Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-10-18 HPC PacketSti liwater THE B I R T H P L A C E OF MINNESOTA 1 Add On Packet Noted in Red 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 4' 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 October 19th, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of September 21 st, 2022 regular meeting IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement of may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Heritage Preservation Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 2. Case No. CD 2022-60: Findings of Fact for Denial of Design Permit for 109 Martha St N. VI. PUBLIC HEARING VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS 3. Case No. CD 2022-71: Concept Review for 320 2nd Street North (Estenson Residence) 4. Case No. CD 2022-73: Concept Review for 1824 1st St N (Rambacher Residence) - info from applicant 5. Case No. CD 2022-74: Concept Review for 905 Hickory St W (Najarian Residence) 6. Case No. CD 2022-22: Consider Revision to Design Approval for 1008 5th St S (Cohen Middleton Residence) IX. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 7. 2022 Annual Report 8. 305 Water St S (Freight House); Roof Replacement Needs (No Packet Materials) 9. One Year Review of Stillwater Design Guideline Update (Commission Request/No Packet Materials) 10. Facade Improvements and other Decor/Lighting in the Downtown Design Review District/Historic Stillwater Commercial District (Commission Request/No Packet Materials) 11. Mural Guidelines (Commissioner Request) 12. 1014 4th Ave S — Potential Demolition Request (No Packet Materials) X. FYI XI. ADJOURNMENT i \ Ater THE OIRTNPLACE OF NINNESOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING September 21, 2022 Due to technical difficulties, much of the meeting was inaudible for the record. REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Thueson called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairman Thueson, Commissioners Heimdahl, Holmes, Larson, Mino, Summers, Councilmember Junker Absent: Commissioner Finwall Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of August 17, 2022 regular meeting Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve the minutes of the August 17, 2022 meeting. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Chairman Thueson abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no cases on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Case No. 2022-19: Consider Conditional Use Permit for Myrtle Street Apartments at 107 3rd St S; Case of Landucci Homes. Community Development Director Gladhill reviewed the case. Landucci Homes is proposing a 21-unit, 3-story (with rooftop deck) apartment building at the intersection of Myrtle and 3rd Streets. On August 17, 2022, the HPC tabled action and directed additional design revisions of the proposed window sashes, windows, and parapet wall. The Planning Commission denied all requested variances (Front and Rear Yard Setbacks) on August 24. The applicant has 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. Generally, staff feels that the current proposal is much closer to compliance with the Design Guidelines than previous iterations, and therefore staff recommends approval of the Design Permit with two conditions, with minor modifications as discussed/directed. Nathan Landucci, applicant, explained the revisions (inaudible). Commissioner Holmes said the revisions do a good job referencing the historic context without making it a historic -looking building. He asked if the black metal panel will have a core to avoid a canning effect, and Mr. Landucci replied it is smooth and will have a core that keeps it flat. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 21, 2022 Commissioner Larson thanked the applicant for his earnest effort to fit the guidelines better. He asked the color of the window frames, and Mr. Landucci replied the window frames will be matt black to match the black metal panel of the parapet. Commissioner Larson asked how much of the roof deck guardrail will be visible, and Mr. Landucci replied the guardrail will sit back from the parapet and will be black. The goal is to have the parapet "take care" of the railing. He does not plan to raise the height of the rooftop patio. Commissioner Holmes suggested adding a condition of approval that the rail not be on top of the parapet, but be set back from the parapet. Commissioners further discussed the railing design with Mr. Landucci (inaudible). Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to approve Case No. 2022-19, Conditional Use Permit for Myrtle Street Apartments at 107 3rd St S, with the two conditions recommended by staff, adding Condition #3 that the rooftop guardrail shall be set back from the parapet coping/top of parapet, Condition #4 that staff shall review and approve the final and established height which is expected to be one foot or less above the top of the coping, and Condition #5 that the rail be similar in character to the balcony railings. All in favor. 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. Mr. Gladhill explained that the HPC tabled action on this request on August 17, 2022. A key component of the initial review was the orientation and location of the attached garage. The applicants propose to define the Myrtle Street facade as the Front Yard and the Martha Street facade as the Side Yard; the garage, driveway and sidewalk are still to be oriented/accessed from Martha Street. The applicant also added architectural finishes to achieve four-sided architecture. There are a number of high -quality elements included in the home design, however, the design will be unique to the neighborhood, which has many 1.5 story homes with the garage either flush with the front of the home or behind the home. The orientation of this home is unique being on a highly visible corner lot. A redesigned site plan was received today, too late to include in agenda packets. Mr. Gladhill explained the process of lot splits in conjunction with design review applications, and suggested process improvements are needed. He stated that current City Code does not require a public hearing for design permits, however there have been multiple opportunities for public input with this project including the lot split. Staff does not object to the overall layout in concept. The HPC should provide direction on the front facade design (Myrtle Street) and orientation/location on the garage on the side facade (Martha Street). Commissioner Heimdahl asked if the stone wall along Myrtle Street is on private or public property. Mr. Gladhill replied that the wall is on private property. The City Attorney and Public Works staff have discussed whether the City can force a private property owner to repair a wall such as this. The subject needs additional legal review. Mike Koch, PMI Homes representing the applicant, stated the wall is an engineered wall and the lowest floor elevation has been designed in coordination with drainage and cross depth so there will not be any change in the retaining wall elevations other than what must be added to enhance the property. The retaining wall on Martha is an engineered wall. Councilmember Junker asked, what is the elevation of the door to the current lot, and Mr. Koch replied the elevation of the door is the elevation of the main level. There is one step up from the sidewalk coming into the front door. The elevation of the door is maintained at the garage door elevation, largely dictated by the driveway slope coming off Martha Street. Page 2 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 21, 2022 Commissioner Mino asked what materials will be used on the home, and Mr. Koch responded a natural stone product, an LP textured siding product, ribbed metal roofing, metal soffit and facia, Marvin windows with black trim, black metal handrail on the deck, and natural stone pavers for the driveway to coordinate with the stone. Commissioner Holmes asked (inaudible). Mr. Koch stated that initially, not knowing how this process went, he met with previous City Planner Wittman with renderings of what the owners originally wanted. He showed Ms. Wittman a one story home with lower level and she did not have any concerns with that. He was following Ms. Wittman's lead on what he could or could not do. Because she left City employ, he never got to show her the final design. He was at a point of being under great pressure with economics in trying to get this started. Knowing what has gone on here, he would have done things in a different order to help prevent undue expense to owners which is pretty substantial. Lynn Thron, owner, gave examples of (inaudible). They are not changing the wall on Myrtle. Regarding height of surrounding buildings, this house will be the same height as the house to the east. She pointed out that 115 Harriet and 426 Rice Street both enter from one street but their house fronts on another street. Commissioner Mino asked (inaudible). Mr. Koch remarked the massing of the house coordinates well with the landscaping. The survey must be updated to reflect changes made in the front entrance in order to resubmit for the building permit. Commissioner Summers referred to design guidelines for examples of foundation material and windows. He voiced concerns that the rear elevation of the proposed garage is very different than other views of the home. In keeping with surrounding homes one would expect to see windows on all sides instead of just one window. Mr. Koch said one window is planned for security, but more windows can easily be added. Mrs. Thron added that eventually they would erect fencing along the rear elevation to shield views from neighbors. Steve Thron, applicant, stated he put in the wall on Martha Street and has been taking care of the wall on Myrtle for the last 28 years and it's in great shape. They will protect it and place landscaping behind it. The only ones who can see that side are the apartment building residents. Commissioner Summers referred to the challenge of designing with the understanding that the surrounding area might look very different in 20 years; the intent is to "future -proof" the site as well as making it useable now. Commissioner Holmes commented it is a very well designed home that would do very well in many settings other than this setting, taking into account the historic character of the neighborhood, roof pitches and window shapes of older buildings. He acknowledged the applicants have invested a lot of money. He pointed out the HPC is asked to make recommendations and enforce guidelines. This process should have happened in schematics, not with CDs done and a building permit in process. He cannot support the design as proposed on this site. Mr. Koch (inaudible). He that he met with City Planner Wittman twice in her office and went through the process as she directed; there was no ignorance of the City process. Mr. Thron commented that all the permits were approved and now he is hearing this - this committee is not supposed to burden residents - it's a burden because it was all approved. They have already bought the appliances and have over a quarter of a million dollars in material purchased. Page 3 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 21, 2022 Commissioner Larson asked who did the approval of this design. Mr. Koch responded the process that was given to him is where it stands right now. He went through a number of steps with Ms. Wittman and everything up to that point was approved. (inaudible) When the lot split was done, the survey was submitted, the elevations were done with the engineer, and he was told "you're good to go for the permit." There was never a step where he had to do this process following the lot split. He knew there were guidelines but he didn't even know about the HPC. Knowing what he knows now, he should have done the house design then and submitted the elevations but was not directed to do that. Mr. Thron said he is into this for $300,000 and wonders if he needs to hire an attorney. He doesn't want to get into a lawsuit with the City over this but he doesn't know what else to do. Mr. Gladhill said he would find it hard to believe that previous staff would not have conveyed that HPC approval of a design permit would be needed. Things get lost in translation but he doesn't think there would have been any guidance that would have said "go ahead and apply for a building permit." He thinks it would have been, "once you get done with the plat, you then go through the design permit process with the HPC" as staff always tells applicants. The survey that was presented with the lot split is somewhat different than what is now shown. He feels there is some latitude to work through this now. New infill developments are not intended to replicate 1880s style but they must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Councilmember Junker (inaudible). He pointed out the HPC is a very integral part of the whole process of infill development, every bit as important as planning and getting the building permits. Mrs. Thron noted they put on the extra stone finish and she doesn't think the detail on the windows was pointed out. Mr. Gladhill stated the conversation with the HPC has been about materials being wrapped around all four sides - four sided architecture. Chairman Thueson agreed that the Commission must apply the requirements of the Neighborhood Conservation District to this project. Unfortunately this comes late after the initial lot split discussion. This is a very prominent site in a very historic part of town. One of the findings that the Commission is required by City Code to adopt is that the building does not materially impair the character of the neighborhood as a whole - how the neighborhood buildings relate to each other, with the historic school house behind it - how the setting works with the design. There are very specific guidelines to consider per City Code. Commissioner Larson stated he appreciates the applicant's situation but agrees that the Commission must follow design guidelines. The way the application process has worked with the previous City Planner on other infill housing projects has been fairly consistent: preliminary meeting, guidelines, preliminary design, HPC. Typically, staff would not suggest that it has been approved, it would be that they can't read the minds of the Commission and would give general direction to aid the application but indicate that the Commission will make the decision. Houses in this neighborhood establish a pattern and this house does not appear to fit the massing or the design guidelines. Commissioner Holmes noted the roof pitch and shape affect the massing of the building. He asked if trusses are already purchased or on order. Mr. Koch said trusses are not ordered yet (inaudible). He stated he has no intentions of throwing Ms. Wittman under the bus, she was a great help, but he did not have anyone to go to after she left. Up to the point where he had preliminary design, he felt he was on the right track. He still feels lost on the direction the Commission wants. Page 4 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 21, 2022 Commissioner Mino said she feels the applicant took suggestions given at the last meeting into consideration. She likes that they changed the direction of the front of the house and tucked the garage behind, which is a big part of the NCD guidelines. The stone addition is nice on front, and she would prefer to see it all the way around for four-sided design. She would like other Commissioners to discuss what might help with massing for the benefit of the applicant. She does not feel that this house would detract from the neighborhood. Commissioner Heimdahl agreed. He said his main concern is how it will impact the existing historic fabric of the City. He wasn't at the previous meeting, but feels the proposed design would work within the general framework of neighboring properties. Mr. Gladhill said the applicant has 10 days to appeal the decision which would be a new process with the City Council. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to deny Case No. 2022-60, Design Approval for New Single -Family Dwelling at 109 Martha St N. Motion passed 5-2 with Commissioners Heimdahl and Mino voting nay. NEW BUSINESS 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. Mr. Gladhill explained the application. 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 existing garage is not original to this home, which was built in 1870 and is considered lawful, nonconforming (front yard setback). The applicant is proposing to replace the existing garage with a new garage with finishes that are more compatible with the primary structure. Staff believes that the size and massing of the proposed garage are approaching being oversized (the size is increasing from existing garage) but the finer design elements and finishes are an improvement over the existing garage. Additionally, the existing garage is only slightly set back from the primary dwelling, essentially flush with the front of the home. The proposed garage maintains the same front yard setback. Staff recommends approval with three conditions. Jeremy Imhoff, Imprint Architecture and Design, via Zoom, representing the applicants, stated the current garage is built into the 30 foot setback and they are trying to maintain the existing wall line. If it were set back to meet the current code requirements, the first stall would become very difficult to use so he is applying for a separate variance. The plan is to get approval of the variance, expand the footprint to the north, maintain the garage depth for the first stall and create a larger second stall. He is trying to match all the materials on the outside. Garage doors will have lights at the top and there will be windows on the side facing the neighbor. Commissioner Mino asked why the width of the garage is being extended by 3 feet, and Mr. Imhoff replied because the garage is a bit small for storing vehicles and extra items. Commissioners Summers and Holmes applauded the design. Motion by Commissioner Summers, seconded by Commissioner Heimdahl, to approve Case No. 2022-63, Design Approval for 603 S Broadway St garage replacement as proposed, with the three conditions recommended by staff. All in favor. Case No. 2022-66: Consider Design Approval for Food Truck at 204 Main St S, Case of The Good Egg Food Truck. Mr. Gladhill stated that Ryan Kilkelly, applicant, representing "The Good Egg" food truck, would like to have a food truck on a portion of the parking lot of 204 Main St N, on the corner of Main St and Page 5 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 21, 2022 Commercial St (Joseph Wolf Mercantile retail business). He is requesting a Design Permit to allow for a seasonal food vending truck to operate on -site for a period greater than 20 hours. Staff recommends approval of the Design Permit, should the Heritage Preservation Commission find that the proposal meets the standards set forth in the City Code, with 14 conditions. Ryan Kilkelly, applicant, said he will start with a short term lease of 3-6 months. He would like to avoid pulling the cart offsite every day which is a waste of energy. Hours would be 8 am-3 pm every day and special events. His cart is unique in that it is fully insulated for 3 1/2 seasons. He will skirt the bottom to insulate the water tanks. Everything is very neat and brand new construction. Mr. Gladhill pointed out that in July 2019, the Planning Commission approved a CUP for outdoor dining including a food truck for this location. A condition of the existing CUP is that all queuing must be on private property. Chairman Thueson asked if approval today would be indefinite or limited, and Mr. Gladhill replied the Commission could make approval contingent, for instance 6 months, or one time design approval and staff could then approve a seasonal permit. Councilmember Junker (inaudible). He pointed out that seasonal food trucks need a lot more discussion. The City has many restaurants that are paying taxes. Other food trucks have been given seasonal permits; the concept of a long term 6 mo, 8 mo, or 1 year lease is a whole different thing. Commissioner Larson remarked the HPC has been approving food trucks with a certain latitude because it's a vehicle, not a building and won't be there forever. This application seems to be moving into a gray area - RVs that have skirts around them and don't move. The proposal sounds reasonable, but he does not think the HPC would approve a solid bright blue building on the corner in downtown Stillwater. If it will be different than other food trucks, it should be treated more like a building. Chairman Thueson asked if it will be powered by generator, and Mr. Kilkelly replied yes. Noting that noise and fumes could have a negative impact on the historic character of downtown, Chairman Thueson said if approved, he would suggest a condition requiring power from the building. Mr. Kilkelly replied he has taken noise into account and will be paying about 6 times more for a generator that is state of the art. Mobile food units allow operators a chance to break into a community without the expense of a permanent establishment. He respects the fact that there are restrictions on food carts to avoid a state fair environment. Food trucks cater to locals and workers, providing high quality but inexpensive food. Sensing lack of consensus on design, Mr. Gladhill suggested postponing action and directing the applicant to look at a dark, muted color scheme and possibly having it be seasonal May -October. Mr. Kilkelly asked if he could operate up to 20 hours under the existing CUP, and Mr. Gladhill replied the existing CUP allows him to operate for less than 20 hours without coming in for a design permit. He will confirm with Mr. Kilkelly what the existing CUP allows. Councilmember Junker commented it's a big topic needing discussion and should not be piecemealed. Commissioner Summers noted the purpose here tonight is design. If it's more of a permanent structure, there would be other considerations (inaudible). Commissioner Heimdahl noted that discussions on the use would be before the Planning Commission, not HPC. Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to table Case No. 2022-66, Design Approval for Food Truck at 204 Main St S, directing the applicant to work with staff to come up with a more compatible design and noting that since installation would be permanent, the case must meet Page 6 of 8 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 21, 2022 design guidelines for Downtown Review District, of key note, the color shall be dark and muted. All in favor. Case No. 2022-68: Pre -Application Review: Consider Concept Plan for 1001 Holcombe St W Demolition Permit and Infill Redevelopment: Case of Julie Bartkey. Mr. Gladhill stated that staff has been approached by the owner of 1001 Holcombe St S requesting approval to demolish the dwelling on the site to facilitate the construction of two new single family homes. The existing home was constructed in 1872 and has had several modifications including foundation repair, siding and addition of rear porch. The applicant seeks high-level, non -binding feedback from the HPC before investing in the costs of building plans. Staff seeks broad policy feedback from the HPC on two topics to ensure that staff and applicant are headed in the right direction: 1) appropriateness to demolish existing structure; and 2) feedback on design of proposed replacement dwellings. Per the required demolition process for structures built pre-1946, the Building Official and Community Development Director inspected the building. There are signs of structural issues, but the dwelling is not hazardous and presents no concern to public safety or public health. The foundation, which is not original, appears to be in generally good condition, but shows 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 could be repaired. The northwest corner of the exterior wall shows signs of bowing. The structure shows signs of shifting, but is not in danger of collapse. Staffs 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. Staff is 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. Julie Bartkey, applicant, noted that since City staff inspected the home it has shifted considerably to the point where some of the siding is popping off one of the dormers. Commissioner Mino said the HPC doesn't approve demolition without a basis. Not having seen it, it would be hard for her to approve demolition. Chairman Thueson agreed the City has a very high threshold to demolish old houses. There would be a public hearing and all the info would go into that decision. The HPC prefers renovation if possible. Ms. Bartkey stated most parts of the home that would provide historic integrity were removed by previous owners other than main beams and there is water seepage into a second floor bedroom. Mr. Gladhill reiterated that the building official did not see an imminent threat of collapse. Unless a structural report to the contrary is submitted, staff would lean toward preservation. Commissioner Holmes (inaudible). He asked if it is possible to repair the house, build another house on the vacant lot and share a garage, and Ms. Bartkey said that is worth considering. Commissioner Larson acknowledged that typically demolition is a single house on a single lot; this is an oversized lot. Two smaller houses would likely fit the rhythm of the street. Commissioner Summers said perhaps the house could be shifted to a new foundation to allow for construction of another house. Ms. Bartkey asked if she would need to go through the HPC to demolish the garage, and Mr. Gladhill replied if the garage was built after 1946, its demolition may be able to be staff -approved. Regarding design of the three models provided, staff would feel comfortable bringing any of those forward. Commissioner Heimdahl remarked the HPC is supportive of rehabbing and assisting homeowners - there are agencies that offer low interest homeowner loans and organizations that provide classes. Page 7 of 9 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 21, 2022 Commissioner Larson commented that the design of the first new home model is far superior than the other two because it reflects the vernacular. (inaudible) Consensus of the Commission was to give the general direction not to support demolition, and that all three new design models would be acceptable with a preference for modern farm home design. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS Discuss 2022 HPC Awards Mr. Gladhill and the Commission discussed the nominees. The Commission decided to award River Siren Brewing - Facade Restoration/Patio; Isaac Staples Mill - Master Sign Plan; Brick and Linen - Individual Sign; William Sauntry Mansion - Adaptive Reuse; Vick Residence 516 Second St N - Residential Restoration; 107 Laurel St E - Residential Facade Restoration/Front Porch; Washington County Historical Society Heritage Center; and Ron Brenner Architects. The awards will be presented at the October 18, 2022 City Council meeting. FYI Mr. Gladhill informed the Commission of a forthcoming application. In late August, Planning staff became aware of work underway at 109 Pine St E without City permits 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 the property owner and contractor that all work on the property should stop, and that permits are required. Staff met 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 15, 2022. Commissioner Larson said there used to be a checklist for applicants going through the process of City approvals, and Mr. Gladhill said that Planning staff are working on improving and clarifying the application review process. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Heimdahl, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Matt Thueson, Chair ATTEST: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director Page 8 of 8 I11war THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: October 19, 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 — Findings for Previous Denial BACKGROUND At the September 21, 2022 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting, the HPC denied a Design Permit for a new dwelling at 109 Martha St N. Minnesota Statutes require that denials such as this be supported by Findings of Fact. A draft resolution is offered for consideration for POTENTIAL MOTION Motion to adopt the resolution adopting Findings of Fact supporting the denial of the Design Permit for 109 Martha St W. City of Stillwater Washington County, Minnesota RESOLUTION HPC2022-01 RESOLUTION ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF A DESIGN REIVEW 536 MYRTLE ST W, STILLWATER, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater received a design review application from Steve and Lynn Thron ("Applicant") and PMI Homes, Inc. (Representative), for 536 Myrtle St W (formally known as 109 Martha St N), legally described on Exhibit A ("the Property") regarding the construction of a new single-family dwelling; and WHEREAS, the Property is located in the Neighborhood Conservation overlay district; and WHEREAS, a design review approval is required for new dwelling construction within the Neighborhood Conservation district; and WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission considered the design review proposal at its September 21, 2022 meeting, and following review of the proposal, denied the design review (5-2); and WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission now adopts this Resolution to support its findings for denial of the design review. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Heritage Preservation Commission of the City of Stillwater hereby adopts the following written findings for denial of the design review: 1. The requested design is not consistent with the requirements of the Stillwater Design Guidelines as the proposed model are not consistent with the scale and massing of adjacent structures and the proposed design does not provide equal architectural treatment on all four sides of the structure. Adopted by the City Heritage Preservation Commission this 19th day of October, 2022. CITY OF STILLWATER Matt Thueson, Heritage Preservation Commission Chair ATTEST: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director 1 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Applicant's Property Block 1 Lot 2, Myrtle View, Washington County MN illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: October 19, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Yasmine Robinson, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Case No. CD 2022-71: Concept Review Related to Demolition and New Construction at 320 2nd Street North; Case of Pat & Amy Estenson BACKGROUND City Staff has been coordinating with the Owners of 320 2nd Street North (Pat & Amy Estenson) on a concept plan for a proposed demolition and construction of a new home. The property is bounded to the north by Linden Street East, Mulberry Street East to the south, 3rd Avenue North to the west and has frontage onto 2nd Avenue North. The property has a lot area of 7,647 square feet and contains a one-story, 1,024 square foot single-family house built in approximately 1858. The property also contains a sub- surface garage that fronts onto 2nd Street North and a large shed located in the rear yard. The topography of this lot is quite steep in the front, resulting in a prominent stone retaining wall along most of the block frontage. The northern side of the property also contains a long, stone retaining wall that runs along the entirety of the lot. The existing house is a modest one-story structure with at least three visible additions added to the back over the years, and can be found on an 1884 Sanborn Map. The property also overlooks Downtown Stillwater and the Saint Croix River. DEMOLITION REQUEST Staff completed two inspections of the property related to the request to submit a demolition application. The conclusion of both inspections resulted in the same outcome; City Staff and the Building Official all recognize that the property is in need of repairs and maintenance. Additionally, the property does have challenges due to the topography, previous additions, and the nature of an old home. However, while noting these concerns, Staff and the Building Official did not identify any major life, health and safety or structural concerns that would warrant the full demolition of an 1845 — 1900's Early Vernacular home. However, Staff does feel that it may reasonable to consider demolition of the rear additions, as the side of the last addition is built into the north side retaining wall. DESIGN APPROVAL REQUEST — REPLACEMENT INFILL DWELLING The property owners would like to demolish the existing home to build a new three-story home. The property is located in the RB Two -Family Residential Zoning District, as well as the Downtown Stillwater Design Review and Neighborhood Conservation Districts which result in Heritage Preservation Commission's review of any proposed design, as well as demolition. The Stillwater Design Guidelines provide direction on new construction intended to conserve the character of buildings and emphasize setbacks, height, size, scale, massing, and the overall relationship to the streetscape and neighborhood. Please note that the concept renderings submitted by the property owners do not contain any calculations or measurements, and therefore the following analysis is based on visual inspection only. Setbacks Along this block, front setbacks range from 30 — 40 feet, likely due to the steep topography and retaining walls that line the street. The concept plan seems to generally align with this, as well as the side and rear setbacks, though calculations will be needed in order to verify. Height, Size, Scale & Massing Building heights of adjacent structures vary approximately in the high 30's, with a 35- foot, 2.5 Story maximum height in the RB Two -Family Zoning District. Scale and massing also vary with the older homes trending smaller than the three-story townhomes built as part of a Planned Unit Development in 1991 in the mid -block. Lots on this street range in size from 4,806 square feet to 9,199 square feet. Based on visual inspection, the concept renderings may exceed the allowable height of the base zoning district, and further refinement would be necessary. Scale and massing also seem to be exceeded, but could possibly be downsized during the design process. One recommended change to the design to achieve approval could be to amend the third - level into a half story (built in the attic/roof truss area with roof dormers used to maximize livable space). Overall Relationship to Streetscape and Neighborhood This block does contain a mix of historic and more modern styles of housing, but the concept renderings do introduce a new modern with flat roof style that we assume the Heritage Preservation Commission will have concerns with in terms of compatibility with scale and massing and therefore the rhythm of the streetscape. Though the general massing seems like it could be brought into compliance, the flat roof and flat front fagade may stand out amongst other adjacent hip and gable roofed structures. Staff is interested to hear the Commission's opinions on design, specifically related to blocks with a variety of styles of housing. ACTION REQUESTED No formal action is requested at this time. This is a concept review only. The HPC is asked to provide broad policy direction and identify any major barriers to related to two requests by the Property Owner: 1. Demolition of the existing home 2. Design of the new concept home (if full demolition were to be approved) Generally speaking, Staff assumes that the Heritage Preservation Commission would not be supportive of a full demolition. Additionally, in the event that the Heritage Preservation Commission does approve a full demolition, Staff finds that the overall design appears appropriate; however, the Building Height (size, scale and massing) is incompatible with minimum requirements and rhythm of the surrounding streetscape. Feedback on this concept plan is non -binding. View from 2nd Street North View from rear yard LINDEN P> MULBERRY r1a a C74,1. 3.-2..?..". •.;* . r; r+-4-2 , -1.1.11r.. • ' • ;1': ' . 16 Owl tie 0 Kz'',1.;.:-.;-:',--.. .:%.7,i..,...'.'• ' ' 4,;;;11,:,..•,,,-34,,,,IN. - '-'" r ,-. ,,, .). ..,z... ';','t!. •ir,,I.v.-i-'''.47.f• ..,, '' '7i.4-ir• . • - -.•:,•.:N., , .. _,,,,,,,-„,4 - ,t7: -• • ... V -7 -" `i.r.; . ' ,t' .,:,_,• _i,i4,...../.,,. • • -A--; ,. - '.. A i• .:r'' ; •'‘.4->2"./.?‘"X%-4,)'•e:01.',"•, . , >-,')- , ".' • ,. Y k...f.v'fr; .t._ ..•le ..,/, ..,,,,, . -,T. . t.-4V44-7..1,,-,,• i • b" ,„;;..7..-/..A,v ,i,.... • ,-.21.,..,,,-;....•., ..4.1„ .-.,- ..." ....... 2. 4.0; ..../ .-,.....jk,- .0.. i..,,,,,,,, ., ....kV.' t :....... "."..ii*,...:t. - •,:rr• . . Al. ) , -i ', V. 'it' ie ..", .P. II ;I „I ilailliiiiii1111111111[1' iti _ - -��� 4,40'• - f,"1:*„. '4. • - • 1845-1900 Early Vernacular Houses Characteristics: 717 W. Churchill Street (1863). N. 2nd Street, looking north, in ca. 1873. MNHS Many of the first structures built in Stillwater were simple vernacular workers' houses, designed and built by local carpenters. These houses were often small, one- and one- half stories, with gabled, wood -shingled roofs. Porches and wings added to the original square or rectangular plan produced the familiar L-plan. Depending on the date of construction, the exterior might have some Greek Revival, Italianate or Queen Anne style stock millwork trim. Most of these houses are of wood frame construction with clapboard siding. • Limestone foundation • Front gable or side gable • Square, rectangular or L-shaped plans • Minimal ornamentation, with decoration of standard millwork (turned or stamped) • Rear additions of varying heights • Two -over -two, double -hung wood sash; early examples had more lights • Central chimney may pierce roof ridge Many carpenters and builders were part of the early community. Historian Norene Roberts noted in a study of North Hill that the practice of building pattern book houses was likely a strong one in Stillwater where so many businesses produced lumber and finished millwork.3 805, 807 S. 3rd Street, ca. 1885. 3 Norene Roberts, "National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Stillwater Commercial Historic District," 1992. On file, Stillwater Community Development Department. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 21 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. 5.6.3 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. 5 -LO.A- 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 illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: October 19, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Case No. CD 2022-73: Concept Review for New Dwelling at 1824 1st St N; Case of Andrea and Ryan Rambacher BACKGROUND The City has been working with the Owner of 1824 1st St N (Andrea and Ryan Rambacher) on the construction of a new dwelling on the Property. This is an existing lot of record. The previous home on this Property was previously destroyed by fire and the Property is now vacant. The Stillwater Design Guidelines focuses review of new infill dwellings on massing and scale of buildings along with rhythm of streetscape. There are multiple, unique physical characteristics of the Property that make compliance with the strict interpretation of the guidelines challenging. 1. The Property is part way up the valley bluff, making building height measurements somewhat challenging 2. The Property is lawful, nonconforming in terms of Lot Width and Lot Size 3. 1st St N (the desired front fagade) is not an improved City Street (even though it is public right-of-way) Generally speaking, Staff believes some degree of Variance is reasonable, at least as it relates to minimum setback requirement. The rhythm of the streetscape would actually encourage a Variance to the setback along Willow Street E. For comparison purposes, in order to adhere to the strict interpretation of the plain language of the Zoning Code, the Property would only likely accommodate a 20 foot wide home. Staff does believe that it would be reasonable to be flexible on setback standards. Staff poses the following policy -level question to the Heritage Preservation Commission (and Planning Commission due to need for a Variance). • What is the minimum Variance necessary in order to achieve a reasonable use of the property? Building Height The most significant policy question is Building Height. Since the Owners have chosen to orient the front facade to 1st Street N, the current Building Height is in excess of the Maximum Building Height allowed by City Code. Maximum Building Height 2.5 Stories Not to exceed 35 Feet Proposed Building Height 3 Stories Approximately 30 Feet • The Lower Level appears to be primarily a tuck under garage • The Second Level (Main Level) appears to be the main living space • The Third Level (Upper Level) appears to be mainly bedrooms When taking into account the rhythm of the streetscape, most adjacent structures are oriented towards Willow Street E (or 2nd Street North or Main Street). Only one (1) other home in this block is oriented towards 1st Street North (an unimproved road/private driveway). The Lower Levels of each structure are typically a partial basement, reducing the overall height to 2.5 stories (when measured from side and rear yards). The main entrances are typically on the Main Level, not Lower Level. Garage Location/Orientation The previous dwelling had a detached garage on the west side of the property (high point of the Property). The detached garage was accessed from Willow Street, not 1st Street. When taking into account the rhythm of the streetscape, the predominant garage pattern is a detached garage in the rear yard or an attached garage setback from the front of the primary dwelling. This is a unique design in that the attached garage is not side -by -side with the home, yet the entire Lower Level of the Home. Overall Design There are few examples of this specific design in Stillwater. As such, Staff seeks direction from the Heritage Preservation Commission as to whether this overall design approach is appropriate. The Owner has referenced a Turret (small tower at northeast corner of the home) as an important design element in their proposal. The Owner references other historic examples, most notably the Queen Anne style architectural. For reference, the Stillwater Design Guidelines refer to these architectural elements as `conical towers' for use in Queen Anne style architecture. In the Owner's Proposal, the tower is more of a square, 'castle -style' design. The Design Guidelines are silent on these castle -style turrets and there is likely not much in the Design Guidelines to prevent the overall design approach. However, the massing and scale appears to be slightly in conflict with the rhythm of the streetscape. Finally, the Owner has referenced other recent approvals that they feel represent the height (massing and scale) they are attempting to achieve. • 1006 3rd Ave N • 1010 3rd Ave S • 1606 1st St N However, in Staff's review of these examples, each appears to be 2.5 story homes, with the upper level being the half -story with roof dormers to maximize livable space. Review of past case files for each of these examples verifies that reference each of these dwellings as 2.5 stories. 111 : �• r y -T uws i _ f_r_ ,• i ® arm.=�l` / . ra - ¢_ a •, i_ , 1601 1st St N 1010 3rd Ave S 1006 3rd Ave S Staff would have the following recommendations to improve compliance with the Stillwater Design Guidelines. 1. Orient the home towards Willow Street a. Could be as simple as adding an entry to the Willow Street Fagade 2. Amend the Willow Street Facade to ensure equal treatment on all four (4) facades. 3. Amend the Lower Level to be partially subgrade to better match the surrounding homes and lower the overall height a. This could create drainage issues, requiring a sump pump in the garage b. Alternatively, find other means to reduce the building height/number of stories ACTION REQUESTED No formal action is requested at this time. This is a concept review only. The HPC is asked to provide broad policy direction and identify any major barriers to the proposed project. Feedback on this concept plan is non -binding. Staff is anticipating a Supplemental Submittal from the Owner in response to the above findings on Monday. L 3 • ow!lo." • (.v:7\ -1-t0 • 1ST FLOOR DECK 2ND FLOOR SUR-TOTAL FIN. WT. FIN. LOWER LEVEL TOTAL FIN. O. -FT FOYER VOLUME OTHER VOLUME UNFIN. LOWER LEVEL uNEitr. aONUS ROOM GARAGE • SCREEN PORCH - of. C20012009 MUHLENPOH & ASSOC. The concepts, design, drawings and details shown are the copyrighbad Material of Munienpolt & Assoc. No portions may be copied or reproduced without written permission. No warranties are expressed or implied. Final user must verify slrucluraL dimensional,. decorative and code compliance. These drawings are for use solely for the project. The Architect is deemed the author and owner of this instrument of seivice and retains aN common law, statutory and all other rights. ,,,,,,, ••• • t•-* MUHLENPOH & ASSOC. 10884 THONE PO AFOODBUR'( MN 55.129 OMCE (612) 640-4654 HOME 61284O4654 FAX (651) 436-6984 ^,.^1.-. • ^-. `,-. ,-• ^ e V-, ,,y,- v 1, -- J.^ ------- , a N N.-- -4 ,--• y • ,,,, ,•.------ , ..• .^.- I , ^ ,,, ^J.-. ,,,, • ,^ . ^ ,, -V DECK 2NO•Ft SUB -TOTAL RN. SQ.F DRAWN REVISIONS 13Alt 02008,12009 MUHLENPOH & ASSOC. The concepts, design, drawings and details shown are the copyrighted 'material of Muhlenpoh & Assoc. No portions may be copied or reproduced without written permission. No warranties are expressed or implied. Final user must verify' structural, crimensional, decorative and code compliance. These drawings are for use solely for this project. The Architect is deemed the author and owner of this instrument of seivioe and retains all common law. statutory and ail other righls. MUHLENPOH1 & ASSOC 184 THONIF RD. 'W 00 DBU R Y, MN 55129 OFFICE: 1612) 840-4654 [TOME • (6121840-4654 FAX: (651) 436..692,4 '1 t!• VP.110PRIC, UP DRAWN REVISIONS • T UNIt NUT I 02.02' C200r2909 MUHLENP01-1 & ASSOC. The !concept, design, drawings and details shown are the copyrighted 'material or Muhtenpoh & Assoc. No portions may be copied or reproduced without written permission. No warranties are expressed or implied. Final user MUM verify structural, dimensional, decorative and code compliance. These drawings are for use solely for this project. The Architect is deemed the author and owner of this instrument of service and retains all common taw, statutory and all other rights. MUHLENPOH & ASSOC. 106S4 THONF WOODBURY: MN 55129 OFFJCE: (612)840-4654 HOME (612)84()-4654 FAX (.651 43 6 • 6 9 ;`.44 .ERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: Ryan Rambacher JOB#ZZ08190C PID-=21030201 3001 2 SURVEY NOTES: BEARINGS ARE BASED ON COORDINATES SUPPLIED BY THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFICE. (NAD 83). . MINOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOT SHOWN. . UTILITIES SHOWN PER UTILITY BASE MAP PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER. LOCATION I5 APPROXIMATE. EASEMENTS ARE AS SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLAT. OTHER EASEMENTS, IF ANY, MAY EXIST. THERE WAS NO EFFORT MADE TO RESEARCH RECORDED OR UNRECORDED EASEMENTS. AREA SUMMARY: rOTAL OF PARCEL - 7,528 SQ. FT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 607.6 605 TENCH BARK j {� 1 ,TOP #)i HYD, IELEV-000.55 o i d) aos IP1Tf PPE 11AR6E0 RL5 0774 o FOND I/7 RON m PRE HARKED RL5 20595 0.4 E. OF LOT GORIER GAS SHOWN ON AVAILABLE TAX RECORDS) The North Half of Lot 1, Block 43, CARL! & SCHULENBERG'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER ADDITION, according to Myron Shepard's Perfected Plat of the City of Stillwater, dated May 31, 1878, on file and of record In the office of the County Recorder, Washington County Minnesota. CERTIFICATION: hereby certify that this surrey. plan or report was prepared by me r under no direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Land urveyor under Ore laws of th _ e of MINNESOTA. MA,AU L. ES Jcense. leo. 25718 5-27-22 x Q � o > 0 0 817.4 SET 1/7 IRON- PIPE MARLED 6' R15 75718 0I » 7cq PLAN PER PLAN »- 0 2 E.Iwi«OWST. 11 > 9 X8033 -803.5 t--8045 BOLA -5P'7 m ,y o 8J 1 -• 803.9SOUTH ttr I-e+E`8f X8 0 ,6 TFE NORTH HALF R LOi 1,� ` Xisa4.2 BLOCK 43 _ 1 -X.807.6 42X -500.0 Aff X799.6. X799.2 797,4 99.6 V W (150.00 'PLAT) `89e46'4 �.(yj 149.74 C Y / 717.1� I X79 8 AI 794.2 1' ao \\\xeo9s 9646▪ ,t _ xao7s . = *46 '56.'" 797. I, LEGEND X810.5 • FOUND MONUMENT O SET i 12•I110N PIPE MARKED RL5 NO, 2571 a F- GUY WIRE O/'y POWER POLE Vp SANITARY MANHOLE 0 or T8Y CATCH 9A51N STORM MANHOLE HYDRANT ® CURE STOP Aa WATER VALVE * CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE >> x807,5 OVERHEAD UTILITY SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN FENCE L1IRR ITYPICALI CONCRETE SURFACE RFTUMINOUS SURFACE 8 803.� -% 02.7 71.7 79L786. - al < 79470r W �'k *Sae.' 784. x706.6 I` ry 1 B79't ^mom m X786.9 1 15" I X783,3 neaC.�1 X7631 787 51' 781.68W Hti L$ PROJECT LOCATION: 1824N. FIRST STREET NORTH STILLWATER, MN /%I I 144 793.E -7413 797-717e 5, 1m Y h� X7�'44 C'�, x 785.7 • '8r 793.6N x 793.4 796.2 X794.a X7913 NORTH 0 20 40 SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEET 1S I t x7474 � r' >k 782.E 782.4 785.6TW 1 783.0814 6 A 777,0 797 IROLi PPE NAem7, RLS 779.2 0774 1 *779,4 *774.5 I I GRAVEL ; O1 78Q-1 OI I I I 760.8 *780.6 6T?AVEL 787.80W r SET 'K' ON it----� TOP r>F 7Ty.11 WALL - 60 O Slits N. 6750 Stillwater Blvd, N. Stillwater. MN 55082 Phone 651.2775.6969 Fax 651.275.8976 den@ cssurvey net CORNERSTONE LAND SURVEYING, INC Tim Gladhill From: Ryan Rambacher Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2022 9:10 AM To: Tim Gladhill; Planning; Andrea Rambacher Subject: 1824 1st N [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We bought this property to downsize and to make an energy efficient home for our family. The reasons for the overall design are to maximize space on a small lot, create an opportunity for a river view and bring in ideas from historical homes in the area. One of our favorite homes is 239 Nelson and this historical home helped craft our vision. Shortcoming with this lot: Small in size 50ft by 150ft. Corner lot setback Setbacks for a livable house Topographical/elevation In designing the home the best way to maximize space on such a small lot would be to go up. We incorporated the natural elevation change to keep the overall high within guidelines while creating a river view. We will need to ask for both a side setback and corner setback variance. If we could not get theses variances our home could only be 10ft wide if incorporating the corner lot set back of 30ft. Knowing this could be a concern, we moved the house back(west) on the lot to maximize the right of way on the corner lot. (1st st N is a dirt road and will only service our house and the house south of our lot) We would love to have a backyard for our children and pets to play. Knowing that most houses in the area have back yards we decided that a tuck under garage would be our best bet to reduce lot coverage while creating a backyard for children and pets. We have been through numerous design updates to maximize the space while using all of the square footage to build a family home. We feel that the window placements and "ginger breading" is similar to homes across north hill and recent new builds. We also wanted to incorporate a turret on our new home to bring in the historical significance of these unique features. Turrets are a stable across Stillwater's historical districts. We chose to use a square turret due to cost and to maximize sq footage. We have lived in stillwater for 5.5yrs and we love this historical town and plan to be here forever. This is why we plan on incorporating an elevator to make sure this is a possibility. Since stillwater is very unique with its elevation and topographical issues being creative is a must. We have included pictures of houses in stillwater with similar features and elevation. Some are new and some our old. We feel that our potential house will give dutchtown an upgrade while bring in que's from other homes in the area. Not to mention a much larger tax base then the current lot. Thanks for your consideration. 1 2 220 rySt E 3 4 Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone 5 I11war THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: October 19, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Case No. CD 2022-74: Design Approval for New Dwelling at 905 Hickory St W; Case of Daved Najarian BACKGROUND The City has been working with the Owner of 905 Hickory St W (Daved Najarian) on the construction of a new dwelling on the Property. The Owner recently received approval from the Planning Commission for a lot split to facilitate this new dwelling. The lot split actually (generally) reverts back to the original parcel lines of the original plat (at some point in the past, these parcels were combined to create a larger lot). Generally speaking, the scale and massing appear appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. This block consists primarily of 1880s era homes ranging from 1.5 stories to 2 story homes and a foot print on average of 1,000 square feet to 1,200 square feet. A few mid-century to more recent homes also exist on the block. Setbacks for adjacent structures on the same street vary without a true predominant setback on this street. Across the street from this Property is Stonebridge Elementary (located on a much higher elevation on this side of the street. The general design appears to compliment the surrounding neighborhood. However, Staff recommends that the Applicant modify the plan to recess the attached (tuck under) garage and call more attention to the main (front) entrance. The proposal is deficient in the required front setback, which requires the garage to be setback at least ten (10) feet from the front of the home. While the Applicant has made efforts to introduce additional design elements to de-emphasize the attached garage, the front facade is dominated by the garage in terms of width of the front facade and recessed entryway. While this will likely impact the internal floor plan and require redrafting of the proposed home, there appears to be sufficient space on the Property to be able to adjust the floor plan to accommodate compliance with setbacks for garages. ACTION REQUESTED No formal action is requested at this time. This is a concept review only. The HPC is asked to provide broad policy direction and identify any major barriers to the proposed project. Feedback on this concept plan is non -binding. �.f� r�f rnichael huber relittects g MEMO 351 Highview Road Hudson WI 54016 651 . 442 . 3771 Project: Najarian Residence To: Stillwater Historic Preservation Commission From: Michael Huber AIA LEED AP Subject: Project Narrative Date: 30 September 2022 The project consists of a modest two-story single family home for a young family. We began the project by walking the site and neighborhood to get an understanding of its fabric and context. It is diverse in architectural styles and house/garage placement including an elementary school across the street. We have provided streetscape information in the submittal packet. Additionally, the Owners commissioned a detailed site survey for us to better understand site amenities, opportunities as well as constraints. We have gone through the Schematic Design process which included input from the selected local General Contractor. We have reviewed the guidelines and City Zoning requirements and understand we vary from this information. The design challenge that brings us before the Commission was the need to incorporate a 2 car attached garage on the narrow lot, and have it not be visually dominant or its placement negatively impact the usable/livable space. We understand that the garage needs to be setback at least 30 feet from the roadside property line and 10 feet back from the principal dwelling. We have evaluated many ideas with the desired result indicated in this submittal and we appreciate the chance to highlight a few design considerations from the process. We worked hard to be thoughtful and purposeful in the design moves to minimize the visual impact a street facing garage would have. Form The home design has a traditional pitched gable roof at the main massing with a lower flat -roofed area which wraps the pure gable form. This keeps the overall massing simple but adds a touch of a modern/clean feel — which was a desire of the Owners. The gabled form and entry will be white painted board and batten siding, emphasizing verticality and the main form's prominence. The garage and area under the flat roof will have horizontal lap siding in a darker color to help the garage visually recede. The entry porch roof will be gray and have forward columns framing the entry. This porch roof extends 4 feet in front of the garage with another column support, again helping to underplay the garage and 'extending' the front porch. Siting We located the entry porch at the 30 foot setback and the face of the garage 4 feet behind that. This location is a nice median between the adjacent home site placements, visually stepping the streetscape versus the abrupt in and out of the roadside facades. This also allows for reasonable space in front for neighborhood interaction and activities, and equal rear yard space for more family focused activities. Existing site drainage is cross sloping from the lot's northwest corner to the southeast. The proposed home's location allows us to adjust the grade to have positive drainage away from the garage without raising the home too high in the landscape. In essence, the further the home is pushed back in to the lot, the higher the home needs to placed. The homes width is set within the sideyard setbacks to allow for grade adjustment and minimize disruption to the natural drainage flow pattern with the property. Page 2 of 2 30 September, 2022 351 Highview Road Hudson WI 54016 651 . 442 . 3771 We had studied a number of garage placements including behind the home but the required change in grade would heavily impact site drainage to the adjacent properties plus drastically increase the amount of impervious surface. We appreciate the Commissions consideration of our submission. We worked hard to favorably fit the intent of the City requirements and be reasonable in our solution -and create a beautiful home to enhance the neighborhood as well as fulfill the needs of the Owners. ..............."................... ill il—ii I I i I I I _ III III nia. i Ti' — 1"—E—iik 1 I III Mt I 1 Mil! 15 Massing Study Najarian Residence Massing Study Najarian Residence • 906.3- 906.4% 906.8,E04 907,0BW -7 907, 3TW - 906.9 906.8- 907.3TW — 6"S 904.2TW - DECK r r rr__,, 1 89798W x 896.9 x895. 18"CLUMP- . 9+ 906.!HW 905.0BW 905.9BW 906.7TW 905.3BW -906.1 TW -896.7 895.9-' \• �✓�95.9 SHED ",CLUMP 9.3° 896.7 (.6 105.04 UNKNOWN SAARY SEWER SERVICE TO MAPLENITSTREET 899.1 B W- INSTALL 400 L.F. OF 2" FORCEMAIN TO MANHOLE AT OWENS ST. 901.0BW- 1 907.81 NS 90V, 7 *907,6 �?t997�r - 4907.6 - 906.9 TRPL 906.5 905.7 ). 90906.6 0 J X 905.5 903.3 x907.3 02.3TW 1 -902.9 CLUMP , 1 `-901.2 =9DLteW-901,28� 908.2 7 EXISTING WATER SERVICE FOR PARCEL A About 9.8 feet from garage corner to setback line About 9.8 feet from garage corner to setback line rAbout 3.2 feet from garage to setback line About 3\ feet from garage to setback line VA.21=M . Wald F TO Sally #4 (#3 4:t-2 / About 13.5 / feet from garage to setback line About 13.5 feet from garage to setback line 411111111P4111F 46. 4.-.4111111111110 • ' .'L • r141411 klif 4 ;411111‘ 44 SO .1 0 ...7 'in 77(`::;*;:*-1.-- N.-"ii g N IS sua t #1 724 Owens St. N Looking East on Hickory Looking West on Hickory #2 823 Hickory St. W Looking East on Hickory ' . r °': Looking West on Hickory #3 905 Hickory St. W Looking East on Hickory Looking West on Hickory Looking East on Hickory #4 PROPOSED NEW BUILD LOT Looking West on Hickory #5 911 Hickory St. W Looking East on Hickory Looking West on Hickory #6 917 Hickory St. W Looking East on Hickory Looking West on Hickory I11war THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: October 19, 2022 TO: Honorable HPC Commissioners FROM: Yasmine Robinson, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Memorandum Regarding Updates to 1008 5th Street South (Case No. 2022-22) City Staff received an updated front elevation drawing for a previously approved demolition and infill construction of a single-family home located at 1008 5th Street South. Due to the late submission, Staff was unable to perform adequate design and/or code analysis. Staff requests that the submission be considered during the meeting at the discretion of the HPC. i- 1 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PY t THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA US CASE May 13, 2022 Chair Amy Mino and HPC Commissioners Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director 1008 5th Street South Building Design Permit for 1008 5th Street South (Case No. 2022-22) Applicant: Landowner: BACKGROUND Sofie Cohen and Districts: Neighborhood Spencer Middleton Conservation District Sofie Cohen Designation: N/A As the Commission may recall, on April 13, 2022, the Commission approved a full demolition of the structure at 1008 5th Street South. Originally, the Commission had previously approved a partial demolition in April of 2021. However, due to a variety of structural concerns with the original foundation, leading to other structural issues with the Building, a full demolition was approved. At that time, it was noted that a new Design Permit would be required per City Code, as the project is located within the Neighborhood Conservation District. The Commission requested additional clarification due to the relatively short period of time to review revised plans. Said plans with additional detail are now attached for your review. New Application Submittal While the narrative request indicates the new proposal is the exact same as last year, the design schematic has changed. With a similar footprint as the existing home, the new design is still for a single -story home with attached but recessed garage. The home proposed contains a north -south directed gable roof with two dormer additions. The design has a "modern craftsman" feel. Overall, the massing of the new design is minimally greater than the existing structure that has been altered. According to the Applicant's Narrative, the primary changes from the 2021 Application (partial demolition/partial remodeling) are: 1. The roof structure was changed from a hip roof to a gable roof 2. The height of the central portion of the roof was increased (overall height and mass has increased) COPY 3. A bay window was ad r t o o Staff Conclusions As noted above, the height and mass has minimally increased from the 2021 design approval. Many of the homes in the area are either 1.5 story or 2 story homes, consistent with the character of homes of the era of this neighborhood. This may not be the preferred design, but is not uncommon in Stillwater and was the original design of the existing home on the site. The Commission did recommend that the Applicant consider a 2 story home since the project now involved a full demolition of the existing structure. 1.5 story or 2 story homes are encouraged by the Design Guidelines (indirectly; not explicitly noted), but not outright prohibited. A more detailed analysis is included below. Neighborhood and Streets Massing and scale of a new building should be compatible with neighboring structures. Respect the existing rhythm of the streetscape. Follow alignment and setbacks predominant on the street and adjacent properties. The existing structure is single story in a neighborhood predominantly comprised of 1.5-2 stories. The front of the home will be retained. Design new roofs to be compatible with forms of existing roofs in the neighborhood. The roof is designed as a gabled roof. This is a design change from the original proposal. The HPC should discuss the appropriateness of this design change. Building height should be considered in choosing roof forms, architectural style, and relating to context. A gabled roof on a single story structure, though not inherently common on Stillwater's South Hill, is appropriate for this one-story structure. Building and site design should respond to natural features. Respect the site's natural slope in new building design: minimize cut, fill and retaining walls. When retaining walls are The property has grade changes from the front to the rear which are retained in the back of the property. The property owner is proposing to install a new retaining wall in the back of the property to help provide for a better building site as well as improved property drainage. Case No. 2022-22 Page 2 of 4 COPY necessary, minimize their impact. I-( Iz V IUU UP Preserve significant trees. No significant trees are proposed to be removed as part of this project. Any significant tree loss will require replacement. Building Site Locate garage and driveway to respect existing street and neighborhood patterns. The garage is proposed to be set back behind the main line of the home. Though it is proposed to be attached to the residence, it location on the lot is consistent with adjacent properties. Minimize garage impact on new structure massing and street front. In addition to being located behind the front line of the residence, it will be located behind the front of the adjacent property to the south. The size and mass of the structure should be compatible with the size of the property. The mass and scale of the new home is compatible with the property's size. Consider front porch elements in the design of infill structures. The design does include a minimal covered front porch, but mainly a covered entryway. While this is not necessarily encouraged, it is consistent with the design of the home. Accessory buildings should be compatible with the main building. The attached garage meets this guideline. Design and detail new construction as four-sided architecture. This guideline has been met. Architectural Detail The facade of the structure should be compatible in scale and character to the houses of the streetscape. The tricky part with this design is it is a single story residence is located on a street full of 1.5- to 2-story structures. While the applicant initially discussed a two - story garage addition, that addition looked out of character/scale of the historic portion of the home. Building elements should be proportional to the scale and style of the building, and its context. The building's form and its additions are proportional to the scale of the residence and its context. Use architectural details to create visual interest and support architectural style. The proposed design is simple which supports the historic design of the home. The materials, textures, and colors are compatible with the surrounding properties and will not detract from the character of the neighborhood. Case No. 2022-22 Page 3 of 4 COPY In new building design, consider appropriate materials, textures and colors, and their relationship to other buildings of the neighborhood. V K VIUU UP Use masonry and stone No masonry or stone is proposed. The house is situated authentically. on rusticated concrete block. This will remain exposed in the front of the home. RECOMMENDATION Based on previous discussions and approvals, Staff recommends approval of the Design Permit with the following conditions. 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department and found on file with HPC Case No. 2020-33, except as modified by conditions herein or other City of Stillwater Planning Commission and/or City Council approval. 2. All new utilities will be located underground. 3. Exterior lighting shall be shielded from neighboring properties. 4. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the home. 5. The driveway shall be improved in conformance with City Code Section 33-5. 6. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Department. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Design Permit for 1008 5th St S with the six (6) conditions listed above. Attachments: Site Location Map Narrative Request Applicant Materials April 21, 2021 HPC Minutes April 20, 2022 DRAFT HPC Minutes Stillwater Design Guidelines — Neighborhood Conservation District Excerpt Cc: Sofie Cohen Spencer Middleton Case No. 2022-22 Page 4 of 4 Subject: Application for design app fo 8 h St S Applicants: Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton 4/29/2022 PREVIOUS CASE Dear Heritage Preservation Commission, We are writing to request design approval for redeveloping the soon -to -be -demolished house at 1008 5th St S. Last month you gave us approval for the demolition of our unsalvageable house structure, and this month we are excited to share with you the house we plan to build as a replacement. Since being granted design approval when we met last year, we made some slight design changes to improve the look and usability of the property. Because we designed this house intending to restore the remaining structure where it stood, our proposed footprint is substantially similar to what was already approved; the new foundation for the front portion of the house will be poured within the same setbacks as the existing foundation. Our color scheme, architectural details, and the materials we intend to use are the same as what was approved last year. The primary changes from last year's application to this year's application are: • The roof structure was changed from a hip roof to a gable roof • The height of the central portion of the roof was increased • A bay window bump -out in the front of the house with a shed roof was added Despite our numerous setbacks, we are still excited to put in the time and effort required to improve this property and make it a delightful addition to Stillwater's Churchill, Nelson, and Slaughter Neighborhood housing stock. We hope our application reflects the amount of careful consideration that has gone into our proposed project and its impact on the surrounding area. Thank you for considering our application, and we look forward to meeting with you to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, Sofie Cohen & Spencer Middleton 1117 Broadway St N (805) 699-5061 UUI—Y — — iiikv Drainage Swale ) Native/Natural 7v EE -r5<i _ , ou ciNE • I ' Native/Natural if < a i?,,, 4 I to 1 612" Pine • CI 1 2" Pine• VI c �========== , I 80'0 o ========================== Turf 12" Pine � J �0 Patio �� •� Turf 400 Sq. Ft. • Driveway 350 Sq. Ft. LO Native/Natural I. t• q i . . .. vt -`t 411 Turf IIPP-,`MMp Q ) , , 7 44,k. AV* Lot Size: 10,800 Sq. Ft. House Footprint: 2700 Sq. Ft. Lot Coverage: 25% Driveway/Walkways 590 Sq. Ft. Patio: 400 Sq. Ft. Roof Coverage: 3271 Sq. Ft. Total Impermeable: 4261 Sq. Ft. Scale: 3/16" = 1' iii/ Sheet # Middleton 0 Gim Middleton Sofie Cohen 8c Spencer Vicc Landscape Plan Buzz ey, Inc. oo eton Of: 1117 Broadway St N m -, 1008 5th St S Drawn: 4/27/2022 Stillwater, MN buzzchickley©gmail.com - St l �' waer t9 V \ A-1 135' UUV Y e CAE (/1 PR 26 -5" 80' ► 64'-6" 15' 19'-6" 55'-6" 10' 0 12" Pine 012" Pine 012" Pine 1_ 19'-6" 23'-8" _ 21-8" 14'-5" �0" Maple 7'-1" (/1 26 -1' 24 -4" Lii6 1' 3/16" = 26'-5" 36' 10'-4" 1 Lot Size: 10,800 Sq. Ft. House Footprint: 2700 Sq. Ft. Lot Coverage: 25% Driveway/Walkways 590 Sq. Ft. Patio: 400 Sq. Ft. Roof Coverage: 3271 Sq. Ft. Scale: Total Impermeable: 4261 Sq. Ft. Sheet Drawn: # 0 Gim Middleton v Buzz Chickley, Inc. 1117 Broadway St N Stillwater, MN buzzchickley©gmail.com O Sofie Cohen cD 1008 5th St Stillwater, V \ 8c Spencer V S icc eton Site Plan Of: A - 2 4/29/2022 COPY PREVIOUS CASE 1— gr- Furl.. ,— ,-lory• r r• . ..,,Z—r. F'X r- , r- P. 7 iol r- n. r. • - r. . , r,‘• , rr- F. 7 , ,•••• - 7 .; 7 r. r. ,, , ,- 01- 1 - "R• , ...1., T..'r' .1, isibi 11101dEambiallilhl NOWA 411141.ii111~~1.11211.4/124111,//111siil./Maillaraniataliallalailhalb siitainift1L101~1.111:01,- alwiaiftlarikollaimllimAalsthisikilialaMla0WQEMaillinoikaiiill■MassibilriluilftilriatirarwmOrkt/igatiPkarii romiliwilinihrliriliimINImkOlaillmiwirEhoiliaialwiimIlimilaiilimligiawlimatilidtrowafttikrattilafiwouNNimariliairiNirimIlmiummamirdiallisOmuidili•aaimalmikir -P.e ifillelkihollUdi.SaNAMMaiieoll•NiaaallrliallialdilliadMildiewOug~sillaMAMIMMEN11001i1Riai~aliillialiiWil WdlaimalwarmmulosailaiiikimaihOrlsOrMaisibMMMigernainnliriniMmAaliMoaWiaiftiffliiMomikanaiMMMOm.. Millie, liril6aumilrliakali imillailladiullallialimiltril Few 1.• -1P,r1.-111111.-. - T-1.-..-1.7,-11 71."1"-P..-111.1,7.--r-r--7&--p---ie 7--",.-."--,-1-1"--- - _ r•--r.—r•--0*-1.rnr.---w--r 1,'.- --rr7 "Pr 1 r ..0--r, r• r- , , r— ,erwr -14- rm. F.. r- r ,...i. - ..1.--p.- T.-re 1.--.--1- , -0.- ...• ,_,I.- 1.r.1..--e"-1..-1.• 1.- r0-r-1..-1..7- r---Yr-rr-,..--..r-r.-rr-rryrr-r---,.-rr-r- --P. r -1Pr i- .... , I, . /... . ,,,.,• 7 -r- •1...— I. , • .1' , .. MI. ff r I 1.72r., vr„ r.7, 1 r -. pr. Pr •• i ,---r• rr" r' r r . . • ,....„..„7.....„._.„4.04%.,.rW A....ir.....Th".....„.............,......„.,...., "..":4„1..r.....„0;' oc.....• Tr r"' r--=rn.""'r'""i.r""r'rr'-' as rilligilimai .AiillMilliria dailitkiiriali0910.1411~Paii, .0.1 m.mV.4, agralhid. mr.m,' 'arr. all mi40 46 .11101....r-.114,.......r.^.r.4...6.01.4 ...i..iim.,_ ...... m.- .1. .1•,, ... re-'', ... .., ort-,,... .I., ...i - •,.. .1 4.1 cm), 4 .., i.f .. ... ... .111 ......M, ." =PA MEI .11ri dmi,..M MO, . East Elevation 1008 5th St. S. Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton COPY North Elevation 1008 5th St. N. Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton COPY PREVIOUS CASE Sofie Cohen & Spencer Middleton 1008 5th St S Stillwater, MN COPY VIOUS CASE Q West Elevation 1008 5th St. N. Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton COPY Cohen/Middleton Design CoPrktOUS CASE Previous Design Approved sheik# ❑ Sim Midieton m KC Sofie Cohen East Elevation or.1117 Buzz Chickley, Inc. Broadway St N 1 I0I08 5th St S Drawn:toStillwater, MN , huzzchiddey@gmail.mm ri in Stillwater, MN Revised Design East Elevation 1008 5th St. S. 5ofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton COPY Design This Design Review Application Chelklistsubi!litted it - ty Png 1 lcation P�1�1li Contact: Stillwater City Planning Office 651-430-8821 City Hall 216 N. 4t" St. Stillwater, MN 55082 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us Project Address: 1008 5th St S Stillwater, MN 55082 Applicant name, address, telephone: Sofie Cohen and Spencer Middleton 1117 Broadway St N Stillwater, MN 55082 (805)699-5061 1. Neighborhood Architectural Styles: ® Vernacular ❑ Italianate ❑ Queen Anne ❑ Gothic ❑ Greek Revival ❑ Second Empire ® American Foursquare ❑ Stick ❑ Other: 2. Prevailing neighborhood streetfront setback: (Guidelines #1, #2, #3) Prevailing setback on block (est.) 20' Average setback on block (est.) 25' Proposed new house setback 34' 3. Is the pattern of homes in your neighborhood 1, 1-1/2, or 2 stories high? (Guidelines #4, #5) Stories 1 1-1/2 2 House on right ❑ ❑ House on left ❑ ❑ House to rear ❑ ❑ Prevailing on block ❑ ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ ❑ Proposed new house ® ❑ ❑ 4. Prevailing Front Porch pattern in your neighborhood: (Guideline #13) Front Porch None House on right ® ❑ House on left ® ❑ House to rear ❑ Prevailing on block ® ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ Proposed new house ❑ Notes: 5. Prevailing Garage Location pattern in your neighborhood: (Guidelines #10, #11) Front Rear Side Garage Garage Garage House on right ❑ House on left House to rear Prevailing on block ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ Proposed new house ❑ 6. Prevailing Garage Size in your neighborhood: (Guidelines #10, #11) 1 stall Garage House on right House on left House to rear Prevailing on block Prevailing opposite block Proposed new house 2 stall Garage El 3 stall Garage 7. Is the proposed garage compatible in form and detail with the design character of the main house? (Guideline #14) Garage will be compatible with main house. 8. If the proposed structure/garage location, setbacks, size or general design character does not fit prevailing neighborhood patterns, how do you propose to reduce its impact on the neighborhood and streetscape? : N/A Stillwater Conservation District (p 1 of 2) Design Guidelines COPY Design4yic\lr 9. Does the proposed structure work with natural slopes and contours of the property? (Guidelines #6, #7, #8) Structure sited parallel to slope ❑ Building deigned to reduce cut and fill (minimized retaining walls) • Landscaping incorporated into grading changes Notes: 10. Are there significant trees on the property? Will any trees be removed or damaged by new construction? (Guideline #9) ❑ Types of trees Silver Maple ❑ Heights 50' ❑ Trunk diam. 18" Notes: No plans to remove any signifcant trees. Good Neighbor Considerations 1. Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbor's access to sunlight in adjacent yards, patios or rooms? (Guideline #21) House to right: Not affected House to left: Not affected House to rear: Not affected Notes: How will you mitigate any negative sunlight impacts on neighbors? ❑ Locate structure on lot to minimize impact ❑ Adjust building height, or portions of building, to minimize impact ❑ Other: US CASE 2. Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbors' privacy?(Guidelines #22,#23) House to right: Not affected House to left: Not affected House to rear: Not affected Notes: How will you mitigate any negative impacts on neighbors' privacy? ❑ Offset/locate windows to reduce impact ❑ Use obscure glass in window ❑ Locate balconies to minimize impact. • Use landscaping elements for screening ❑ Other: 3. How is outdoor lighting impact minimized for neighbors?(Guideline #25) ❑ Lights are located or directed away from neighboring property tai Light fixtures are shielded to prevent glare at neighboring property ❑ Other: To be included with this Application and Checklist: ❑ Site Plan: include location of proposed building(s) on property, lot area; indicate impervious surface, property lines, street/ sidewalk location and approximate location of adjacent structures. Indicate proposed outdoor deck/patio and landscaping features. ❑ Building Plan: dimensions, first floor area square footage. ❑ Building Elevations: indicate building height, windows, materials, and color on all elevations. Indicate proposed exterior lighting. ❑ Photographs of site and streetscape. ❑ Regular Planning Department Development Application Form Stillwater Conservation District Design Guidelines (p2of2) Heritage Preservation Commission COPY April 21, 2021 Case No. 2021-17: Consideration of t' Pe t - e ru u cate 00 t in the Neighborhood Conservation D t. . p let n, er • I owne Ms. Wittman said the home at 10 8 5th tre . s r- • or -. y co tru in 1 • • . a d lit e history of the property is known. The structure is not eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. However, its construction era falls within local and state contexts. The applicant is proposing to: 1) remove an existing one-story addition from the back of the home; 2) remove the existing roof; and 3) add an approximately 1,800 square foot single -story addition with two car garage. The existing home and its addition will be clad in horizontal lap siding. Corner, trim, soffit and fascia boards will be utilized on all four sides. Windows in similar sizes and with similar details are proposed on all four sides. Overall staff finds the proposed project fits with Stillwater's traditional neighborhood design and substantially conforms to the Neighborhood Conservation District guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends approval with six conditions. Chair Mino opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Chair Mino asked what lead to the demolition request. Applicant Spencer Middleton explained that they expected only to add a bathroom but they discovered that some of the floor joists were sitting in dirt and the wood was rotting. Commissioner Larson asked about the materials being used. Gim Middleton, 1117 Broadway St N, representing the applicants, said they plan to replace the existing lap siding with a 4" LP siding and add a two-piece frieze board, skirt board and drip edge. Commissioner Larson said he has no issue with the demolition or the addition. There are other places in Stillwater where ramblers sit beside Victorian houses. Now that it will no longer be the front door, he asked if they considered putting a hip roof on the porch as well, integrating it more into the house. Gim Middleton said they considered a hip roof but felt it adds nothing to the house. They will add new windows and siding and soften the streetfront with landscaping. They will put a hip roof on the back to reduce the mass. Commissioner Heimdahl asked if the applicants considered recycling or salvaging materials. Commissioner Finwall asked if a front porch could be added near the front door. Putting some thought into the design of the garage door could make it more compatible with the neighborhood. Gim Middleton said offsetting the garage would put them over the allowable square footage. There will be some sort of porch at the front door but its rooflines have not been determined yet. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to approve Case No. 2021-17, partial Demolition Permit for the structure located at 1008 5th St S, with the six staff -recommended conditions, noting that minor modifications would need to be approved in advance by the City Planner, and adding Condition #7, the applicants should explore reuse/recycle/salvage options; Condition #8, the applicants are encouraged to explore enhanced garage door design; and Condition #9, the applicants are encouraged to explore front porch options at the entrance to the home. All in favor. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS Page 3 of 7 COPY OUS CASE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING April 20, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairwoman Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Larson, Thueson, Walls, Councilmember Junker Absent: Commissioner Holmes Staff: City Planner Wittman, Community Development Director Gladhill APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of March 16, 2022 Regular Meeting Motion by Commissioner Thueson, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2022 meeting. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2022-18: Consideration of a Design Permit for rooftop solar panels. Property located at 102 2nd St S in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District. Ross Larson of Nordic Luv LLC, property owner and Colin Buechel of All Energy Solar, applicant. Case No. 2022-21: Consideration of a Design Permit for exterior sign lighting on storefront. Property located at 102 (106) Main St S in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District. Grandma Vincenza Pinzadot LLC, property owner and Cecilia Loome of Black Letter Books LLC, applicant. Case No. 2022-23: Consideration of a Design Permit for window replacement. Property located at 101 Pine St W in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District. Alex McKinney representing Washington County, property owner. Case No. 2020-32: Consideration of a Design Permit modification for the property at 220 Chestnut St E. Joel Hauck, applicant, and 200 Chestnut Partners, LLC, property owners. Commissioner Mino requested that Case No. 2022-23, Design Permit for window replacement at 101 Pine St W, be pulled from the Consent Agenda and placed under New Business. Commissioner Thueson requested that Case No. 2020-32, Design Permit modification for 220 Chestnut St E, be pulled from the Consent Agenda and placed under New Business. Motion by Commissioner Walls, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to adopt the Consent Agenda as amended. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2022-22: Consideration of a Demolition Permit to remove the home on the property located at 1008 5th St S in the Neighborhood Conversation District. Spencer Middleton and Sofie Cohen, property owners. Heritage Preservation Commission cgoPY April 20, 2022 City Planner Wittman explained reviewed a Building Demolition/ addition of the structure at 1008 th St e H ' a • s rva ' o mmi ( C) i u t r de o , re ovatio d et h pp ca e g to gr than 30% of the circa 1906 constructed, single -story residence. The reason for the proposed demolition was due to improper grading which had resulted in portions of the structure sinking below grade; sill and floor joist ground contact; rotted ceiling joists; cracked girder beam; and basement flooding. The staff report noted that removing a portion of the home and rebuilding it would remedy these issues and provide for more structural stability. The property owner then obtained a building permit, removed portions of the home, and began framing a new roof for the structure. Due to a combination of factors suggesting greater foundation issues than originally anticipated, the property owners have determined that full demolition and reconstruction are necessary. In its current state, the home is a public nuisance and a hazard. Detailed renderings of the proposed new home were submitted today and staff feels the design conforms to the guidelines set forth for new construction in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Staff recommends approval of the Building Demolition Permit and the Design Permit for the new home. Commissioner Finwall asked why a bigger foundation can't be added under existing house. Ms. Wittman replied there are concerns about cost and that moving/jacking up the structure will tweak the wooden elements further out of alignment. The house is not square. Spencer Middleton, applicant, stated they tried to make the renovation work but the contractor said due to many factors it would be very costly and time consuming to renovate the footings and foundation, and he was unwilling to do so. Chair Mino opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chair Mino closed the public hearing. She asked about proposed finishes and materials. Mr. Middleton stated the exterior will have horizontal lap siding in dark green with 4" exposure. The roof will be standing seam black metal, and window trim will be black. Mr. Middleton added and Ms. Wittman confirmed that the site plan is substantially the same as previously approved in 2021. She showed the new renderings and site plan. The applicant verbally indicated the materials will be identical to the materials already approved. This could be made a condition of approval if the HPC desires. Commissioner Thueson pointed out the challenge of comparing the project with the Conservation District Design Guidelines because of seeing the new renderings for the first time tonight. Ms. Wittman stated building demolition permits may not be approved until there is a new design that substantially conforms to the Neighborhood Conservation District, but the Commission may table consideration of the overall action to request final details of the plans, or may develop conditions that are similar to the previous approval if the Commission would approve of the demolition. Chair Mino recognized there are existing safety concerns and that construction costs should be a consideration as well. Commissioner Heimdahl appreciated the applicants' substantial efforts to preserve the building and their willingness to consider sustainability measures including salvage. Commissioner Finwall recognized the applicants' attempts to preserve the structure and the need for demolition. She said if the Commission had reviewed this as a clean slate it probably would not have approved the design. Mr. Middleton answered that they are building a single story home because the original intent was to renovate the existing single story home which would not support a second story. Page 2 of 6 Heritage Preservation Commission cgoPY April 20, 2022 Ms. Wittman pointed out there a ure e treCommissioner Larson remarked im o n t at ts cal t ne ho e;, compatible with others on the st et, b the o al i teJr wa o sav es g e stoi ii oric home. He finds the proposed new home acceptable as a great improvement over the previously approved plans. However the lack of detail on drawings and a site plan is concerning. The applicant could be asked to submit a final site plan and detailed drawings, for staff approval. Commissioner Thueson agreed the lack of a site plan is challenging. He asked Ms. Wittman to elaborate on the conditions of the foundation. Mr. Middleton noted that the newer house design was based on the existing footprint of the front half of the house that would have been retained. Councilmember Junker commented the application should be tabled due to outstanding questions. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Chair Mino, to approve the demolition permit based on the findings regarding safety and stability of the structure, and to table consideration of the amended design permit for the design of the new home. Motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner Thueson voting nay. Former HPC Commissioner Jeff Johnson noted there is now an opportunity to look at a different design if the applicants wish, since the lines of the original home are no longer restricting the design. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2022-23: Consideration of a Design Permit for window replacement. Property located at 101 Pine St W in the Downtown Stillwater Design Review District. Alex McKinney representing Washington County, property owner. Ms. Wittman explained the case. Washington County is seeking to construct and install custom aluminum storm windows on the Washington County Historic Courthouse. With the exception of windows on the old jail that have security bars on them, all of the first and second floor windows, as well as one original window located in the basement, are proposed to have storm windows added. It is unknown whether or not the Courthouse windows were ever protected by storm windows. Vertical and horizontal mullions will be added to the exterior of all windows in a pattern to match the original window. At all points where the storm windows meet original window framing and trim, the windows will have a continuous bead of approved sealant. Protection of the historic features of the courthouse is vital to the long-term preservation of the structure. One public comment was received from former HPC Commissioner Jeff Johnson voicing concern about the addition of aluminum windows, suggesting it will change the character of the structure. The applicant stated they have submitted the plans to both the Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for review. Staff recommends approving the requested Design Permit with two conditions. Chair Mino asked the applicant about their interactions with SHPO, why the storm windows will not be wood, and why the frames will be black since the interior is brown. Alex McKinney, applicant, Washington County Parks Manager, said the windows have deteriorated and storm windows were strongly recommended to take care of mold and rot. They have consulted with MNHS, which provided $55,000 for this project, and SHPO, which will issue final approval. It is a standard brown color, not black (wrong in packet) that will closely match the existing. Anodized aluminum was chosen for durability. An exact match would have cost another $40,000. The storms are the exact windows that are on the National Register -listed Federal Building in Minneapolis. Commissioner Larson asked if the existing windows are operable. Mr. McKinney replied most are, but some of the basement windows are not. In some areas where ventilation is needed, the design allows Page 3 of 6 I11war THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: October 19, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Heritage Preservation Commission Annual Report BACKGROUND As a Certified Local Government (CLG) by the National Parks Service, the City of Stillwater has appointed its Heritage Preservation Commission to conduct preservation activities within the community. The City is required to submit an annual report to the State Historic Preservation Office every October. A copy of that report is enclosed for Commission's review. Please note, the HPC Member list attachments are not included in the packet. Annually the HPC conducts a brief awards presentation to honor Stillwater's 178th "birthday" (October 26th). At the October 18, 2022 City Council Meeting, HPC Chair Matt Thueson and Vice -Chair Fitzie Heimdahl gave a brief update of 2021-2022 preservation activities as well as presented the annual awards. lamer. THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Annual Report October 1, 2021- September 30, 2022 Heritage Preservation Commission Members Member Appointed Renewal Expiration Shaun Finwall 5/1/2019 2022 2025 Fitzie Heimdahl, Vice Chair 5/1/2020 2023 Paul Holmes 5/1/2021 2024 David Junker, Stillwater City Council (Ex-officio) Jonathon Summers 5/1/2022 2025 Brian Larson 5/15/2012 2021 2024 Amy Mino, Chair 12/3/2013 2020 2023 Matt Thueson, WCHS Representative, Chair 5/1/2019 2020 2023 Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director (Ex- officio) Yasmine Robinson, Planning Manager (Ex-Officio) Preferred contact information and new member applications are attached. 2022 Focus Areas In 2022, the City of Stillwater experienced multiple Staff Changes, including the primary staff liaison to the Heritage Preservation. In 2020 and 2021, despite the impacts of the global pandemic, the Heritage Preservation Commission was able to achieve a number of proactive policy and project initiatives. In 2022, due to the number of official applications, the focus of the Heritage Preservation has been on Design Review and Process Improvement Initiatives. Training Opportunities Commissioners Mino and Thueson registered for the PreserveMN virtual conference held by the State Historic Preservation Office. Local Designations The Stillwater HPC made no local designations during the reporting period. A primary reason for this is the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan determined modification to the City's HPC enabling ordinance and updated to its design guidelines were vital prior to the HPC City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 2021 - 2022 Annual Report Page, 1 of 4 considering future designations. Additionally, the Stillwater HPC experienced a number of staffing changes, with a new focus on process improvements during the reporting period. National Register Nominations and Designations The Stillwater HPC did not make comments on any National Register nominations nor were there any submitted during this time. Alterations Reviewed The Stillwater HPC reviewed 33 applications plus numerous pre -application concept plans during the time period. Of the total applications received, the HPC denied (or recommended denial) of five applications that did not conform to the City's adopted standards and guidelines. A summary of the cases and the HPC actions is attached. Stillwater Commercial Historic District (SCHD) Of the total number of applications reviewed during the reporting period: • 15 applications were for alterations proposed to Contributing buildings in the National Register -listed SCHD • One application was for alterations proposed to Non -Contributing buildings in the National Register -listed SCHD Downtown Design Review District This district is a zoning overlay district that encompasses the Stillwater Commercial Historic District plus the remaining area of the City's Downtown District. The purpose of this district is to help protect the historic core of the community. The district contains both residential and commercial structures as well as historically -industrial structures converted for both residential and commercial uses. Of the total HPC applications reviewed during the reporting period: • A total of 8 applications were for alterations to structures in this district but located outside of the SCHD Neighborhood Conservation District This district is a zoning overlay district intended to preserve the historic residential neighborhoods that were constructed prior to WWII. The district represents approximately 1/3 of the land area within Stillwater and overlaps with the Downtown Design Review District. The HPC reviews requests for new construction and partial demolition of structures built prior to 1946. The HPC does not review commercial construction or alterations to historically - commercial properties within this district. Of the total HPC applications reviewed during the reporting period: • Four (4) applications were for new, infill construction • Three (3) applications were for the partial demolition of structures constructed prior to 1946. The City did experience a higher -than -norm number of inquiries regarding demolitions and infills within the Neighborhood Conservation District. The Stillwater Design Guidelines, Demolition Permit and Design Permits worked in harmony to preserve a number of structures City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 2021 - 2022 Annual Report Page, 2 of 4 of historic significance from demolition. The City estimates approximately 4-5 additional, in depth inquiries into demolition above the formal applications cited above were reviewed by City Staff. Misc. Review • With the 2020 adoption of a new enabling ordinance and other City Code amendments, the HPC is now charged with the review of proposed demolitions of structures constructed prior to 1946. During the reporting period, the HPC reviewed the demolition (and proposed reconstruction) of a small, one -level dwelling. Research of the site determined: o This property, while constructed prior to 1946, is a more modest design, one -level structure; and o The Heritage Preservation Commission had originally approved only a partial demolition of a later addition to the home; and o Upon commencement of the project, it was determined that the foundation of the structure was in too poor of condition to reasonable salvage the original portion of the structure. • A number of times through the reporting period, the HPC was consulted on the future design of the Chestnut Street plaza. This plaza, to be created on the Chestnut Street East right-of-way that extends from Main Street to the NRHP listed Liftbridge in the Stillwater Commercial District, will be created in an area closed to vehicular traffic. Tying Main Street to the St. Croix River, this plaza serves as an intersecting point for two state trails and connection to the County trail system. This project is now under construction. Annual Awards In an effort to honor Stillwater's "birthday", Chair Thueson and Vice -Chair Heimdahl will conduct its annual presentation at the City Council's October 18, 2022 meeting. In addition to reporting on work conducted and highlighting accomplishments during this time period, the HPC will honor the following award recipients: Property Owner Address Award Type River Siren Brewing 225 Main St N Facade Improvement Isaac Staples Mill 401 Main St N Master Sign Plan Brick + Linen 114 Main St N Business Sign Re/Max Professionals 626 4th St N Adaptive Reuse Tiffany & Bradley Vick 516 2nd St N Residential Restoration Ryan & Mary Collier 107 Laurel St E Residential Restoration Washington County Historical Society 1862 Greeley St S Special Recognition for Washington County Heritage Center Ron Brenner Architects Individual Contributions Other Accomplishments, Activities and Outreach City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 2021 - 2022 Annual Report Page, 3 of 4 Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites Program In early 2020, the City initiated and paid for the redevelopment of the HPC's Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites (HHLS) website. Heirloom Homes are a cross-section of homes representative of nineteenth-century Stillwater containing a fair amount of their original design elements. These homes are generally not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, but due to local significance have the potential to be recognized in some manner. Landmark Sites are the finest historic homes and most remarkable sites in Stillwater. They have architectural integrity and strong ties to the history of Stillwater. These properties may be eligible for or already listed in the National Register of Historic Places and have the potential for local designation. A program launched in 2008, it recognizes the owners of historic properties and their preservation efforts. Available for viewing at http://www.stillwater-mn.org/hpc/, the interactive database contains 113 heirloom homes and 37 landmark sites. Including high resolution images of the home and a brief narrative history, the website also links properties to County GIS mapping, neighborhood history reports, architectural styles, and - when available - architect and builder information. While the HPC has been accepting applications to this program, funding limitations prevent the HPC from conducting research on individual properties. It is a goal of the HPC to find volunteer researchers willing to assist in program expansion. Attachments HPC Member List HPC Case File List City of Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 2021 - 2022 Annual Report Page, 4 of 4 DRAFT — NOT AN APPROVED DOCUMENT Mural Guidelines in the Commercial Historic Design District and Commercial Business Zoning District within the City of Stillwater INTRODUCTION Stillwater is fortunate to have a thriving arts and cultural scene. Pieces of public art have been incorporated on buildings and infrastructure within Stillwater over the years. Mural requests in Stillwater have been made by individuals and groups as the popularity of outdoor murals, and the availability of funding mechanisms has increased in recent years. The Historic Preservation Commission felt that such requests for murals within the Commercial Historic District required discussion and a set of guidelines by which to make informed decisions about granting Certificates of Appropriateness. The draft guidelines prepared below are the result of studying the City's existing ordinances and guidelines, reviewing existing murals, and reviewing mural guidelines for historic districts in numerous communities throughout the country. Following are the City's existing ordinance and design guideline criteria for Murals: 1. Stillwater City Code — Zoning Ordinance a. 31-101(75): Graphic design sign means any mural or pictorial scene or graphic design painted on the side of a wall or building or painted on a sign board affixed to a wall and in which a mural or scene has its purpose artistic effect. A graphic design sign is a non-commercial speech sign. b. 31-509(6)(a)(10): Graphic design signs require a conditional use permit. c. 31-509(9)(a)(2)(v)(e): Wall signs may not be directly painted onto historic masonry or stone. d. 31-509(9)(a)(3): Multi -tenant wall signs. 1) Design the sign plan to emphasize the whole width and geometry of the building and individual storefronts and tenant spaces. 2) Placement of individual tenant signs shall be coordinated to achieve a unified signage appearance in sign heights, widths, depths, coloring and lettering sizing. 3) Signs shall use a common lettering style and color scheme. 4) A sign shall not span across different buildings. 2. Stillwater Design Guidelines - Commercial Historic Design District a. 5.6.1 Graphic Design Signs: 1) Where existing historic painted wall signs can still be found, leave them exposed or restore them to their original colors. 2) Graphic design signs should have a historic theme. 3) Graphic design signs should not advertise a new business or company. PROPOSED ZONING CODE CHANGES (red text is existing, black text is added) Stillwater City Code — Zoning Ordinance 1. 31-101(75): Graphic design sign means any mural or pictorial scene or graphic design painted on the side of a wall or building or painted on a sign board affixed to a wall and in which a mural or scene has its purpose artistic effect. A graphic design sign is a non- commercial speech sign. 2. 31-509(6)(a)(10): Graphic design signs require a sign planconditional use permit. Add a section to address Art Corridors that would require a conditional use permit for a series of murals that could be switched out periodically. 3. 31-509(9)(a)(2)(v)(e): Wall signs or graphic design signs may not be directly painted onto historic masonry or stone. 4. 31-509(9)(a)(3): Multi -tenant wall signs and Murals. a. Include the location, size, height, color, lighting and orientation of all signs and/or murals. b. Design the sign plan to emphasize the whole width and geometry of the building and individual storefronts and tenant spaces. c. Placement of individual tenant signs and/or murals shall be coordinated to achieve a unified signage appearance in sign heights, widths, depths, coloring and lettering sizing. d. Signs shall use a common lettering style and color scheme. e. A sign shall not span across different buildings. PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARD CHANGES Stillwater Design Guidelines - Commercial Historic Design District 5.6.1 Graphic Design Signs shall: 1. require an installation, maintenance, and removal plan, 2. be of high quality artwork that will enliven the community, 3. be positive, original, and reflect the history, culture, or environment of the St. Croix Valley, 4. have a historic theme, 5. not advertise a new business or company, 6. not breach intellectual property rights (all artwork must be original), 7. not include trademarks, brands, business names, logos, or copyrighted images unless express permission is given, 8. not represent anything harmful to a third party, 9. be permitted for side or rear walls or alley walls (but not the primary facades), 10. be allowed on historic surfaces only if applied with temporary film applied to the wall 2 that meet the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, 11. not exceed 75% of the wall on which it is placed, 12. be confined to one wall of a building and not wrap around to other sides, 13. not be permitted on an unpainted masonry wall such as brick, stone, or stucco. Murals should instead be painted on removable materials such as plywood or other suitable outdoor material. Anchoring shall be placed into masonry joints or other non -damaging areas of the walls. Framing shall be done so as not to trap water between the mural and the wall. Hanging or anchoring shall be reversible, 14. be permitted on wood sidings with surface detail such as, but not limited to bevel siding, board and batten siding, 15. be permitted on a building that has had masonry cleaning or major repointing, nor may a mural be used in lieu of cleaning or repointing on a building in need of it, 16. not cover over windows, doors, cornices, or other architectural elements (except as outlined below), 17. be permitted on windows and doors temporarily boarded due to vandalism. They shall be permitted for no more than 90 days or the time permitted for repairs by the City of Stillwater Planning Department, whichever is greater, 18. be permitted on preventative boarding, In addition, Murals may include lighting if it meets City code. Artist signatures and date of their work are allowed on the Mural in a discreet location. Existing historic painted wall signs should be left exposed, or restored to their original colors. Where existing historic painted wall signs can still be found, leave them exposed or restore them to their original colors. Upon removal, any materials used to adhere the mural shall be removed at the time the mural is removed. This includes, but is not limited to brackets, mounting hardware, caulk or grout, and adhesive glues. The surface shall be returned to its original condition. 3 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The HPC Mural Task Force recommends removing the requirement for a conditional use permit approval for a mural. Instead, requiring that murals be covered under a comprehensive sign plan. This will remove barriers to installing murals and ensure the City's standards are met through the comprehensive plan review process. The Mural Design Review application should include the following information: 1. Written approval from the property owner for the mural, provided the applicant is not the owner of the property. 2. A sign plan to include the size, location, materials, and design of all existing signs on the building and the proposed size, location, materials, and design of the Mural. 3. An agreement which outlines installation, maintenance, and removal of the mural as follows: a. Mural installation plan including: 1) Size and materials used to create the mural, 2) Details on how the Mural will be installed or painted on the wall. b. Mural maintenance plan including: 1) Parties responsible for maintenance of the mural if other than the property owner. Note, the property owner is ultimately responsible for maintaining the property, including maintenance of the mural, 2) graffiti removal, 3) removal of surface dirt, 4) reapplication of coatings, 5) touching up damaged areas, and 6) vegetation management to ensure it does not harm the mural or the supporting building. c. Mural removal plan including: 1) Parties responsible for removal of the mural if other than the property owner. Note, the property owner is ultimately responsible for maintaining their property, including the removal of the mural. 2) wall patching required to bring the wall back to its original form. d. Upon completion of the mural, the applicant will submit a photo documentation of the mural to the City to provide a base line for future maintenance, conservation and restoration. 4 SOURCES o The mural guidelines from many communities were reviewed and brought up many factors that the Stillwater Historic Preservation Commission will need to consider. o The sources below were particularly helpful in outlining the importance of how murals should be installed, what have been sources of funding, and what should ideally happen with murals once they are approved. o City of Minneapolis Public Art Program o https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/business-services/planning-zoning/city-plans/public-art-long-range-planning/ o Back, Margaret. 2019. "Managing Community Murals in an Urban Preservation Framework." Thesis (Historic Preservation). University of Pennsylvania. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1669&context=hp theses o City of Frankfort, Kentucky. Mural Installation Guide. http://www.frankfort.ky.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/1826/Mural- Installation- Guide o Mural Routes. Mural Production. A Resource Handbook. 2nd Ed. 2014. Ontario Trillium Foundation o The Getty Conservation Institute. "The Conservation of Outdoor Contemporary Murals." Newsletter 18.2, Summer 2003. https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications resources/newsletters/18 2/feature.html 5 ZONING AND DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR MURALS ZONING: Stillwater Zoning Code pertaining to murals in the Central Business District (CBD), General Commercial (GC) District, and Neighborhood Conservation (NC) District All Signs 1. Definitions 31-101(75): Graphic design sign means any mural or pictorial scene or graphic design painted on the side of a wall or building or painted on a sign board affixed to a wall and in which a mural or scene has its purpose artistic effect. A graphic design sign is a non-commercial speech sign. 2. Sign Regulations 31-509(6)(a)(10): Graphic design signs require a conditional use permit. 3. General Sign Provisions — Signs on Public Right of Ways 31-509(6)(a)(9): Historic sign. The requirements of size, location and height may be waived by the city council if the sign is an historic resource or if the sign is a reproduction of an historic sign. Central Business/General Commercial/Neighborhood Conservation District 1. Signs in the CBC, GC, and NC Districts 31-509(9)(a) - (1)(iv), (2)(v), (3), and (8): (1) General Regulations. iv. In the CBD-central business district all signs shall adhere to the following design standards: a. All signs must meet the downtown design guidelines for signs. b. May not be backlit nor internally lit. c. May not contain changeable or movable letter or graphics. (2) Wall signs. Wall signs shall meet the following requirements: v. All signs shall adhere to the following design standards: a. In the CBD-central business and district, signs shall generally be constructed of the traditional materials used during the primary development period of downtown Stillwater buildings. If modern materials, such as acrylic, vinyl, or plastic, are used for signs, they shall be painted and simulate the texture and depth of traditional downtown sign materials, such as wood and metal. b. In the CBD-central business district, three-dimensional letters/symbols, with at least one -quarter inch depth or reveal, are required unless an approved sign plan permits otherwise. c. If a signboard area exists on the building facade, a wall sign shall fit within this space and not extend above, below, or beyond the edges of the signboard area. d. In the CBD-central business and NC -neighborhood commercial districts, no part of any sign shall be placed higher than the height of the sills of the second story windows of a multi -story building. e. Wall signs may not be directly painted onto historic masonry or stone. (3) Multi -tenant wall signs. i. Design the sign plan to emphasize the whole width and geometry of the building and individual storefronts and tenant spaces. ii. Placement of individual tenant signs shall be coordinated to achieve a unified signage appearance in sign heights, widths, depths, coloring and lettering sizing. iii. Signs shall use a common lettering style and color scheme. iv. A sign shall not span across different buildings. (8) Graphic design sign. Graphic design signs may only be placed on non-contributing buildings, portions of contributing buildings where historic brick or masonry does not exist, or on portions of structures outside of a historic district where historic brick or masonry does not exist. 2. Signs in CBD, CA, NC — Multi Tenant Signs 31-509(9)(a)(3): a. Design the sign plan to emphasize the whole width and geometry of the building and individual storefronts and tenant spaces. b. Placement of individual tenant signs shall be coordinated to achieve a unified signage appearance in sign heights, widths, depths, coloring and lettering sizing. c. Signs shall use a common lettering style and color scheme. d. A sign shall not span across different buildings. 3. Downtown Design Overlay District (Not all Areas in the CB Zoning District are Within the Downtown Overlay District) a. Section 31-404(3)(a): Heritage preservation commission review. Prior to the issuance of other applicable city permits and licenses, the heritage preservation commission shall review and approve or deny the issuance of a design permit for any of the following uses and development types: (i) Residential structures including single- and two-family dwellings. (ii) Commercial, office, institutional, and industrial structures, including land not involving buildings (e.g. outside storage, loading, or utility areas). (iii) Accessory structures and uses. (iv) Any structure for which a variance has been requested. (v) All multi -tenant signs and sign plans. (vi) Any projects where the applicant is a public agency over which the city exercises land use controls. (vii) Parking lots of five or more spaces. (viii) Any planned unit development or subdivision. (ix) Any sign design denied by City staff. DESIGN GUIDELINES: Stillwater Design Guidelines pertaining to murals in the Downtown Design Review District (not all areas of DDRD are within the CBD Zoning District). 1. 5.6.1 Graphic Design Signs: Where existing historic painted wall signs can still be found, leave them exposed or restore them to their original colors. (a) Graphic design signs should have a historic theme. (b) Graphic design signs should not advertise a new business or company.