Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2022-09-21 HPC Packet
iliwater THE HIGTHVECCE of MINMESOTA PLEASE NOTE: Heritage Preservation Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by attending the meeting in person at City Hall, 216 4th St N, or by logging into https://stillwater-mn.zoomgov.com/j/1600977928 or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 160 097 7928 AGENDA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING September 21st, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of August 17th, 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. VI. PUBLIC HEARING VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 2. Case No. 2022-19: Consider Conditional Use Permit for Myrtle Street Apartments at 107 3rd St S; Case of Landucci Homes. 3. Case No. 2022-60: Consider Design Approval for New Single -Family Dwelling at 109 Martha St N (formerly 516 Myrtle St W); Case of Lynn and Steve Thron. VIII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Case No. 2022-63: Consider Design Approval for 603 Broadway St S Garage Replacement in the Neighborhood Conservation District; Case of Todd and Anne Anderson. 2. Case No. 2022-66: Consider Design Approval for Food Truck at 204 Main St S, Case of The Good Egg Food Truck. 3. Case No. 2022-68: Pre -Application Review: Consider Concept Plan for 1001 Holcombe St W Demolition Permit and Infill Redevelopment; Case of Julie Bartkey. IX. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 4. Discuss 2022 HPC Awards X. FYI 5. Receive Update on 109 Pine St E XI. ADJOURNMENT i I I \ i's'Ater THE OIRTNPLACE OF NINNESOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING August 17, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Mino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Present: Commissioners Finwall, Holmes, Larson, Mino, Summers, Councilmember Junker Absent: Chairman Thueson, Commissioner Heimdahl Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill, Planning Manager Robinson ACTING CHAIR Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to appoint Commissioner Mino as Acting Chair. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2022-59: Design Permit for Window Replacement at 231 Myrtle St, No Neck Tony's Acting Chair Mino asked that Case No. 2022-59 be pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 2022-59: Design Permit for Window Replacement at 231 Myrtle St (underlying/parent address = 106 Main St S). No Neck Tony's Community Development Director Gladhill reviewed the case. The applicant is requesting a Design Permit to replace two existing windows with sliding windows with screens to improve airflow within the restaurant. The new windows will have the same layout, trim and color. Staff recommends approval with three findings and four conditions. Councilmember Junker noted that the business has live music inside which may be a consideration. Mr. Gladhill answered that noise is more of a Planning Commission and code enforcement issue and there are tools to resolve noise if it becomes an issue. Commissioner Larson asked Mr. Gladhill to describe which windows are to be open/screened and which ones are not, and Mr. Gladhill replied the middle two windows would be screened. Acting Chair Mino read a comment from Chair Thueson. He noted the absence of drawings in the packet and thought the design materials should become part of the record. Mr. Gladhill it is a vinyl slider and all the specs are on the invoice which is part of the record. The windows being replaced will look exactly as they do now except they will slide open. Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve Case No. 2022-59, Design Permit for window replacement at 231 Myrtle St, with the conditions and findings recommended by staff. All in favor. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of July 20, 2022 Regular Meeting Motion by Commissioner Summers, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve the minutes of the July 20, 2022 meeting. All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS continued Case No. 2020-27: Update on Design Permit Amendment for rooftop improvements at 223 Main St S, White Bear Ventures - Tabled in part from the May Meeting. Postponed at request of Owner at June Meeting. Postponed at request of the owner at July Meeting. Community Development Director Gladhill explained the case. Over the past several meetings, the HPC has reviewed recent improvements to this property outside the scope of HPC Design Approval. Throughout 2020 and 2021, the City through the HPC, Planning Commission and City Council denied a request to install a 4th story onto this building. Staff has issued a Compliance Letter/Notice of Violation regarding unapproved improvements and the applicant has been notified that future violations of the approved Design Permit will result in Administrative Citations. The City previously approved the elevator tower and its exterior materials (dark, muted standing seam metal). The Notice of Violation clarifies that any work on the rooftop moving forward is not authorized until the HPC considers the request for revision to the Design Permit. If the HPC does not approve the requested revisions, these improvements will need to be removed. Staff recommends that the HPC require that the glass fencing be relocated to the deck structure approximately one foot set back from the parapet wall. Per past practice and design guidelines, staff would not recommend allowing the glass wall to be affixed to the top of the parapet wall. Alternatively, if affixing to the deck structure is a structural concern, staff would recommend that the applicant affix the glass wall to the back of the parapet wall, not the top. This is consistent with a recent design approval for 227 Main St S, located adjacent to this property. Staff needs additional policy direction on the rooftop shed/private bar structure before formulating further recommendations. Councilmember Junker asked if there was any permit approved for the three -step-up raised deck, and Mr. Gladhill said it does not appear that City staff had the opportunity to review the raised deck. There was not a permit for the deck in this condition. A building permit would be required. Commissioner Holmes asked if there was a building permit for the enhancements to the existing shed or to the glass wall and Mr. Gladhill replied no. Commissioner Summers asked what building permits are in place. Mr. Gladhill replied that there was a permit for the elevator tower and City staff knew the deck would be coming but the timing and how it was constructed was a surprise. Permits were issued for the roof repair, the elevator tower, the third story renovation (for the owner -occupied unit), for 1st and 2nd floor remodel, and brick repair on back side of building. The two elements on top of the roof have deviated from plans. Rich Farrell, applicant, remarked this has been a three-year process involving more time spent in permitting than in construction and there is no intention of shortcutting. Right now the front face of the building is being done at more of a cost to satisfy the HPC. They would prefer the deck be lower but the way the construction is sloped, a step up is required per the City Building Inspector. With regard to the buildings on top, there were originally three: the old elevator structure, a new structure for the newer "old" elevator from the 40s or 50s which cannot be repurposed, and the storage building which is the accessory building. The elevator building that they believed could remain has all the plumbing and electrical so it would have been a major cost to repurpose. The intention was to put the elevator in a place that seemed more fitting for the building and not have to move the storage. Page 2 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 They did not understand that another permit would be required for the glass rail. They chose glass to make it more transparent. They would much prefer it to be lower and to be further back and are open to suggestions for doing so if the cost is reasonable. The deck was all done and they had to rip it all up because the contractor had not reinforced the roof while the whole third floor was gutted, so it probably cost $1 million to rip up the roof and get it right. Mr. Gladhill showed what was originally proposed and ultimately rejected by the City and the Commissions, compared to what is there today. Acting Chair Mino read comments from Chair Thueson voicing concern about whether the balcony railing will be reflective and detract from the building. He also would prefer the railing be moved back off the parapet wall. Councilmember Junker commended the applicants on their work to improve the building, but acknowledged the HPC's predicament: in November 2020 during COVID, when their contractor appeared by Zoom, the HPC clearly stated that the smaller building must be eliminated. He also was shocked to see the jumped-up deck and the building with windows and the garage door. Brenda Farrell, applicant, explained that the roof slopes significantly. The stepped -up design is needed in order to level off the roof and adhere to what City requires for 2 x 12 decking underneath. All they did with the roof was add two gables. They are willing to take a flat roof approach to match the current elevator and stairwell if required. Commissioner Finwall asked if elevation drawings of the utility shed were provided, and Mr. Gladhill replied there are no drawings, only photos. The accessory building has been converted into a private bar with wet bar, sink and beverage storage. Commissioner Larson said he appreciates all the work done on the building. In 2020 the HPC asked the applicants to minimize the impact of the rooftop improvements by removing additional structures, based on interpretation of the guidelines, not a personal opinion. Mr. Farrell pointed out the building was not added, so it was not an addition. Commissioner Larson responded that the agreement was that it would go away and not be there. With that agreement, the HPC agreed to the other work and extending of the stairwell. Mr. Farrell said if he had known someone would agree to that, he would have said to bring the existing elevator to code which would have resulted in a taller building in the front. They did subtract a building and not add a building. Commissioner Larson went on to state that the deck doesn't impact the view at all but the guardrail does. Had it come before the HPC, based on previous actions the HPC would have asked for it to be set back. If it started at the surface of the deck rather than several feet above it, that would be a more appropriate height to minimize impact on the historic appearance of the building. Mr. Farrell said he thinks the guardrail was on top of the parapet because someone was replacing the old one that was probably decrepit and putting this one in place of it. The code says 42" so they bought 42" glass. Mr. Gladhill said, looking at aerial photos of the original guardrail, it looks like the posts were on the back side of the parapet wall, not on top of the parapet wall. He added that City staff were prepared for a deck as part of the plan, but that is very different than securing a permit for the deck. Commissioner Summers voiced huge respect for the improvements the owners have made to the building, but some of the work violates the guidelines and that would have come to light had the permitting process been followed. Page 3 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 Commissioner Holmes agreed with other comments about the terrific investment that has been made but work must be done in accordance with guidelines. Commissioner Finwall suggested adding a condition of approval that the railing must be pulled back a couple feet. Acting Chair Mino asked for staff comment about the reflectivity of the glass railing, and Mr. Gladhill replied there are other glass railings downtown. He understands from the Building Official that tempered glass was not chosen so code requires some improvements and another layer of some sort of film to take the place of tempered glass. Staff can require that be anti -reflective at the building permit level. Commissioner Holmes said it is also important to require that the rail be removed from the top of the parapet to reduce visual impact from the river side. Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve the glass railing but direct the applicant to remove the glass railing from the top of the parapet wall and install it onto the deck structure or back of the parapet wall for structural integrity and limited visibility, with a condition about using non reflective material (Case No. 2020-27). All in favor. Commissioner Finwall commented that the one structure that was closest to the river has been removed and also the elevator shaft, which was going to be expanded, was reduced in size. She is not opposed to retaining the shed structure but would like to see the design. Mrs. Farrell responded it will be identical metal to match the elevator shaft, and Mr. Gladhill said that standing seam metal to match the elevator shaft could be a condition of approval. Commissioner Holmes agreed there has been a "win" with one of the buildings removed. Rather than asking the applicant to remove the other building when it is nearly ready to be used, he is inclined to support leaving it in place. Commissioner Summers recognized that sticking with the agreement may not be in the best interests of the building overall. He would support keeping the structure with the caveat that any construction that requires a permit shall pass Planning Commission approval and get all applicable permits. Commissioner Finwall asked to discuss dormers and lighting, and noted the staff report which says the City Attorney recommends not approving something conditionally without having the elevations. Mr. Gladhill stated the City Attorney's comment was that if there is going to be a major change to a proposal, she doesn't want the HPC redesigning plans on the fly. In this case, the Building Official will check the structural components. He is not sure plans are needed at this point. Motion by Commissioner Summers, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve the existing structure remaining on the rooftop at 223 Main St S, based on findings of staff and conditions that exist at this time, with the stipulation that any further development of the design or the aesthetic are in keeping with what staff would approve (Case No. 2020-27). Commissioner Finwall again asked to talk about dormers and lighting, and Mr. Gladhill provided a picture showing light fixtures and the roof gables. Mrs. Farrell said there are three light fixtures, all the same style. Commissioner Holmes asked if the gables increased the height of building, and Mrs. Farrell said no. Motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner Larson voting nay. Case No. 2022-40: Consider Request for Design Permit for 120 Main St S, Scandinavian North Page 4 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 Mr. Gladhill reviewed the staff report. This application was reviewed at the June 15, 2022 HPC Meeting, and tabled to further refine the proposal. The applicant is requesting a Design Permit to change existing paint color on the wood accents to a combination of black/slate grey and historically appropriate white. Based on HPC recommendations, the applicant has revised the proposal to a muted white, and provided multiple options for the HPC to consider. The applicant prefers Alternative #1. Staff recommends approval of the Design Permit with either Alternative #3 or #4 for the best balance of dark, muted colors and historically appropriate white, and that the primary white used be SW 7008 (Alabaster) with SW 7042 (Shoji White) as an accent on the internal panel. Councilmember Junker asked about signage, and Mr. Gladhill replied there will be a projecting hanging sign as seen at the last meeting. Commissioner Finwall recalled a recommendation from staff to use two slightly different white colors, and Mr. Gladhill said the applicant has done that and and would be OK with either of the white shades provided. Acting Chair Mino said she too understood that there would be some definition of the large white piece on the top so she would be in favor of two shades of white being used for the large piece on top. Mr. Gladhill summarized that the preference seems to be for lighter white outside the inset, and the texture/frame painted slightly darker white as proposed by the applicant. Martin Hallkvist. LDL Company, applicant, said changing daylight should make the white look like two different shades, but he is willing to use a combination of the two different whites, and the darker color to match the entrance to fill in the existing squares. Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Summers, to approve Case No. 2022-40, Design Permit for 120 Main St S, Alternative #3 with the white field painted Alabaster, the frames painted Shoji White, and the black trim painted Black of Night. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2022-19: Consider Request for Design Permit for Myrtle Street Apartments at 107 3rd St S, Landucci Homes Mr. Gladhill explained the application for this third major revision. The apartment building is now 21 units and three stories from the Third Street facade. The current proposal no longer includes the adjacent lot at 110 Myrtle St E; that parcel has been sold to another party. The lower level comes out at grade, exposing its facade to 100 Myrtle St. (the underground parking structure). The building has a brick veneer facade with darker standing seam metal. The original design permit was denied for massing, size and other issues. There are also parking issues which are not the purview of the HPC, and building height which the Planning Commission reviewed. The stepped -back penthouse units previously proposed have been removed; a rooftop deck is proposed. Most units have little decks which are architectural elements that encroach into setback areas. He showed the three proposed materials. A public hearing at the Planning Commission will be held next week. There have been no public comments to this point. Staff feels the HPC was close in providing design direction; five of the six conditions previously discussed by the HPC have been addressed. Councilmember Junker remarked it is a very basic, square brick building with metal trim, square or rectangular windows, and no other design elements, very non -historic for a downtown building. Nathan Landucci, applicant, said the biggest change is that they scaled it back. He is surprised it doesn't look historic because 95% of the facade is brick, which is what the HPC asked previously. The facade is easy to change. Balconies are proposed to create some interest, with very large windows and a mix of metal. This design is born out of previous HPC concerns. Page 5 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 Commissioner Larson remarked that the reduction in massing is what the HPC asked. The plan shows the minimum improvement required by code to service a roof deck which follows the intent of the guidelines. He agreed that it's a very straightforward, minimalist building. The downtown design guidelines mention windows being compatible with features of surrounding historic buildings. This building has no divided lights in the larger windows and that is something not seen downtown. Mr. Landucci replied a bar could be added to the bottoms of the larger windows to match the other windows that have a mullion at the bottom. Commissioner Summers stated that although the building is predominantly brick, historic brick is different than this design. Historically, even box -shaped factory buildings had added elements of interest. Small design elements could be added to give a nod to historic buildings. Mr. Landucci replied that he chose brick that was similar to the Crosby Hotel but the HPC suggested a more brownish brick and he made that change. He thought more brick would look more historic. Mr. Gladhill acknowledged if the HPC wishes to see divided windows, arched lintels, bottom windowsills, and maybe limestone accents, action can be postponed so the applicant can bring drawings showing those elements. Commissioner Finwall remarked the design guidelines mention recessed entries are appropriate for new construction, and Mr. Landucci replied the main entrance has a canopy over it with the logo on it. Commissioner Finwall stated there is zero green space, and Mr. Gladhill replied that is something the Planning Commission will wrestle with; there is a request for a variance to setbacks. Commissioner Holmes acknowledged this design does many things well, like the entries to some units activate to the street, and using all brick throughout. He would support breaking up the windows if possible, but the guidelines do not require that the applicant make the building look old. He suggested including some soldier coursing if possible along the parapets, and Mr. Landucci replied that architecturally it wouldn't add a lot of cost, but with the metal bridging between upper windows it doesn't make a cohesive design. Motion by Acting Chair Mino, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to table Case No. 2022-19, Design Permit for Myrtle Street Apartments at 107 3rd St S indicating support for the project and looking for additional design as discussed. Mr. Landucci asked for a summary of proposed design changes being requested, and Mr. Gladhill said: divided windows, limestone windowsill, and coursing as discussed for the parapet wall. Commissioner Larson said he didn't hear limestone sills; this building has metal panels underneath all the windows so putting in limestone sills would be a big difference. Some kind of limestone accent somewhere would be good as would the idea of further articulating the brick. He would like to see a rendering of the brick material to be used. All in favor. Case No. 2022-55: Consider Request for Design Permit for Facade Painting at 231 Main St S, Smith + Trade Mr. Gladhill explained that this is an after the fact application. The painting (storefront woodwork and brick window sill and painting on rear facade brick) has already been completed. Smith + Trade is expanding into the adjacent space (actually, their original space) with a home decor line to be known as Collaborations and has a Grand Opening August 20. The applicant is requesting a Design Permit to change existing paint color on the wood accents to white. Based on HPC recommendations, staff has encouraged the applicant to consider a muted, more historically appropriate hue of white per the Page 6 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 Design Guidelines. Staff recommends approval of painting of the woodwork, contingent upon HPC's final determination on appropriate shades/hues. Kelli Kaufer, applicant, explained the white they used is an historic white that is similar to the Alabaster White approved in the previous case. They feel it complements the two side buildings well. She noted the brick is not historic brick. When they acquired the building, the brick was caked with gum and they power washed and sanded but that did not remove the gum. Mina Carlson, applicant, added the color is called Dove White. She said they caulked the edges of the wood trim to prevent water issues and painted the wood trim to complement the natural brick. Commissioner Finwall asked about the possibility of the existence of transom windows as mentioned in the staff report. Mark Miller, property owner, said transom windows might be considered in the future but the business is now ready to have their grand opening. Motion by Commissioner Summers, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve Case No. 2022-55, Design Permit for Facade Painting at 231 Main St S. All in favor. Case No 2022-60: Consider Request for Design Permit for 536 Myrtle St W: Case of Thron home Mr. Gladhill stated that staff received a Building Permit application the week of August 8 and additional information was received this week. Staff has not had time needed to do a full review. This same applicant went through a series of applications with the Planning Commission and City Council in order to split the larger lot into two to create this new buildable lot. He showed elevation sketches, noting that there is a large retaining wall along Myrtle St. Architectural interest is added with deck and windows on upper and lower levels. Mike Koch, PMI Homes, said they are considering natural colors to coordinate with the existing retaining wall. The roof will be ash gray. Marvin Windows with black cladding will be used. Siding colors are not determined yet. The stone on the house will coordinate with the existing retaining wall. They are eager to proceed before winter. Acting Chair Mino remarked the double garage is the closest thing to the street. In the Neighborhood Conservation District, the preference is for the garage to be back from the front of the home. Also, an application for new construction usually includes photos of surrounding structures for context. Mr. Koch replied the garage will not be seen from Myrtle St but it will be seen from Martha St which will be the front of the home. Mr. Gladhill summarized that the HPC appears to need more time to analyze the surrounding environment, with color renderings, and clarification on the front yard setback. The Planning Commission may need to look at a potential variance for the garage location. Acting Chair Mino added that four sided design is also important - the renderings appear to have done a fairly good job but the north elevation may lack design elements. Commissioner Larson said the house would fit well in many locations but the Neighborhood Conservation District Guidelines require the massing of the house to be compatible with surrounding structures. Houses in this neighborhood are mostly 1.5 story with steep gables; this is a 1-story walkout hip which doesn't follow the predominant pattern of the neighborhood. It can be a modern house, it just needs to not stand out in its massing. He also noted the importance of four sided design. Mr. Koch said he worked through all the requirements with the previous City Planner whose direction was to avoid making it a plain, simple home, whether hip, gable, or shed roof were used, to bring Page 7 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 character to the home. He feels that was accomplished. Working through the setbacks with the garage was part of the discussion. Acting Chair Mino suggested the applicant review the Design Guidelines with staff and make modifications based on staff and HPC discussion. Commissioner Finwall commented it's a lovely home, but next to the old schoolhouse, a single story home seems out of place and the garage is the first thing you see. Steve Thron, property owner, responded that the garage is behind the six-plex that he owns - it is not as visible as it may look. It can't be seen from the north and its location is the only place possible for a driveway. Motion by Acting Chair Mino, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to table Case No 2022-60, Design Permit for 536 Myrtle St W. All in favor. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Discuss 2022 HPC Awards Mr. Gladhill invited suggestions for the HPC Awards which will be presented at one of the October City Council meetings. FYI Review Zoning, Parking and Design Review District Boundaries in the Downtown District and Discuss Options for Consolidation and Common Boundaries Mr. Gladhill noted that many different groups define downtown in many ways. Staff suggests having a future conversation about consolidating boundaries and making it easier to navigate City code. Case No. 2022-08: Review Compliance with HPC Design Approval at 126 Main St S and Discuss Enforcement Options; Case of Blue Sun Soda Shop According to the staff report, staff is awaiting a revised submittal and the item will be forwarded to the September Meeting. (There was no Commission discussion on this item.) Approve moving Regular Meetings to Second Wednesday of the month Per the staff report, due to tonight's lengthy agenda, this item will be postponed until September to gather feedback. (There was no Commission discussion on this item.) State Historic Preservation Conference Mr. Gladhill noted the 2022 Conference will be in Duluth September 14-16. He will re -forward information on the Conference to Commissioners and help facilitate attendance for those interested. Commissioner Requests Commissioner Finwall suggested it would be beneficial if the applicants were required to submit building materials or paint samples. Acting Chair Mino asked if there is a way to avoid last minute/incomplete packets making discussion of applications challenging. Commissioner Finwall suggested establishing a deadline when applicants must have all materials submitted in order to make a certain meeting date. Acting Chair Mino brought up expectations of last minute applicants. Clear direction is needed, in advance, as to what they might expect when they attend a meeting. Page 8 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting August 17, 2022 Commissioner Holmes added it is vital for staff to continue to be very clear as to what the process is so as to not discourage an applicant who thinks they have everything ready to go. Commissioner Larson said there used to be a checklist that was part of the application asking the applicant to describe exactly how their proposal meets each of the guidelines. Mr. Gladhill said that checklist is still used and staff will use it more formally. It is a source of confusion for many applicants. This applicant was aware they were way past deadline and the case might get tabled. He also noted these situations always seem to follow when the Planning Commission has a lot split. Staff reminds the property owners to get a design permit. Maybe for lots splits in the Neighborhood Conservation District, applicants should be required to submit at least one model that would meet guidelines in order to do the lot split. It may not be what they end up building but it would serve as a reminder of the process. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Summers, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m. Amy Mino, Acting Chair ATTEST: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director Page 9 of 9 illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: September 21, 2022 TO: Honorable HPC Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: CD Case No. 2022-19: Request for Design Permit for New Multifamily Housing Development (Myrtle Street Apartments) at 107 3rd St S; Case of Landucci Homes BACKGROUND Landucci Homes is proposing a 21-unit, 3-story (with rooftop deck) apartment at the intersection of Myrtle Street and 3rd Street. On August 17, 2022, the HPC tabled action on this request and directed additional design revisions to the proposed building as it relates to window sashes and windows as well as design of the parapet wall. Additionally, the Planning Commission denied all requested variances (Front and Rear Yard Setbacks) on August 24th. The Applicant has now again revised the proposed plans. It appears at this time that there are no Variances requested with the latest proposal (subject to final review by the City). This is the fourth major version of this proposed multifamily housing development by the same Developer since 2021. The Subject Property is located within the following Zoning Districts. • CBD: Central Business District (Primary/Underlying Zoning District) • Downtown Design Review District In an effort to focus on the current request, Staff has not included a full history of review in this report. A more detailed report on the history of this project can be found in the August 17, 2022 report to the HPC and August 24, 2022 report to the Planning Commission. REQUEST The Applicant is requesting HPC Design Approval to for infill development/new construction. FINDINGS Related to the Stillwater Design Guidelines, several concerns were originally expressed to the Applicant in terms of massing, height and rhythm of adjacent structures. At that time, the request also included a fourth story, which has since been removed. However, the proposal does include a rooftop patio as well as elevator and stair towers to access the rooftop. It does not have any residential units nor recreation rooms at this time. Additionally, the Applicant has made modifications to window sills, window lintels and parapet wall at the request of the HPC. The HPC has the following alternatives to consider. 1. Approve as presented, with the following conditions a. Findings i. The proposed building alteration or new construction, including its appurtenances, does not materially impair the architectural or historic integrity of the building and site, adjacent buildings and sites, or the neighborhood as a whole. ii. The proposed building or site alteration or new construction is compatible with, and will ensure continued significance and integrity of all properties within the historic district based on the period(s) of significance under which the district was designated. iii. 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. b. Conditions i. Plans shall be consistent with those included in this report. ii. 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 The following recommendation is solely based on architectural design elements and compliance with the Stillwater Design Guidelines. This recommendation is not based on parking needs nor compliance with setbacks. Staff's recommendation based on those Zoning Code Standards might appear different than this recommendation for Design Guideline Compliance. Generally speaking, Staff feels that the current proposal is much closer to compliance than previous iterations as it relates to compliance with the Stillwater Design Guidelines. Generally speaking, Staff would recommend approval of the Design Permit, with minor modifications as discussed/directed. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve/deny/table (choose action) the design for a multifamily housing development at 107 3rd St S. D L \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\fi v b D ° b D b v v v vD v v D b vp O D ° ✓ ° D D <i p Db v v Do p v b y D v ° D v v p D _,, ), ,. b ° • ® 0 b V D AC\i> D Dv D 9 8 DO ° D b D b v D ° tV v D by D v b v v p p v Dv LEGEND • 0 ry AC EM ET D FOUND MONUMENT 1 /2" IP MARKED RLS 15480 SET 1 /2" IRON PIPE MARKED RLS NO. 25718 CABLE TV PEDESTAL AIR CONDITIONER ELECTRIC MANHOLE ELECTRIC METER ELECTRIC PEDESTAL ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER LIGHT POLE GUY WIRE - POWER POLE GAS MANHOLE GAS METER • TELEPHONE MANHOLE T❑o TELEPHONE PEDESTAL co SANITARY CLEANOUT SANITARY MANHOLE CATCH BASIN STORM DRAIN 0 0 or 0 ® or ❑ v b D Lzq O O N co � CD IMB • X950.0 WATER VALVE BOLLARD FLAG POLE MAIL BOX TRAFFIC SIGN UNKNOWN MANHOLE SOIL BORING SPOT ELEVATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE FLARED END SECTION O STORM MANHOLE FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION HYDRANT CURB STOP WATER WELL WATER MANHOLE WATER METER POST INDICATOR VALVE OO 0 WM 728.2BW - 723.7E W - \ 1 FOUND JLM MARKED RLS 718 720 16141 Si. V N. 0.6 _ 4� UE UTV uF UT ou uG 1230 — D 747.4 - UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND CABLE TV UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE OVERHEAD UTILITY UNDERGROUND GAS SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FENCE CURB [TYPICAL] CONTOURS /////////////// BUILDING LINE BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE 3)(16°55' 29" E STONE/CONC. WALL 175.10 SAN MH RIM=746.7 INV=736.1 718 , g, \ r \\_- E"LY LINE •F THE W"LY c10.00 FEET OF LOTS 16, 15 & 14. NOTE: TOPOGRAPHY TAKEN FROM SURVEY DATED 1-23-1 3. NO ADDITIONAL SURVEYING TO DATE. 745.9 720 GRAVEL BLOCK WALL 734 CONC. WALL 73..8TW 742.9 - CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! Gopher State One CaII TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002 TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166 X 726.8 vD \ v —724.8 D --724.3 Dv -CATCH BASIN RIM=74 1.5 A SAN MH - A RIM=737.3 INV=724.9 STS MH - RIM=740.1 EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parcels A-D is as shown on Stewart Title Guaranty Company Issued by its Agent, Land Title, Inc. Title Commitment No. 545351, dated September 21 st, 2016. Parcel A West 90 feet of Lot 1 5, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel B: West 90 feet of Lot 14, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel C: The South 45 feet of the West 90 feet of Lot 16, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel D: The North 5 feet of the West 90 feet of Lot 16, Block 19, Original Town (now City) of Stillwater, Washington County, Minnesota. Abstract Property Parcel E Lot Two (2), Block One (1), SPGLI ADDITION, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, in and for the County of Washington and State of Minnesota. PER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 70740) Torrens Property Parcel F - legal description to be determined UNIT NO. ONE (1), COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY NO. 349, A CONDOMINIUM, SPGLI CONDOMINIUMS, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA. SUBJECT TO ENCUMBRANCES, LIENS AND INTERESTS NOTED ON CICCT NO. 70824. SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE MINNESOTA COMMON INTEREST OWNERSHIP ACT, MINNESOTA STATUTES 51 5B, AND ACTS AMENDATORY THEREOF. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 70833) Torrens Property 70833. THIS CITY OF STILLWATER OWNED PARCEL IS PART OF CIC 349, SPGLI CONDOMINIUMS WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE AMENDED FOR THE TRANSFER OF THIS PARCEL. REFER TO CIC DECLARATION DOCUMENTS IF A TRANSFER IS PERMISSIBLE. AREA: TOTAL AREA AS SHOWN = 25,286 SQ.FT PARCELS A-D = 1 3,674 SQ.FT. PARCEL E = 9,526 SQ.FT PARCEL F = 2,085 SQ.FT SURVEY NOTES: 1 . BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE. 2. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER GOPHER ONE LOCATES AND AS-BUILTS PLANS PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. 3. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED. 4. THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS EXISTING CONDITIONS DRAWING IS A COMPELLATION OF EXISTING SURVEY DATA AT VARIOUS TIMES. NO ADDITIONAL CURRENT SURVEYING HAS BEEN DONE SINCE 2008. THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. EASEMENT NOTES: The following exceptions appear on the Stewart Title Guaranty Company Issued by its Agent, Land Title, Inc. Title Commitment No. 545351, dated September 21 st, 2016 There are not survey related items shown on Schedule BII of said commitment. SUBJECT TO A WALL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT PER DOC. NO 1225824 (NOT SHOWN). EXISTING PARKING: THERE ARE 7 PARTIAL PARKING STALLS DESIGNATED ON THIS PARCEL INCLUDING 0 HANDICAP STALLS. 0 15 30 107 3RD ST. N. CONTACT: Nathan Landucci Landucci Homes, Inc. Ianduccihomes.com 651-894-2582 COUNTY/CITY: WASH 1 NGTON c i UIVTY CITY OF 5T1 LLWATER VICINITY MAP I- 0 z (NOT TO SCALE) ym m SITE---- s 1A,1R4`6 VICIN TY MAP SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 30 NORTH, RANGE 20 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA REVISIONS: DATE 11-13-17 2-26-21 REVISION INITIAL ISSUE ADDED PARCELS CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. n Number: 25718 PROJECT LOCATION: THIRD ST. N. PID#2003020420059 PID#2003020420060 PID#2003020420061 PID#2003020420169 11cI MYRTLE ST. E. PID#2803020420175 O O 2NID S. N. PID#2803020420176 1 Suite #200 1970 Northwestern Ave. Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone 651.275.8969 dan@cssurvey .net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC. FILE NAME PROJECT NO. SURVSTO4D ST04008D EXISTING CONDITIONS Lov„411 5l EXISTING HOUSE TO REMAIN REBUILD RETAINING WALL AS NEEDED REFER TO STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 1" = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" 107 3RD STREET NORTH, STILLWATER iyijSflte 3820 V - 24SG RS-+#1 / / RS- KN T HR O@3J +L M 44305 Office:612.615.0060 www.CivilSiteGroup.com SITE PLAN Project Number: Issue Date: 21043 08/26/2022 Revision Number: Revision Date: ciyil Suit.? 107 3RD STREET NORTH, STILLWATER 3820 V - 24SG RS-+#1/ / RS- KNT 0g)J +L M 44305 Office: 612.615.0060 www.CivilSiteGroup.com Project Number: Issue Date: 21043 08/26/2022 Revision Number: Revision Date: 1" = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" LANDSCAPE PLAN Architects mm -IN Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants 15'-0" 55'-0" L L L L L L LLLLLLLLLLLLLL L L LLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLL LLLLLL L L L L UT DOOR TRRACE_I l � LLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL STAIR LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLL 1111111111111 I o ro DECK EXISTING HOUSE TO REMAIN AL Proposed 21 Unit Apartment 107 3rd St. N Stillwater , MN FLOOR 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom Total FIRST FLOOR: 4 3 7 SECOND FLOOR: 3 4 7 THIRD FLOOR: 3 4 7 TOTAL: 10 11 21 PLAN NORTH / Scale: 3/32" =1'-0" Proposed Roof Plan A3.1: T.O. THIRD xxx T.O. SECOND xxx T.O. FIRST 100'-0" T.O. PARKING LEVEL 88'-8" n d1l11111li 111111 lri �IUM1111iU1111 imWmiiiiiliIlff lM1111111111111111llFUW111IM110111 l lliM11i111W 111111IItiIIIr IIIIuhIu 1 1 1 IIII 1 IIIIIIIIII 1111111111 JIM Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" Architects Proposed 21 Unit Apartment Exterior West Elevation PROJECT NO.. Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants 107 3rd St. N Stillwater , MN A4 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" Architects Proposed 21 Unit Apartment Exterior South Elevation PROJECT NO.. mm -IN Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants 107 3rd St. N Stillwater , MN A5 �1Tfififli iIffihlfill?ililliffifflti�lil Tiiillfl` i�l;i� iil illi i 11�Tllalilli i fii?ilTifCi 1 f� i f��•�fii��H JI' +:: b o.n. a;:u4,, i�lill� rrisae.: — cuE�.=�srsr. I I ter_ �i . rrih 1' rt -Pr,,' v rrp — •.• •- _� __ _ - Fr R i p l ' 1i4r 111- .III 11. 111.11E111 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" Architects Proposed 21 Unit Apartment Exterior East Elevation PROJECT NO.. Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants 107 3rd St. N Stillwater , MN A6 Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" Architects Proposed 21 Unit Apartment Exterior North Elevation Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants 107 3rd St. N Stillwater , MN A7 Z 1- 0 w 0 Brick Veneer Vertical Metal Panel Black Metal Panel and Parapet Architects Proposed 21 Unit Apartment Color/ Materials PROJECT NO.. mm -IN Commercial I Retail I Mixed Use Residential I Restaurants 107 3rd St. N Stillwater , MN A8 I11war THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: September 21, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: CD Case #2022-60 — (Thron Residence 109 Martha St N) New Home Design Permit BACKGROUND The HPC tabled action on this request at the August 17, 2022 Meeting. A key component of the initial review was the orientation and location of the attached garage. The Applicants propose to define the Myrtle Street fagade as the Front Yard and the Martha Street fa9ade as the Side Yard. The Applicant has made modifications to orient the Front Door to Myrtle Street; however, the garage, driveway and sidewalk are still to be oriented/accessed from Martha Street. The Applicant also attempted to added additional architectural finishes in an attempt to achieve four-sided architecture. The City recently approved a lot split of 516 Myrtle St W to facilitate the construction of a new single-family dwelling. This resulted in the creation of this new parcel, now known as 109 Martha St N. Subsequent to said approval, the Applicant is now applying for the required Design Approval from the HPC to facilitate the construction of a new home in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Zoning and Design District information: • RB: Two -Family District (underlying Zoning District) • Neighborhood Conservation District FINDINGS Related to the Stillwater Design Guidelines, the Neighborhood Conservation District guides this infill style of development/new construction. Generally speaking, this design review district requires high -quality design. The design guidelines allow for (and encourage) a more modern design, so long as said modern design is high quality (see Design Guidelines for more specifics on this standard). It is not the intent of the Design Guidelines to require new construction to match exact 1880s designs. The HPC has the following alternatives to consider. 1. Approve as presented, with the following conditions a. Findings i. The proposed building alteration or new construction, including its appurtenances, does not materially impair the architectural or historic integrity of the building and site, adjacent buildings and sites, or the neighborhood as a whole. ii. The proposed building or site alteration or new construction is compatible with, and will ensure continued significance and integrity of all properties within the historic district based on the period(s) of significance under which the district was designated. iii. 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. b. Conditions i. Plans shall be consistent with those included in this report. ii. 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 RECOMMENDATIONS There are a number of high -quality elements included in the home design. That said, the design will be unique to the surrounding neighborhood characteristics. Many of the homes in the immediate vicinity are 1.5 story homes with the garage either flush with the front of the home or located behind the home itself. The orientation of this home is unique being on a highly visible corner lot. Staff does not object the overall layout in concept. That said, the HPC should provide direction on the front facade design (Myrtle Street) and orientation/location on the garage on the side facade (Martha Street). POTENTIAL MOTION Motion to approve the Design Permit for 109 Martha St W. Note: unless desired changes are relatively minor (colors), Staff recommends that any directed design changes result in postponing action (table) to bring back revised plan sheets for specific approval. * 4" WIDE * PROVIDE BLOCKING BEHIND BRACKET Ile SCALE: I /2°=11-0° 4" 4" 4" (211 6" TRIM WINDOW TRIM SCALE: I /2'1=I'-0" 2" EXTERIOR NOTES FLASHING NOTES INSTALLED AS NEEDED BY ROOFING TO VERIFY THAT KICKOUT FLASHING 15 EXTERIOR WINDOWS & DOORS PER MN & IRG • • • KICKOUT FLASHING TO BE CONTRACTOR EXTERIOR WALL FINISHER INSTALLED PRIOR TO FINISHING CARPENTER TO FLASH ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS WINDQW NOTES WINDOWS VALUE = 0.32 MAX. 5H&C = 0.35 WINDOW ORDER LIST WITH U FACTOR, FOR EACH WINDOW & EXTERIOR DOOR ALL WINDOW, DOOR & OPENING HDR. HTS. A VERTICAL DEPTH OF MORE THAN 44" WITH AN APPROVED LADDER •• MARV IN ELEVATE •• COPE MAX. U • BUILDER TO PROVIDE 5HGG, & 5T6 RATING • SUILDER TO VERIFY • WINDOW WELLS WITH MUST BE EQUIPPED EXT. FINISHING NOTES STONE OTHERWISE • • • • • HARDIE 5IDIN6 AND THIN GUT HARDIE 8" FA5GIA UNLESS NOTED HARDIE SOFFIT W/ VENTS HARDIE TRIM METAL ROOF 12 5 3'-01 12 5 STAND ING SEAM ROOF 3'-0" -- . 16" 3' 3" OC 0-, ],O L - =La_� Or > 0Or 3 �0 0nn0000 Or 3 r, a �o Jr r ]O1 �►0(_ j0�010 OOf. Oa0oO ,�00 r, TRIM (TYP) J • MYRTLE FRONT STREET ELEVATION SCALE I /4" = I '-0" 8 HARDIE SIDING I5T FLOOR 1,657 50. FT. BASEMENT FLOOR 1,152 50. FT. TOTAL 2,809 50. FT. 12 5 HARDIE SIDING .---LANDSCAPE RETAINING WALL A5 REQ 12 5 LANDSCAPE —� RETAINING WALL AS REQ CONT. RIDGE VENTS (TYP) 12 2" TRIM 6" TRIM BELOW R16HT ELEVATION SCALE; I/8" = I'-0" Oca ONEM IMMO In II n 00 O =IOC �OOOC 1G0 0 12" J 3'-O" METAL BRACKET "A" RETAINING WALLS A5 REQ LOW FULL STONE VENEER 12 5 12'-0" TYP 3'-0" \HARDIE 51DING STAND ING SEAM ROOF TRTD 6x6 POST BOX TO 12"x 12" FIN. (TYP) X21-0" TYP 12 5 CONT. RIDGE VENTS (TYP) REAR ELEVATION SCALE. I /8" = I'-O" 3'-O" 8" TRIM (TYP) 8" TRIM (TYP) STONE CAP (TYP) 16" 1 8" TRIM (TYP) 6L5 HARDIE SIDING / GL5 16" TR IM TYP r i 3'-3" 0 =s� Or 3 OOr 3 0L 0 J [ 1 00 DO r 3'-0" / 36" HIGH RAILING W/ ALL OPNG'5 LESS THAN 4" (TYP) 0 0 Rdoo n DOUI L0�0000000000-0 Or 3 Or 000 OO0� O� Cir000 i 0a 12 I5T CLO I5T FLR r-- BSMT GLG 4" TRIM MARTHA STREET LEFT ELEVATION SCALE: I /4" = I '-0" TRIP 6x6 POST BOX TO 18"x 18" FIN. ON 26"x26" THIN CUT STONE BASE (TYP) REAL FULL ' STONE VENEER VERIFY LANDSCAPE STEPS TO DECK W/ RAILING BSMT FLR rn i rn � d o L • z� `n — O cn co z w g 00 wco wry w o z @rO Zo� 0 coz — X O° 1-`VJ— ww � a © 2022 0FP PLANNING & 0E5IGN z 0_ w• FD I.LO DO Z uj N Q �0- I— >CC a0 D-v • d c b Ez • • FCHD 7-29-22 DATE: 6-29-22 REVISIONS: 7-8-22 7-19-22 7-29-22 8-29-22 8-30-22 DRAWN BY: JJ COMM. NO. 222152 SHEET NO. N24@a i W z Rice St W Rice St W Rice St W Rice St W is eqUelni N m pQeA N 3tienN * Nis s w q A W z 1,4 IS 1!& e Myrtle St W Myrtle St W Myrtle St W Myrtle St W Myrtle Sty co 2 K cD Rice St VII 9 Colvin Creative F 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 iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: September 21, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Case No. 2022-63: Design Approval in the Neighborhood Conservation and Downtown Design Review District for Garage Replacement at 603 Broadway St S; Case of Todd and Anne Anderson BACKGROUND The Applicant is requesting a Demolition Permit and Design Approval to remove an existing attached garage and replace with a new attached garage that is slightly wider and deeper. The size of the demolition and the fact that the proposed garage requires a Variance in the Downtown Design Review District triggers the need for HPC Review/Approval. The property is located in the following districts: • RB: Two -Family District • Neighborhood Conservation District • Downtown Design Review District ANALYSIS It is important to note that an attached garage already exists on this home. This garage is not original to this home, which was built in 1870 and is considered lawful, nonconforming (front yard setback). Setting aside the size, location and massing for a moment, the Applicant is proposing to replace the existing garage with a new garage with finishes (columns, rooflines, etc.) that are more compatible with the primary structure. The Design Guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation District attempts to emphasize the home facade and de-emphasize the garage by recessing the location of the garage. The Design Guidelines go on to state the following: • 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. Appropriate: Recessed garage is minimized, emphasizing house facade and street frontage. Inappropriate: Garage -dominated "snout" house. Staff believes that the size and massing of the proposed garage are at least approaching being oversized (the size is increasing from existing garage). That said, the finer design elements and finishes are an improvement to the existing garage. Additionally, the existing garage is only slightly setback from the primary dwelling, essentially flush with the front of the home. The proposed garage maintains the same front yard setback, certainly not the garage -dominated `snout house' referenced as inappropriate in the design guidelines. Additionally, the Applicant is better integrating a new roof to better blend the design. The interior layout of the garage and interaction with the primary dwelling limit the depth of usable space within the garage, thus the request to widen the garage. The additional depth proposed will not be as visible from public view. Finally, the Applicant has provided series of site images to better illustrate surrounding neighborhood characteristics. The surrounding context does include front garages adjacent to this site. SITE 6n1 Sopa B,nndwoy Sheet FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS 609 South Broadway Street In granting any design approval (Design Permit), the HPC must make the following findings. • The proposed building alteration or new construction, including its appurtenances, does not materially impair the architectural or historic integrity of the building and site, adjacent buildings and sites, or the neighborhood as a whole. • If located in a historic district, the proposed building or site alteration or new construction is compatible with, and will ensure continued significance and integrity of all properties within the historic district based on the period(s) of significance under which the district was designated. • 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. Additionally, it is recommended that the HPC include the following conditions of approval. • Design Approval is contingent upon approval of a Variance by the Stillwater Planning Commission • The Applicant is required to apply for and secure a Building Permit from the City of Stillwater; design approval and Variance approval do not constitute final approval for construction • Plans must be consistent with those found in this report and on file for Project No. 2022-63 Staff generally recommends approval of this request, with the possibility to amend the design as follows: 1. Narrow the width of the proposed garage to match that of the existing garage 2. Shorten the depth of the garage such that the front of the garage is at least flush with the front of the home. ALTERNATIVES A. Approve request as presented a. Adopt findings noted above b. Include conditions of approval noted above B. Deny request as presented a. Note specific findings to support denial C. Table action to future meeting to gather more information or direct modifications to proposed plans If the HPC is inclined to approve the request, but with modifications to the proposed plans, it is recommended that the HPC provide specific direction on desired plan changes, direct the Applicant to make said changes and resubmit to a future meeting. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Demolition Permit for existing garage, approve the design for the new/proposed garage and recommend that the Planning Commission approve the Variance to Front Yard Setback. imprint Architecture + Design, Ilc August 26th, 2022 RE: Anderson Garage Review: Heritage Preservation Commission Project Address: 603 South Broadway Street, Stillwater MN This Heritage Preservation application and submission proposes to demolish and replace an existing attached garage with a new 783 s.f. attached garage and 48 s.f. garden shed at the back of the garage. The existing main house was originally built in 1870 and the existing attached garage was added in the 1960's and was not designed and detailed in a manner that fully complements the historic elements of the main house. The new design intends to expand upon the front porch copper roof assembly and corbel detailing to create a more integrated look with the main house. As outlined in the exterior elevations and reference detail & finishes image sheet, the plan is to replicate all details, colors, and finishes to match the main house. Additionally, the existing attached garage is currently built 3'-0" into the front yard setback (27'-0" from the front property line) and we are pursuing a separate variance with the City of Stillwater to keep the front of the proposed new garage at the existing setback. A 30'-0" front yard setback for garages is established by the Stillwater Municipal Code for the RB-2 Family Residential District. In addressing costs under the "Applications for Demolition' section of the application, the estimated costs for the garage are assigned as follows: - Projected Demolition/Disposal Costs: Approximately $3,000 - Cost to rebuild: Approximately $300,000 - The cost to rehabilitate the existing structure does not have a value as the client does not intend to pursue this as an option as the garage size does not meet their current needs. Included Attachments: • Heritage Preservation Commission Application • Site Image Reference Document • Anderson Garage Heritage Preservation Drawing Set o A 1.0- Survey o A1.1 - Proposed Site Plan o A2.0- Existing Main Floor and Roof Plans o A2.1 - Proposed Main Floor and Roof Plans o A3.0- Existing Elevations o A3.1 - Proposed Garage Elevations We appreciate your consideration of our proposed application and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Jeremy Imhoff, AIA Ow er I Principal tel: 651-295-5623 jeremy@imprintarchitecture.com Imprint Architecture and Design, LLC 514 St Croix Ave West Stillwater, MN 55082 . —111111,TR. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 g, the West 104 feet of Lot 7, the West 112 feet of Lot 8, the West 104 feet of North Half of Lot go and the North half of Lot 18, all In Block 42, CITY of STILLWATER, Washington Countyo Minnesota. GENERAL NOTES 1. The bearing system used Is assumed, . The location of the underground utilities shown hereon, If a. are proximate only. PURSUANT TO MSA 161J CON TACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT (612) 454 OOO2 PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. 3. Site area ea, 24,923square feet = 0,572 acres. 4, This survey was made on the ground. 5. No current title work was furnished for the preparation of this survey, legal description, recorded or unrecorded easements and encumbrances are subject to revision. upon receipt of current title work. 30 115 0 30 SCALE IN FEET LEGEND • alb" a la a. Y a. Y.*■ •Y i I+,, r r r+■,.,■■ P i ■ 4 , . ■ ■ ! 1 i ■ . ■ ■ Y i ■ i ■ f ■ ■ Y Li ■ i . i • . . . • w ww 0 Vmm -.-i Warr CERTIFICATION 1 1 1 Property Corner Concrete Water Gas Sanitary Sewer Storm Sower Window Well Gas Motor 1 1 I hereby ertif that this survey, plan or report was roared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the lows of the State of holinnonota, Date; daniar ..16. 1018. Revision Historic mos E. Hodorff Minn. Reg. No. 236 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 re.V oe c;) 4 z 23 (*) 4),P 00035 � Y . r■ 73 to 66 i • i , : a • ni.d ■• •.a Yi•Y▪ i Yf .��+..i • ii � ■ i ■ i ■ F � , +. ■ ▪ •1 ■ a. '1 • � +., • 114 • 1 1 215 B Ste• �.��eou'M uneE�aac � � s°iat�ti� 'irj' 47' IWIPOWP 1 1434.00 254a ly▪ i SOWNI !Ont.( Hk9, B1 ILrTa V#U 1 veld 0 4s. / m 7 to 00711 7 -' '-4 Cwri nod 011 ttai HOUSE DETAILS: BOJ SOUhI BROADWAY STREET —STORY HOUSE FOOIPR NT AREA = 2,77 SQ. F 603 BOUT f ROADWAY TREST 2—STORY RY HOUSE FOOTPRINT AREA = r17O FT. I E E §uwi± 48 211-36t. vl ,.,46d, A rir 01 cskilMaga .� t DAD File: 2017344.DM i ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. COPYING, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT AND PERMISSION FROM IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC. COPYRIGHT 2022, IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC DRAWING ISSUE: 08/26/22 - VARIANCE REQUEST AND HPC SUBMISSION AI.O U • c a) -a c a) U a) • U L_ C •� L Q •� ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS: - RB TWO-FAMILY DISTRICT PER SEC. 31-308 - GARAGE SIDE YARD SETBACK = 5'-0" - PRINCIPAL DWELLING FRONT YARD SETBACK = 20'-0" - GARAGE FRONT YARD SETBACK = 30'-0" (EXISTING & PROPOSED NEW GARAGE = 27'-0") ALSO SETBACK AT LEAST 10 FEET FROM THE FRONT SET BACK LINE OF THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING (EXISTING & PROPOSED NEW GARAE = 7'-0" FROM FRONT SET BACK LINE. - REAR YARD SETBACK TO HOUSE = 25'-0"; FROM ATTACHED GARAGE = 5'-0" - MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE FOR BUILDING AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACES = 25% - MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT = 35'-0" MAX. LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION: - TOTAL LOT AREA = 24,923 SF - ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE = 24,923 X 25% = 6,231 SF PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS: - (E) MAIN HOUSE = 2,329 SF - PROPOSED NEW GARAGE = 783 SF - PROPOSED NEW GARDEN SHED = 48 SF - EXISTING AND NEW ASPHALT DRIVEWAY = 600 SF - PROPOSED NEW GARDEN SHED BRICK PATIO = 96 SF - (E) DECK = 137 SF - (E) BRICK BACKYARD PATIOS, STAIRS, WALWAYS AND STONE SITE WALLS = 1,869 SF - (E) BACKYARD GAZEBO = 170 SF TOTAL PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 6,032 SF / 24,923 SF = 24.2% NEW GARAGE GARDEN SHED WALLS, TYP EXISTING GARAGE WALLS TO BE DEMOED D PROPOSED EXISTING AND SET BACK 2 NEW GARA_----------- FRONT PROPERTY LINE ZONING) l30'_0 0"" SETBACK LISTED PER EXISTING SIDEWALK fn w - 111 7, - YLIN E 7 PROPERT 48 SF PROPOSED GARDEN SHED OSHOEDE GARDENBRICK 86-4 AA" FROM PROPERTY LINE 96 SF PR PATIO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2,329 S.F. / EXISTING HOUSE - NO WORK EXISTING PORCH AND ROOF ABOVE - NO WORK EXISTING SIDE ENTRY ACCESS TO LOWER LEVEL EXISTING 18 S.F.BRICK PATIO 1,851 S.F. BRICK PAVED PATIO AREAS, WALKWAYS, STAIRS, AND STONE SITE WALLS PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY FINE EXISTING PLANTER BEDS EXISTING GAZEBO 1 SITE PLAN NORTH SCALE: 1 0 i 1 1 6'-0" 32'-0" 514 ST CROIX AVE WEST 1 STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 5 5 0 8 2 1 www.imprintarchitecture.com ph 651 . 440 . 0334 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. COPYING, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT AND PERMISSION FROM IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC. COPYRIGHT 2022, IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC ANDERSEN GARAGE 603 South Broadway Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 E PLAN DRAWING ISSUE: 08/26/22 - VARIANCE REQUEST AND HPC SUBMISSION becl A1.1 ■ 22'-6" X X XX XX XX XX X XX XX X X 8�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�.��i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i� 8iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii `i 8iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii� 8� 8�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i 8�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i 8iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 8iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 8�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i 8�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i�i 8iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii y® AREA OF WORK TO BE DEMOLISHED OR MODIFIED EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FLOOR 1 EXISTING MAIN FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED ROOF AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED 2 EXISTING ROOF PLAN SCALE: 0 4'-0" 8'-0" 514 ST CROIX AVE WEST I STILLWATER , MIN NESOTA 55082 I www.imprintarchitecture.com I ph 651. 440 . 0334 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. COPYING, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT AND PERMISSION FROM IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC. COPYRIGHT 2022, IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC ANDERSEN GARAGE 603 South Broadway Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 EXISTING MAIN FLOOR & ROOF PLAN DRAWING ISSUE: 08/26/22 - VARIANCE REQUEST AND HPC SUBMISSION becl A2.0 co r N 9 0) 9 'Co 0 0) M EXISTING FRONT PORCH NO WORK • (3) NEW GARAGE WINDOWS 32'-3" PROPOSED NEW GARAGE AND GARDEN SHED WALLS EXISTING GARAGE WALLS TO BE DEMOED PROPOSED NEW GARAGE GARAGE 28'-2" x 31 '-4" NEW ARCHED WINDOW TO REPLACING EXISTING WINDOW (N) 2'-8" x 7'-0" EXTERIOR DOOR W/ TRANSOM WINDOW 5'-0" 5'-0" PATIO PROPOSED NEW GARDEN SHED 4'-6' x 8'-7" 1 PROPOSED GARAGE PLAN (N) DOUBLE 2'-6" x 7'-0" EXTERIOR DOOR NEW BRICK PAVER PATIO NEW METAL ROOF AND PARAPET ASSEMBLY TO MATCH EXISTING ENTRY CANOPY ROOF ASSEMBLY INTEGRATE NEW ROOF AND METAL ROOF PARAPET ASSEMBLY INTO EXISTING ENTRY CANOPY NEW FLAT ROOF ASSEMBLY SLOPED TO DRAIN NEW GARDEN SHED ROOF W/ ASPHALT SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING ROOF 2 PROPOSED GARAGE ROOF SCALE: 0 4'-0" 8'-0" 514 ST CROIX AVE WEST I STILLWATER , MIN NESOTA 55082 I www.imprintarchitecture.com I ph 651. 440 . 0334 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. COPYING, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT AND PERMISSION FROM IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC. COPYRIGHT 2022, IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC ANDERSEN GARAGE 603 South Broadway Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR GARAGE & ROOF PLANS DRAWING ISSUE: 08/26/22 - VARIANCE REQUEST AND HPC SUBMISSION becl A2.1 (N) ASPHALT ROOF l ASSEMBLY TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE (N) 2'-8" x 7'-0" EXTERIOR DOOR W/ TRANSOM (WHITE FINISH) (N) DOUBLE 2'-6" x 7'-0" EXTERIOR DOORS TO GARDEN SHED (WHITE FINISH) Ow- 12 12 1- TYPICAL ELEVATION NOTES: SEE REFERENCE DETAIL AND FINISH SHEET FOR MATCHING DETAILS AND FINISHES NOTED IN ELEVATIONS NEW COPPER METAL ROOF EAVE AND PARAPET ASSEMBLY, MATCH AND TIE INTO ENTRY ROOF PAIRED PAINTED (WHITE) WOOD CORBELS TO MATCH PROFILE OF ENTRY PORCH ROOF NEW PAINTED (WHITE) EAVE 7 -1)..ito:&‘:_d_r J.v 7f,,,TgArAir 4,,„ Is sl„ c .. Ar $FA 4. �� j vii®ce r / W ®®/% ®®®®/ r /. ®/rAA// riiiiiiii/ r r/ W iii 4 riiiiiiii/ / ® / r i� rr rrirrr r / r A i®®®®i ®®® . /� ® ® � i®s `® r i i:A ! ®®® i®®®®ij ®�ir®®-. r A 1 TRIM ASSEMBLY TO MATCH ENTRY PORCH ROOF ASSEMBLY PAINTED (WHITE) TRIM BOARD, ALIGN WITH AND MATCH B.O. ENTRYWAY BEAMS TWO NEW 8'-0" T x 9'-0" W GARAGE DOORS W/ LITES AT UPPER PANEL (WHITE FINISH) rThgl e. ,ler) ,e- ,eeer effe /r If /�%% / /�/� �./f/ ./f/ %f/ /fVf/ %f/ %/ i®���� ,ri / I/ / �� V r , , r,®®//ice jr ri �� r®iii® i j// ®iii �� r® �i�7 w iii V i� �� ✓ iiii W r A ✓ m/ ' 144 Ai. . Al i% _ /�� e „ /®_®® ®® �7n7'7777777' v Ar ®/®/ 1, NEW PAINTED (GREY/BROWN) HORIZ. LAP SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE, TYP NEW PAINTED (WHITE) SKIRT BOARD ASSEMBLY TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE, TYP NEW COPPER METAL ROOF EAVE AND PARAPET ASSEMBLY, MATCH AND TIE INTO EXISTING ENTRY ROOF PAIRED PAINTED (WHITE) WD CORBELS TO MATCH PROFILE OF ENTRY PORCH ROOF 9'-0" GARAGE DOOR law 0/7", Jr Jr NEW PAINTED (WHITE) TRIM BOARD TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE, ALIGN WITH ANE MATCH B.O. EXISTING ENTRYWAY BEAMS 1X8 PAINTED (WHITE) HEAD TRIM AROUND TOP OF GARDEN SHED WALL NEW PAINTED (GREY/BROWN) HORIZ. LAP SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE NEW PAINTED (WHITE) WOOD CORNER TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE NEW PAINTED (WHITE) SKIRT BOARD ASSEMBLY TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE 3 PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION NEW PAINTED (WHITE) EAVE TRIM ASSEMBLY TO MATCH ENTRY PORCH ROOF ASSEMBLY 9'-0" GARAGE DOOR NEW ARCHED WINDOW (WHITE FINISH) EXISTING MAIN HOUSE AND ENTRY PORCH, NO WORK 1 WEST / FRONT ELEVATION I v xwf!r,, 1 'Ar /®or® r,% �l',, ',:.; ®®i �, ®®®®®®®®® ® �r®®® ®® /®A el, / z,oe ®® ®®i O®®ii% rill /ii®®iii®i ® !iiii®®rr ® ,r®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®r®r V/ ���i r®®® /®®i ® � /i� i / is�� , ,iii®i '"i®i ii� ®i®�®�� ®ii i v /9' ? r®®® rii®®iii /�o,�/i®®®®®i rr®®®®r /®®®®®®®®®®®®r®r®®®® D�%i®i i®® ��ii' riii'�i/®sail!!! i� i... is iiii®i /. ii �i��®®�' or /rce . � i® iiii®!loll ii�'i� ®iA p®i i�i®; , ® r ,�iiiii®iii J./iii®ri®®!!!iiii r®®®®®®r� /® W d�r A ® / iiiiiii' ��iiii i�� ®� iii / i/ �'�r®® i s ��/ �� ����ri®ii i r®i®®®i /r®i 1' � /r®®®®®® r®®®® r® r®®®®® r®®® r 4,r,4, -_-- r ®®�/i®®iii®r®®r.`iiiiii® ®I®�ri®z® ®®®///®®/' Ar �® �iii i i® / / ®iir / i i Z/AW ®rim®i®!iiii®ice® .ter rim ®err/ ®rrir� r._/ rr®i /iris Az ®�I r® s® A �i'F' '2r A4 r wir /Ar Fir/ram NEW PAINTED (WHITE) SKIRT BOARD ASSEMBLY TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE NEW GARDEN SHED ROOF W/ ASPHALT SHINGLES NEW PAINTED (WHITE) EAVE TRIM ASSEMBLY TO MATCH ENTRY PORCH ROOF ASSEMBLY EXISTING MAIN HOUSE AND ENTRY PORCH BEYOND, NO WORK NEW COPPER METAL ROOF EAVE AND PARAPET ASSEMBLY, MATCH AND TIE INTO ENTRY ROOF NEW PAINTED (WHITE) TRIM BOARD TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE, ALIGN WITH AND MATCH B.O. EXISTING ENTRYWAY BEAMS PAIRED PAINTED (WHITE) WD CORBELS TO MATCH PROFILE OF ENTRY PORCH ROOF NEW PAINTED (GREY/BROWN) HORIZ. LAP SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE, TYP NEW PAINTED (WHITE) WOOD CORNER TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING HOUSE 2 NORTH ELEVATION (3) NEW EXTERIOR GARAGE WINDOWS (WHITE FINISH) SCALE: 514 ST CROIX AVE W EST I STILLWATER , MIN NESOTA 55082 I www.imprintarchitecture.com I ph 651. 440 . 0334 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. COPYING, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT AND PERMISSION FROM IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC. COPYRIGHT 2022, IMPRINT ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN, LLC ANDERSEN GARAGE 603 South Broadway Street, Stillwater, MN 55082 PROPOSED GARAGE ELEVATIONS DRAWING ISSUE: 08/26/22 - VARIANCE REQUEST AND HPC SUBMISSION becl A3.1 0 4'-0" 8'-0" VIM rr ANDERSON RESIDENCE SITE IMAGES - STILLWATER HPC SUBMITTAL - AUGUST 26th 2022 1npr1nt Architecture + Design, Ilc 527 South Broadway Street SITE: 603 South Broadway Street ANDERSON RESIDENCE SITE IMAGES - SITE & STREETSCAPE IMAGES LOOKING EAST 609 South Broadway Street • imprint Architecture + Design, Ilc 610 South Broadway Street 604 South Broadway Street ANDERSON RESIDENCE SITE IMAGES - SITE & STREETSCAPE IMAGES LOOKING WEST 522 South Broadway Street • imprint Architecture + Design, Ilc ANDERSON RESIDENCE SITE IMAGES - FRONT ELEVATION VIEWS OF HOUSE i• mprint Architecture + Design, Ilc ANDERSON RESIDENCE SITE IMAGES - SIDE AND BACK VIEWS OF EXISTING GARAGE i• mprint Architecture + Design, Ilc Typical Roof Eave Detail Painted White Corbel Detail and Eave Trim - To Replicate at Proposed Garage Typical Copper Roof Edge Detail Typical Corbel Detail Painted White Typical Trim Board at top of wall painted white Typical Skirt Board Detail at base of wall painted white Typical Painted / Horizontal Wood Siding Painted Grey/Brown Copper Roof Eave Detail - To Replicate at Proposed Garage Typical Wood Corner Board Detail Painted White ANDERSON RESIDENCE SITE IMAGES -REFERENCE DETAILS AND FINISHES (Refer to A3.1 Exterior Elevations Where Details Above Are Replicated At Proposed Garage) Typical Skirt, Corner, and Top of Wall Trim - To Replicate at Proposed Garage • imprint Architecture + Design, Ilc i11war. THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: September 21, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CD Case No. 2022-66: Consideration of a Design Permit for a stationary seasonal food vender at 204 Main St N. BACKGROUND Seasonal Food Vending Permits are permitted in the Central Business Zoning District. These permits can be processed administratively by staff provided all requirements outlined in Section 41-7 Subd. 2 are followed and the proposed food vender is not proposed to remain on site for a period of time greater than 20 hours. Ryan Kilkelly (the Applicant), representing "The Good Egg" food truck, has submitted a Design Permit Application. The Design Permit is required per Section 41-7 Subd. 2 due to the fact that the Applicant is proposing to have the food truck remain on the premises for a period of greater than 20 hours. In this scenario, the role of the HPC is to determine if the proposed design conforms to design standards set forth in the City Code. The applicant is proposing to utilize a portion of the parking lot of 204 Main St N (the "Property"). The Property is located in the following Zoning Districts: • CBD: Central Business District (underlying Zoning District), • Downtown Design Review District. The Property is on the corner of Main St and Commercial St. The existing use of the Property consists of of the Joseph Wolf Mercantile retail business. REQUEST The Applicant is requesting a Design Permit to allow for a seasonal food vending truck to operate on -site for a period greater than 20 hours. FINDINGS While the Applicant is currently working on finalizing the design for their food truck, The Good Egg, they have provided the HPC with an example of the same food truck design, build, and color that they're utilizing and the logo specific to the Applicant. The primary color of the food truck is "river blue". The Applicant notes this was a conscious decision to fit within the theme for Down Town Stillwater. Specifically, the proximity to the St. Croix River and matching the existing color of the River Market Co-Ops awnings, which is across the street. Generally speaking, an annual permit for a seasonal vending cart, vehicle or trailer remaining on premises for a period of greater than 20 hours may be approved by the City subject to the following specific standards: 1. The food vending cart or trailer shall generally follow the adopted Commercial Historic District Design Manual and not be generic in design. White utility trailers are not permitted without significant exterior design improvements. While the vending unit is a utility trailer, it is blue in color with the addition of a Togo/signage on two sides. Further, there are two windows proposed on the unit that can be opened for service. 2. The exterior of the food vending cart or trailer shall not contain neon colored/fluorescent paint. This standard has been met. 3. The food vending cart or trailer shall not contain neon lighting, display any moving parts, be illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights, nor may it incorporate any animation. No device may be illuminated to obscure or mimic an official traffic sign or signal. This includes indoor lighting which is visible from public streets. This standard has been met. 4. The food vending cart or trailer shall not use outside sound amplification, televisions or other similar visual displays, nor may it use noisemakers such as bells, horns or whistles. This standard has been met. The Applicant is proposing two (2) signs on the food truck plus a menu board. This appears consistent with other approved food truck signs in this type of circumstance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Design Permit for the Good Egg Food cart should the Heritage Preservation Commission find that the proposal meets the standards set forth int the City Code, with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant must submit a complete Seasonal food vender permit for review and approval by City Staff prior to operation. 2. Food cart shall be consistent with plans on file for HPC Design Permit CD 2022- 66. 3. There shall only be one vendor on site at a time. Any more than one would require additional permitting. 4. No storage or product sales are allowed outside of the vending trailer. 5. If pop-up canopies do not contain signs, they may be utilized. 6. No signs shall be internally lit. 7. The food vending cart or trailer shall not contain neon lighting, display any moving parts, be illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights, nor may it incorporate any animation. No device may be illuminated to obscure or mimic an official traffic sign or signal. This includes indoor lighting which is visible from public streets. 8. If there is to be a generator supporting the trailer, the manufacturer's noise specifications must be submitted. If the generator is not a quiet technology, then the hours of operation may have to be re-examined. 9. The food vending cart or trailer shall not use outside sound amplification, televisions or other similar visual displays, nor may it use noisemakers such as bells, horns or whistles 10. Each year when the business is reviewed for reissuance of a vending license, the location of the truck must be analyzed so as not to dominate the traffic flow or parking spaces, if the drive aisle and spaces are needed for tenants and building customers/clients. 11.A Design Permit shall not be required provided there are no major changes to the design of the food truck each year when it is reviewed for a new license. 12.The seasonal outdoor food truck shall obtain approval from Washington County Public Health and the Fire Department prior to beginning operation. 13.AII major revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department. 14.Any associated Seasonal Food Permit license issued in 2022 would be valid until December 31, 2022. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Design Permit request to allow a Design Permit to allow for a seasonal food vending truck to operate on -site for a period greater than 20 hours, based on the above conditions within this report. A little explanation of the attachments that are provided . I have attached three different angles of the dimensions of the truck. The title of these documents indicate which street and direction they are facing. I've also included a low resolution aerial image and a highlighted area of where the cart will be parked. The patio will have seating that is already there, provided by the property owner. I attached street views from both Main Street as well as Commercial Street. I have attached the logo, with background color that I am finalizing the details on. The only thing left is some outline touch up and a tagline as indicated in the image. For perspective, I've attached a photo of another cart using the same "river blue" color on their cart as The Good Egg's will be. Our graphic, however, will look nothing like that, so the photo is attached for color context. The Good Eciq Project Description The Good Egg is a new food cart concept that plans to operate permanently on the patio of 204 Main st North in Stillwater. We are focused on being a high quality addition to Stillwater's already thriving food scene. We will be operating daily between the hours or 8 a.m to 3 p.m, as well as evenings for community events and festivals. The Good Egg is a chef inspired breakfast food cart concept born out of a desire of a born and raised Stillwater chef to bring my passion of cooking and food cart culture back to my hometown. I was operations manager and oversaw multiple food carts in Portland, Oregon with a similar concept. I understand how to operate a high quality, high volume business that understands the importance of having extremely high standards. The Good Egg will be mainly serving chef inspired fried egg sandwiches cooked to perfection. We will be using high quality ingredients from local farms, bakeries and purveyors. We are committed to working within the community and continuing the trend of thoughtful food sourcing. Our design will be simple and tasteful. The color of the cart will be a "river blue", and was specifically chosen to fit in with the theme of downtown Stillwater. It will be pretty similar in color to the awnings of the River Market Co-op across the street. The logo is simple, and will be located on the South side of the cart (facing Commercial Street), and will be approximately 48"-60" both width and height. It will be a high quality vinyl logo on the cart with no other lights, accents, graphics etcetera. We will have a menu on the North side of the truck for customers to view as they enter the patio area. We will be a self contained unit and have agreements to remove all waste and water, as well as trash removal. We will not have any dedicated parking, other than that is available downtown Stillwater. Signage Plan Our design will be simple and tasteful. The color of the cart will be a "river blue", and was specifically chosen to fit in with the theme of downtown Stillwater. It will be pretty similar in color to the awnings of the River Market Co-op across the street. The logo is simple, and will be located on the South side of the cart (facing Commercial Street), and will be 54" in width and 60" in height. It will be a high quality vinyl logo on the cart with no other lights, accents, graphics etcetera. We will have a menu on the North side of the cart or customers to view as they enter the patio area. On the East side of the cart, will be a small graphic with "The Good Egg" written in our custom font. The dimension for that will be 24" in height and 60" in width. It will also be a high quality vinyl graphic on the cart. O • THE GOOD EGG TAGLINE GOES HERE #5B2 5- iT]]T R]raul 'f't�pY'r.. '!� ,� N�J•ryelf^ e lilt%''a ePJ c4 v >1:1•774'rti• C ".(s-'r rti S4. +!G :} 0‘ p<- ftAscttcct-a • C ii apt lb • Wm •C%Y$LJ ..:c!:..J1• • • Cu) e • 1' ) • r 1 •rlr1.�Y r r.� !,r♦ ti]•Y fif� 1 �l if i[11.1 r I ,xE ..r r �, t':• r-1 '!r� r'y.LJf'Ys �M ,fr t J-r'Y�i` 111 � 7r. 14, �,.. • '.�./r ! ;y/I1 V1 ��,�`� ,' {y,�j14` rl r 1 7:1 L1. L 1 ^f ((!-! + y,1. j+'r!, 1. • M . n;= Ili 4� l ,-r_ J. -'•^=,am • v ir-.? -: { tP- 36' F' 10:37AM MonAug8 m < AA google.com El 4" 30% • 00 00 299 Commercial St Stillwater, Minnesota !G Google v Street View - May 2019 gerlitgrirtinill111111111111111 !!i1IiiJ!unh!!I,p,fl IlIlIRIlIl apture: May 2019 © 2022 Google United States Terms Privacy Report a problem 10:39 AM Mon Aug 8 CD AA google.com 30V0 • 00 00 BEANS A BREW 1 1"-- _ A ••'...;" • • '1 .7.... r ' , ; 4,,.,sj ..•_ - ":„-;;I•„,..1:-- - ., -•0 ri...74t*,-:...mr: '-. • .--• • .;:.- :: -Cf-`-'!:7 :44-.3 f—i,..r. - *- , • • 1 . ...., ..,...4- • f ,r . ....:*,,T,S, p.11111;:er : .•-.! ... • ' _ ,••• ',c0=7._ r - e L.' ---'-,#•;• •f-r...-:-.. -1 • ... .:...,,,,,,c . -1-;;C,.i411•.:.g.-- - v.:_,1:-: ---; 'T,'• - . • •••-• ' • •A.AP-Adolli -..:--- ,__r-4,- - I - .. C : • 0 - --r-• ;''' r.-..-11'..--'.. ..= ,. ....-Oi",4 1. •.'...- -"- ,.-.0 _, „ ‘..... '. " - •-• - • _ - . -, ..: r.„..11, : . - - •'• 14-'1 ...N.:, :-..." .- illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: September 21, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: CD 2022-68: Pre -Application Concept Review for Requested Demolition Permit and Redevelopment Plan Design Approval at 1001 Holcombe St S; Case of Julie Bartkey BACKGROUND Staff has been approached by the Owner of 1001 Holcombe St S requesting approval to demolish the residential dwelling on the site to facilitate the redevelopment of two (2) new single family homes. The existing home was constructed in 1872, but has had several modifications since then (including, but not limited to foundation repair, residing, addition of rear porch, etc.). The Applicant seeks high-level (non -binding) feedback from the HPC before investing in the costs of building plans. The site is located in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Staff seeks broad policy feedback from the HPC on two (2) topics to ensure that Staff and Applicant are headed in the right direction. 1. Appropriateness to demolish existing structure 2. Feedback on design of proposed replacement dwellings DEMOLITION ANALYSIS The Owner has stated that they have experienced a number of issues with water penetration and sagging floors. Per the required demolition process for structures built pre-1946, Staff (Building Official and Community Development Director) inspected the building. There are signs of structural issues with the structure, but the dwellings is not hazardous nor present a concern to public safety or public health. The foundation appears to be in generally good condition for the period of the home, but does show minor signs of deferred maintenance and need of repair. There are areas of the home that show sag in the floor, but the main structural components of the floor are in acceptable condition and/or could be repair. The northwest corner of the exterior wall does show signs of bowing. The structure does show signs of shifting, but is not in danger of collapse. A more detailed analysis is attached to this report. Staff's analysis of the condition of the structure shows that the structure is likely right at the threshold to approve a demolition per current policies and past practices, but could potentially be repaired. While the home in question is of modest design and in need of repair, the City's historic preservation goals also aim to preserve some of the more modest housing built before 1946, and important element of Stillwater's History. The City averages approximately one (1) approved demolition per year in this similar context. Policy Question for HPC: Would the HPC generally support the demolition of this 1872 Dwelling based on the Pre -Application? DESIGN APPROVAL FOR NEW HOMES If the HPC is inclined to approve the Demolition of the existing dwelling, Staff would like to ensure that there is a workable redevelopment plan for what would ultimately be constructed. The Applicant has provided an example of three (3) potential models that could work within the Design Guidelines of the Neighborhood Conservation District. • Modern 'Farm Style' Home • Victorian Style Home (2) While the surrounding neighborhood has a number of modest, late-1880s homes with a mix of 1.5 and 2 story homes, there are also a number of post-war single -level homes ranging from the late-1940s to the mid-1960s. Generally speaking, Staff finds both types of designs would be appropriate for the Neighborhood Conservation District, provided the final site plan complies with the following: 1. Is able to be sited on the property without the need for a variance 2. Is constructed with appropriate, high -quality exterior materials 3. The garage is located behind the front of the home (either attached or detached) as required by the Zoning Code ACTION REQUESTED Staff is simply seeking high-level, non -binding policy feedback on the request for demolition and redevelopment to ensure that Staff and Applicant are proceeding in the correct, general direction before additional effort and cost is expended. Note: if the Applicant chooses to submit a formal Application for Demolition and the City denies the request for Demolition, the City's process requires that the City must complete a `Demolition Designation Study'. This step is simply early feedback so that the Applicant can make an informed decision as to whether or not to proceed with additional plans for redevelopment. Site Development Plan: 1001 Holcombe Street South Objective: Reconfigure the three, 40 x 144 lots that currently have one home, one detached garage, and the third lot sits empty. Goal is to demolish current home and build two new homes that fit the historic charm of old -school Stillwater with two garages on newly configured lots of 60 x 144. Scope: Option 1: Use the south lot that is currently vacant to build the first home. That structure would be set back in the yard, with the front door approximately 35 feet from street/sidewalk. The design would be either farmhouse or Victorian and will fit with the charm of Stillwater and be preapproved by HPC and City of Stillwater. It will initially be built without a garage, or with an attached garage meeting code requirements. This structure will be the new home of current homeowner or sold to finance the demolition of the current home and detached garage, as well as pay for construction of the second home and two garages. Option 2: Demolish current home and garage, build both homes and detached garages simultaneously. One or both homes will be sold. Layout: One home will be approximately 15 feet from the north -facing property line, the other 15 feet from the south -facing property line. Garages will either be attached and meet set back requirements , side facing set at rear of homes, or detached and located near back of homes. Garages will be on the lot that currently has the main structure, with a strip of land separating driveways. Additional information: The current home has very little original woodwork or historical elements remaining. There is some exposed shiplap which is believed to be from the addition of the kitchen in the 1940's which has markings on it. The plan is to salvage it, and any other hidden treasures, and add them to the new build. This provides an opportunity to preserve some of the history of the home and keep the story alive. [Title] 1 4 :7;77". 4•ArBIZikl=ttikpar .7-Prrowe...004. _,•.„ :7" • • +IC ,%T.:,21:1111(0.& • • 0 =4' IR.711 ri o DATE: TO: i11war THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA September 6, 2022 Julie A. Bartkey, Property Owner CC: Cindy Shilts, Building Official Property File FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Inspections Report for 1001 Holcombe St S Demolition Request Executive Summary City Staff was approached by the Property Owner of 1001 Holcombe St S requesting the demolition of an existing single-family dwelling for the purposes of redeveloping the site into two (2) new single-family dwellings. The structure is a pre-1946 single-family dwelling located in the Neighborhood Conservation District. As such, any demolition requires the approval of the City's Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). The home itself is a modest home design built in 1872. While not an elaborate design, the home does represent an important period and home design for Stillwater. The Neighborhood Conservation District is intended to attempt to preserve all housing types, not just larger, higher valued homes. This home represents a modest designed, modestly priced home for early Stillwater. The home does show some signs of need for structural repair, but the home is in otherwise acceptable condition. There were indications of moisture within the home, but no physical indications of water damage. Many of the structural issues with the home can be expected with the age of the home, but appear to be correctable. In order for City Staff to be able to consider any level of support for the demolition request, the Property Owner should provide a quote from a qualified contractor to compare the cost of demolition as opposed to preservation and repair. City Staff is open to further exploration (cost) of demolition compared to preservation; however, City Staff does not currently have enough information to support a recommendation for demolition. The City's HPC does not have to accept Staff's recommendation and may approve a demolition based on current information. Additionally, any HPC denial of a Demolition Permit is required to be confirmed by the City Council. The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of single-family dwelling designs of various ages. It is evident that many of the surrounding dwellings are of a more modern design (post-1946) and likely approved during a time that pre -dates the current Neighborhood Conservation District Design Guidelines. Finally, it is Staffs experience that similar demolition requests have a significantly higher probability of approval if there is a clear redevelopment plan to go along with said demolition request. Staff would not recommend obtaining detailed construction drawings yet, but would recommend high-level concept plans for consideration to start. Staff is ready and willing to help scope concept -level plans that balance the needed level of detail without expending unnecessary cost. Inspections Findings Lower Level/Foundation • No current evidence of water leakage from foundation; foundation is in generally good condition o The Property Owner has noted previous moisture penetration issues that required repairs to foundation and walls that may be covering up evidence; Staff will gladly accept any additional evidence to support the claim of water damage • Original home footprint in better condition than rear porch addition • Did observe a nonconforming drain pipe serving main floor that is susceptible to leakage • Any moisture issues in the basement could likely be remedied by the installation of drain tile and sump pump • Window wells/sill concrete showing signs of spalling and deterioration Exterior Structural Elements • NW corner of exterior wall does show evidence of bowing and shifting • Front pitch of roof showing some signs of sagging • Rear Porch o Plywood siding of this addition showing indications of deferred maintenance in need of repair o Window frames showing signs of rotting in need of repair and replacement • Driveway and patio slab cracked and heaving • A hole in the south wall was observed from a previous penetration through exterior wall, likely an exterior water faucet Main Level • There is some evidence of sagging floors on the main level, but the underlying structural elements appear to be in acceptable conditions; floor could potentially be repaired • Property Owner also indicated concerns with electrical system; Property Owner should provide a report from a qualified electrical inspector to review further Upper Level • Observed some sort of odor that might be related to moisture, but no physical indications of structural damage due to moisture penetration • One bedroom did show signs of plaster crack in the walls and ceiling, likely due to exterior wall bowing and roof sagging observed on exterior wall • Main plumbing stack separating in attic; should be repaired immediately Process and Next Steps Regardless of Staff Findings and Recommendations, you as Property Owner have the ability to submit a formal Demolition Permit Application. It is highly recommended to pair that with a Design Permit Application for your redevelopment plans to increase any likelihood of approval. Included with this transmittal are applications for Demolition Permit as well as Design Permit (for new home/replacement structures). Please start with these Applications and Staff will assist you through a number of next steps. Regardless of Staff Recommendations, it is our task and goal to assist you through the process and best prepare you to present your request to the HPC (and potentially City Council). Our goal is to decomplicate the process and be your 'tour guide' to prepare as best as possible, regardless of the outcome. Please don't hesitate to reach out for help or with any questions you may have. I11war THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: September 21, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: HPC Awards 2022 BACKGROUND Each year, the HPC recognizes projects that exemplify the goals and implementation of the City's various historic preservation goals. Attached is a list of potential projects that could be recognized for 2022. Staff recommends that the HPC provide feedback and potential selection of awards for 2022. The HPC could also delegate final selection to the Chair and Vice -Chair (or other representatives). If desired, Staff will make recommendations on Awardees as well (upon request). Staff will prepare a Slide Deck of some of these projects that show additional detail on the project itself. HPC Project Name Project Description Address Zurbey Residence Residential Infill 808 6th Ave S Brick Alley Sign Plan Sign (Master Sign Plan) 423 Main St S Leo's Walk In/Gloria's To Go Lowell Inn Patio Renovation Facade Restoration/Patio Facade Restoration/Patio 127 Main St S 102 2nd St N Wild Hare/Style and Structure Studio Louise Flowers Vick Residence River Siren Brewing Olive Street Duplexes Sauntry Mansion Adaptive Reuse 226 Myrtle Sign Plan Isaac Staples Mill Sign Plan Sota Clothing Stillwater Olive Company JX Event Center Master Sign Plan 107 Laurel St E Smith + Trade Collaborations Union Alley MN Made Sign Forge and Foundary Daily Grind Patio Lakebound Clothing Sign Facade Restoration/Patio Sign (Individual) Residential Restoration Facade Restoration/Patio Residential Infill Adaptive Reuse Sign (Master Sign Plan) Sign (Master Sign Plan) Sign (Individual) Masonry Repair Sign (Master Sign Plan) Residential Facade Restoration/Front Porch Facade Restoration Public Alley Adaptive Reuse Sign (Individual) Facade Restoration Facade Restoration/Patio Sign (Individual) 218 Main St N 210 Main St S 516 2nd St 225 Main St N 201 Olive St W 626 4th St N 226 Myrtle St E 402 Main St N 401 Main St S 208 Main St S 123 2nd St N 107 Laurel St E 231 Main St S Union Alley 220 Chestnut St E 223 Main St N 217 Main St N 216 Main St S Approved Sign Permits for HPC Award Nominations 444 1/24/2022 Gina Kazmerski 445 1/31/2022 Gonsior 449 2/11/2022 sand Steph Unpaved Athleisure Draper House Design 401 402 Main St S Main St N Jessie Stillwater Tattoo 117 (113) Main St S Eric Gustafson - Richard 451 2/22/2022 Impressionsigns McDonough Rm Realty 220 Commerical 471 6/28/2022 Brine 472 7/20/2022 Heisler Monty and Uncommon Terri Movement I402 Kenzington Clothing Home and Gift 1324 Mackenzie Main St N Main St S SjI1vater T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M INN E S O I A DATE: September 21 st, 2022 TO: Honorable HPC Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Yasmine Robinson, Planning Manager SUBJECT: 109 Pine Street E Remodeling Project The purpose of this memorandum is to inform the Heritage Preservation Commission of an application that will come before the Board in the near future. In late August, Planning Staff became aware of work underway at 109 Pine Street East without City permits and/or approvals. Staff conducted an inspection and found the demolition of a garage, covered porch and retaining wall located in City Right of Way. A Notice of City Code Violation Letter (Case No. E/2022-46) was sent to alert the Property Owner and Contractor that all work on the property should stop, and that permits are required Staff was able to meet with the Contractor and reiterated the information described in the letter. Another site inspection identified that work was still underway to replace a retaining wall located at the side yard, as well as interior work. Planning and Building Staff have continued to communicate to the Contractor and Property Owner that work must cease, and complete permits with plans must be submitted. A Stop Work Order was issued on September 15th, 2022. Staff would like to bring this to the attention of the Board and note that an application will come before them in the near future. 109 Pine Street East —Front Retaining Wall Area Photos Taken September 12, 2022 109 Pine Street East —Side Retaining Wall Area Photos Taken September 12, 2022