you heard, the HPC did not concur with staff and believe the wall needs to be modified to further enhance the pedestrian experience in this area. I have included Community Development Director Tim Gladhill on this email for reference. I would recommend you schedule a meeting with him to discuss design options. Tim can be reached at (615) 430-8821. Additionally, you may want to reach out to Heather Rutledge with ArtReach (Heather@artreachstcroix.org or 651.439.1465) or Brent Peterson with Washington County Historical Society (brent.peterson@wchsmn.org or 651.439.5956) to discuss art alley options or historical imagery. I have no doubt you will be able to find a solution that fits with the building and site as well as the owner's needs and the community's desires. Good luck with this project. It has been a pleasure working with the both of you. Abbi 2 IlIwater. 7N[ 1.11.TAINICS OR Y1y I[}p7.1 Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us https://www.ci.stillwater.mn.us P: 651-430-8822 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 3 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN ALLEY VIEW - HPC 5 e SG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN ALLEY VIEW - CITY COUNCIL 6 tea. wafts fti rrrgW%4"y Mftft 1�1~1 1111 ■,il111,2`1 1)111' 4 ' v F"llifry .�-•r . &� ' Cs M. ii` Ij�l, IR4 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN ALLEY VIEW - 4/20/22 DESIGN 7 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN ALLEY VIEW - CURRENT 8 7,:r7 REDUCED WALL HEIGHT BY 4" AT PLANTING WALL • k rikL_ Ut'i I I U11111-111.30/Ell 1.1,111 1 I. • ,111 SMINOCIIMIL atimikaistAmi r=1 KITINONVI FffirMIANINII Iimmoss k TPF I kw • •-•. 0.4; 4., SIDEWALK CONTROL JOINTS ADDED FOR SCALE ART/MURAL OPPORTUNITY. SMOOTH CONCRETE (RECESSED) BOARD FORM CONCRETE SMOOTH CONCRETE AT PLANTING WALL (RECESSED) esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN ALLEY VIEW - CURRENT 9 I11war THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: June 7, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Variance Request in RB: Two -Family District; Variance Side Yard (Exterior) Setback for Addition/Remodel at 1204 4th Ave S BACKGROUND The Planning Commission tabled action on this request for Variance and referred to the HPC for recommendation. City Code does not require the HPC review Variances in the Neighborhood Conservation District (required for the Downtown Design Review District). However, the Planning Commission found that it was important to seek an HPC Recommendation before taking final action on this particular request. The Owners of 1204 4th Ave S are requesting a Variance to the Side Yard (Exterior) Setback in order to construct an addition. The lower level of the addition would include an attached garage. The upper level of the addition would be additional living space. The project would also include the demolition of an existing deck and detached garage. The underlying zoning district is the RB: Two -Family Residential District. The site is also located in the Neighborhood Conservation District. The required side yard (exterior) setback for this improvement is 20 feet. The Owner is proposing an 8 foot, 10 % inch setback. ANALYSIS In these circumstances, the HPC focused on the design of the structure while the Planning Commission focused on the dimensional, size and location standards. As it relates to the design of the addition, the review is guided by the Neighborhood Conservation District standards found within the Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual (attached). The Applicants are essentially carrying the design of the existing, primary home through to the addition. Generally speaking, Staff believes that the proposal meets the standards of the Neighborhood Conservation Design Standards by preserving the existing structure and carrying its original design through to the new addition. The proposal appears consistent and compatible with surrounding structures. State Statute Chapter 462.357 requires that cities consider the following standards when considering a Variance. This is also known as the `practical difficulty' test. • The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. • The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. • The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The proposed addition to the existing home appears to be a reasonable use and is consistent with the requirements of the Stillwater Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation District. • The circumstances are unique to the property in that this generally historic neighborhood pre -dates current zoning regulations pertaining to front yard setbacks. The detached accessory building/garage already includes this same condition; the approved remodel simply carries that same setback (albeit in a different location) and replaces it with a higher -quality structure. • The Owner is also matching the existing setback of the primary dwelling. The Variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; in fact, the proposed improvement will arguably improve the character of the neighborhood through accepted neighborhood design elements. • Finally, the difficulties are not economic considerations alone. The Owner has gone through great lengths to design a porch that meet applicable design guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that approval of the request. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the Variance to Side Yard (Exterior) Setback for an addition at 1204 4th Ave S. Pasque Architecture TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF STILLWATER: 1204 4th Ave. s. VARIANCE APPLICATION Micheal and Nicole Willenbring - homeowners of the residence at 1204 4th Ave. S. - are requesting a variance for a proposed attached garage addition (26' x 26') with a second floor. The proposed addition is requested to align with the North (Burlington St. E. Side) setback of the existing mudroom. The mudroom received a variance (circa 2o15) for an 8'-io 3 " setback from the North Property Line. The original 188o's residence has an 8'-81/2" setback from the North Property Line. The 3 1/4" step back of the existing mudroom promotes the hierarchy of the 188o's residence. The proposed work maintains the character of the existing property and surrounding neighborhood in scale, style, and detailing — while updating the home for a family of five. Practical Difficulties and Proposed Work The existing detached garage is 1.1' from West (rear) property line and 8.4' from North (side) property line. In other words, the existing detached garage is close to the rear and side property lines and very far from the existing residence. The garage is undersized forthe homeowner's needs (z cars, yard equipment, bikes, etc.). The homeowners have a family of five and the current home only has 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms (1 bathroom is off of the first -floor mudroom which is inconveniently far from the bedrooms on the second floor). The homeowner purchased this property with an appreciation for the historic character and large side yard. They would like to maintain as many old growth trees as possible. Alternatives for relocating the garage were considered, but would have divided the side yard or required changing the curb cut or removing additional old growth trees. The proposed work includes demolishing the detached garage and 2 trees. Please see the attached Drawing Set for a description of work. In summary, the proposed attached garage and second story addition will improve the following: • Increase the garage setback from the North (Burlington St. E. Side) property line (from 8'-4 3 "to 8'— io 3 ") • Increase the garage setback from West (rear) neighboring property (from i'-11/" to 42'-o") • Maintain the existing curb cut and driveway connection to Burlington St. E. • Reorient garage doors off of street and provide windows along North (Burlington St. E. Side) Elevation • Provide an attached two -car garage with a connection through the existing mudroom • Transition from a 3 bedroom, 2 bath to a 4 bedroom, 2.5 bath for the homeowners and their3 children Aligning Intent The property at 1204 4th Ave. 5. received a variance (around 2015) to remodel the existing mudroom. In this variance, the previous homeowner was allowed to setback the exterior wall of the mudroom 31/"from the exterior of the 188o's residence. This resulted in an 8'-io 3 " setback from the North (Burlington St. E. Side) property line. The current homeowners request the same 8'-io 3 " setback from the North (Burlington St. E. Side) property line for a proposed two-story addition. This will allow the addition to connect with the existing mudroom and utilize the existing door to enter the residence from an attached garage. From the exterior, the proposed addition will align with the mudroom and provide the same 31/" setback from the a88o's residence. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The homeowner is conscientious of the historic character of the surrounding neighborhood homes, many of which have undergone additions and renovations to meet the contemporary needs. The proposed addition at 1204 4th Ave. S. will match the exterior style of original 188o's Italianate residence. The massing and exterior materials will match the painted wood lap siding and trim details of the existing residence. Aesthetically, the addition pairs well with the original four -square but has a slightly smaller footprint to maintain the hierarchy of the original residence. The street side windows will have similar proportions and be double hung with 2 over 2 sashes. The west end of the two-story addition steps back for a porch with an Italianate railing. The proposed work follows the impervious paving requirements (maximum of 30% of a lot may be impervious). The homeowner will maintain the remaining trees onsite. The proposed additional will maintain the character ofthis lot with a seamless integration with the existing home's style and floor plan. Please reach out with additional questions about the proposed work. Kind Regards Katie Kangas, AIA, MN Archit of Pasque Architecture, LLC (On behalf of Homeowners, Michael & Nicole Willenbring) Pasque Architecture, LLC Page i of Printed 4/22/2o22 Y a 0 2 0 N I 0 0 N 3 0 Q 3 ro Q) C E 0 0 0 6/8/2022 6:59:15 AM 0 NORTHWEST PERSPECTIVE OF PROPOSED ADDITION EXISTING RESIDENCE PROPOSED ADDITION SOUTH HILL ADDITION SCHEMATIC PRICING SET - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TEAM OWNER: ARCHITECT: NICOLE & MICHAEL WILLENBRING 1204 4TH AVE. S STILLWATER, MN 55082 PASQUE ARCHITECTURE, LLC KATIE KANGAS, AIA 5592 SCHUTTA ROAD SHOREVIEW, MN 55126 PROJECT NAME: SOUTH HILL ADDITION ADDRESS: 1204 4TH AVE. S., STILLWATER, MN 55082 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: REQUESTING VARIANCE TO ALIGN EXTERIOR OF PROPOSED TWO-STORY ADDITION WITH EXISTING MUDROOM (WHICH RECEIVED A VARIANCE IN 2015). PROPOSED WORK INCLUDES: DEMO OF DETACHED GARAGE AND 2 TREES. PROPOSED TWO-STORY ADDITION INCLUDES ATTACHED GARAGE TO THE WEST SIDE (REAR) OF THE EXISTING HOME. PROPOSING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY TO REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT. DRIVEWAY TO CONNECT WITH EXISTING CURB CUTS FROM BURLINGTON STREET EAST. CURRENT RESIDENCE HAS 3 BEDROOMS AND 2 BATHS. AFTER THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS INSTALLED, THE RESIDENCE WILL HAVE A TOTAL OF 4 BEDROOMS AND 2.5 BATHS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: HERSEY STAPLES AND CO'S ADD TO STILLWATER Lot 1 & 2, Block 8, SubdivisionCd 09850 ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION: PREVIOUS ADDITIONS / VARIANCE: PARCEL NUMBER: IMPERVIOUS AREA: EXISTING: TOTAL PROPOSED: TOTAL LOT: RESIDENCE 1,161 SF 1,761 SF 13,410 SF ELEVATION OF RESIDENCE: TOTAL EXISTING ELEVATION: TOTAL PROPOSED ELEVATION: 1880 2015 34.030.20.23.0030 PAVING/GARAGE TOTAL 2,006 SF 3,167 SF 2,240 SF 4,001 SF 29.8% IMPERVIOUS (30% MAX) 2,170 SF (350 SF TO BE DEMO'D) 16% DEMO OF ELEVATIONS 3,151 SF 1 III I II IIIIIII III II 1 IIIII1 IN II 1 III I IOW illYIII 11 u 1 iill - I[IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII II IIIII II IIIIIII rip rill_, II�III III mil ma OLOCATION MAP NTS PROJECT LOCATION (1204 4TH AVE. S.) NORTH NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SOUTH HILL ADDITION VARIANCE APPLICATION - REV. 1 KATIE KANGAS, AIA z 0 cc © Pasque Architecture LLC 12044TH AVE. S., STILLWATER, MN 55082 PROJECT INFORMATION . & M. Willenbring C:\Users\ktkng\Documents\Revit Backup Local\22005_South Hill Addition_A21_katie-kangas.rvt 6/8/2022 6:59:21 AM ODEMO EXIST. GARAGE NTS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (AS SHOWN ON WARRANTY DEED DOC. NO. 0266027) Lots 1 and 2, Block 8, Hersey, Staples and Co's Addition to Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota EASEMENT NOTES: 1. NO TITLE COMMITMENT OR TIRE OPINION WAS PROVIDED TO US THAT WOULD SHOW EASEMENTS AND ENCUMBRANCES EFFECTING THE PROPERTY SURVEYED. EASEMENTS MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN. AREA TOTAL AREA AS SHOWN = 13,410 SQ.FT. SURVEY NOTES: 1. BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED 2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER VISUAL OBSERVATION AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. 3. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES, GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. 4. DATE OF FIELD TOPOGRAPHY 3-24-2022. EXISTING IMPROVEMENT AREAS: HOUSE =1161 (IN SQUARE FEET) GARAGE =586 DECKS = 360 DRIVEWAY =158 CONCRETE =377 PATIO = 252 TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS = 2894 SQ.FT.- 21.6% (%OF OHW AREA) LEGEND: • ronAEMT E CONN�.�. o as [B oc ® O 0 w • 1▪ .01• 0- IOU ea. RAG P00 - 40 Va. M 1011. SOX • some POLE -0 ",w»000. w0 •0.• STOW ® MOM M.Nwu SURVEY INFO NTS -anv 000(00.0,00 CAM TV Cum MK. 000111101.0.01100( WILLENBERG RESIDENCE CONTACT Brian Posch Posch Builders LLC 651.269.2021 COUNTY/CITY: WASHI N GTO NJ COUNTY I TY O 1 STI LLWATE IZ REVISIONS DATE REVISION 3-24-2002 PRELIMINARY ISSUE CERTIFICATION: hereby cenify that Wit Plan was tannmydirettendsowanhra,lsthe laws othe state or Minnesota, PROJECT LOCATION: l Z O i- 4TH AVE_ S. PID#3403020230030 Suite 8200 1970 Northwestern Ave. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 dan(Pcssurvey .net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. FILE NAME SURVZZ285A PROJECT NO. ZZ12285A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY » » > X 859.7 > OU 859.0- - X 859.5 > 9.0 SET SPIKE 2.00"-1 FEET SOUTH OF LOT CORNER. FALLS IN TREE DEMO EXIST. GARAGE AND ASPHALT DRIVEWAY (790 SF IMPERVIOUS) i" ✓', 857.6- Y 111./' 26" to XX DEMOLITION SITE PLAN 0 X 858.3 > 858.0 FLOOR =858.05 GARAGE - -857.5 -557.5 BITUMINOUS SURFACE » » BURLINGTON ST. s?e 858.0 DEMO 2 TREES X 857.5 DEMO SIDEWALK Nh X 857.2 X857.7 S� 20"TRPL ‚16 I8"DBL DEMO EXIST. DECK " AND SIDEWALK " (400 SF IMPERVIOUS) 16"DBL -857.0 856.9 1" = 20'-011 X856.1 856.3 X856.I 55" 856.4X 856.6- X8 6.1 X855.9 X 855.8 X 856.0 CO 4856.7 855.6-- X 856.3 855.9-- 20" X 855.4 26" MB 6.0 5 11.2 - J II 855.6-, X 855.8 X 856.8 > 856.3- , X 857.2 08^ 6 -FLOOR =858.03 E -857.1 ISTING HOUSE l////////A 856.6 DECK Ia X 856.2 X856.1 6.0 X 855.6 X855.3 855.5 v 55.3 855.6 132.99 S89°5621"W (132.00 PLAT) z55.8 / EXISTING HOUSE X 855.6 855.9 40' 855.3 NORTH 0 co OU > 854.1 - --854.5 OU X 854.5 A A A A A A A A A A »I- 10' 20' 40' SOUTH HILL ADDITION VARIANCE APPLICATION - REV. 1 0 W -2 DEMO SITE PLAN © Pasque Architecture LLC . & M. Willenbring c Y Y tti .o x y 5 0 N 0 0. 5 m E 5 O 0 0 Y 6/8/2022 6:59:25 AM - » » > X 859.7 > PROPERTY LINE 0U X 559.5 59.0 O0 859 SET SPIKE 2.00 FEET SOUTH OF LOT CORNER. FALLS IN TREE 1,520 SF PROPOSED CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PROPOSED BASKETBALL HOOP 7� > 857.6- tj 252 SF EXIST. PATIO 26" X N n ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 1" = 20'-0" r856.9 > 16"DBL X858.3 > PROP0SED REAR SET$ACK'. 16" 4 X856.1 8"DBL 856. 56.1 L BITUMINOUS SURFACE » » URL/NGTON ST. > > > » » > y� > 856.3-� X 856.8 > L.) X857.5 w OU Q vi ou (132.00 PLAT) 0~ N89°56 21"E X857.2 o wz mho 132.49 857.0 857.0 857.7 S h5. - PRINT) / 8"U 140 SF SIDEWALK 0h6 3 X856.1 \ 856.3 I OG 6T `tio \ --j<855.8 55" X 856.0 856.4X 856.6- X855.9 1- a N 0 0 X 857.2 X 855.6 X 855.3 855.5 855.6 r -857.1 1,161 SF (FOOTP NT) EXIS NG RESIDENCE J66 X 856.3 556.7 228 SF WOOD DECK X 856.2 > » » X856.1 25" 855.9-- 56.0 TOTAL LOT: 13,410 SF 855.6-- 20" X 855.4 > > » » X855.I 1/2' ETBACK 82 SF E IST. W DOD POR : 12C SF E IS :s6.o EW LK AX 855.8 132. 49 S89°56 ' 21"W 855.8 XS 6.1 X855.8 (132.00 PLAT) - 055.8 555.9 132'-6"�������/A/��������������������� X 855.6 40"7i 55.3 855.3 -855.2 > 854.4 oU -554.1 -854.5 oU X 854.5 6_ ii/\ A A A A A A > SITE PLAN LEGEND NORTH EXISTING RESIDENCE (1,161 SF) PROPOSED ADDITION (676 SF) EXISTING PAVING TO REMAIN (272 SF) PROPOSED PAVING (1,660 SF) EXISTING DECK / PORCH (310 SF) 10' 20' 40' -3 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 2/-6 C:\Users\ktkng\Documents\Revit Backup Local\22005_South Hill Addition_A21_katie-kangas.rvt 6/8/2022 6:59:27 AM OMAIN LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" UPPER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 26' - 0" 46' - 3 1/2" PROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE 25' - 4 3/4 PROPOSED ATTACHED TWO -CAR GARAGE PROPOSED 'SIDEWALK ' L 25'-43/4" J REPLACE EXIST. DECK IN SIZE & KIND (WOOD) 4/-6 19'-9" 18'-9" 2/-6 EXISTING RESIDENCE 28' -1 3/4" 3' - 61 /4" PROPOSED ADDITION 22'-53/4" L J LJ L J EXISTING RESIDENCE 41-6 EXISTING RESIDENCE 1= �e EXIST. SIDEWALK o 16'-0" z ON 1=1 N L.) cc . z O a vi V z Lu o LL 0 z SOUTH HILL ADDITION VARIANCE APPLICATION - REV. 1 FLOOR PLANS © Pasque Architecture LLC . & M. Willenbring LiO ro 6/8/2022 6:59:39 AM OELEVATION - EAST NTS OELEVATION - WEST NTS OELEVATION - NORTH NTS ELEVATION - SOUTH NTS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SOUTH HILL ADDITION VARIANCE APPLICATION - REV. 1 KATIE KANGAS, AIA 1- v u, vce Z 0 LU ce EXISTING ELEVATIONS C Pasque Architecture LLC 12044TH AVE. S., STILLWATER, MN 55082 . & M. Willenbring C:\Users\ktkng\Documents\Revit Backup Local\22005_South Hill Addition_A21_katie-kangas.rvt 6/8/2022 6:59:44 AM UO WUWU OUOOHO LU 0 1 EAST ELEVATION (4TH AVE S. - FRONT) 1/8" = 1'-0" PROPOSED DECK WITH ITALIANATE DETAILING uuuuuu a uu i-• -• uuuu uuuuu uuuuuuuu Hu uuuuu a uuuu MIVINNINNIMIVINNINNIMMINNINHIVINNINNUM PROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE ADDITION WEST ELEVATION (REAR YARD) 1/8" = NEW WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING DOUBLE HUNG IN STYLE & PROPORTION MATCH EXIST. BRACKETS & ITALIANATE TRIM DETAILS MATCH EXISTING RESIDENCE MATERIALS: WOOD LAP SIDING, TRIM, AND ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF ONORTH ELEVATION (BURLINGTON ST. E - SIDE) 1/8" = 1'-0" 00000�� UWI0000 0O 0W0W 0000 0 oo HUH INMINO rrrer 000000000 Olio 00000000000000 000 0000000NHNNIIIIIHNHHHHNNIIIIIHNN or 26' - 1 1/2" PROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE ADDITION SOUTH ELEVATION (SIDE YARD) 1/8" = 1-0" 46' - 3 1/2" EXISTING RESIDENCE ADD WINDOWS MATCH STYLE OF SOUTH ELEVATION WINDOWS (COLONIAL DOUBLE HUNG AND CASEMENTS) EXISTING RESIDENCE 0 WOM 00 �MIR 26'-71/2" TWO STORY ATTACHED GARAGE ADDITION ' 2'-0" 4'-0" 8'-0" 16'-0" ELEVATIONS C:\Users\ktkng\Documents\Revit Backup Local\22005_South Hill Addition_A21_katie-kangas.rvt 6/8/2022 6:59:48 AM NORTHEAST CORNER SOUTH ELEVATION IIIII VIII I, I1 PROPOSED ADDITION r'illl Iull �+l!li'Iilljl �Mnll Ili II�IfllIll 11 lih�l II�II EXIST. MUDROOM SETBACK EXIST. RESIDENCE EXIST. RESIDENCE PROPOSED ADDITION TO ALIGN WITH EXIST. MUDROOM SETBACK SOUTH HILL ADDITION VARIANCE APPLICATION - REV. 1 2 0 w -7 3D VIEWS © Pasque Architecture LLC . & M. Willenbring 11 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSER 'I:ON OVERLAY DISTRICT (NCD) bESIGN 1 GU ill I I ES • 5.7 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT Stillwater's Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCD) was established in 2013 to preserve the unique character of Stillwater's historic residential neighborhoods. The City of Stillwater encourages the conservation of historic houses by providing guidance on the design of new infill development and additions resulting from a partial demolition. Unnecessary demolition of structures that contribute to the district's historic character is discouraged (Figure 5). Such conservation Districts have been successfully adopted in many cities and assist in preserving historic and architectural character and contribute to neighborhood participation and investment. Section 31-405 of the Stillwater City Code notes: The neighborhood conservation overlay district is established to protect and preserve the unique character of Stillwater's residential neighborhoods by regulating new infill development and partial demolition within the district. Its purpose is to conserve traditional neighborhood character, guide future infill and partial demolition development within the district, and discourage unnecessary demolition of structures that contribute to the district's historic character. It also preserves neighborhood pride, property values, a diverse and affordable range of homes, and the general economic vitality of the neighborhood The NCD is comprised of some of Stillwater's earliest neighborhoods, including North Hill and South Hill. These and seven other neighborhoods developed from the late 19th- through the mid- 20th century. They were the subject of inventories and studies conducted by the HPC between 1995 and 2005 (Figure 5). Houses within the NCD especially reflect the decades of economic and population growth related to the lumber industry and manufacturing. The housing stock includes simple vernacular houses located on small lots as well as large, late 19th- and early-20th century houses that occupy large parcels. Many blocks within the NCD offer views of the Saint Croix River. Many houses have open porches, mature landscapes, and streets that follow the topographical contour of the hillsides and ravines. During the first decades of Stillwater's settlement, most commercial, industrial and residential construction took place along or near the riverfront. House builders soon chose lots leading up the steep streets and along the ravines of Stillwater's topographical bowl, and erected large, stylish houses as well as a great range of houses intended for people in many occupations. Stillwater is associated with its impressive "lumber baron mansions," but the diverse collection of smaller Greek Revival, Italianate, and Queen Anne style houses as well as many vernacular examples deserve equal attention when evaluating the impact of nearby new infill construction or additions. Chapter 3 reviews the range of architectural styles typical of Stillwater's neighborhoods. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 57 5.7.1 NCD Design Review The HPC reviews Design Permit applications in the NCD prior to issuance of a building permit for new construction, including additions to existing buildings that have required a Demolition Permit. (See Chapter 4 for information about the Design Permit process.) Guidelines for new construction projects in the NCD are intended to conserve the character of the buildings and emphasize setback, height, size and scale, massing, and the overall relationship to the streetscape and neighborhood. Historic features such as windows, porches and trim are a general part of the discussion, but the guidelines do not include review for alterations to these building components. The NCD guideline authors noted, "Many of the design guidelines are based on the simple goal of helping a new infill project be a good neighbor to adjacent existing houses and neighborhood." Exterior alterations to properties located in most of the NCD do not require a Design Permit. However, exterior alterations to properties located in the portion of the NCD that overlaps the Downtown Design Review District do require a Design Permit (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). Depending on building type, Downtown Design Review District or Historic Residential Guidelines apply to those properties. Proposed alterations to features such as porches, windows, siding, and decorative trim are reviewed through the Design Permit process. (See Figure 3). The following NCD guidelines are organized in four sections: Neighborhood and Streets, Building and Site, Architectural Details, and Good Neighbor Considerations. The area included in the NCD reflects the growth of the city between 1843 and 1914, with a number of houses constructed after that period. Chapter 2 of the Manual provides an overview of Stillwater's development and historic building and landscape resources. Chapter 3 provides information about building types and style features and is useful in project planning. The Classical Revival style porch of the Huntoon House, 522 S. 6th Street, in 1925. MNHS/Runk. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 58 Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCD) 0 0.13 0.25 0.5 Miles Author: HI(Gi July 30, 2021 Figure 5. Neighborhood Conservation District Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 59 5.8 NEIGHBORHOODS AND STREETS 5.8.1 Massing and scale of a new building should be compatible with neighboring structures. The massing and scale of new buildings should follow the predominant pattern of the neighborhood. Special consideration should be given to adjacent structures, especially if they are consistent with the overall pattern of the neighborhood. A well -designed building and site exhibits a proportional relationship to adjoining properties and maintains the rhythm and scale of the streetscape by using compatible massing, proportions and details. Although base zoning districts often allow greater mass and scale, the scale and volume of the new building should respect its context and that of adjacent buildings and not stand out due to inappropriate size. Infill designs should address the size, height, and scale of buildings on neighboring lots and the overall streetscape. 5.8.2 Respect the existing rhythm of the streetscape. New infill construction should attempt to maintain the existing overall pattern and rhythm of the streetscape. Uniform narrow lots naturally set up a strong rhythm on the street front, and design features of new construction should relate to that rhythm. Building massing, scale and orientation, roof forms, porches, building setbacks, garage and driveway locations, and landscaping should be carefully considered because they all contribute to the new structure's compatibility with the existing pattern and rhythm of the streetscape. '` 2 Follow alignment and setbacks predominant on the street and adjacent properties. One important component of street rhythm is the building -front alignment and setback from the street and boulevard. The building -front alignment and setback should be carefully planned to ensure integration with the surrounding streetscape. Varying lot sizes, corner lots, and other considerations should be examined on a case -by -case basis to determine where, and to what degree, variations from setbacks are appropriate. In most cases, relating to the predominant alignment is appropriate, even if some existing structures may deviate from it. New construction should relate to the overall massing, rhythm, setback, and sideyard spacing of the block. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 60 Appropriate infill: Roof forms, height, and detail are compatible. 5.8.4 Design new roofs to be compatible with forms of existing roofs in the neighborhood. The perception of scale, massing and the rhythm of building is greatly affected by its roof form and height. Although a variety of roof forms may be evident along several blocks, the new building's roof should appear compatible in scale, pitch, orientation and complexity to those surrounding it. Oversized roof forms should be avoided. If the infill building is larger than those nearby, massing should be adjusted to allow the larger roof forms to be more articulated and broken down into smaller, well -scaled components. 5.8.5 Building height should be considered in choosing roof forms, architectural style, and relating to the neighborhood context. Building height alone is not adequate in considering the relationship of adjacent structures. Two buildings of the same height can be perceived quite differently in terms of scale and compatibility, depending on the overall massing of the building, its articulation and its roof forms. Inappropriate infill: Roof forms are not compatible; large unbroken roof slope out of scale with neighboring buildings. Depending on site and surrounding neighborhood context, certain architectural styles are more appropriate than others. Consider the pitch, slope and orientation of a primary gables, and the use of hip roofs, in adjusting the apparent building volume, mass, and height, to be appropriate to surrounding building style and context. Consider introducing projecting elements, roof forms, shed roofs, dormers and gables, as appropriate. 5.9 BUILDING AND SITE In Stillwater neighborhoods, many parcels have sloped or irregular topography, and existing mature trees. Building and site design should respond to and be influenced by natural features, adapting the building to the land rather than the land to the building. 5.9.1 Building and site design should respond to natural features. Locate building forms on the site to work with existing significant trees, slopes, and other natural features. Choose locations for walks, driveways and garages that will minimize site disruption and erosion or damage to nearby or adjacent root systems. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 61 Appropriate: Adjust the building design to respect existing vegetation and slope. 5.9.2 Respect the site's natural grades in new building design: minimize cut, fill and retaining walls. When possible, locate structures to follow the natural contours of the property. Organize the building's massing for orientation with existing grades rather than creating an artificially flat building pad with abrupt retaining walls. See city slope conservation regulations in the Stillwater City Code for restrictions on slopes greater than 24%. 5.9.3 When retaining walls are necessary, minimize their impact. Design of retaining walls should minimize grade change by creating gradual steps or tiers. Select the form and material of new walls to be compatible with existing walls in the neighborhood, especially where visually prominent (such as along the boulevard and street frontage). Use landscaping to soften and minimize visual impact. 5.9.4 Preserve significant trees. Building design and siting should consider existing trees on site and those immediately adjacent. Site carefully around the tree canopy and root zone, and avoid excessive removal of topsoil from building site. Choose permeable materials for paths and driveways in sensitive areas of the root zone. 5.9.5 Locate the garage and driveway to respect existing street and neighborhood patterns. Garage design should be properly scaled and sited relative to the primary structure. Because of the impact garage location has and building massing, refer to existing garage/building/site relationships in new building design. on streetscape neighborhood infill site and Appropriate: Recessed garage is minimized, emphasizing house facade and street frontage. 5.9.6 Minimize garage impact on new structure massing and street front. Design the garage to set back and defer to the main building massing. Consider tandem garages, or side -loaded or backyard garages where site permits. Avoid oversized garages that dominate the site and street frontage on narrower lots. Use dormers, windows and other design elements to help break up blank garage roof forms or walls. Single garage doors are preferred over double garage doors. Minimize the total area devoted to driveway paving. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 62 Inappropriate: Garage -dominated "snout" house. 5.9.7 The size and mass of the structure should be compatible with the size of the property. Consider the open space around a structure, and how it relates to the pattern of the neighborhood. 5.9.8 Consider front porch elements in the design of infill structures. New infill structures should reflect the pattern of the neighborhood and adjacent structures with respect to porch elements and design. Many porch types, including full-length and wraparound, are found on District houses. Porches provide a transition from the public street to the private space of the building. Appropriate: Building footprint maintains scale and pattern of surrounding block and streetscape. Inappropriate: Oversized footprint of building ignores scale and pattern of neighborhood and neighbors' open spaces. 5.9.9 Accessory buildings should be compatible with the main building. Accessory buildings (including garages) should strongly relate to the main building design, including roof pitch, windows, trim details and materials. This relationship increases in importance with the visibility of the accessory building from the street. Accessory buildings should reflect the scale and overall design of the main building. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 63 5.9.10 Design and detail new construction as four-sided architecture, where the building's style, design and detail is consistent on all sides, not just the front facade. New design should exhibit character that is consistent with the existing four-sided design in the neighborhood. Roof forms, location and style of window openings, siding materials and texture, trim and detailing all play a role in creating consistent, complete design. The top example shows window and trim details that are consistent on all sides, but the example below lacks such architectural features. 5.10 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS In addition to designing for compatible massing, setback, and height, the appropriate use of materials, architectural details, color and lighting can also help the new structure fit into the neighborhood. The example at right has poorly chosen window, entry and roof details for its setting next to a traditional house. 5.10.1 The building facade should be compatible in scale and character to the houses of the surrounding streetscape. Window and door placement, proportions, and size can affect a building's compatibility with adjacent structures. If the houses on the street tend to have a consistent vertical or horizontal emphasis in their facade elements, this should be incorporated in the new design. 5.10.2 Building elements should be proportional to the scale and style of the building, and its context. Building facades should provide visual interest and a sense of human scale. Door and window proportions should relate to the style of the building, and facade design and detail should be consistent in all elevations of the structure. Tall narrow window openings are appropriate with some traditional styles of architecture, while larger openings may fit more contemporary styles. Avoid large area of blank walls, disproportionate gables sizes or shapes, minimal detailing. Features such as bay windows, bump -outs, dormers, and masonry chimneys can help add detail and enliven facades. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 64 5.10.3 Use architectural details to create visual interest. Use architectural features such as columns, brackets, rails, window, door and corner trim, water table and horizontal banding, and frieze and fascia boards to be generally compatible with adjacent structures. In new building design, consider appropriate materials, textures and colors, and their relationship to other buildings of the neighborhood. Building materials should relate to prevailing materials of the streetscape to unify old and new structures of the neighborhood. Traditional materials may include wood, stucco, stone, brick, and shingle siding. The use of natural materials —wood, stone, brick, stucco —rather that simulated, is preferred. If fiber -cement products are used, they should be of the same depth, character and detail as surrounding buildings. Color, although a matter of personal choice, should complement the structure and streetscape. For traditional styles, consider historic color palettes, often of three or more colors. In considering materials, study the details and textures typical of surrounding houses. 5.10.5 Use masonry and stone authentically. Masonry and stone materials, especially thin veneer types, should be used carefully, and in an authentic way. Their primary use as a foundation element relates well to the traditional use of local limestone and brick in historic Stillwater structures. When masonry and stone are used as cladding for wall elements, care should be taken to define building mass elements with it, typically terminating it at inside corners. 5.11 GOOD NEIGHBOR CONSIDERATIONS Many of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Guidelines are based on the goal of helping a new infill project be a "good neighbor" to the adjacent existing houses and neighborhood. In addition to visual design compatibility, other considerations should be addressed, including maintaining privacy, access to views, light and air, and drainage issues. 5.11.1 Locate taller portions of buildings so as to minimize obstruction of sunlight to adjacent yards and rooms. Inappropriate infill:• Tall building mass may obstruct sunlight to adjacent lots. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 65 5.11.2 Consider views from neighboring properties when placing and sizing new building elements. 5.11.3 Windows, balconies and decks should be located to respect the private spaces of neighboring properties. 5.11.4 Consider using landscape elements and fences to buffer views and maintain privacy between properties. 5.11.5 Minimize the impact of exterior lighting on adjacent properties. 5.11.6 Use recessed downlight fixtures or shields. Avoid floodlights and non - shielded point source lights. Use motion sensors and timers to control fixtures. 5.11.7 Design grading and impervious surface drainage to minimize water run-off impact on neighboring properties. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 66 I11war THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: June 7, 2022 TO: Honorable HPC Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: CD Case No. 2022-40: Request for Design Permit for Storefront Painting at 120 Main St S; Case of Scandinavian North BACKGROUND The Subject Property is located within the following Zoning Districts. • CBD: Central Business District (Primary/Underlying Zoning District) • Downtown Stillwater Historic District (NRHP: National Registry of Historic Places) — Contributing Building • Downtown Design Review District Scandinavian North (Applicant) is represented by Martin Hallkvist. LDL Company (Property Owner) is represented by Michael J. Lynskey, Sr. of Lynskey Clark. REQUEST The Applicant is requesting a Design Permit to change existing paint color on the wood accents on the Subject Property to better match their brand colors. Specifically, they would like to paint the wood white. FINDINGS The City's design guidelines for alterations in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District encourage retention and repair over replacement. The applicant's proposal does accomplish this task in part by preserving the existing wood as opposed to replacing with a new material. However, the HPC should discuss the appropriateness of the proposed color palette. The city's adopted guidelines suggest building color should be compatible with historic materials, building type and style, and the surrounding area context. Little is known about the specific colors within the downtown area. In the past the Heritage Preservation Commission has encouraged dark, muted tones. However, this recommendation is not codified nor a part of the adopted guidelines. A review of historical photos appears to indicate, at minimum, that the color scheme of this building (and its wood accents) are darker, muted colors as opposed to a bright white accent. The building is flanked on both sides by storefronts where transom windows have been covered by, or replaced with, wood panels. Thus, this series of storefronts contain significantly more painting than many of the traditional storefronts along Main Street. The current condition does make these storefronts stand out a little more than other buildings within the vicinity. The building's existing color scheme contains three (3) different colors (green, brown and beige). The applicant is proposing to paint the wood accent white. The Applicant references the business at 114 Main St N as a peer example of the use of white accents. The most recent Design Permit for storefront improvements for this building (114 Main St N), consistent with current conditions, was in 2011. Design Permit No. 2011-12 approved the replacement of the storefront with white accents. Prior to that, the City approved Design Permit No. 1995-19 that included painting of the storefront brick. Unfortunately, the case file (at least the legible portions) did not specify a specific color. In this example, the wood accent is less pronounced due to a small scope and scale/percentage of the overall facade. Additionally, the HPC recently approved a Design Permit for storefront painting adjacent to 120 Main St S (Subject Property). In that example, the HPC requested a less -bright, muted version of the colors proposed. To assist visualize these examples, sample photos are attached to this report. Finally, the Application also includes a request for tenant signage. With a recent ordinance amendment, these single -tenant signs may be approved administratively (Staff has typically noted to the HPC which signs have been approved administratively). However, with a recent request for 223 Main St S that also included requests for storefront improvements along with the request for signage, the HPC noted that signage should be considered as part of larger storefront improvements as part of a more comprehensive view. The HPC should provide direction on signage as part of this review. The HPC has the following alternatives to consider. 1. Approve as presented, with the following conditions a. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department and on file with CD Case No. 2022-40. b. 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. 2. Approve as amended (based on discussion) 3. Deny a. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Downtown Design Review District standards, then the Commission may deny the request. With a denial, the basis of action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial with prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a similar application for one year. 4. Table for further information RECOMMENDATION Given Design Guideline Direction and past precedent/approvals, Staff is seeking direction from the HPC before finalizing a Staff Recommendation. That being said, past records indicate some degree in flexibility in colors so long as the colors are muted and blend with the surrounding context. At minimum, Staff would recommend introducing a second color to be more consistent with the surrounding examples, which will also make the wood accent areas less pronounced. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve/deny/table (choose action) the Design Permit for 120 Main St S. Exhibit A Historical Photos circa 1905 1990s Era Photos Exhibit B Area Comparisons 114 Main St N 126 Main St S (Recent Adjacent Example) Other Examples (Generally — not specific to brighter color requests) .STII.f,WATER OLIVE OII. CD SCANDINAVIAN .N°RTH 120 Main St. S Stillwater, MN 55082 651-202-5024 martin@scandinaviannorth.com To the Heritage Preservation Commission and Community Development Department; We would like to paint our storefront white. It is currently green, brown and beige, which does not match the theme of our store or our company colors. Our 3 closest neighbors all have their own designs on their storefronts to match their company themes, and we would like to do that too. Our store -theme is clean/simple/bright, so we would like to paint the storefront white. We will not touch the stonework, just the treated panels between the windows and the stone (what is currently green, brown and beige). We would like to leave the trim around the windows black and extend the black down towards the sidewalk (underneath the windows). We intend to leave the texture of the paneling as is, and just paint it white (similar white as the store Brick & Linen across from the gas station). Our sign will be a horizontal metal sign with vinyl graphics. The sign will be mounted 2ft just south of the entrance. Mounted on a textured metal bracket, extending out 3 ft. Height of sign will be 2ft. Sign will be mounted 12 ft above sidewalk. Colors of our sign is: White background, black text. And then the colors of the scandinavian flags (Red, White, Blue, Yellow). Thank you for your consideration! Martin Hallkvist S;andinavian North 1 111111 11;1;1 iIl 11 11 -61,11h,rn iirk144.04!!!!•111,,!..,14;!'!•- • 6"""'':11411641 '011115o%; 11" • y1p3td11,1y10 "1 ., 0 11'411,1,i11 !4Id0a1 irr 4ItP%I4lfl or "6"ri,if111.111111110911, !Mr! 11 11 • 41111.41,1...ivr.•;,:41111 i:1-.1111,;111'-11•,111111,1i1i....i.:1 • 111RWM16411041014re" I illtiglilliiiiRr .!!ilili21 Pg!alliiii li i[! i !! !!!•.!1!(11•E'..!i: .1.'iiiii!!1: !1114.4!! li 1111.1i1E111111.:[:1111111.!LI !i,11' . 11 -..,,,,i,:r.::i: :::r.:::::, :,H,I.:.:::: IF -r,11 ..];i •. 11 FL I, , SlIbijHN „, mihr1J itt1111i11111 1141,...1:1' 21, IiJ 13404...xosz, 11 a fI r 1I ..., 41, ! - .1 1 1 id iiii iii4114: 1 ' 1 1..'!!!!!!!dild!i! i=utimronpui tIl!!r iii 111111111111HIPtilligr: JI: !. 10•:4. '• ••"-"r • 'di I 1: !! --,111.414d111112 ' r / I I 71 ::•ii,',91";11i 111111' •t) ae1 Aeiiit"0; 1, , ,,Iptr,vemr'ae.01 841r," 71.4 • Poo', :.1:4ir;,; ?of OAF .• MOP ffitei.;011M.. ille11142215110011.110,11.1111: it10161705. • — • : • ' 111()I AT N !.. P worrippourots, „111,1111,11,i,iiropoolim,00,0111 IIl-. 1!11 1,1i III i il • i I •I b11 P h:N19%,, .: , ] 1,lj. . .0 TA: ,y, :1, I, • 11. I . .r.v3. Ir.,.... ....P.:,,Tift... -.4.4).g. . F. 4Nril : i 7 MillithIMRS1141.1 ,iittith, I . d .01-1 ,[':11- 0.,:: • ;!! 1111 11111 1 1,,,, dP-4 .. 1. ih .5.,...... : '. .1 „, •11 : • : • ht.! Ajou • A'.1111,.,,i..:0"',1',[11.111,',1i 11'1111 10' 111,,,'; 114,1;1 Jo Vsill.C.111P110.1., .41 , 11. , „ Tom ' g 1;41,41LP. ,0340 1PIPil r 0',"7"':1110111k .:,4911tif ,1041#,PI '" diK401, ,WWWP" • IMO!! ORT.71to r - rgiam,kto mom . .1.441111 • 4,11041,10r1'. '1.1400 AW:fr.'"M*M'' 1.1tri [110;01iiv. rr.4 1.144Stfayykti 1. I i WFITTH T.401,1% L ,r u.110titt. 1, ii[ omit _ • 1ITnr s AN oR ITT h,414ki9 '0