Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-11-09 HPC Packetiliwater .HE BIATHOLACE of M,N.Eso.n PLEASE NOTE: Heritage Preservation Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by attending the meeting in person at City Hall, 216 4th St N, or by logging into https://stillwater-mn.zoomgov.com/j/1600977928 or by calling 1-646-828-7666 and enter the meeting ID number: 160 097 7928 AGENDA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING November 9th, 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 2. Possible approval of minutes of October 19th, 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. 3. Case No. CD 2022-64: Consider Design of an Accessory Dwelling Unit for 919 5th Ave South; Case of Noel Malloy (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818) 4. Case No. CD 2022-70: Design Review of a Proposed Addition for 704 5th St N; Case of David and Kristen M. DeLeon (Staff Reviewer: Yasmine Robinson, 651-430-8822) 5. Case No. CD 2022-77: Consider Design Approval for Fence Replacement at 106 Chestnut St E; Case of M3&G LLC (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818) VI. PUBLIC HEARING 6. Case No. CD 2022-76: Consider Design Permit to Approval New Dwelling Design at 303 St. Croix Ave W; Case of Preferred Builders (Staff Reviewer: Yasmine Robinson, 651-430- 8822) VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 7. Case No. CD 2022-66: Consider Design Approval for Food Truck at 204 Main St S, Case of the Good Egg Food Truck (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818) VIII. NEW BUSINESS 8. Case No. CD 2022-78: Consider Design Permit for Roof and Rooftop Mechanical Units at 305 Water St S (Freight House); Case of JFS Stillwater LLC (Staff Reviewer: Tim Gladhill, 651-430-8821) IX. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 9. Discuss Workshop Dates 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 said 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 i I I \ i's'Ater THE OIRTNPLACE OF NINNESOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING October 19, 2022 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. Chairman Thueson called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Present: Chairman Thueson, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Holmes, Larson, Mino, Summers, Councilmember Junker Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill, Planning Manager Robinson APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of September 21, 2022 regular meeting Commissioner Mino noted a typo on page 3, where the word "said" is missing. She also pointed out that, although the applicant stated during the discussion that he had met with staff and everything up to that point was approved, in a design review like this, staff does not have authority to approve; rather, staff would advise. Approval would be by the HPC. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve the minutes of the September 21, 2022 meeting with the addition of the word "said" on page 3. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioner Finwall abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. CD 2022-60: Findings of Fact for Denial of Design Permit for 109 Martha St N. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to adopt the Consent Agenda and to adopt Resolution HPC2022-01, Resolution Adopting Written Findings for Denial of a Design Review 536 Myrtle St W, Stillwater, Minnesota. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioner Finwall abstaining. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS Case No. CD 2022-71: Concept Review for 320 2nd Street North (Estenson Residence) Planning Manager Robinson reviewed the case. The owners, Pat and Amy Estenson, are requesting a demolition permit for an existing home for the purpose of constructing a new three-story home. The lot is 7,647 square feet and contains a one-story, 1,024 square foot single-family house built in approximately 1858, a sub -surface garage that fronts onto 2nd Street North and a large shed in the rear yard. The topography is quite steep in the front, with a prominent stone retaining wall along most of the block frontage. The northern side of the property also contains a stone retaining wall along the entirety of the lot. The existing house is a modest one-story structure with at least three Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 19, 2022 visible additions added to the back over the years. Staff completed two inspections of the property. City staff and the Building Official recognize that the property needs repairs and maintenance, but did not identify any major life, health and safety or structural concerns that would warrant full demolition. Staff feels it may be reasonable to consider demolition of the rear additions, as the side of the last addition is built into the north retaining wall. Concept renderings of the proposed new home submitted by the property owners do not contain any calculations or measurements, and therefore staff analysis is based on visual inspection only. Staff assumes that the HPC would not support full demolition. If the HPC does approve a full demolition, staff finds that the overall proposed design appears appropriate, though staff finds that it may exceed height limits, and it introduces a more modern style flat roof. The size, scale and massing are incompatible with minimum requirements and rhythm of the surrounding streetscape. Feedback on this concept plan is non -binding. Councilmember Junker asked if the garage is going to be retained, and Ms. Robinson stated that she believes they intend to keep the garage, as its engineering is substantial. Commissioner Holmes said he believes there is a retaining wall along the west side, so the only access for the garage would be from the front. He toured the house and recognizes there are challenges. Pat Estenson, applicant, said the intention is to keep the garage and use it as a rec room or workshop. In the back, an easement has been filed allowing him to use the alley. There is a 4 1/2 foot retaining wall on the south side that he will have to cut in and retain differently to have the driveway in the back. On the west side there also is a retaining wall and he would do what is needed to ensure it is stable as he breaks in for a driveway. The shed on the back would need to be moved because now it is built directly into the southwest corner. The goal is to conform to guidelines and not require any height or setback variances. Councilmember Junker asked about the roof, and Mr. Estenson replied that the roof will have a low pitch as seen as in Italianate style. He bought the property knowing there would be challenges. He considered retaining the house but learned the footings and foundation are questionable and decided on a demolition and rebuild on advice of an engineer who specializes in foundation work. There appear to have been four additions to the house. There are places where the foundation has been undermined, where masonry units were stacked that were not part of the foundation. There are places where additions were built against the retaining wall. It appears that much of the north part of the foundation is not below frost depth. The joist sizes vary, are notched in many places, and everything is sitting on concrete. While it doesn't present an immediate health or safety issue, it will become an issue, involving a lot of work to make this a real home again. Mr. Gladhill said staff is seeking consensus on two questions: where does HPC sit on the question of full demolition, and is the scale and massing of the new home headed in right direction, if demolition were to be approved. Councilmember Holmes asked if the structural engineer advised against adding a second floor on what is there, and Mr. Estenson said yes. There is a lot of water running through the basement. Commissioner Mino remarked the HPC wouldn't approve a demolition without basis. It sounds like maybe there is some basis but more background is needed on why the structure should be demolished, since it's in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Chairman Thueson echoed that the threshold for demolition of an historic home is very high. If a demolition application is submitted, there would be a formal report and public hearing. He added that this house was mentioned in a past study as one of the notable houses on the North Hill. Commissioner Summers commented there are options other than demolition to meet some of the foundation challenges. Page 2 of 7 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 19, 2022 Commissioner Larson remarked that in some cases demolition and reconstruction completely disrupts a streetscape but the existing small house is almost an anomaly. That is not a reason for demolition but if it demolition were warranted, a larger structure may fit the streetscape. Commissioner Holmes encouraged the applicant to look at ways to retain the core structure/original building. He agrees that the design work done is headed in the right direction. Mr. Gladhill summarized the Commissioner comments: some hesitation on demolition but willingness to consider demolition based on structural engineer's report, when received. Commissioner Finwall asked what drew the applicant to buy the property, and if they knew there would be a process for demolition. Mr. Estenson said they were drawn to the location and view. The fast moving market left no time for an inspection. He talked with historian Don Empson, with architects and City staff, and considered trying to use the existing foundation until the architect suggested having an engineer's report. Commissioner Finwall remarked that the design of possible new home does many things right. Perhaps the upper level could be a half story under a gabled roof to decrease the bulk on the top. Chairman Thueson agreed he would prefer to see a gabled roof. Commissioner Summers commended the design's balance of windows and doors, accomplishing four- sided design. Commissioner Holmes noted that Italianate style but may be more difficult to achieve with a 2.5 story low pitched hip than it would be with a gable. Mr. Estenson said on the north side the house is very close to the lot line and he is concerned about privacy of the other house considering windows on that side. Commissioner Holmes reiterated the HPC is looking for four-sided design, so blank walls, despite proximity to other houses, are discouraged. Commissioner Larson noted there may be a similar privacy concern with a balcony on the south side. He agreed with Commissioner Holmes that despite privacy concerns, a blank wall is not a good solution. Case No. CD 2022-73: Concept Review for 1824 1st St N (Rambacher Residence) Community Development Director Gladhill reviewed the case. The property owners, Andrea and Ryan Rambacher, are considering constructing a new dwelling. The previous home was destroyed by fire. There are multiple unique physical characteristics of the property that make strict compliance challenging: the property is partway up the bluff, making building height measurements challenging, the property is lawful, nonconforming in terms of lot width and lot size, and 1st St N (the desired front facade) is not an improved City street. The front door would be accessed off a private driveway with the two stall tuck under garage facing 1st Street. Staff believes some degree of setback Variance is reasonable. 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. 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. Ryan Rambacher, applicant, reiterated the elevation is quite challenging. They want three bedrooms and a backyard. Looking at setbacks, pushing back the house far west as possible and having an attached garage so they could have a backyard, the only way they could go was up because the lot is so small. Page 3 of 7 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 19, 2022 Commissioner Mino noted having a garage right in the front is not desirable in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Mr. Rambacher replied if they put a door on Willow Street, it would take away some of the needed space inside the home and the steep grade of Willow may prevent older people from accessing the home. Councilmember Junker said the design looks like a castle right in the middle of the hill. Commissioner Larson stated the the house has a lot of bulk but its position on the lot seems reasonable. It appears as a three story house from the east, a two story from the west elevation. Decreasing the three story appearance would be a good move. Commissioner Finwall said while the placement makes sense, the castle turret doesn't fit. She suggested having more of a pitched roof. Mr. Rambacher replied the roofline was designed to comply with height guidelines and the turret was intended to be a historical accent. Commissioner Larson commented the castle -like feature looks out of place. Building elements should be proportional to the scale and style of building. A more hip -like roof on the square tower may be more appropriate. Commissioner Holmes stated the house in general has a nice calm 1920s arts and crafts vibe and the tower doesn't work in that context. Chairman Thueson agreed that a hip roof might fit better. Mr. Gladhill summarized the suggestions: change the design of the turret to blend better and address the height possibly through roof type, or treat Willow as the front facade. Staff will work with the applicant on these aspects. Mr. Rambacher asked if the cantilever on the third floor is appropriate, and Commissioner Larson replied that it looks reasonably appropriate with the rest of the house. Commissioner Holmes agreed. Case No. CD 2022-74: Concept Review for 905 Hickory St W (Najarian Residence) Community Development Director Gladhill stated that the property owner, Daved Najarian, received approval from the Planning Commission for a lot split to facilitate a new dwelling. The lot split actually reverts back to the parcel lines of the original plat (at some point in the past, these parcels were combined to create a larger lot). The scale and massing appear appropriate for the neighborhood. Setbacks for adjacent structures on the same street vary without a true predominant setback on this street. The general design appears to complement 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. While this will likely impact the internal floor plan and require redrafting of the proposed home, there appears to be sufficient space to adjust the floor plan to accommodate compliance with setbacks for garages. 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. Councilmember Junker remarked the lot has one of the largest trees in Stillwater. Mr. Najarian responded they hope to save the tree if possible. They want to build a modest home. The streetscape has a real mix of designs. He showed photos of other homes in the neighborhood that have a garage -forward design. Commissioner Summers remarked one of the photos is his house. He came through this process too and the Commission took into account many factors including the previous garage was sitting 10 feet Page 4 of 7 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 19, 2022 forward from where it is now. If the applicant could do something to further balance the front of the house with the front of garage, that would be good. Commissioner Mino suggested the applicant find ways that the house, not the garage, be seen first. Commissioner Holmes said the architect did a good job on a very narrow lot. The front door is prominent and reflects the vernacular house well. He is inclined to support the design. Commissioner Larson agreed. The black garage color will de-emphasize the garage door. Commissioner Heimdahl said his initial concern was looking straight on, the eye gravitates toward the black but looking at it from the side, it makes more sense. He likes the design and especially the scale and massing with the different houses. Commissioner Finwall said she likes the modern/farmhouse design mix but would like to see the garage somehow pushed back. Chairman Thueson agreed with other commissioners, the design works, but it should try to de- emphasize garage dominance. Commissioner Holmes remarked the designer has done what they can to de-emphasize the garage by putting it under a porch and making it a different color. Mr. Najarian added that if the garage is moved, it disrupts the smooth consistency of structure and the square, efficient design. Mr. Gladhill summarized that staff will work with the applicant to de-emphasize the garage slightly, maybe accentuating the front entrance. Case No. CD 2022-22: Consider Revision to Design Approval for 1008 5th St S (Cohen Middleton Residence) Ms. Robinson reviewed the history of the project. She explained that an updated front elevation drawing for a previously approved demolition and infill construction of a single-family home was received late for the agenda packet, precluding analysis by staff. Staff requests that the submission be considered pursuant to the previous conditions of approval. Mr. Gladhill added that changes in the interior floor plan, made after HPC design approval, are driving the design changes. The submission does not include drawings of all elevations. Spencer Middleton, applicant, stated the colors will be like the previously approved design. There are no white accents, it was an incomplete drawing. What drove the change was floor plan change and the approach to the front stoop. The front entry will be on the south wall. The front approach will come directly from the driveway and straight into the front door. The elevation change from the south would look very similar. There would be a door instead of a wall on the right side of the stoop. There will be a little landing for the mudroom door and a bigger landing for the front entry. Councilmember Junker said from street level, the previously approved design looked more balanced. Mr. Middleton explained the door seen from the east elevation won't be white as depicted in the drawing, and the front entry will be apparent that it is the front door. Commissioner Summers asked, will the south elevation look as though the south doorway is the front entrance or will the mudroom door look like the main entrance? Chairman Thueson remarked that materials for review tonight included only one elevation. He would like to see the south elevation as proposed. Page 5 of 7 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 19, 2022 Commissioner Finwall said which door to enter would be confusing. The design standards talk about embracing a front porch. She asked if the applicant could put the mudroom door in the garage rather than having it right there by the front door. Mr. Middleton replied they would like a completely separate access in the event his in-laws move in with them in the future. Commissioner Finwall said the new design is not as visually appealing. She liked the bumpout that was on the previous plan. She acknowledged the challenges of the project but said she would not support this design. Commissioner Holmes said he understands the reason for wanting two doors. He was troubled that the south elevation switches to casement windows away from the windows in the front. The drawings are not complete enough to feel comfortable approving. Mr. Gladhill said staff can work with the applicant toward possible reorientation of the stairwell, and maybe having the exterior look the same to avoid coming back to the HPC. Staff is neutral on the windows of the front bedroom versus the bumpout. If the applicant got closer to the previously approved design, staff would feel better signing off administratively. Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to table Case No. CD 2022-22, revision to Design Approval for 1008 5th St S, and request detailed elevations of all four sides, acknowledging they do have an approved design in place. All in favor. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 2022 Annual Report Mr. Gladhill provided the HPC's annual report to the State Historic Preservation Office. 305 Water St S (Freight House); Roof Replacement Needs Mr. Gladhill stated the roof is failing and needs a full replacement, tuckpointing and deferred maintenance. A design permit will be applied for. One Year Review of Stillwater Design Guideline Update Chairman Thueson said that, having had the updated guidelines for over a year, he felt a review would be useful, possibly at a workshop session. Mr. Gladhill asked Commissioners to submit ideas of things that may need to be tweaked. He will poll Commissioners about availability for a workshop. Facade Improvements and other Decor/Lighting in the Downtown Design Review District/Historic Stillwater Commercial District Mr. Gladhill said a Commissioner asked for discussion on lighting, most notably the holiday lighting in both public and private spaces. This could be discussed in the workshop. Mural Guidelines Commissioners Heimdahl and Finwall led preliminary discussion of draft Mural Guidelines for the Commercial Historic Design District and Commercial Business Zoning District. A presentation will be made at the next meeting. In general, the guidelines attempt to make it more user friendly to do a mural, proposing that instead of a Conditional Use Permit, they require a sign plan in the Neighborhood Conservation District or Downtown Historic District. In other areas, a mural could be approved at staff level. There would be new design standards i.e. mural has to be of an historic nature. Art corridors may require a CUP so those murals could switch out without coming back to the HPC every time. Page 6 of 7 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 19, 2022 1014 4th Ave S - Potential Demolition Request Mr. Gladhill stated that staff is getting a lot of inquiries on this structure that has hit the market. Staff cannot authorize full demolition of the structure which has foundational issues. Instead of continuing to react to prospective buyers, staff has reached out to the owner and listing agency with a suggestion to get some general direction from the HPC to clarify for buyers what may be possible. He anticipates a request for full demolition coming in the near future based on the inquires. FYI Councilmember Junker commended Commissioner Heimdahl and Chairman Thueson for the presentation of the HPC awards at the City Council meeting and the reception beforehand. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Summers, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Matt Thueson, Chair ATTEST: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director Page 7 of 7 illwat!r THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: November 9, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Case No. 2022-64: Consider Design Approval of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) located at 919 5th Avenue South BACKGROUND The Applicant, Noel Molloy is seeking Design Approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission for the reconstruction of a garage as an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The project area is located at 919 5th Avenue South (PID # 3403020220089) and has frontage to the west on 5th Avenue South, a residential neighbor to the south and east, and a vacant lot of record, owned by the applicant, to the north. The project site has a lot area of 12,303 square feet and contains a two-story, 1,616 square foot single-family house built in 1887 and a 576 square foot single story garage, proposed to be removed and replaced with the new garage/accessory dwelling unit. The project site is located in the RB: Two -Family District, as well as the Neighborhood Conservation District. At their meeting on October 26th, 2022, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit required for allowing an Accessory Dwelling Unit, as well as a variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 15 feet, which was needed to reconstruct the accessory dwelling unit in the same location as the garage. As part of the accessory dwelling unit standards of approval, a design review is required. Typically, the Heritage Preservation Commission does not review Design Permits for accessory dwelling units. However, recent applications within the Neighborhood Conservation District that have required a variance have been referred by the Planning Commission to the Heritage Preservation Commission in order to ensure compliance with any applicable design guidelines. The proposed garage (accessory dwelling unit) will be 32 feet by 28 feet and a total of 800 square feet at the garage level and accessory dwelling unit level, the height is 19 feet. The proposal is for a three -stall garage with exterior stairs for access to the second story. The four-sided design includes matching horizontal lap siding and a gabled roof with a dormer adding architectural interest to the front (street facing) side of the accessory dwelling. ANALYSIS The primary goal pertaining to garages located within design review districts consist of locating garages that are compatible to the main structure and streetscape, ensuring the design is consistent with the primary unit, and that the scale, form, and size are compatible with surrounding area and the building site. 1. Accessory dwelling unit application requires design review for consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing, and materials. a. The accessory dwelling unit has a proposed roof pitch that is consistent with the primary dwelling, and provides architectural interested to the front, street facing facade. The proposed siding is a LP lap siding, painted a Benjamin Moore `Midsummer Night' with GAF Timberline shingles, colored `weathered wood' to match the existing dwelling. The applicant focused on ensuring the garage/accessory dwelling unit matched the primary dwelling, and did not draw attention away from it. Staff finds this proposal is consistent with the primary dwelling in color and design. In regards to detailing, staff acknowledges the effort made by the applicant to create a balanced four-sided interested with the proposal of at least two windows per facade, creating a consistent interest on the non -street facing facades while maintaining equal treatment to the more exposed facades. 2. Locate garage in locations compatible with the main structure of the site and existing traditional garages in the surrounding area. New garages should not be attached to the front of the historic house. a. The proposed garage is located in the rear of the property. This is consistent when comparing the layout to similarly sized lots with historic homes located to the front and middle of the property. The proposed location is a compatible location in relation to the main structure and existing traditional garages in the surrounding area. 3. New buildings designs should be of compatible form, scale, size, and materials. a. The proposed garage complies with zoning code regulations in regards to size and scale for accessory dwelling units. When considering scale on the Property, the proposed accessory dwelling unit is both smaller in size and form than the primary dwelling and due to its location in the rear the accessory dwelling unit is deemphasized and not in competition with the primary dwelling. b. Additionally, the primary dwelling, and majority of the surrounding dwellings are approximately 2.5 stories in height. Ensuring the proposed accessory dwelling unit will not detract from the surrounding scale. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Related to the Stillwater Design Guidelines, the neighborhood conservation district guides this garage/accessory dwelling unit development. Generally speaking, the accessory dwelling unit design review requires consistency with the primary unit in design, detailing and materials. It is not the intent for garages and accessory dwelling units to be reviewed on the same merits as primary structures. However, the design guidelines allow for garages/accessory dwelling units to be reviewed for applicable guidelines for new construction in regard to massing, scale, size, and overall architectural balance. The HPC has the following alternatives to consider. 1. Approve, with the following conditions a. Plans shall be consistent with those included in this report. b. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Department. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Approve as amended (based on discussion) 3. Deny a. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Neighborhood Conservation District Design Guidelines, then the Commission may deny the request. With a denial, the basis of action is required to be given. 4. Table for further information Staff generally recommends approval of the request, with potential modifications based on discussion. POTENTIAL MOTION Motion to approve the Design Permit for 919 5th Avenue South Accessory Dwelling Unit. Note: unless desired changes are relatively minor (colors), Staff recommends that any directed design changes result in postponing action (table) to bring back revised plan sheets for specific approval. •�� � • ��' ;-�� ���� � ,...„ ...... .,. 4'1 ' l,- ., ti •, r:' .A.flit: . .0.44..k," , .. . . .00'. '),'' L. ,, �}I! The Birthplace of Minnesota N y o_' J. c, w, • Site Location r• II-• tj .. . • .4 ," ',!10rcr.` 919 5th Ave S 0 25 50 100 Feet , General Site Location f ' Fti qr �+�' . gi 4 E _ �l' , d ji . • r� alit p,, u -ram\, .l ,♦*r� 1T1: • i f Wu ull � ' ' 'mil . . il . 1 EXIST DRIVEWAY EXISTING GARAGE PROPOSED GARAGE FOOTPRINT SCALE 32 = 1'-0" NOEL AND TERESE MOLLOY 919 5TH STREET S STILLWATER, MN 55082 FOOTPRINT OoLC WAY 2, ,481, 0Lt\ 11 se.1- 100,3 £tA .Pro r� e ��� � e.1-A5 rA SEVEN EDGES C O M M E R C I A L* H O S P I T A L I T Y INTERIOR DESIGN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 li 1 I 1 1 111 1111111111111 11111 111 �I �II II IIII 12 III III 61111 11111111111 1111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M M 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "gill IIIii..-1 L2'— 501 MAIN STREET NORTH #216 STILLWATER, MN 55082 JENNIFER@7EDGESDESIGN.COM 6 1 2. 7 5 9. I 9 3 6 8'-2" 8" LP BOARD 8" LP — 3'-ti' 3' — 5 3'-6" — 5'-6" 3' 5'-6" 6' 3'-10" — 3'-10" BOARD 1 1'-434" r DASHED LINES INDICATE CEILING AND FLOOR / / — LAP SIDING LAP SIDING 8' PROJECT: MOLLOY GARAGE 9 1 9 5 T H A V E. S STILLWATER, MN 55082 4' EXTERIOR 25' ELEVATION 1 — EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 30' ONORTH SCALE 16 = 1'-0" SCALE 16 = 1'-O" 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 12 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 �4 112 11 1 1 1 III III 11 1 1 11 7_61 DATE ISSUED `3L 3'-8n J 1 9/8/2022 ELEVATIONS 1 1 1 I /14/2022 ELEVATIONS \\ \ I 11/I/2022 ELEVATIONS I 1 7 / r 1 1 3'-10" / 3'-10" / 7 - 3' 3' 1'-8" — 2'-6" 5' 1'-8' 3' 3' LEGAL NOTICE: THES DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRI 7 EIDGES DEESIGNTTEN TLOF COPYRIGHT 2022. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. v I / f 'In 15 -44 — — r n 15 -42 - - — 22-012 n o: 9-8-2022 drawn by: JMN checked by: JMN SHEET INFORMATION: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS E C 1 10' 10' 10' EXTERIOR ELEVATION 4 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION ©SOUTH SCALE 16 = 1'-0" SCALE 16 = 1'-0" iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: November 9, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commissioners FROM: Yasmine Robinson, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Case No. 2022-70: Design Permit Approval in the Neighborhood Conservation District for a residential addition located at 704 5th Street North BACKGROUND The Applicants, David and Kristen Deleon, are seeking approval of a Design Permit for a single -story, approximately 420 square foot addition to their home located at 704 5th St N. (PID# 2803020210127). The project site is zoned RB (two-family) and lies within the Neighborhood Conservation District. The Property is a corner lot and has frontage to the east on 5th Street North, frontage to the south on Maple Street West, a residential neighbor to the north and the west. The project site has a lot area of 10,468 square feet and contains a two-story, approximately 990 square foot single-family dwelling built in 1892 and a single -story, 644 square foot garage. On October 26, 2022 a variance was granted by the City Planning Commission to allow an addition that would encroach into the side yard setback 18.2 feet from the exterior (right-of-way) side lot line. While review of additions by the Heritage Preservation Commission in the Neighborhood Conservation District are not required by City Code nor the Stillwater Design Guidelines, the Planning Commission typically makes it a contingency of any Variance Request to obtain approval by the Heritage Preservation, as is the case with this request. ANALYSIS General Character The surrounding area contains homes primarily built in the 1880's through 1920's, ranging in size from 1,200 to approximately 5,000 square feet. Historic architectural and visual character is consistent throughout the neighborhood. The proposed design of the addition continues the style of the existing structure, and is meant to blend in with the neighborhood's architectural character, which features many historic homes with additions. The proposed design of the addition would not destroy, damage or obscure any character defining features of the original structure. Siting & Setback The proposed one-story addition will extend the side of the home, providing a contiguous facade along the east elevation. Findings of the approved variance cite that, "the applicant could place the addition in a location that does comply and would not require a variance, but may not result in the best possible design". Aside from the approved variance, the proposed addition would conform with size, scale, massing, height and facade proportions of surrounding structures. The proposed addition would be located at the rear of the building, and due to the corner lot condition, it will be visible from the street. Building Elements Proposed materials include vinyl lap siding on the lower portion of the addition, with shakes located at the gable that would match the entirety of the structure. The proposed windows are vertically oriented and double hung, which are visually compatible with the existing house. In addition, the proportion and number of windows is appropriate in relation to the proposed addition's surroundings. The door to the proposed addition would not front onto the street, and is proposed to be an open glass style. The proposed gable roof is consistent with the majority of the older homes in the surrounding area, and roofing material would match the primary structure. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Pursuant to the Neighborhood Conservation District Design Guidelines, additions are part of the past lives of many historic houses, and often account for the variety of styles layered on a single building. Compatible additions provide for current and future needs and the continued use of existing historic buildings. Additions must be carefully designed to relate to the principal building as well as adjacent buildings. Staff finds the proposed addition to be a modest and seamless addition to the existing home, and that the proposed design meets the spirit and intent of the Neighborhood Conservation District Design Guidelines related to residential additions. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Design Permit for 704 5th Street North. T.Air �1: 1 WORM =tn -r ;�. r �J 11111/01 Emth.N CI1. 1 r tMrt- 510IM6 New Addition EAST ELEVATION DAVID AND IARISS7=.N DEL%ON phikmon DATE WIMP. 2or(0. J ASPHALT SHIN61—E6 VINYL SIDING AND SHAKES NORT1-1 ELEVATION DRAWN FOR: DAVID AND YRISTEN DELEON u•t. 1/4' .I!_O .r..ovco... o... 10-14.22. NORTH GIDE ADDITION ..V/.o J.J.CC, o..I or de S ys eusie.N 'd 1 • it ►Y� [' ' + pp Ira - - � r- • •''may; f{ I 7-c '"=+¢ -^I a • ,ti,... iTe r• • 1' t' 4 `_-1• • • 1. —• �'• wit_ r .r .v. •11 b. • kir r ir •T _ • l • w � ,+.+.--A, I11war THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: November 9, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Case No. 2022-77: Consider Design Approval of a Fence Replacement, located at 106 Chestnut Street East. BACKGROUND The Applicant, James Motz is seeking Design Approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission for the replacement of a fence within the Downtown Design Review District. The project area is located at 106 Chestnut Street East (PID # 2803020420102) and has frontage to the South on Chestnut Street East and to the West on Third Street South. To the West is another historic residential structure and to the North is a commercial building currently utilized as the American Legion. The Project site has a lot area of 14,815 square feet and contains a two-story 3,324 square foot residential building, built in 1873. Most recently the building has been utilized for a series of commercial uses rather than residential. The project site is located within the Central Business District and the Downtown Design Review District. The specific request is to replace the existing four -foot high white picket fence and brackets with a four -foot high aluminum "Echelon Plus, Classic 3-rail style" white coated fence. The proposed replacement is due to the existing state of disrepair in regards to structural integrity and aesthetics of the current fence. Currently, there are no specific design requirements for fence replacement in City Code, except that fences must comply with underlining design guidelines and that the finished side of the fence is facing out. Typically, the Heritage Preservation Commission does not review Design Permit for fence replacement. However, due to the underlying review district and the change from wood picket to metal, staff felt that a design review permit was appropriate to ensure that the direction proposed by staff regarding administration of the guidelines was accurate. ANALYSIS 1. Existing historic fences of metal or wood should be repaired and conserved wherever possible. Repairs should be compatible with the original materials and design of the fence. a. In its current condition, repairing of the fence would be generally ineffective at remedying the degradation of the wood picket fence, the same is true for repairs. At this time the applicant is looking to replace the fence with a maintenance free product that continues to emulate the white picket style. 2. New fences should be compatible with the architectural character, materials, and scale of the principal building and surrounding streetscape. a. The proposed fence appears to be compatible with the architectural character, materials, and scale of the principal building and surrounding streetscape. The proposal maintains the white color and does not increase the fence height. Further, it proposes a greater transparency between pickets. In regards to streetscape, there are a total of five fences designed with similar material and height on or adjacent to the block that 106 Chestnut is situated on. With two examples directly across the public road from the Property. 3. Fences enclosing the front yard should be semitransparent. Appropriate materials include wrought iron and painted wood pickets. In general, complete enclosure by opaque fences is not appropriate. a. Due to the nature of the lot being situated on a corner, the fence is enclosing two "front yard" areas. That being said, the proposed fence is increasing the picket spacing from 2 inches to 4 inches. This further increases the semi - transparency of the fence. Additionally, staff find that the use of aluminum products, such as the "Echelon" fence is an appropriate material and as effective as wrought iron or wood — primarily because it is an effective ornamental metal fence. 4. Iron or steel fencing should have appropriately scaled and detailed masonry or steel piers. a. While the proposed material is neither steel or iron, as noted above the use of aluminum fences has been noted to be quite prevalent in neighboring properties and an effective material. The proposed piers appear to be appropriately scaled. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Related to the Stillwater Design Guidelines, the downtown Stillwater design review guides this review as it pertains to fences. Generally speaking, the proposed replacement of the wood picket fence is consistent with the design guidelines and historic/current new fence installation practices for the surrounding area. The proposed fence complies with the fence regulations of the City Code and is consistent with the guidelines relating to scale, transparency, material, and matching surrounding streetscape. Staff recommends approval of the request, with potential modifications based on discussion. POTENTIAL MOTION Motion to approve the Design Permit for 106 Chestnut Street East fence replacement. Note: unless desired changes are relatively minor (colors), Staff recommends that any directed design changes result in postponing action (table) to bring back revised plan sheets for specific approval. km* 1rv40 PI� �'1IPIIII Iajj'��;�lIII'llllilllli�ii� nmio r illwater Planning Department HERITAGE PRESERVATION APPLICATION Heritage Preservation Commission 216 4th Street North Stillwater MN 55082 651-430-8820 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us P Tannin gDept(R?ci. stillwater.mn.us Case No. 471apeZ -77 Date Filed: t a l2. 5/2 Base Fee: 4' . ,- Base Fee + Tech fee $25 r Receipt No.::ag ACTION REQUESTED DISTRICT ]( Design Permit Downtown Historic District Demolition Permit Downtown Overlay District Heritage Preservation Use Variance Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District • The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted with any application. Any incomplete application or supporting material will cause your application to be rejected by the City. • Only one copy of supporting materials is required. However, any documents larger than 11 x 17 must be submitted in paper and in pdf format. (emailed or on a thumb drive) • Review the `Checklist for Design and Demolition Applications' for the complete list of required items. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project I % , .C+.4 nu& Si . Assessor's Parcel No. 02S.OW. 20. 1 Z- • dl D V.- (PIN Number) Zoning District boW►Arow►'1 Overlay District Z 1, Description of Project I ��C t.in•1�+ ti� [ C c c� W+t s�� `,.ti L oze) \U m•b U.v �tc.-.1- Vrw.c.Ac . ! L err,nc.t `k•,stetlW �n 1-I�t [N-&0:1h, u 11 c t a on q-Ln_ c-4-# s►c��walI� Ott. Co►n ,+W{ COLA Ci•Va � sj akr. C eS& i2 v v\ %_ .*_ -Vac)(is Ca P . Px C` 1► S - ►nCt `k . �Co t all Ca tv tv Olin.'k hvvM cw•Ct ..tit 11 - Vi c\u S -IS_ 0:'A 4 ,Vtu] -�.un CI U5 r 11 c. 4ir i r Spt.[x+n ok '-t 11, jc. u t 42- (3\ettnC) ttrcin op( Cn�cec e. metal\ 1ev rIc Updated 8/2021 S7 3° SET PK. NAL G 0.4 -`FENCE -FIX1ND P.K. NAL �Q 5'EET �E 7s• lit 41' 6 9L 2A - �� T - l SE7 PKL. NAL= A FOL1N0 i e,C. NAIL W p„ �� ��au1�IV1 pry' NO RIVETS. NO SCREWS. NO WELDS. LLI iiii MEI IIII 1 i1 1 MI g .■■m=m! MI !..! 1■■1 .... CLASSIC" MAJESTIC' GENESIS" CONQUEROR' WARRIOR' Note: Classic, Majestic, Genesis & Warrior 3- & 4-rail panels are lBC compliant. BOTTOM OPTION STANDARD FLUSH BOTTOM BOTTOM RAIL RAIL AMERISTARFENCE.COM 1888-333-3422 NO RIVETS. NO SCREWS. NO WELDS. rim •... IIII I1il No "" 1111 !••! 1■■1 iiii .__. CLASSIC MAJESTIC GENESIS" CONQUEROR' WARRIOR' Note: Classic, Majestic, Genesis & Warrior 3- & 4-rail panels are IBC compliant. BOTTOM OPTION .11.1.11 Ach, STANDARD FLUSH BOTTOM BOTTOM RAIL RAIL AMERISTARFENCE.COM 1888-333-3422 2 https://www.lensflarestillwater.org/chestnut-and-3rd-street-views https://www.discoverstillwater.com/things-to-do/walking-tour/ 3 118 Oak Street West 121 Chestnut Street East 107 Chestnut Street East •AAA._., Wh,�7yy-. �+ ] !� xuruml1111111F,� "L►►, =� - �� c _`3,� � Illi�ll�!Illai�a�uu�mll�... ......, i�� ..�.� 150 3rd Street South iliwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: November 9, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Yasmine Robinson, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Case #2022-76: Consideration of a Design Permit for the design of a new home located at 303 Saint Croix Avenue West BACKGROUND The Applicant, Preferred Builders is seeking approval of a Design Permit for a new two- story single-family, approximately 2,500 total square foot home located in the mid -block of Saint Croix Avenue West (PIN 2103020340160) between 4th Street North and Martha Street North. The project site is located in the RB: Two -Family District, as well as the Neighborhood Conservation District, which requires approval of the Design Permit by the Heritage Preservation Commission. ANALYSIS When reviewing the request, the Heritage Preservation Commission should consider the following criteria per City Code. • Proposed alterations shall conform to special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. • Proposed alterations shall conform to the existing primary and secondary structure setbacks and neighborhood street rhythm. • The height, scale, mass and proportion of the proposed alterations, including facade openings and roof style, shall be compatible with the site and its surroundings. • Proposed alterations shall have four-sided detailing and materials. • The location, height and material of walls, fences, hedges, trees and screen plantings shall ensure compatibility with adjacent development and the environment and conceal areas, utility installations and other unsightly development. • The HPC may include conditions in its decisions that it deems reasonable and necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter and this section. Upon findings by the HPC that the application, subject to conditions as it deems necessary, will meet the above criteria, secure the purpose of this chapter, the comprehensive plan, and the heritage preservation ordinance, the HPC may approve the design permit. If findings are made that an application would violate the criteria of a design permit, the HPC must deny the application. General Character The surrounding area contains homes primarily built in the 1880's, but does contain a few built in the 1940's and 1980's. The historic architectural and visual character is inconsistent, with no predominant style or character. The proposed design does seem to take inspiration from the more historic homes on the block, but would be discernable from them as new. Siting & Setback The proposed design would be setback 20 feet in compliance with the RB Two -Family Zoning District standards, and would be compatible with the orientation and spacing of other buildings along the street. Though this home is larger in square footage than others, it is common to see a mix of smaller, older homes with larger, new construction throughout this neighborhood. Building Elements The proposed design will conform to the massing, volume, height, facade, spacing and scale of buildings within view of the site, and also comply with existing zoning regulations. The proposed structure would be visually compatible with surrounding buildings within the area. Materials proposed for use on the structure would include vinyl lap siding with shakes located at the gable. The proposed windows are vertically oriented and double hung. The proportion and number of windows is appropriate in relation to the proposed structure's surroundings. The front door includes a sidelight and is visually balanced by two windows on the other side of the facade. The proposed gable roof is consistent with the majority of the older homes in the surrounding area. The proposed design features a prominent open front porch and is appropriately sized in relation to the proposed design, size and scale. Some of the porches on older homes in this block have been enclosed over the years, resulting in a loss of continuity. The proposed design's open porch would increase the transitional zone between the semi- public and public exterior zones and the private interior zone along the block frontage. The rear of the structure would contain a private deck. Proposed parking would be located in an accessory garage setback from the midpoint of the primary structure. The windows and siding of the garage would be identical to that used on the primary structure. The proposed garage would comply with all massing, height and setback requirements of the RB Two -Family Zoning District. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Related to the Stillwater Design Guidelines, the Neighborhood Conservation District guides this infill style of development/new construction. Generally speaking, this design review district requires high -quality design. The design guidelines allow for (and encourage) a more modern design, as long as said modern design is high quality (see Design Guidelines for more specifics on this standard). It is not the intent of the Design Guidelines to require new construction to match exact 1880s designs. When considering approval of a new dwelling in the Neighborhood Conservation District, City Code requires that the Heritage Preservation Commission to make the following findings. • The proposed building alteration or new construction, including its appurtenances, does not materially impair the architectural or historic integrity of the building and site, adjacent buildings and sites, or the neighborhood as a whole. • If located in a historic district, the proposed building or site alteration or new construction is compatible with, and will ensure continued significance and integrity of all properties within the historic district based on the period(s) of significance under which the district was designated. • Granting the design permit will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter and does not negatively alter the essential character and significance of the building, site, and its surroundings. The HPC has the following alternatives to consider. 1. Approve, with the following conditions a. Plans shall be consistent with those included in this report. b. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the Community Development Department. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Approve as amended (based on discussion) 3. Deny a. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Neighborhood Conservation District Design Guidelines, then the Commission may deny the request. With a denial, the basis of action is required to be given. 4. Table for further information Staff recommends approval with conditions, with potential modifications based on discussion. Staff believes the proposed design would be a positive contribution to the built environment of this block. POTENTIAL MOTION Motion to approve the Design Permit for 303 Saint Croix Avenue West, including making the required findings noted above. later.. ,...,,... ,,. . , .. -,"' ‘ - -y. 110 The Birthplace of Minnesota „Ai_ 0 - Lt t • . Am Site Location P10: 21.030.20.34.0160 (Proposed 303 St. Croix Ave W) 0 15 30 60 Feet P.• •... General Site Location .., • 5' '. • -, ilIzzimpl.• IMi',..."6i: 111111111Int-zaretwai,alucS• - .....,ntu.. • iriVogiimi Fir - iir.ta.11k/' -71:.• r IP • k - ;:s.. •. me so 17inris IN iiimpfir - ,j„ `.1•• 74 -7 ' e. -.- , ‘ , ., --•.,If '': iri P 4 i, Nrrri. > i • it/ -1 - I w7 . 4 'Ai -,..,ii Mil, ril I .1 . ii---„,--F57:79iiwnr.,4, IP • §" I :442-014040 Mil.'=.7.4.• In fi,SY` . .--. . 4- ..ilii- i, r,„ r,ti i'� ti i' i'i, s i, i Iiti i1ti I �titii� • ,ILtii H'� H r iY� , F iYi� , 0% tii �i , 1 tii � , 1� � , r'�i' i � �ti ti� 1 i'���i�ti i'i�'i �''1 i, • ��,i'i' '�,� I' ��,� �ti,ti��, i�ti iti si�i ii�, i� ������,� sh i� �,�,�s�� .� H t� t H I ��t �� iY1�i�titiitii 1�i� � i� t I� ti �� i ti ii 1 ti 1 11 % i''i1�� s i''i'��� s i � i� �� i � i� � i� i ti i � ti % 1 i, 1 i� s i � � ��'i�� ��'i 1'�i� �1' i'' 1' i'' 1' i�' 1'tii�'i��, 'tii�'i�) �' ��'i�) I l i i s„i 1 1 1 1 i 'i 1' l I i �'� i 1' IN Rear Elevation Scale 1/8"=11-0" Z iii Left Elevation 6/12 Pitch � i' i��', i' f �'�� �' i�'�� ti�'tii�' ,, (I , si,'1iI�1 ,� si,'i�, ,, s�' l ti� , ,,,,i ti� , i �� i�'�� titii�'i ��'I, (I I, i,�II',l �'�'�'i���i ,���i���� ,� ��'�� , 1 i'' ,l' j� i ,�' �� i1�, ,i �� i,i ,i' i i ,i i';i'�,� ,i 1,'i� , ,� 1�'i;''i�� 1' i�i� i ��i� �' i��, �' r� , ,, i T., LIi� i a 'f �'�5i�1 i''i�5��1' i �i''I' . �''',i', I til', ,J Li, i'�''i �i i ., i 'i, i,�,I'i i� ,�i'i ' - *, iYi��'�'iYi �'�'iYi, ,i''��' yr �'�yt,ti '' '���, j''r ��� tit'�r i, , 'ti �f, i, ,i ��'�i,�, , i,rr 1 , �,1itii i' �,1 tii ti� 1� j �',�,1� u r�r'0-'�s? rY rs'is0 rYH''�s�,0-'N'�' ti j,' , i, , i�� , ''si��t,,i,,,i sr� t,,i',i' i ��,r,i''. ,i, i''i),�',r'tii,'i..,',r,r,i,,,',' �''i fr.,..,' fr, ,'� d-u�,, ± ±r��, ±r� ± J''�I , J'_r,1 rij'_r EyeBrow Overhang Siding -Roofing -Windows & Door Styles & Colors are for Conceptual Illustration Purposes Only I Final Selections to be Verified By Owner-Bullder-Supplier ■II ■ Right Elevation Dutchlap Siding ElEvations Scale 1/4"=1'-0" PREFERRED euiioees.ixc. N 20' 38' 3650DH Attic 6'-3 5/8' x 15'-3 1/8' 96 sq ft 6'-10" Elevation 1 Stacked Washer -Dryer DN Attic Storage 23'-5" x 18'-11 1/8" 406 sq ft 24'-4" 17' 3650DH 4' Jr Attic 6'-3 5/8" x 18'-11 1/8' 119 sq ft 6'-10" Upper level Attic Storage I I, I I I l$ Storage under Stair " Garage 36'-11 I/8' x 18'-11 1/8" 635 sq ft 41M11 17' a 9070 T 8" Jr 10' 7" 10'-7" Jr 6'-2" Main Floor Required Average Roof Height 8/12 Pitch i Proposed Average Roof Height S€ction-Through Garag€-Attic Storage Front Elevation 12" Gable Overhang 24" Eave Overhang Garage Scale As Noted Page 4 PREFERRED eui.oees.ixc. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR: PREFERRED BUILDERS PROPERTY ADDRESS: SAINT CROIX AVENUE WEST, STILLWATER PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ASBUILT ELEVATIONS GARAGE FLOOR = 913.0 TOP OF FOUNDATION = 915.3 LOWEST FLOOR = 907.3 LOOKOUT = 910.5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 8, and west 16.50 feet of Lot 7, all in Block 5, WILKINS'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER, Washington County, Minnesota. 912.6 916.1 TCCB BE SAINT CROIX AVENUE WEST c12.7 H 912.5 BE -CB 913.8 BE 914.7 916.6 BE BE (00 Q N89°19'41"W FNDLS1377°1 FNDLS13775�' 915.1 X913.1 915.1 d. 910.7 I 0) GF SPK 5 r .66 X 915.5 EXISTING HOUSE AREA CALCULATIONS TOTAL LOT = ±7,799 sq. ft. Proposed Hse/Porch = ±1,018 Sq. Ft. Proposed Garage = ±760 Sq. Ft. Proposed Driveway = ±1,759 Sq. Ft. Proposed Deck = ±176 Sq. Ft. L_ X 906.1 / \ -1- 1 1 I / 1 cio rn x905.0 71.N• Cr) Cr) VIT�/� ZL c9 in III "'9/0... •FNDIP 150 909.7 SPK O 0) 909.1 SPK 908.6 SPK 0 0> v N 1. (NI PORCH 22.00 913.2 0 PROPOSED HOUSE 0 8.33' BASEMENT 8 LOOKOUT. co I 1 1 I L_ \/ 1 910.2 22.00 912.0 • 10.0 1 1 1 1 60) -<-16.2 FNDLS137757 NOTES - CITY OF STILLWATER TO APPROVE PROPOSED SETBACKS. - HOUSE PLACMENT AND ELEVATIONS SET BY CONTRACTOR. - BEARING'S SHOWN ARE ON ASSUMED DATUM. - CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY HOUSE DIMENSIONS, AND SEWER AND BASEMENT DEPTHS. - FINISHED GRADE 10 FEET FROM PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL BE 0.5 FEET LOWER THAN THE FINISHED GRADE AT THE BUILDING. - FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE WITH TURF ESTABLISHMENT. - DRIVEWAYS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL DRIVEWAY DESIGN AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR 910.3 909.8 x 909.8 X DECK 13. 4' 914 917.6 918.2. c0 0) 29.2� PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 13.0 38.00 DETACHED GARAG 38.00 - 16.5 912.9 c9 0 A -�. x - 3.55 0 N 912.4 --912 9'0 Q x 910.5 911.7 L_ 11.3 1 1 / 1 917.0 917.8 c9 co 918.4 918.9 GF-DROPS NORTH 0 20 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20ft. 919.9 GF EXISTING HOUSE 917.4 SPK-28FTOS 915.3 SPK-28FTOS 913.3 913.0 SPK-2.5FTOS 912.6 SPK-2.5FTOS 1-7 FNDLS13775 I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Lan. Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. v OSHUA P. SCHNEIDER Revised: 11-2-22 (garage/deck) Date: 10-24-22 Reg. No. 44655 57.66 N89°19'41"W 912.7 12.6 I 1 1 I L_ \/ 1 919.9 LEGEND • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET e DENOTES EXISTING CATCH BASIN 00237 DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION x1011.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE ® DENOTES METAL OFFSET SPIKE x DENOTES EXISTING FENCE DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR • Y\ JOB#22260 ACRE LAND SURVEYING - 763-238-6278 js.acrelandsurvey*Igmail.com I° 11 12 13 14rr 9 5 6 7 8 I9 0 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 08 9 120 Blaine, MN 55449 1 1 ... • virtaitno • illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: November 9, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Ben Gutknecht, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CD Case No. 2022-66: Consideration of a Design Permit for a stationary seasonal food vender at 204 Main St N. BACKGROUND The Applicant, Ryan Kilkelly of "The Good Egg" food truck, is seeking approval of a Design Permit to allow the on -site parking of a food vending truck that will be located at 204 Main Street North for more than 20 hours. The project site is located in the Central Business Zoning District, as well as the Downtown Design Review District. Because of the length of time that the proposed food truck will remain parked at the proposed location, Stillwater City Code Section 41-7 Subdivision 2 requires Design Permit approval by the Heritage Preservation Commission. At the September 21 st, 2022 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting, the request for consideration of a design permit for a food vending cart to be located on premises for greater than 20 hours was tabled. Feedback by the Commission was primarily related to the semi- permanence of the proposed food truck and incompatibility of the proposed color and design with the surrounding environment. The Commission also requested information related to the location of propane tanks, and general on -site operations. The Commission asked the Applicant to address these concerns and return at a later date. As such, the Applicant has supplied Staff with updated plans. REQUEST The Applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit to allow for a seasonal food vending truck to operate on -site for a period greater than 20 hours. The address of the proposed location is 204 Main Street North, Joseph Wolf Mercantile and would be placed at the Southeastern corner of the lot, on the concrete patio area. ANALYSIS The initial proposal included a brighter cyan/blue color food truck. The Heritage Preservation Commission found the color to be too bright and inconsistent with the overall Downtown area. The newly proposed color of the food truck is "Heron Blue". This is a darker and more muted tone of blue. The Applicant notes this was a conscious decision to fit within the theme for Downtown Stillwater and comply with the feedback from the Heritage Preservation Commission regarding finding a darker and muted color. As an aside, while not done intentionally, the color appears similar to the facade for 106 Main Street. Generally speaking, an annual permit for a seasonal vending cart, vehicle or trailer remaining on premises for a period of greater than 20 hours may be approved by the City subject to the following specific standards: 1. The food vending cart or trailer shall generally follow the adopted Commercial Historic District Design Manual and not be generic in design. White utility trailers are not permitted without significant exterior design improvements. a. While the vending unit is a utility trailer, it is dark blue in color with the addition of a logo/signage on two sides. Further, there are two windows proposed on the unit that can be opened for service. 2. The exterior of the food vending cart or trailer shall not contain neon colored/fluorescent paint. a. This standard has been met. 3. The food vending cart or trailer shall not contain neon lighting, display any moving parts, be illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights, nor may it incorporate any animation. No device may be illuminated to obscure or mimic an official traffic sign or signal. This includes indoor lighting which is visible from public streets. a. This standard has been met. 4. The food vending cart or trailer shall not use outside sound amplification, televisions or other similar visual displays, nor may it use noisemakers such as bells, horns or whistles. a. This standard has been met. The Applicant is proposing two (2) signs on the food truck plus a menu board. This appears consistent with other approved food truck signs in this type of circumstance. Additionally, Staff would like to note that the applicant has further described primary site functions such as the proposed generator, propane and water tank locations. They've also described the plans for water and trash removal from site. The applicant has also provided a preliminary site plan for seating that staff has reviewed and will recommend be amended as at its current configuration the seating takes up parking for the primary business. After review of the updated material supplied by the Applicant, Staff finds that the proposal appears to meet standards set forth in Section 41-7 for Seasonal food vending, including but not limited to trash removal, signage, and site setup. RECOMMENDATION Per guidance and allowances found within current City L.uu Staff recommends approval of the Design Permit for the Good Egg Food cart should the Heritage Preservation Commission find that the proposal meets the standards set forth int the City Code, with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant must submit a complete Seasonal food vender permit for review and approval by City Staff prior to operation. 2. The applicant must submit an updated site plan showing revised seating as part of the Seasonal food vender permit. 3. Food cart shall be consistent with plans on file for HPC Design Permit CD 2022- 66. 4. There shall only be one vendor on site at a time. Any more than one would require additional permitting. 5. No storage or product sales are allowed outside of the vending trailer. 6. If pop-up canopies do not contain signs, they may be utilized. 7. No signs shall be internally lit. 8. The food vending cart or trailer shall not contain neon lighting, display any moving parts, be illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights, nor may it incorporate any animation. No device may be illuminated to obscure or mimic an official traffic sign or signal. This includes indoor lighting which is visible from public streets. 9. If there is to be a generator supporting the trailer, the manufacturer's noise specifications must be submitted. If the generator is not a quiet technology, then the hours of operation may have to be re-examined. 10.The food vending cart or trailer shall not use outside sound amplification, televisions or other similar visual displays, nor may it use noisemakers such as bells, horns or whistles 11. Each year when the business is reviewed for reissuance of a vending license, the location of the truck must be analyzed so as not to dominate the traffic flow or parking spaces, if the drive aisle and spaces are needed for tenants and building customers/clients. 12.A Design Permit shall not be required provided there are no major changes to the design of the food truck each year when it is reviewed for a new license. 13. The seasonal outdoor food truck shall obtain approval from Washington County Public Health and the Fire Department prior to beginning operation. 14.AII major revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department. 15.Any associated Seasonal Food Permit license issued in 2022 would be valid until December 31, 2022. Staff acknowledges a desire by the Heritage Preservation Commission to evaluate current regulations pertaining to mobile food units/food trucks. The City must review the current request on its merits and compliance with existing City Code until such time City Code is amended (if amended). Staff will forward a policy discussion regarding mobile food units/food trucks in the near future. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Design Permit request to allow a Design Permit to allow for a seasonal food vending truck to operate on -site for a period greater than 20 hours, based on the above conditions within this report. Proposed Color Options The Good Egg is proposing four new color options for review by the Heritage Preservation Commission of Stillwater Minnesota. These options are represented by accurately scaled architectural drawings. We believe that the options provided are the best options that will satisfy both the commission's desire to aesthetically assimilate with the surroundings of historic downtown Stillwater. The four colors included are noted in the title of the images. They include: Sky Blue, Burgundy, Redwood, and Heron Blue. The preference of The Good Egg is to remain with a blue color. With that said, our first preference would be the Heron Blue. We say this with the commission's interest in mind. While the sky blue may be more desirable, we provided this option mostly for context. The sky blue is more muted than the original "pepsi blue" that was proposed, but we understand that it may still be a little bright. With that in mind our preference would be to go with the "heron blue". We believe that this would be a good fit for both our brand as well as the city. The "heron blue" is meant to represent a deeper color of the river, as well as assimilate towards the traditional colors represented in the Stillwater logo design, yet even a bit deeper. Our other options consist of shades of red. Both the burgundy, as well as the redwood are closely related and are the deepest colors in that palette that we could find. We prefer the redwood over the burgundy, as it is a little closer to a true brick color. Our hesitance in going with the red side of the spectrum is that it isn't actual brick, so it may come across as too much of a similar contrast with the surrounding structures. While the logo does transfer nicely, we feel like the natural, deeper blue would be more desirable for our company and location. u � i W u W I a a Is u u W 0 0 0 0 W LEM 41L The Good Egg Site Plan The site plan for The Good Egg is fairly straightforward and self contained. Please refer to the overhead view of the site at 204 Main st. north. You will notice six circles and two rectangles on the patio, as well as the cart in blue. The circles represent the initial proposed seating for the patio and the rectangles represent the two trash and recycling receptacles we will have on site. The view from above is scaled to size and from all angles of the streets and sidewalks, this will be all that you see that is outside of the cart. Similar to our neighboring cart at The River Siren brewery parking lot, we will be powered by an enclosed generator on the back of the cart. This can be seen in all of the drawings provided and is scaled to size. There will be no exposed wires, cords or tanks. As noted previously, we are using a state of the art generator known for its consistency and maybe more so, its quietness The propane tank can be seen opposite from the generator in all drawings as well. All of our waste will be disposed of by the same means as all of our neighbors in the alleyway behind the building and out of sight. We have on demand greywater disposal as often as once a day. We will not need it this much, but collection will be scheduled very early mornings before open. Our cart was designed with cleanliness, and self containment in mind. We decided to build a new cart rather than purchase and refurbish one with all of this, as well as the city's best interest in mind from the start. We are closely tied to Stillwater and understand the evolution of the downtown landscape very well and have been keenly attentive for years. This cart will be maintained to the highest standards both on the interior and exterior. We will clean the exterior of the cart at minimum once a month and are confident we will be known for being a gold standard not only within mobile units, but kitchens and restaurants throughout the valley. As an addendum to this site plan, we want to reiterate our experience and understanding of the situation as well as the location. The owner/operator as well as his colleague have an extensive history of operating carts in high exposure areas that require self containment. We have done this while being able to provide high quality options, in a timely manner while upholding the standards of cleanliness and appearance. We are well versed in most of the daily cart maintenance and are equipped with understanding how to troubleshoot most things that could potentially arise in a cart environment. If we don't know how to do something ourselves, we will know exactly who to contact to immediately resolve. We believe with this project, it will be our reputation that allows us to succeed most. A large part of that will be focused on the quality of experience on both dining with us, as well as observing us. We will always focus on our product and image and with that understand that, while we are a food cart, our appearance and consistency of cleanliness and quality both inside and out are paramount to our success. F' IP r r illwater THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA DATE: November 9, 2022 TO: Honorable Chair and HPC Commissioners FROM: Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Case No. CD 2022-78: Design Approval for Roof and Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Replacement at 305 Water St S (The Freight House); Case of JFS Stillwater, LLC BACKGROUND The Freight House is requesting approval to replace the current metal roof, rooftop equipment and fascia on this building listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Owner is requesting that the current roof be replaced due to deterioration. The current roof is not the original roof, but actually the third (at least) roof system on the structure. A quick, exterior visualization of the roof, soffit and fascia by Staff does indeed indicate a need for maintenance as the current structure allows for a number of penetrations into the structure. The Owner is working with Morrissey Hospitality and Market & Johnson (General Contractor). The Owner is proposing to replace the roof with another metal roof with a slate grey color. The slate grey color is similar to multiple municipal buildings in the downtown area (such as the Lowell Park Restrooms). The Owner is also proposing to repair the existing fascia with like materials (wood) and like colors (white). Finally, the project would also include replacing the rooftop mechanical units with new units with a like -for - like replacement (same size and location). REGULATORY CONTEXT The following regulatory controls guide the current review. • National Register of Historic Places #77000773 (Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Freight House • National Register of Historic Places #100005319: Stillwater Commercial Historic District, Contributing Building • Stillwater City Code: Downtown Design Review District Of key importance, due to its individual listing as a historic place, the repair must comply with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Places. Generally speaking, the review first walks through a sequence of appropriate approaches starting with Preservation, then Rehabilitation, then Restoration and finally (and least preferred) Reconstruction. Staff would classify this project as a Restoration, defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features and character of a property as it appeared at a particular time by means of removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. A more detailed summary of the applicable Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are attached to this report. Staff has also attached the pertinent sections of the Stillwater Design Guidelines. City Code guides the Heritage Preservation Commission's review for compliance with said design guidelines through the following standards. • Proposed alterations to a heritage preservation site shall conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. • Proposed alterations shall conform to special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. • Proposed alterations shall conform to the existing primary and secondary structure setbacks and neighborhood street rhythm. • The height, scale, mass and proportion of the proposed alterations, including facade openings and roof style, shall be compatible with the site and its surroundings. • Proposed alterations shall have four-sided detailing and materials. • The location, height and material of walls, fences, hedges, trees and screen plantings shall ensure compatibility with adjacent development and the environment and conceal areas, utility installations and other unsightly development. • The appearance of the number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall be compatible with adjacent development. • The HPC may include conditions in its decisions that it deems reasonable and necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter and this section. Upon findings by the HPC that the application, subject to conditions as it deems necessary, will meet the above criteria, secure the purpose of this chapter, the comprehensive plan, and the heritage preservation ordinance, the HPC may approve the design permit. If findings are made that an application would violate the criteria of a design permit, the HPC must deny the application. ANALYSIS In review of historical data, it is difficult to determine the actual material and color of the original roof of this structure. Other elements of the structure, such as the limestone foundation, brick wall and wood truss frame are well documented. Through an extensive literature review, it appears plausible and likely that the original roof was likely some sort of darker slate tile. Some historical photos help provide context, but may not have appropriate detail to make a full determination. Additionally, other adjacent structures of the time (since removed) such as the depot and other similar freight houses appeared to have had this slate tile roof. Slate tile for roofs is not commonly used in current construction and materials would be much more difficult (but not impossible) to find. The current owner purchased the property in the 1970s. According to the current owner, at that time the roof was a green asphalt shingle. Soon after acquisition, the current owner replaced the green asphalt single roof with the current metal roof. Taking cues from past reviews, Staff did recommend that the Owner consider a more historically appropriate off-white/muted white compared to the existing color. However, the Owner has noted that in doing so, the project would need to be expanded to include repainting of other areas of the project such as exterior windows and door frames. In regards to the rooftop mechanical unit replacement, the replacement will include units of same size and location of existing. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff generally recommends approval of the design. The use of metal roof with a slate grey color appears to be compatible with the surrounding area and historic context. Specifically, the Heritage Preservation Commission should provide guidance on the following. • Appropriateness of metal roof • Appropriateness of slate grey color for metal roof • Appropriateness of color of fascia • Appropriateness of mechanical equipment replacement approach When considering approval of a design permit, the Heritage Preservation Commission must make the following findings. • The proposed building alteration or new construction, including its appurtenances, does not materially impair the architectural or historic integrity of the building and site, adjacent buildings and sites, or the neighborhood as a whole. • If located in a historic district, the proposed building or site alteration or new construction is compatible with, and will ensure continued significance and integrity of all properties within the historic district based on the period(s) of significance under which the district was designated. • Granting the design permit will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter and does not negatively alter the essential character and significance of the building, site, and its surroundings. ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the design for roof replacement and associated improvements at 305 Water St W. Exhibit A — Applicant Plans Roof Top Mechanical System Replacement Mechanical Scope of Work • Remove and dispose of existing mechanical equipment: o (2) 20-ton gas/electric roof top units o (1) 6-ton indoor air handling unit in basement and roof mounted heat pump condensing unit. o (1) 2.5-ton indoor air handling unit in basement and roof mounted condensing unit. o (1) 4-ton indoor air handling unit in basement and roof mounted condensing unit. o (2) 6-ton roof mounted heat pump condensing units and associated duct coils at makeup air unit in mezzanine/attic space. o (3) kitchen exhaust fans. o (1) pry type roof mounted exhaust fan. • New mechanical equipment: o (2) new 20-ton vertical heat pumps o (1) 6-ton heat pump in basement. o (1) 2.5-ton heat pump in basement. o (1) 4-ton heat pump in basement. o (2) 6-ton dx coils at makeup air unit with water cooled condensing units in attic space. o (3) kitchen exhaust fans and curbs. o (1) pry exhaust fan and curb. Railings will be taken off for roofing and repainted when they go back on. Color to be the black. Also, replacing damaged fascia. Roof Replacement & Repairs • Fascia replacement (typ.) Roof Scope of Work Roof Work- Metal Roof • Demo all the existing roof down to wood deck • Inspect existing deck for deterioration and report to owner • Install high temp ice and water on full roof • Fabricate & install all drip edge, flashing, rake edge, wall flashing, & sill trims • Fabricate and Install Snap Lock S.O.P Standing seam roofing panel- 16" wide 1-'A" tall • Material would be 24-gauge CMG Coated Metals Group, Color to be Smoke Roof Work- Rubber Roof (ai Mechanical Penthouses • Remove existing membrane roofing at RTU's • Remove insulation • Install new poly-iso insulation to match existing depth • Install EPDM membrane and flashings as needed for a watertight system • Install all metal trims as needed • Fix existing handrail and reinstall Fascia • Remove and replace approximately 112 LF of fascia Roof Color Smoke Central Snap®-13/4'Snap-lock Recommended min. pitch-1:12 I Non-structural panel perfect for light commercial applications. 13/4" FrFactory applied sealant 16" COVERAGE �i Roof Replacement Freight House — Stillwater, MN Fascia Color The river side of the building seems to be in good condition, with no visual holes or rusted through spots. It is possible the holes and rust spots could start showing up in the future, possibly next year or two. Flat roof areas are in very poor condition and should be replaced. Penetrations on west side of building and on flat roof areas, most are not properly flashed. Also, refer to the picture above and key to see where areas have damage to the roof on the west side of building. SW 7008 Mabaster Inimor / Exterior Location Number 255-C2 255 Xilbasm o — Areas of Rust Holes — Hammer Holes -- - Rusted Seams 41kg- U 11 0 a z O cjg NEW = 24ABB348 EX = 24ABR348 C--‘)--\, 7 Cu-Lt 4f- L4 14 1( k L4_0400.0 it, it) t Q) t(10 0000 0 0 (w1') Co - 3 Cif NEW = 24ABB330 EX = 24ABR33 7- A Company Committed to Excellence Exhibit B — Secretary of the Interior's Standards (excerpt) RESTORATION ROOFS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Identifying, retaining, and preserving roofs from the restoration period and their functional and decorative features. The form of the roof (gable, hipped, gambrel, flat, or mansard) is significant, as are its decorative and functional features (such as cupolas, cresting, parapets, monitors, chimneys, weather vanes, dormers, ridge tiles, and snow guards), roofing materials (such as slate, wood, clay tile, metal, roll roofing, or asphalt shingles) and size, color, and patterning. Altering roof and roofing materials from the restoration period. Failing to document roof features from the restoration period, which may result in their loss. Changing the type of paint or coating or the color of restoration - period roof features, unless the work can be substantiated by historical documentation. Stripping the roof of sound historic roofing material (such as slate, clay tile, wood, or metal) from the restoration period. Protecting and maintaining roof from the restoration period by cleaning gutters and downspouts and replacing deteriorated flashing. Roof sheathing should also be checked for indications of moisture due to leaks or condensation. Failing to clean and maintain gutters and downspouts so that water and debris collect and cause damage to roof fasteners, sheathing, and the underlying structure. Providing adequate anchorage for roofing material from the restoration period to guard against wind damage and moisture penetration. Allowing flashing, caps, and exposed roof fasteners to corrode, which accelerates deterioration. Protecting a leaking roof with a temporary waterproof membrane with a synthetic underlayment, roll roofing, plywood, or a tarpau- lin until it can be repaired. Leaving a leaking roof unprotected so that accelerated deterioration of historic building materials from the restoration period (such as masonry, wood, plaster, paint, and structural members) results. Repainting a roofing material from the restoration period that requires a protective coating and was painted historically (such as a terneplate metal roof or gutters) as part of regularly-sched- uled maintenance. Failing to repaint a roofing material from the restoration period that requires a protective coating and was painted historically as part of regularly -scheduled maintenance. Protecting a restoration -period roof covering when working on other roof features from the restoration period. Failing to protect restoration -period roof coverings when working on other roof features from the restoration period. Evaluating the overall condition of the roofing materials from the restoration period to determine whether more than protection and maintenance, such as repairs to roof features, will be necessary. Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure the protection of roof features from the restoration period. 184 ROOFS RESTORATION [7 a-b] This crumbling chimney was restored to its historic appearance using matching bricks. [8] The missing steeple of this historic church was replaced with a new steeple made of a substitute material that, from the street below, closely resembles the original steeple. Photo: en.Wikipedia. ROOFS 185 RESTORATION ROOFS RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED Repairinga roof from the restoration period by reinforcing the materials that comprise the roof using recognized preservation methods. Repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of those extensively deterio- rated or missing components of features when there are surviving prototypes (such as cupola louvers, cresting, dormer roofing, roof monitors, or slate or tile on a main roof) or when replacement can be based on physical or historic documentation. The new work should match the old in materials, design, scale, color, and finish. Replacing an entire roof feature from the restoration period, such as a dormer, when repair of the roofing materials and limited replace - ment of deteriorated or missing components are feasible. Failing to reuse intact slate or tile from the restoration period when only the roofing substrate or fasteners need replacement. Replacing in kind an entire roof covering or feature from the restoration period that is too deteriorated to repair (if the overall form and detailing are still evident) using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature or when the replacement can be based on historic documentation. Examples of such a feature could include a large section of roofing, a dormer, or a chimney. If using the same kind of material is not feasible, then a compat- ible substitute material may be appropriate. Removing a roof feature from the restoration period that is unrepair- able, such as a chimney or dormer, and not replacing it, or replac- ing it with a feature that does not match. Using a substitute material for the replacement of a single ele- ment of a roof (such as a tile or slate) or an entire feature that does not convey the same appearance of the surviving components of the roof feature from the restoration period or that is physically or chemically incompatible. The following Restoration work is highlighted to indicate that it involves the removal or alteration of existing historic masonry features that would be retained in Preservation and Rehabilitation treatments; and the replacement of missing roof features from the restoration period using all new materials. Removing Existing Features from Other Historic Periods Removing roofs or roof features from other historic periods, such as a dormer or asphalt roofing. Failing to remove a roof feature from another period, thereby con - fusing the depiction of the building's appearance from the restora- tion period. Documenting roof features dating from other periods prior to their alteration or removal. If possible, selected examples of these features or materials should be stored for future research. Failing to document roofing materials and roof features from other historic periods that are removed from the building so that a valu- able portion of the historic record is lost. Recreating Missing Features from the Restoration Period Recreating a missing roofing material or roof feature that existed during the restoration period based on documentary and physical evidence; for example, duplicating a former dormer or cupola. Constructing a roof feature that was part of the original design for the building but was never actually built, or a feature which was thought to have existed during the restoration period but cannot be documented. 186 ROOFS Exhibit C — Stillwater Design Guidelines (excerpt) 5. STILLWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT (DDRD) DESIGN GIIDELINES - 5.1 STILLWATER COMMERCIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT (SCHD) The Stillwater Commercial Historic District, at the heart of the Downtown Design Review District, was listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1992.4 4 Norene Roberts, "Stillwater Commercial Historic District National Register of Historic Places Nomination," 1992. On file, CDD. The NRHP is a listing of properties identified as having cultural significance at a national, state or local level and that have met criteria for listing a defined by the Secretary of the Interior. The NRHP listing requires review of projects that receive federal funds to consider the impact on historic and prehistoric resources. Federal tax credits are available for certified rehabilitation of qualifying properties within the district. Rehabilitation work must meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings. (SOI). Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 37 The Stillwater Commercial Historic District is also a locally designated historic district. As shown in Figure 4, the historic district encompasses the area that parallels the river along Water and S. and N. Main streets, and the cross -streets of Mulberry, Commercial, Myrtle, Chestnut, Olive, and Nelson. The local district includes 56 contributing buildings, two contributing sites, three contributing structures, and one contributing object. According to the National Register of Historic Places nomination (1992), the eleven -block district is significant in the areas of architecture and commerce. Contributing properties in the historic district, which retain a good level of exterior historic integrity, include primarily brick commercial buildings, one to three stories in height, which represent a variety of architectural styles from 1860 to 1940. The oldest remaining downtown core along North and South Main Street includes buildings dating from between 1864 and 1875; some feature stone exterior walls with brick -faced facades. In addition to historic one-, two - and three-story commercial buildings of various types, there are also examples of 1860s and 1870s Greek Revival and Italianate style dwellings at and just outside the edges of the district, and buildings related to historic lumber, rail, manufacturing and institutional uses are also well represented. At left, the Brunswick House (1848) at 114 E. Chestnut Street, and the commercial development just outside the SCHD boundary. 5.1.1 Review of Contributing and Non- contributing Properties in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District The HPC uses the guidelines to review all Design Permit applications for new infill construction, additions, and exterior alterations to contributing properties within the Stillwater Commercial Historic District and in the surrounding portion of the Downtown Design Review District. The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation may also be consulted (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2). If determined to be maintenance -related and within certain budget limits, some projects may receive administrative review and approval from City staff. A non- contributing property (classified as such because of loss of exterior historic integrity or properties built within the past 50 years) also requires a Design Permit and is reviewed with the Guidelines to the extent applicable. In some cases, SOI standards may be applied if it appears the work could have a negative impact on adjacent properties in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 38 0 0.05 0.1 1 l 0.2 Miles Author: HKGi July 30, 2021 • Individually -listed National Register of Historic Places Property Stillwater Commercial Historic District (SCHD, NRHP) Q Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCD) Downtown Design Review Overlay District (DDRD) 7,4 Area within DDRD and NCD Figure 4. Stillwater Downtown Design Review Overlay District, including Stillwater Commercial Historic District. The Downtown Design Review District includes commercial, former industrial, residential and institutional buildings, as well as historic parks, public stairs, stone retaining walls, and other distinctive viewshed and landscape features. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 39 5.2 DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT (DDRD OVERLAY DISTRICT) Section 31-404 of the Stillwater City Code notes: The downtown design review overlay district is established to conserve and enhance downtown Stillwater's appearance, preserve its historical and architectural assets, protect and encourage areas of existing or potential scenic value, and assist property owners. It promotes working together effectively when new construction, renovation, and restoration are proposed. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that building alterations emphasize the design and materials of the original building and remove inconsistent materials and features, that new construction maintains the scale and character of existing buildings and that downtown pedestrian quality is maintained and enhanced. The Downtown Design Review District (DDRD Overlay District) includes the Stillwater Commercial Historic District shown on Figure 1 and Figure 4. These districts contain most of the city's late 19th- and early 20th-century commercial buildings. The surrounding DDRD with a total of approximately 300 commercial, residential, institutional, and industrial properties, includes new construction since ca. 1975, most notably residential and office buildings. Overlapping portions of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCD) include many 19th- and early 20th-century residential properties. Pioneer Park is among historically significant public open spaces in the DDRD, in addition to Lowell Park. Commercial properties in the DDRD outside the Stillwater Commercial Historic District span the period ca. 1885-1970 as well as more recent construction. One of the oldest commercial buildings in the SCHD: 132 S. Main Street (1869), in 2021. The HPC uses the Design Guidelines to review all Design Permit applications for new construction, exterior alterations and additions. Features of the following are regulated by Standards in the Stillwater City Code: • Building height, volume and setback • Signs and Awnings • Lighting • Parking • Streetscape Design If determined to be primarily maintenance -related and within certain budget limits, some projects may receive administrative review and approval from City staff. All building alterations and development in the DDRD are subject to City zoning regulations. Base zoning districts underlying the DDRD overlay district primarily include Central Business District (CBD), Two Family Residential (RB), and Public Administration (PA). Individually designated NRHP properties within the DDRD, outside of the Stillwater Commercial Historic District, have not been individually designated as local landmarks. NRHP properties include the Washington County Courthouse, Ivory McKusick House, Mortimer Webster House, Roscoe Hersey House, Austin Jenks House, and Staples Mill (see Figure 4). 5.2.1 Historic Residential Properties in the DDRD The Downtown Design Review District Guidelines or Historic Residential Design Guidelines may also apply to residential buildings, including some properties currently in commercial use that were historically used as dwellings. The Design Review Permit Process includes review of proposed alterations to exterior features such as porches, windows, siding, and decorative trim and additions. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 40 5.3 NON-RESIDENTIAL: ALTERATIONS The Downtown Design Review District surrounding Stillwater's Main Street and the downtown riverfront represents more than 150 years of the city's development. The restored masonry storefronts and industrial building facades are evidence of property owners' interest in historic preservation since the early 1970s. Ranging in height from one to three stories, excellent examples of Italianate, Queen Anne, and Commercial styles are executed in red and yellow brick and limestone. Each historic commercial building is unique, with a great variety of storefronts, window treatments and rooflines located on each block. Roofline parapets are executed in in wood, metal or brick, and masonry plaques bear the names of early businesses. Storefronts are often flanked by cast iron or wood columns and upper -story windows are framed by brick corbelling and ornate stone and brick hoods. In the past, some historic storefronts and facades were remodeled, resulting in removal of decorative trim and window and storefront alterations. In recent years, however, many building owners have completely restored historic storefronts and facades. Photographs and archival research have aided these efforts. Historic photographs, available at the Minnesota Historical Society, the Washington County Historical Society, the John Runk photo collection at the Stillwater Public Library, Washington County Historical Society and the Minnesota Historical Society, show Stillwater's streetscape changes over time. Exterior maintenance and rehabilitation, new infill construction and upgraded signs and lighting are ongoing in the district today. As detailed in Chapter 3, many of Stillwater's commercial and industrial buildings retain special style or character associated with a period (or periods) of construction. Typically there is a two-part horizontal division with glazed (or once -glazed) storefronts at the first story. The storefronts —the facades of individual shops —usually support a band of uniformly sized windows surmounted by a decorative cornice. Parapet Corbeled Cornice Pier Window with double -hang 1-over-1 sash Sid Transom Display Window Double -deaf doors Kickplate Parts ofa Building: Historic Commercial Design Guidelines also apply to features of former factory and other industrial buildings within the Downtown Design Review District. A prominent stone or concrete foundation, flat roof, simple cornice treatment, and symmetrically arranged windows with one -over -one sash are typical characteristics of some. Smithson -,r-.,_. 0.0-nalY T 1111111iinaili■ . . ■ • •■ Box Factory, 323 S. Main Street (1910), in 1936. Runk/MNHS Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 41 5.3.1 General Guidelines a. Conserve and enhance the historic appearance of Stillwater's commercial and industrial buildings. Windows, entries, and decorative historic features such as columns, brackets, cornices, and parapets should be retained in repair or renovation projects. b. Historic storefronts should be repaired or restored rather than replaced, when possible. c. Conserve historic wood, stone, brick, tile, terra cotta, metal and glass, and other surfaces. d. Missing or severely deteriorated features should be replaced with new materials that reflect the size, style, and detail of the original. Appropriate substitute materials are acceptable. e. Retain and conserve alterations and additions that have developed significance over the course of the building's history. f. Restoration or rehabilitation projects should not borrow designs, materials, or colors from periods inappropriate to the historic design. g. Where possible, determine the historic appearance the property of through photographic and archival research and building inspection, and use the information in planning improvements. Alterations that have not have historical significance may be removed. Lumbermen's Exchange, 101 S. Water Street (1890). MNHS Majestic Theatre, 229 S. Main Street (1910). Mosier Bros Block (1888) and the adjoining Jarchow and York Block (1890) at Chestnut and S. Main Streets, shown in 1915. MNHS Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 42 5.3.2 Masonry Deteriorated brick, stone, mortar, and other materials should be replaced with material used in original construction or with materials that resemble the appearance of the original as closely as possible. The advice of a skilled mason should be sought for repair projects. Cleaning and l/aterproofang a. Masonry cleaning should be conducted only to halt deterioration and by means such as low-pressure water, soft brushes, and/or appropriate chemical treatment. Sandblasting should not be used under any circumstances. Waterproof and water repellent coatings should not be used unless there is evidence of past water penetration. Repointing b. Original mortar joint size and profile should be retained and/or reduplicated in repointing. Mortar mixtures should duplicate the original in lime, sand, and cement proportion and should duplicate the original mortar in color and texture. c. Mortar joints should be carefully washed after setup to retain the neatness of the joint lines and keep extraneous mortar off of masonry surfaces. Painting and Paint Removal d. The historic color and texture of masonry surfaces should be retained and unpainted stone and brick surfaces should not be painted. The removal of paint from painted masonry surfaces should only be attempted if unpainted surfaces are historically appropriate and if removal can be accomplished without damage to the masonry. e. Historic painted signs and features such as masonry anchors should be conserved. Resurfacing f. Historic masonry surfaces should not be covered with other materials, including stucco, brick or stone veneer, or vinyl or aluminum products. Above: locally quarried limestone and many types of brick, including locally burned yellow brick, are among Stillwater's distinctive early building materials. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 43 5.3.3 Roofs, Cornices, and Parapets The historic roofline including the coping, cornice, parapet, and other elements are character -defining features and should be appropriately maintained. a. Whether constructed of wood, brick, pressed sheet metal, limestone or other stone, or terra cotta, no part of the historic cornice or parapet should be covered or removed. b. Historic masonry copings at the parapet should be maintained. Where coping is missing on common (party) walls, metal coping with an appropriate painted finish is acceptable. It should not extend on the exterior building wall farther than the approximate width of a single brick or masonry unit. c. Rooftop equipment, including air conditioning units that project above the roofline, should be set back from the parapet and primary building elevation. Equipment should be concealed with appropriate materials and wherever possible should not be visible from the street level. (See also Chapter 5, Section 5.5.2, Rooftop Equipment, Utility Areas and Mechanical Equipment.) Rooftop equipment should be set back as far as possible. Excelsior Block (1882) at 118-126 N. Main Street features a corbeled brick cornice and stone date and name plaques. 5.3.4 Removal of Non -historic Features a. Manufactured siding, signs, canopies, filler panels of wood or shingles, stucco, concrete or glass block, and fiberglass are among non -historic materials or treatments that may be appropriate for removal during building rehabilitation. 5.3.5 Replacement of Missing Features a. Missing materials and features, as shown in historic photographs or other evidence, may be replicated and replaced as appropriate. Replacement materials or features should replicate the size, scale, design, material, and texture of the original and be based on historical documentation. b. Avoid adding features that cannot be substantiated by historical evidence. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 44 5.3.6 Windows Windows and window tarn give character and expression to the building exterior. Their size and spacing are important elements of the historic facade. Maintain and Conserve a. Wherever feasible, historic windows and sash should be repaired rather than replaced, especially on principal elevations. b. Existing window openings should be retained. Window openings should not be enlarged or reduced to fit new sash. Window openings should not be filled in with wood, brick, or any other material New Windows: Side and Shape c. New window openings should not be introduced into principal elevations. d. Where appropriate, in limited instances such as on secondary facades, new windows should be compatible with existing historic windows and trim. New Sash e. Historic wood and metal sash should be repaired and conserved wherever possible. f. Replacement sash, if installed, should duplicate the existing or other appropriate historic models. Whenever possible, choose new units of wood, rather than metal. If metal is selected, it should have a baked enamel or other appropriate factory finish. g. The size and number of lights (panes of glass) in each sash should not be altered. New sash, if installed, should replicate the existing or other appropriate historic models. h. Crank -out or fixed single -pane units should be not be used to replace double -hung sash. Segmental -arched hood or lintel Casing Bottom rail Corbel Meeting rail Glazing (Lights) Sill Parts of an Italianate style window shown with 2-over-2, double - hung sash. 222 — 224 E. Chestnut Street, ca. 1882. Molded stone lintels and stone sills frame slender windows with double -hung sash. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 45 Window Trim i. Retain all decorative trim around the windows, including lintels, pediments, and hoods. j. If window replacement is necessary, the original trim profile should be replicated. Storm Windows k. Repair and retain historic wood storms wherever possible. 1. Consider adding appropriately designed storm windows to protect historic sash. m. If replacement windows are needed, they should not have vertical or horizontal divisions that conflict with the divisions of the historic sash and should be flush with existing trim. If combination metal storms must be installed, they should have a baked enamel factory finish. Shutters and Blinds n. Shutters and blinds should not be installed on buildings not originally designed for them. o. Where appropriate, shutters should appear to be operable and should be mounted to the window casing. Shutters should be constructed of wood. Security p. Historic trim or other architectural features should not be removed for the installation of security bars or grills on principal elevations. 214 — 218 N. Main (ca. 1884) Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 46 5.3.7 Entries and Storefronts Prominent first floor display windows and distinctive entries facing the street are typical of Stillwater's historic commercial buildings, whether free-standing or part ofa large, multi -unit property. a. All historic entry and storefront components should be retained, including recessed features, display windows and hoods, cast iron or other columns, sidelights, fanlights, and tilework or paving, b. Entry openings should not be enlarged or reduced to fit a new door. New entry openings should not be introduced into principal elevations. c. Historic doors (and hardware) should be repaired rather than replaced. If replacement of original or historic doors is necessary, the replacement should be compatible with the material, design, and hardware of similar historic models. d. If there are no historic models available for replacement or replication, the new door should be of simple design with a single -light design. Wood -framed, painted wood doors and wood framing are preferred. Avoid solid or residential -type doors. e. Avoid clear -finish aluminum doors and doorframes, aluminum windows (and their accessories). f. Historic garage openings, where present, and service doors should be conserved. If removal is necessary, materials used to fill the opening should be compatible with the material, design, and hardware of the surrounding facade. Restored storefront at 330 S. Main Street; building dates from ca. 1885. Restored storefront, ca. 1884, at 216 S. Main Street. Restored storefront at 208 S. Main Street. The building dates from ca. 1904. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 47 5.3.8 New Systems in Existing Buildings a. Historic materials should not be damaged or obscured to accommodate new heating, ventilating, and other mechanical systems. b. Mechanical and electrical equipment should not be placed on primary, character -defining facades. c. Rooftop equipment, including air conditioning units that project above the roofline, should be set back from the primary building elevation and screened with appropriate materials. (See also Chapter 5, Section 5.5.2, Rooftop Equipment, Utility Areas and Mechanical Equipment.) 5.3.9 Firestairs a. The detailing of firestairs should be compatible with the period and style of the building. b. As permitted by the Stillwater City Code, stairs should be located as inconspicuously as possible. Electrical equipment should be placed on non primary facades wherever possible. Stillwater Design Guidelines Manual • Draft • 07302021 48 Exhibit D — Historical Photos Exhibit E — National Register of Historic Places Nomination Packet DATA SHEET Form No.10-300 IRB� .0141 All 35$ "T ( '- UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS Q NAME HISTORIC I/O,' Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Freight House and Depot AND/OR COMMON Stillwater Depot fl LOCATION STREET& NUMBER 233-335 Water Street _NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY. TOW N Stillwater — VICINITY OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT First STATE Minnesota CODE 27 COUNTY Washington CODE 163 CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY —DISTRICT XBUILDINGIS) _STRUCTURE _SITE _OBJECT OWNERSHIP _PUBLIC x PRIVATE _BOTH PUBLIC ACQUISITION _IN PROCESS _BEING CONSIDERED DOWNER OF PROPERTY NAME Peter Nelson Hall STATUS —OCCUPIED _UNOCCUPIED XWORK IN PROGRESS ACCESSIBLE RYES: RESTRICTED _YES: UNRESTRICTED _NO PRESENT USE _AGRICULTURE —COMMERCIAL _EDUCATIONAL —ENTERTAINMENT _GOVERNMENT _INDUSTRIAL _MILITARY __MUSEUM _PARK _PRIVATE RESIDENCE _RELIGIOUS _SCIENTIFIC _TRANSPORTION X OTHER: rehabilita- tion STREET & NUMBER 888 Butler Square, 100 North 6th Street CITY. TOWN Minneapolis _ VICINITY OF STATE Minnesota ,5-_::-< OLOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEDS,ETC Washington County Courthouse STREET & NUMBER 14900 North 61st Street - Oak Park Heights CITY. TOWN Stillwater STATE Minnesota 6 REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE Minnesota Historic Sites Survey DATE 1976 _FEDERAL ISTATE _COUNTY _LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS Minnesota Historical Society, Building 25, Fort Snelling CITY. TOW N St. Paul STATE Minnesota 13DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE _EXCELLENT —DETERIORATED —UNALTERED X ORIGINAL SITE XGOOD _RUINS FALTERED _MOVED DATE _FAIR _UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Freight House and Depot is located on a one acre parcel of land overlooking the St. Croix River on the eastern fringe of Stillwater. (The St. Croix River has recently received National Scenic Riverway designation preserving the waterfront between the depot and the river.) The freight house and depot, built in 1883, is a simple vernacular building. Exterior ornamentation consists of a series of arched doors and windows on both sides of the building. Constructed of limestone and brick the building measures 200 feet by 40 feet. The limestone foundation walls measure approximately two feet thick. The brick bearing walls are eighteen inches thick and thirty feet high. (The limestone was quarried in the nearby North Quarry.) The interior of the building is divided into two sections. The floor planking is four inches wide and one inch thick clear maple from the islands and shoreline immediately north of Stillwater. The truss system is of heavy timber construction. The basement is heavy timber mill construction. The timbers are fir and are of clear grain. 8 SIGNIFICANCE PERIOD - PREHISTORIC _1400-1499 _1500-1599 - 1600-1699 _1700-1799 X1800-1899 _1900- AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE - ARCHEOLOGY -PREHISTORIC -ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC AGRICULTURE ARCHITECTURE _ART X COMMERCE X COMMUNICATIONS - CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW - COMMUNITY PLANNING - CONSERVATION ECONOMICS _EDUCATION $ENGINEERING -EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT,. _INDUSTRY _INVENTION _LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE _LAW _LITERATURE MILITARY _MUSIC -_PHILOSOPHY -POLITICS/GOVERNMENT _RELIGION _SCIENCE -SCULPTURE -SOCIAL/HUMANITARIAN _THEATER XTRANSPORTATION _OTHER (SPECIFY) SPECIFIC DATES 1883 - present BUILDER/ARCHITECT STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Freight House and Depot is significant under the themes of Commerce, Communication, Engineering, and Transportation. From the date of its construction in 1883 until recently the commerce of Stillwater centered on the railroads -- the freight house and depot served virtually every commercial interest in the city. Nearly all goods and materials arrived by or were shipped by rail. Products locally produced were sent by rail throughout the nation. During the period from 1883 until the 1920s the freight house and depot housed a telegraph office and a railroad Express Agency office. These offices served the majority of Stillwater's communication needs for a number of years. The glass insulators and wooden pegs connecting the telegraph lines to the building and distributing them inside have been preserved as have the telegraph and ticket windows. The mill construction and truss system of the building are significant as examples of wood structural engineering. The first map of Stillwater (1848) indicates that the present site of the building was once Lake St. Croix. There- fore, the building required elaborately engineered pilings to support the tremendous weight of the limestone foundation and brick walls. One of the most interesting features of the building was its dual use -- passenger and freight. The building served as a freight house and passenger depot until 1955. It is the last 19th century freight house and depot standing in Stillwater. The exterior of the building has been recently cleaned and the interior is currently undergoing rehabilitation/preservation for an adaptive use. 9 MAJOR BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES Eaton, Augustus B., History of the St. Croix Valley, Chicago: 1909. Insurance Maps of Stillwater, Minnesota; Sandborn Map and Publishing Company. Interview: Clarence Kirschenman, former tichet agent of the Stillwater Depot. Milwaukee Road Inventories. John Ruck Historic Photograph Collection. Stillwater City Directories. 10 GEOGRAPHICAL DATA ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY UTM REFERENCES 1 acre ' L-O AI1►5I I5Il5I41210I I4,918t8I$L- BI i I I 1► 1 r►( I, I I►' ZONE EASTING NORTHING ZONE EASTING NORTHING IilII II►�I,I rI,►) DLiJII,I► IIIIiItll VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES STATE CODE COUNTY CODE STATE CODE COUNTY CODE m F ORM PREPARED BY NAME/TITLE Lynne VanBrocklin Spaeth, State Historic Preservation Office/Peter Nelson Hall ORGANIZATION DATE Minnesota Historical Society 19 October 1976 STREET& NUMBER TELEPHONE Building 25, Fort Snelling/888 Butler Square 612-726-1171/339-1085 CITY OR TOWN STATE St. Paul/Minneapolis Minnesota [ESTATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER CERTIFICATION THE EVALUATED SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE IS: NATIONAL _ STATE LOCAL X As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), I hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the National Park Sery STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER SIGNATURE TITLE Russell W. Fridley State Historic Preservation Officer DATE FOR NPS USE ONLY I HEREBY CERTIFY THA/ THIS PRO Y'ERTY IS I ») ,)' ATTEST: LUDED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER DATE ? . . PNATI" iAL REGISTER DATE C•/. 7 R GPO 892.453 -lvooi-73 WASO Form - 177 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ("R" June 1984) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES EVALUATION/RETURN SHEET GInI GG0I 1 C W vJou.Kee 4 SC . ?o,w\ 'Pre. t I CJ Was\i:x\N � C6 . , Ni I� ❑ resubmission nomination by person or local government ❑ owner objection appeal II II Substantive Review: II u e Dt r Working No. Fed. Reg. Date: Date Due: Action: __ACCEPT -7/13 7 7 _ _RETURN REJECT Federal Agency: sample ❑ request Pj appeal 11 NR decision Reviewer's comments: Recom./Criteria Revi ewer Discipline Date see continuation sheet Nomination returned for: technical corrections cited below substantive reasons discussed below 1. Name 2. Location 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Public Acquisition Accessible Present Use 4. Owner of Property 5. Location of Legal Description 6. Representation in Existing Surveys Has this property been determined eligible? ❑ yes ❑ no 7. Description Condition Check one ❑ excellent I I deteriorated ❑ unaltered ❑ good ❑ ruins ❑ altered n fair L I unexposed Describe the present and original (if known) physical appearance 71 summary paragraph 17 completeness clarity ❑ alterations/integrity ❑ dates 111 boundary selection II Check one LI original site I-1 moved date 8. Significance Period Areas of Significance —Check and justify below Specific dates Builder/Architect Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) ❑ summary paragraph ❑ completeness ❑ clarity ❑ applicable criteria ❑ justification of areas checked II relating significance to the resource ❑ context ❑ relationship of integrity to significance ❑ justification of exception ❑ other 9. Major Bibliographical References 10. Geographical Data Acreage of nominated property Quadrangle name UTM References Verbal boundary description and justification 11. Form Prepared By 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification The evaluated significance of this property within the state is: national state local State Historic Preservation Officer signature title date 13. Other ❑ Maps fl Photographs ❑ Other Questions concerning this nomination may be directed to Signed Date Phone• GPO 918-450 Comments for any item may be continued on an attached sheet SIMONET FURNITURE i CARP FREIGHT HOUSE AND DEPOT Stillwater, Minn. JAN rr Charles W. Nelson Minnesota Historical Society 690 Cedar St. St. Paul, Minn. 1976 Perspective view from Southeast 19A/01633 JUL 13 1911 /t6,4,3 THiS ONLY. II ; GED OR SOLD WITHOUT PE.1..-VSISt ON . FRT Tr: , „ lisL FREIGHT HOUSE AND DEPOT Stillwater, Minn. Charles W. Nelson I\1 5 1977 Minnesota Historical Society 690 Cedar St. St. Paul, Minn. 1976 Interior of Freight house 15A/01633 Du& JUL. 1 3 1977 PIPS Number • prIn 11,-11 oF Vi (.;t11 - USE ONLY. IT MA'.( b R'31.2)1j,t,:,ED OR SOLD WITHOUT WRITTEN PERkilISSION. FREIGHT HOUSE AND DEPOT Minn. Minn. Charles W. Nelson JUL 13 197/ Minnesota Historical Society 690 Cedar St. St. Paul, Minn. 1976 Detail of mill construction in cellar ,IAN 5 1977 14A/01633 trtnt,:, rner 7 7 r t Form No. 10-301 (Rev. 10-74) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES PROPERTY MAP FORM b R N!*S USEONL' SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- ENCLOSE WITH MAP © NAME HISTORIC Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Freight House and Depot AND/OR COMMON Stillwater Depot a LOCATION CITY. TOWN _VICINITY OF COUNTY STATE Stillwater Washington Minnesota ® MAP REFERENCE SOURCE SCALE USGS, Stillwater Quadrangle, Minnesota -Wisconsin, 7.5 DATE 1967 4 REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL MAPS 1. PROPERTY BOUNDARIES 2. NORTH ARROW 3. UTM REFERENCES INT: 2986-75 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR tiGGo/,‘, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY STILLWATER QUADRANGLE 92°52'30" 510000m E. 45°07'30" T. 31N 7474/II NE 1 260000 FEET ( IS.) 512 513 50' _i 514 (MARINE ON ST. CROI 1 2 310000 FEET (MINN.) `� _✓l/ � • I ii7. IIIP T. 30 N. \ � �. "� ) '���r�f►7 IE140 1516 47'30" 4996000m. 480000 FEET 4995 4994 0993 R. 20 W. R. 19 W. MINNESOTA — WISCONSIN 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) SE/4 STILLWATER 15' QUADRANGLE TAYLORS FALLS 22 MI. 518 MARINE IIN S CROIX 5 MI 192°45' v \ T arry s";�,, �I 45°07'30„ w I 4989 o T. 31 N. T. 30 N. 4596 4995 Gp,. 770 000 FEET f/O (MINN.) 4994 4993 4989 Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Freight House and Depot o� Stillwater, Minnesota = l� Easting 15/515420 Northing 15/4988 4988 T.30 N. 2'30" 4987 J 740000 FEET (MINN.) 4585 4983 �s?o 45°00' 1, 9252'30'10 R. 21 w. R120 W. J_AK'6 R PO 2 30 Mapped, edited, and published by the Geological SO•rvey in cooperation with Minnesota Department of Administration Control by USGS, USC&GS, and USCE Topography by photogrammetric methods from aerial photographs taken 1949 and planetable surveys 1946. Revised 1967 Depth curves compiled from charts furnished by Minnesota Department of Conservation 000 FEET (M N.) GN 2 MILS MN 54i' 98 MILS 513 50' 7 514 (HUDSON) 515 7473 IV NE SCALE 1:24010 0 I � F po \ Y Cem rik ,-NtS*1&14 tt:7_13:L17;IE-1E!kik gaz, SO 11 a a I DM .4___ 1 AR _114 01, espy ill)i, �J9 71 tl • �•1 516 47'30" 5117E.Ii1280000AKELAND3.5 MFEEIIT (WIS.) I. 1 ST. CROIX BEACH 6 MI. 1111 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 5 0 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL cus aypoxt , 7- 1/> 0, c), J UO 0 #77c / INTERIOR -GEOLOGICAL SUIRVEY. WASHIN TON. D C -1969 HUDSON 1.5 MI. RIVER FALLS 13 MI. Heavy-duty Medium -duty .. 88 2'30" 4987 T. 30 N. T. 29 N. 4586 4985 4984 440 000 F (WIS.) 4983000m.N. 45°00 92°45' ROAD CLASSIFICATION Light -duty Unimproved dirt JState Route Polyconic projection. 1927 North American datum 10,000-foot grids based on Minnesota coordinate system, south zone, and Wisconsin coordinate system, central zone 1000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks, zone 15, shown in blue Red tint indicates area in which only landmark buildings are shown UTM GRID ANO 1967 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS FOR SALE BY U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DENVER, COLORADO 80225, OR WASHINGTON, D. C. 20242 AND BY THE WISCONSIN GEOLOGICAL AND NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY, MADISON, WISCONSIN 53706 A FOLDER DESCRIBING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST Fine red dashed lines indicate selected fence and field lines where generally visible on aerial photographs. This information is unchecked QUADRANGLE LOCATION STILLWATER, MINN.—WIS. SE/4 STILLWATER 15' QUADRANGLE N4500—W9245/7.5 1967 AMS 7474 III SE —SERIES V872 ENTRIES IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER STATE MINNESOTA Date Entered JUL 13 1977 Name Location Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Stillwater Freight House and Depot Washington County Also Notified Hon. Hubert H. Humphrey Hon. Wendell R. Anderson Hon. Albert H. Quie Regional Director, Midwest Region State Historic Preservation Officer Mr. Russell W. Fridley Director, Minnesota Historical Society 690 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (880 Mott/ej 7-22-77 NIA Data Sheet DATE: 4146i 6 7 Reviewer INITIAL le_. JUL 1.3-1977 NR • NAME As IT APPEARS IN FEDERAL REGISTER: Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Freight House and Depot OTHER NAMES: Stillwater Depot_ LOCATION: STREET & NUMBER CITY. TOWN STATE 233-335 Water STreet STillwater Minnesota 27 OWNER OF PROPERTY: (circle) ADMINISTRATOR(underline) NPS REGION: (CIRCLE) FEATURES : .VICINITY OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 1 s t COUNTY Wash- ington PRIVATE' TATE LOCAL GOV'T MUNICIPAL COUNTY FEDERAL(AGENCY NAME): N.ATLANTIC MID ATLANTIC SOUTHWEST ROCKY MOUNTAIN code 163 SOUTHEAST OTHER WEST PACIFIC NORTHWEST INTERIOR EXTERIOR Substantially intact-1 __Substantially intact-2 _ unknown- 4 _ unknown.-5 _ not applicable - 7 _ not applicable - 8 CONDITION - ACCESS - a E LLENT GOOD _FAIR Interior, exterior, _DETERIORATED _RUINS _UNEXPOSED _VnexcavateA es -restricted- j Yes -unrestricted historic district 9 YES NO ENVIRONS __Substantially intact-3 -unknown -6 _ Nct applicable-9 cn:ir^.ns not intact-0 $MIALTERED ✓_ALTERED _Reconstructed _Excavated No access Unknown WITHIN NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT? YES NO IF YES, NAME: WITHIN NATIONAL HISTOPIC LANDMARK? YES NO IF YES, NAME: "— ADAPTIVE USE: YES NO FUNCTION (S): (use vocabulary words) then- 4i90 e36p, -74 now- ' //'Neap/ if SIGNIFICANCE: .ARCHEOLOGY -PREHISTORIC _ARCHEOLOGY -HISTORIC —AGRICULTURE _ARCHITECTURE }+U AERCE ._COMMUNICATIONS _CONSERVATION _ECONOMICS —EDyCATION NGINEERING .EXPLORATION _INDUSTRY _INVENTION Saved ? _LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE _LAW/Gov't/politics _LITERATURE _MILITARY _MUSIC _PHILOSOPHY _POLITICS/GOVERNMENT YES _RELIGION _SCIENCE SOCIAL/HUMANITARIAN RAN SPORTATION _OTHER (SPECIFY) NO _ORIGINAL SITE _MOVED -Unknown _entertainment _health _recreation _settlement _ socio/cultural _urban E. commun planning Claims "first'-' YES NO «oldest'-' YES NO It Only " YES NO ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: architecVm .bui 1de r: engineer: landscape/garden designer; artist artisan: interior decorator; builder/contractor: ETHNIC GROUP: NAMES: (label role appropriate da personal te) events institutional DATES: DATE OF CONSTRUCTION (Specific date or 1/4 of century): /68,3 DATE(S) OF "MAJOR" ALTERATIONS: HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT DATE(S): SOURCE• (OF NOMINATION) PRIVATE STATE LOCAL GOV"T MUNICIPAL COUNTY ACREAGE: (to COMMENT S: Seicic arveze ,r, -.gilt. 1i4,2'e2S S IGNIFI CA NC E: (maximum OTHER FEDERAL'AGENCY: nearest tenth of an acre) (include architectural information here) et-AWGULi92., S-Tei9c7Ed7 62W C6 476EC Ct/,1Wele.5 two sentences) f )4- Giepiel 66e4-0 ,(