HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-12-14 HPC Packetiliwater
THE HIGTHVECCE of MINMESOTA
Updated Agenda
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.
AGENDA
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING
December 14t'', 2022
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Possible approval of minutes of November 9th, 2022 regular meeting
IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects
which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the
statement of may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out
of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less.
V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are
considered to be routine by the Heritage Preservation Commission and will be enacted by one
motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or
citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and
considered separately.
2. Case No. CD 2022-64: Consider Design of an Accessory Dwelling Unit for 919 5th Ave
South; Case of Noel Molloy (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818)
3. 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)
VI. PUBLIC HEARING
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4. 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)
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
IX. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
X. FYI
5. Case No. CD 2022-80: INFO ONLY: Demolition Permit for 708 Pine Tree Trail (No Packet
Materials)
6. Case No. CD 2022-81: INFO ONLY: Demolition Permit for 513 Owens Street North (No
Packet Materials)
XI. ADJOURNMENT
i I I \ i's'Ater
THE OIRTIIPLACE OF NINNESOTA
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING
November 9, 2022
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M.
Chairman Thueson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Present: Chairman Thueson, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Holmes, Larson, Mino,
Councilmember Junker
Absent: Commissioner Summers
Staff: Community Development Director Gladhill, Planning Manager Robinson
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Possible approval of minutes of September 21, 2022 regular meeting
Chairman Thueson noted that the HPC approved the September 21, 2022 minutes last month with a
change.
Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve the minutes of the
September 21, 2022 regular meeting as amended. Motion passed 5-0-1 with Commissioner Finwall
abstaining.
Possible approval of minutes of October 19, 2022 regular meeting
Commissioner Finwall requested that on page 3, paragraph 6, the word "possible" be changed to the
word "the" so that it reads, "Commissioner Finwall remarked that the design of the new home does
many things right."
Commissioner Mino requested the following changes.
Page 1- She said she is not sure where this occurred in the meeting, but she believes that Mr. Gladhill
reiterated exactly what concept review is, and stated for the minutes that the comments of the
Commission are un-binding. She would recommend emphasizing it, and she felt it got lost elsewhere.
The sentence "Mr. Gladhill reiterated what the concept review is, and stated that the comments of the
Commission are un-binding" will be added at the beginning of Case No. CD 2022-71.
Page 1 - In the first sentence under Case No. CD 2022-71, she would like to add "for concept review"
at the end of the sentence, so that it reads, "Planning Manager Robinson reviewed the case for concept
review." She said she knows it is in the title but it needs to be made clear that it was a concept review,
not in front of the HPC for approval or not approval.
Page 3 - At end of discussion of Case No. CD 2022-71, she believes that Mr. Gladhill summarized it as
a general consensus against demolition. The phrase "without a good reason" is missing. The sentiment
of the HPC was that the Commission is generally against demolition without a good reason for such
demolition. The sentence "Mr. Gladhill summarized the discussion as a general consensus against
demolition without a good reason" should be added at the end of Case No. CD 2022-71 and before
Case No. CD 2022-73.
Page 4 - In the second to the last paragraph under Case No. CD 2022-73, the words "with the overall
design" should be added into the sentence, "Mr. Gladhill summarized the suggestions: change the
design of the turret to blend better" at that point in the sentence, and the rest of the sentence is fine.
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022
Page 5 - At the end of Case No. CD 2022-74, right before Case No CD 2022-22, where it states, "Mr.
Gladhill summarized that staff will work with the applicant to de-emphasize the garage slightly" she
would strike the word "slightly" because in her opinion it was significant.
Page 7 - She asked if there is a word missing in the sentence, "Staff cannot authorize full demolition of
the structure which has foundational issues."
Mr. Gladhill stated from what staff can see from the outside, there are potential foundational issues, at
least on additions to the original structure, so staff was flagging that this might be a candidate for at
least partial demolition, and that is the sentiment staff was trying to carry forward.
Commissioner Mino recommended changing the sentence to "Staff cannot authorize full demolition of
the structure but notes that it has foundational issues."
Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to approve the minutes of the
October 19, 2022 regular meeting with the changes noted. All in favor.
OPEN FORUM
There were no public comments.
CONSENT AGENDA
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)
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)
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)
Commissioner Holmes asked to move Case No. CD 2022-64 and Case No. CD 2022-70 off the
Consent Agenda for discussion.
Chairman Thueson asked to move Case No. CD 2022-77 off the Consent Agenda for discussion.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. CD 2022-76: Consider Design Permit to Approve New Dwelling Design at 303 St. Croix
Ave W; Case of Preferred Builders (Staff Reviewer: Yasmine Robinson, 651-430-8822)
Planning Manager Robinson stated that the applicant is seeking approval of a Design Permit for a new
two-story, single-family, approximately 2,500 total square foot home. The proposed design will
conform to the massing, volume, height, facade, spacing and scale of buildings within view of the site,
and will also comply with zoning regulations. The proposed structure would be visually compatible
with surrounding buildings within the area. Materials proposed 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. The rear of the structure would contain a private deck. Parking would
be located in an accessory garage set back 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. Staff recommends approval
with two conditions, with potential modifications based on discussion.
Page 2of11
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022
Commissioner Finwall pointed out there is no mention of significant trees being removed, and Ms.
Robinson answered that there are trees on the lot but none of them would be considered significant.
Commissioner Finwall said there appears to be a large oak in the center of the lot. She asked if a tree
plan is required, and Ms. Robinson said a tree plan is not usually required in the case of a single-family
home.
Mr. Gladhill confirmed Ms. Robinson's statement, adding that a tree plan is not required in the sense
that staff would do a full inventory, but it is one of those elements that staff walks through as part of
the design permit. He will look closer for specific code language.
Commissioner Finwall pointed out that the design standards talk about preserving significant trees.
She asked how many trees are being removed.
Commissioner Mino commented that normally the Commission would see a landscape plan
addressing significant tree removal.
Cherie Snow and Tim Fistrum of Preferred Builders offered to answer questions. Mr. Fistrum said five
trees will be removed: the large oak and the scruffy pine trees in the front. Other trees on the
property line will remain. They do not have a landscape plan at this time.
Commissioner Holmes asked what the vertical exterior building material is, and Ms. Snow said it is
pre -painted LP but they might change that and put lap all the way up.
Commissioner Holmes suggested there be some consistency in the way those two materials are
applied so that if lap siding is on the front, it should be used on all sides. If there are shakes on the
front gable, the applicant should put them on the rear gable also for consistency.
Ms. Snow said there would be no problem doing as suggested.
Commissioner Larson noted the garage is very long and wide. Because the gable follows the long
direction of the garage, it gets quite high. He asked if the space is intended to be inhabitable and if it
will have any plumbing, and Ms. Snow answered no.
Commissioner Larson remarked that only one elevation is presented. He would like to see the same
treatment on all four sides.
Ms. Snow answered they can provide the other elevations, and Commissioner Larson said that staff
can review that when submitted.
Commissioner Finwall asked if the roof pitch will be compatible with other homes, and Ms. Snow
replied that the architect measured the height and it complies. Mr. Fistrum added that it's a 6-12 pitch
and there are other 6-12 roofs in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Finwall asked if the applicant considered any other architectural design in the porch
columns, and Ms. Snow said they are open to changes.
Chair Thueson opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was
closed.
Commissioner Holmes asked staff for clarification on the zoning requirement regarding height of
accessory buildings and whether in the RB District it is no more than 20 feet for a single story.
Ms. Robinson answered that she believes they are bound by the 20 foot height restriction. In order to
get the applicant on the agenda, she allowed the applicant to submit what they had toward the end of
the submission deadline. She said she has made it clear that in their building permit the garage will
need to comply with zoning in terms of height, massing and bulk. Staff can bring this application back
to review a more polished version of the garage.
Page 3 of 11
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022
Commissioner Holmes said he thinks the height of the garage is 23+ feet and it might work better if
the gable were running the opposite way.
Ms. Robinson agreed. In her many conversations with the applicant she has learned they do not want
to seek a variance or conditional use permit, so they are happy to revise the plans to meet code.
Chairman Thueson remarked if the garage height needs to come down to 20 feet from 23 feet, that
would be a significant enough change that the Commission would want to see it come back.
Ms. Robinson stated when the applicant applies for the building permit, planning staff would review
the application to ensure the permit complies with any and all conditions imposed by the Commission
and that it also meets all the requirements of the base zoning district. If it does not comply, staff
would advise the applicant that any changes made to the application would come back to the
Commission.
Regarding a tree plan, Mr. Gladhill clarified that typically for new single-family dwellings, two new
trees are required. Design guidelines discuss how to avoid tree removal but he thinks it would be
adequate and within the HPC's purview to require mitigation or some sort of replacement. Generally,
that would be reviewed at the staff level for a single-family home. If the HPC wants to specify as a
condition, a tree replacement schedule, that could be done but it would absolutely be a staff level
approval on the building permit.
Chairman Thueson said he would like to see drawings showing that the project complies with all the
zoning requirements regarding height and other requirements.
Commissioner Holmes said on the house itself he would like to see revised elevations that call out
materials and apply the materials in a more consistent way around all elevations, and a garage design
that complies with the height and footprint requirements in zoning and that ensure the garage design
is compatible with the home in terms of materials and roof pitch, etcetera.
Commissioner Finwall agreed that having the materials would be helpful. To determine if the
applicant is attempting to preserve trees, she would like to see where the oak is located in relation to
the driveway, for verification that the oak tree needs to come down, because it seems like maybe it
could be preserved and she would suggest some sort of tree replacement as a condition.
Mr. Gladhill said he doesn't know if he would recommend having a surveyor go back out for a specific
location but staff can use materials submitted as a baseline, mark it up and bring it back. The HPC
should not expect a new Certificate of Survey. Staff will negotiate a tree replacement schedule.
Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Heimdahl, to table Case No. CD 2022-76 for
additional information. All in favor.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. CD 2022-64: Consider Design of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) for 919 5th Ave South; Case
of Noel Malloy (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818) (moved from Consent Agenda)
Mr. Gladhill explained that the applicant is seeking Design Approval for the reconstruction of a garage
as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The lot is 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/ADU. On October 26, 2022, the Planning Commission
approved a Conditional Use Permit for an ADU, and a variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 15
feet, which was needed to reconstruct the ADU in the same location as the garage. As part of the ADU
Page 4of11
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022
standards of approval, design review is required. The proposed garage (ADU) will be 32 feet by 28
feet and a total of 800 square feet at the garage 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. Staff recommends approval with two conditions.
Commissioner Larson asked how long ADUs have been allowed in Stillwater, as this is the first one he
has reviewed, and how an ADU is any different in review requirements, because it's still a
freestanding new building and it seems the design review is geared toward freestanding buildings.
Mr. Gladhill replied that existing staff has to rely on past interpretations. The HPC has not typically
reviewed accessory structures in general. Unless it hits certain thresholds, the HPC wouldn't review a
detached garage. Staff uses past practice to guide each review. If this is something the HPC wants to
see in the future, staff can discuss amending the code to make it explicit that ADU review is required
at least in the two design review districts that are under the purview of the HPC. He understands in
the last 5-7 years there has been some understanding of accessory dwelling allowances.
Chairman Thueson asked if there is something in the ADU code about the ADU matching the
architecture of the primary residence, and Mr. Gladhill answered yes, the ADU is expected to do that.
It still needs to comply with the design guidelines. Typically detached accessory buildings of a certain
size are able to go through typical staff review.
Noel Malloy, applicant, offered to answer questions.
Commissioner Holmes complimented the applicant on changes made to the house, and asked about
the height restriction.
Mr. Malloy answered for the ADU, the height restriction is 20 feet to the midpoint of the roof, and
Commissioner Holmes said he thought it could keep the same height as the house.
Mr. Gladhill stated the standard definition for building height measurement is the average grade to
the midpoint of the peak.
Commissioner Holmes reiterated that in the zoning text for ADUs for the RB District it says building
height should be no more than the primary dwelling unit.
Mr. Gladhill responded that if the structure itself was 20 feet or less, that's still trying to keep it lower
to avoid having a 20 foot primary structure and a 30 foot accessory building unit. The language is
unclear and the Planning Commission is working on language currently. When using the more
restrictive of the conflicting language, it appears that the restriction is 20 feet measured to the
midpoint of the gable.
Commissioner Holmes asked why the windows are very high on three elevations, and Mr. Malloy
answered it probably was not drawn properly, they should be a little lower.
Commissioner Holmes noted that in the front, the window is 1 foot 8 inches off the floor which is a
good height. If the applicant pulls the rest of the windows down, the top of the window could be with
the door head of the exterior entry which would feel better. He suggested the applicant think about
where the frieze band occurs halfway up; if it were moved down to the second floor it would be better
balanced.
Mr. Malloy replied OK.
Commissioner Holmes asked the applicant to resubmit drawings so he can see that.
Commissioner Heimdahl asked if the applicant is proposing to use the same color as the house and
Mr. Malloy said yes.
Page 5 of 11
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022
Commissioner Larson commented he thinks this sort of accessory building becomes significant
enough that it should be reviewed by the HPC. He agreed with Commissioner Holmes about the
banding being lowered and windows being more proportional to the house.
Chairman Thueson said there seems to be a consensus to table the application for revised drawings.
Motion by Commissioner Holmes, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to table Case No. CD 2022-64 and
ask the applicant for redrawn elevations of all four sides based on revisions suggested during the
conversation. All in favor.
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) (moved from Consent Agenda)
Ms. Robinson stated that the applicants are seeking approval of a Design Permit for a single -story,
approximately 420 square foot addition to their home. The lot area is 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 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. 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. Staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Holmes remarked it's a well thought out addition. He suggested changes to window
size and geometry. The east elevation has four or five windows that are the same size. It seems the
double window in that elevation for the addition has a sill height that is 6" higher and the top is a few
inches lower. If there was a way to make it the same size as other windows it would be an
enhancement.
Kristen DeLeon, applicant, agreed.
Commissioner Holmes stated that the windows on the west are going to look very different from the
windows on the back. He suggested if there is a way to make the back windows the same size and to
push it away from the corner the same distance as the window on the east elevation, that would
provide better balance.
Ms. DeLeon said the reason the architect wanted to push the window to the corner is that the
intended use for that space will be the bedroom with a headboard against the wall, but she will bring
it up to the architect again.
Commissioner Larson asked what the west elevation looks like.
Mr. Gladhill did not see a drawing of the west elevation and Ms. DeLeon said she will get it to the City.
Commissioner Mino asked if the house has vinyl siding now and Ms. DeLeon replied yes.
Commissioner Larson asked, in the interest of four-sided design, if the floor plans show any windows
on the west, and Mr. Gladhill said there is a window there.
Chairman Thueson said it seems the HPC is recommending some changes based on this conversation
and when reviewed again, the HPC should review all four elevations.
Ms. DeLeon said they would have liked to start this fall. She asked if there is a way to have it reviewed
before a month from now.
Mr. Gladhill replied that staff level review is just a recommendation but if the HPC tables it, the case
would wait till the next meeting.
Chairman Thueson added that the HPC typically wants to have all four elevations in the record.
Page 6 of 11
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022
Mr. Gladhill clarified that staff just needs the three new sides of the addition, not the side that is not
impacted by the addition.
Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to table Case No. CD 2022-70 for
more information. All in favor.
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)
Mr. Gladhill reviewed the case. The applicant is seeking Design Approval for the replacement of a
fence. The site has a lot area of 14,815 square feet and contains a two-story 3,324 square foot
residential building, built in 1873. The specific request is to replace the existing four -foot high white
picket fence (NOTE: fence height was clarified in discussion following the staff review) and brackets
with a four -foot high aluminum "Echelon Plus, Classic 3-rail style" white coated 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. Due to
the underlying review district and the change from wood picket to metal, staff felt that a design
review was appropriate to ensure that the direction proposed by staff regarding administration of the
guidelines was accurate. He emphasized this would not have come before the HPC had it not been for
the existing white picket fence.
Councilmember Junker pointed out a discrepancy between the application and the staff report in the
fence height.
Mr. Gladhill said the Zoning Code talks about a maximum of 48" in the front yard and exterior
sideyard areas.
Commissioner Holmes suggested it would be nice to have the replacement fence be approximately the
same height as the existing fence, and Commissioner Mino agreed.
Chairman Thueson pointed out that he can see why white is being proposed as that is what's there
now, but historic photos of Stillwater fences show that the white ones were usually wooden and metal
ones were usually a dark color.
Commissioner Larson agreed the metal fences were usually dark or black. He agrees that going from
wood to metal, the metal should be dark because the white metal would jump out.
Chairman Thueson suggested, looking through the catalog for that product, one thing the applicant
could consider is caps on the posts that would look more like examples of old fences in Stillwater.
Asked by Commissioner Mino if the picket fence is original, building owner Jim Munks answered that
it was originally wrought iron, evolved to brick with wrought iron fence on top of the brick, to the
current white picket fence. It currently is a 36" fence and the new fence would be 42" for safety and
liability reasons given that it is on the sidewalk.
Commissioner Mino asked what is the gauge? She pointed out the proposed fence is aluminum and
not wrought iron, and asked if the applicant looked at that.
Mr. Munks replied that the proposed fence is the commercial grade that the fence company uses on all
their commercial properties.
Councilmember Junker asked if the applicant would have an issue with a dark color rather than white,
and Mr. Munks replied that his wife who is also his business partner thought that white would be in
tune with the white accents on the building.
Page 7 of 11
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022
Councilmember Junker pointed out that on top of the Main Street Stairs there is a very prominent old
home that had a white picket fence for years, which was recently replaced with a black iron fence. It
looks very nice.
Commissioner Holmes said, having officed in that building in the past, he appreciates the owners'
efforts. He agreed that a dark color is better than light because it mimics historic material.
Commissioner Finwall asked if the fence needs to be replaced, and Mr. Munks answered that multiple
sections have fallen off, creating liability. Based on its placement and proximity to the road, and
shoveling to keep sidewalks clear, it is a tough place for wood to handle, thus the switch to a more
durable material. The retaining wall in the courtyard area is at least 6 feet tall.
Chairman Thueson said, looking at product materials, there are options to install it according to the
slope of street or stepped, and it seems that having it angled to follow the slope of the street would
work better.
Mr. Munks answered yes, it obviously needs to taper down with the elevation of the sidewalk. There
will be a post every 8 feet and each section will taper down in the same contour of the sidewalk.
Mr. Gladhill added that it will be a straight frame, not a curved frame.
Chairman Thueson asked the applicant if he is open to black rather than white, and Mr. Munks replied
that in the interest of time and liability, the company does not have black in stock so it would be
another 10-12 weeks. He had to remove the old fence to tuckpoint the wall and make it ready for a
new fence. In the interest of getting it installed prior to Christmas, he would like to go with the white
but will run the black color past his business partner.
Chairman Thueson suggested the HPC could approve it with a black color and if the applicants are not
OK with that, then the HPC would discuss it again.
Commissioner Holmes said he thinks black would be marginally better than white but he does not feel
strongly enough about it to make it a condition of approval.
Commissioner Heimdahl pointed out that safety concern trump cosmetics from a City point of view.
Mr. Gladhill remarked it sounds like there is a specific stock order. Not being able to pivot from black
to white, if the applicant went with 36" height, would that be another 10 to 12 week delay? Mr. Munks
said yes.
Commissioner Finwall asked what style would be preferred for the top of the pickets.
Mr. Munks said they chose the classic style. The property line runs on top of the cap, so to keep the
fence off City property he has to have it back about 4" from the edge of the cap. It will be 42" from the
top of retaining wall to the cap.
Chairman Thueson pointed out that he appreciates the applicant taking good care of the building
which is a very significant building downtown. He would like it to match all the other historic fences
in downtown.
Commissioner Larson asked if a different fence supplier would be able to provide a black fence, and
Mr. Munks replied that he contacted three fence installers, two of whom were willing to take on the
job. He can check the third to ask about availability. The lead time for installation for the third
supplier was four weeks longer than the company chosen.
Commissioner Holmes remarked the fence really should be black and yet the applicant is limited by
availability and pressed by safety issues with winter coming. One option would be for the HPC to
approve it in black, and if black is not available, come back to the HPC.
Page 8 of 11
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022
Chairman Thueson said that a temporary fence would be an option to make sure it stays safe. A white
fence in that style doesn't fit with the Downtown Design Review goal, in his opinion.
Commissioner Holmes added that the white color gives away the fact that it's aluminum.
Commissioner Larson said he has no issue with a 42" height for safety.
Commissioner Finwall asked for clarification on height. She asked if the fence will be 42" from the top
of the retaining wall to the top of the fence and Commissioner Larson yes the applicant has indicated
that. The cap varies from 2-4" above the sidewalk as indicated by the applicant.
Mr. Gladhill stated the retaining wall is being repaired. Once this process is completed, there would be
a formal fence permit, so staff would ensure that all portions are 48" or less which is the baseline for
the Zoning Code. That 2-4" extra lip would be measured as part of the fence. It would still be under the
48" maximum height.
Motion by Chairman Thueson, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve Case No. CD 2022-77,
Design Approval for Fence Replacement at 106 Chestnut St E with the staff recommended conditions
(NOTE: the staff report did not delineate specific conditions), adding a condition that the fence be in
black, and ask staff to work with the building owner to come up with a temporary arrangement if needed
due to the season. Motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner Holmes voting nay.
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)
Community Development Director Gladhill stated that the Freight House (a site that is on the National
Register) is requesting approval to replace the current metal roof, rooftop equipment and fascia due
to deterioration. The current roof is not the original roof, but actually the third (at least) roof system
on the structure. 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. The owner
is also proposing to repair the existing fascia, which is failing, with like materials (wood) and like
colors (white). The original historic roof material is uncertain; it may have been a slate tile. The
project would also include replacing the rooftop mechanical units with new units with a like -for -like
replacement (same size and location). Staff recommends approval.
Councilmember Junker asked for clarification on the mechanical units proposed.
Mr. Gladhill said staff intends that a condition of approval be that it be a like -to -like replacement, not
expanding the footprint of the mechanical equipment, and it appears the applicant will comply with
that.
Councilmember Junker asked if there will be any screening of the mechanical units.
Mr. Gladhill answered that would be a reasonable condition if the HPC would like to add it.
John Newsome, Market & Johnson, and Keith Reardon from Morrissey Hospitality, representing the
Freight House, introduced themselves.
Councilmember Junker asked if it is rust that gives it the current color, and Mr. Newsome replied yes,
the roof is rusted and there are holes on the west side. The east side is close to rusting through.
Commissioner Mino asked if there are plans to replace the mechanical units, and Mr. Newsome
replied that all the mechanical equipment on the roof is being replaced, as it is outdated. Currently the
units available are like -for -like the same size as what is there now.
Councilmember Junker asked if there is a way to screen some of the mechanical particularly on the
Water Street side, and Mr. Newsome replied with the existing structure, there would be quite a bit of
Page 9 of 11
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022
engineering and architectural design that would be required, which would be very expensive. In the
interest of the owner, screening the mechanical would not be feasible.
Mr. Reardon added that servicing the mechanical units poses a safety hazard which would be worse if
not impossible with a screen, because they are on the edge of the roof.
Mr. Newsome added that the best way to currently service any of it is from a bucket truck.
Commissioner Mino asked if it is possible to have the equipment factory -finished in a different color,
and Mr. Newsome answered that the two large units are already built, he is not sure what color they
are, but he could see if they could be painted.
Commissioner Mino noted that a darker color would fall away visually, but if painted after the fact, it
may end up peeling which would look worse so she doesn't know if she would recommend that.
Commissioner Larson agreed that preferably the units would be factory -finished, if possible to a
darker color so they would not stand out.
Commissioner Holmes asked about roofing material. Click -Lock material says it's a 24-gauge material
but there are intermediate ribs which concern him. The best outcome would be a historic looking
standing seam roof so if it could be a flat pan and a color that looks aged galvanized, that would be a
more historic look. He provided other possible companies that have such products and suggested this
be included as a condition.
Mr. Newsome said he can talk to the roofer about the suggestion.
Commissioner Larson agreed with Commissioner Holmes that intermediate ribbing is something not
seen until more recently in later gauge metal. He pointed out the application mentioned slate gray and
smoke gray, and Mr. Newsome clarified that slate gray is the preferred option and smoke gray is a
backup.
Commissioner Larson stated that the lighter gray is less of a change. Getting it much darker would be
a significant change and not as compatible. He agreed the slate (lighter) gray is a good color.
Chairman Thueson commented that screening, materials, and color of mechanical equipment have
been discussed. It's hard to think about what screening needs might be without knowing what the
mechanical units will look like. He would like to have detail about what the specific units would look
like.
Mr. Newsome responded that there will be no change in the number of units, there are five
condensing units which will be replaced one for one in tonnage; size is very comparable. The three
large exhaust fans appear to be roughly the same size. The bathroom fan is small and inconspicuous
and it will be very close. There are two 20-ton units - there will be a slight change based on efficiency
requirements but he does not believe it is much different.
Commissioner Larson brought up the color of the trim. The fascia is wood trim that belongs to the rest
of the building and shouldn't be a different color. Wood trim on the building should be all the same
color. Whatever color the windows and door trim is, fascia should be the same.
Mr. Gladhill said the applicant has stated their preference would be the extra white color for trim, and
Mr. Newsome added that the trim will remain wood and there will be a like -for -like species to match
the existing. The soffit will not be replaced.
Commissioner Holmes said, in terms of screening mechanical units, it is all pretty much on the wall
edge and for safe access he can't think of an effective way to screen it without changing the essential
character of the building.
Page 10 of 11
Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 9, 2022
Commissioner Larson said he understands that a more solid screen would make it more difficult to
access and service the units, but there are louvered screens on hinged doors that are made to service
mechanical units. He does not know if making a solid screen around those units is an improvement.
It's unsightly and if it were a new building it wouldn't be allowed, but in some ways making the least
of what's up there may be the best option.
Chairman Thueson agreed. The only exception would be if any of the equipment has a big logo or
some distracting element. Maybe that can be reviewed.
Mr. Gladhill said it sounds like consensus is that to some degree, the applicant should get the
mechanical units painted to blend better with slate gray. He sees a lack of consensus on physical
screening and leaning toward ways to factory -coat or field -coat those pieces of equipment to blend
better with what exists today.
Commissioner Heimdahl pointed out that new equipment will probably be shiny stainless steel which
would conflict with the dark color of the roof. He agreed if there were a shelter or screening more
permanent than what is there, it would detract, so the best compromise is to try to make the
equipment match the color of the roof.
Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Holmes, to approve Case No. CD 2022-78,
Design Permit for Roof and Rooftop Mechanical Units at 305 Water St S (Freight House) with the
conditions discussed: slate gray roof, extra white trim intended to match the existing white trim, flat pan
versus ribbed roofing material, and painting the mechanical to be a dark color compatible with or
matching the roof, and the guardrails or screens as they exist being repainted in a similar color, and with
the staff -recommended conditions (NOTE: the staff report does not include any specific staff -
recommended conditions, but instead calls for HPC guidance). All in favor.
OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
Discuss Workshop Dates
Mr. Gladhill said there may not be a workshop date that will get full participation. Staff recommends
having a 5:30 workshop session the same evening as the regular meeting in January and February
(January 18 and February 15). Discussion will consist of Design Guidelines in general, process,
whether the HPC should we look at ADU design, and mobile food trucks. He added that the availability
of Zoom Commission meetings, which takes extra IT staff to manage, is being phased out. However, if
there are special circumstances, a Commissioner or applicant may join a meeting by Zoom if needed
as long as there is advance notice.
FYI
Commissioner Heimdahl suggested ordering food for the longer meetings and Mr. Gladhill said staff
will handle this.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting
was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Matt Thueson, Chair
ATTEST:
Tim Gladhill, Community Development Director
Page 11 of 11
Slih1wat
�;e
THE BIRTHPLACE OF M I N N E S O T A
DATE: December 14, 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
UPDATED ARCHITECUTRE PLAN REVIEW ANALYSIS
On December 13, 2022, the Applicant submitted updated architectural plans
that include changes to second story windows. The changes to the architectural plans
include:
1. Four -foot windows have been reduced in size to three -feet two -inches.
2. Six-foot two-inch windows have been reduced in size to four -feet eight -inches.
3. Two windows have been removed from the northern exterior elevation for back
yard privacy.
4. There are no changes to the front, west exterior elevation.
The applicant notes the primary reason for the change in window height is to move the
window further away from the eave overhang. The applicant was unable to keep the
windows at four feet in height and simply move them down due to the proposed counter
top in the interior of the structure.
This case was previously heard and tabled by the Heritage Preservation Commission (the
"Commission") on November 9th, 2022. The Commission made comments related to the
design of the proposed structure; first, lowering the freeze band to be closer to the floor
change and second, altering the proposed windows to be both taller and narrower and
make them consistent around the building.
The Applicant has responded to the Commission's discussion and has provided updated
architectural plans that address the two primary comments outlined by the Commission:
1. Freeze Band
a. All four facades of the building show the freeze band lowered so that it is at
the same height as the floor/ceiling change.
2. Windows
a. The north fa9ade has replaced a 5' wide by 4' high window with two 3' wide
by 4' tall windows on the second story and added a 3' wide by 4' high
window on the first story.
b. The east facade has replaced a 6' wide by 4' high window with two 3' wide
by 6' tall windows on the second story and added three 3' wide by 4' high
window on the first story, all of which are symmetrical with the second story
windows.
c. There have been no changes to windows on the south and west facades.
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.
Staff finds that the lowering of the 8" freeze band and the installation of additional windows
on the first story has improved the four-sided balance of the ADU. The three -feet two-inch
high windows continue to appear consistent with the primary dwelling. With the reduction
in height, the three-foot windows are better evenly spaced on the ADU fagade, losing the
"cramped" appearance. Further, with the change from one large window to two windows
on the east and north elevation the ADU design shows greater four-sided interest while
maintaining consistency with the principal building.
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. At this time, tabling the review is not a viable option, as of December 16th, 2022,
the application has been under review for a total of 120 days including a 60-day
extension allowed by state Statute.
a. At this time, the Commission must act on the application before them, or the
applicant must formally request an extension.
Staff 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
with updated architecture design, updated 12/13/2022.
•�� �
•
��' ;-�� ���� �
,...„
...... .,.
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
Previous
Updated
En
w
'
vvv
vyv
vvv
= vvv
_
vvv
: _
vvvvv;
;
vv,
vv,
vvv
^
^�
\\o
\\\
Eri•
Y
"\
_"\_
ga�wo
gam--,
era ,��
swan
111111
•`
rye_
•
ES INDICATE
INTERIOR
z��
�E13•No AND FLlms OOR
MO FLOOR
Ir LP
!—i
w
�.
,g 0
ER.0.�va,ION
'"
,,,,,N.. O Ea�.�v..ION
E ,a.EIEV..
OTM�
sEk
rrr , , rrn
'lli
�ti
��I f, , 1
r
-� -r LI.I_
'I�lILLjili i3 Q�
���l,
l
=ill
1
•a1aaa1
zay
IYIYE 1...
\\
\\\
\\\i�=
Er
_\�\
\\\
-
IIIIIII
-ems.
4l`Ii.
-a r11111111
-
—
:e
Jiiiiiin
...
....jl
=-j®®I--
!
!:hh11n1r
�IOA
ELEV.«s
_
=
o N
R ,nG.
ELE,.,.Ns
In,r
in e ,
En EE .ram co,
0
EC;LE4x 9� EA=,,N�.
a=,•, scN�a=,
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
IIII II III
II
I III I I ill l 1 I I T11 1 111 1 111 1 11111 1111
12 11 I I 1 11 I
1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I
4I- 1 121 1 1 1
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 �1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 II 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
I
61 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \1 1\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1
[ 2
DASHED LINE
501 MAIN STREET NORTH #216
STILLWATER, MN 55082
JENNIFER@7EDGESDESIGN.COM
6 1 2. 7 5 9. I 9 3 6
\
INDICATES
\
COUNTER/FIXTURE
8
22"
8" LP BOARD
4'-8"
S11
HEIGHT
DASHED LINE
INDICATES
—3' 6"
3'—
___
COUNTER
3'-2"
3'-2"
/ FIXTURE
1
1'-8"
5' 6"
3'
6'-22"
3'
ff
3'
T
HEIGHTS
L2'-32'-
}
1' 44"
DASHED LINES INDICATE
INTERIOR CEILING
_
AND FLOOR
/
B
BOARD
'
8'
/
LAP SIDING
LAP SIDING
� 3'-6" —
PROJECT:
MOLLOY GARAGE
9 1 9 5 T H A V E. S
STILLWATER, MN 55082
2'-7"
22 2
—
25' 1 — —4'
EXTERIOR ELEVATION EAST
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
30'
ONORTH
SCALE 16 = 1'-On SCALE
16 = 1'-On
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 112 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
��\
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
]11111111111111
11111
12
11111
1111111111111111
1
4 11111111
11111111111 I � �4
11
1111
L1L1I
11111 1
111 1111
1 7"62
DATE
ISSUED
1 1
1 1 1 1 1
9/8/2022
ELEVATIONS
1'
9/14/2022
ELEVATIONS
3'
3'-8"
3'
3'
T-10"
11 /I 2
ELEVATIONS
r
r
I
I
1 I8 20/2022
ELEVATIONS
\\\
\
\\�
2/13/2022
ELEVATIONS
'
,
\
'
11
\
\�
�
\\
3 -2'
A
\\
3 -2
8" LP BOARD
8" LP BOARD
DASHED\V
4
4�
LINE
— — — — — —
— — — —
—
— —
INDICATES
COUNTER
3-2"
3'-2"
LENOTICE:
/ FIXTURE
3
3'
3'
1'-8" —
2'-6"
5'
1'-8''
3'
3r
THES DOCUMENTS SHALL NOT BE
REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED
REPRODUCEDCONSENT
WRITTEN
7 EDGES DESIGN, LLC
2022.ALL RIGHTS
COPYRIGHT ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED.
�
HEIGHTS
15'-41"
1 5'-42'
t
project no:
22-012
date:
9-8-2022
.._
—
/
drawn by:
JMN
checked by:
JMN
LAP SIDING
SHEET INFORMATION:
EXTERIOR
4
1
1
10'
1
10'
ELEVATIONS
10'
IDSOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION 4 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SCALE a = 1' 0" / SCALE a= 1'-0"
SjI1vater
T H E B I R T H P L A C E O F M INN E S O I A
DATE: December 14, 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
This case was previously heard and tabled by the Heritage Presevation Commission
(the "Commission") on November 9, 2022. The Applicants have updated the proposed
design per comments received at the meeting and resubmitted for consideration.
Comments by the Commission were related to the size and alignment of the proposed
windows to those on the existing structure.
Updates to the plans include:
1. Windows across the East elevation are conisstent in height and size
2. Windows on the North elevation are consistent with those of the East elevation
3. Elevation of the West side of the proposed addtion has been submitted
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 fagade 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 fagade 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 appropriate 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.
•
_r- .� j_ t
# T4.7
ea
rt
EAST ELE.VAT1ON
MIWP14N4-. %MING.t.tS
Y %NYL_ Si Otikto
OtekviD AND 'tARJSTEN pel,..EoN
4I.
ati:... L its I`ti 0
1
&.P' ierin t L) in
QSAO W at
On On
flfl. A. ilhiCe 14I.4400i M
a OF 62
•
•
l
1 • ,
• • 1 1
L 11
----•
.1 a
z,4 42 .1__ . '---•-- .+--.-+ `l j
l: .,rT..• -r-4._-.Ll .-1 L.1—r i_i_
_L _. ,tt' 1 • `--r=---•----t
•-a J_,
L-
• rr •
J1� '
- _ 1 -
'- •1 Ji
�1
L.r r
lei C "
i 7-11 S1:;c 4A. rt_ ' .
j
+ 1.4
•
• L
1�
•--r -1 !S ,-T. " IL1 t_
Tj
r
tC1 Per _ce_, _� 1
r` pro
r i ; -i,;J
l
r,
r t i
_1 1 y'
-111
T—`Y—
L • Li
fy-1.. ajl
k .
- _ . Li-.
,}• �t t \ I l� i. - a- _ 1 Tl t 1 1 1 _ 1 , �y
�iP-) 2( � : / �:1 fti -' 1 .. - .. cr --
1� �
•
5 f' 11 `T1 f
? I 1s�
I f ' yI�/if
:1 I
► i �. .� LT il1- !
'_Yi r11�.!'1 •�-T qr�
___ 1, 1—.1J� �.� Tar.M�/
li-
• I VI
1V I i.-4 'fit i•Ol Ynl_ I'�.-1
•
Ti\MbF4 raH EL-avA r10Nt
ar••.r
•
c iNS?i-t ut SHIM&LEt
.1 II! c
1
•
�11rt'i l.. StOINQ, AND SHAKES
—�a
DRAWN 'FOR:
1 /4"m:
DAVID AND 1ANSTEN DE,LEON
'' •—' ,1w a :+
NOKTH s1Da P0Di ri0N1
VINYL SIDINCs
I-0T
1
sr- ASIPHALT SHINGLES
,7 1 ! it i __
4 J� _- +i �%":-
—__ — ^a .1 1
•
__1., �ri:Lirir Lei
l T —t- 1
,=-r--Ti , ---•ram
1 ' i Ift
•
' i r_.1 t + 1__
i
[ 4 . -7.-rir:fi---r1_c-1L r&
-}-1L r.1 .r a L 3�I•
L
i T —
1 +
arry-
yT�
1
'
Ara-
. .. ______ -
--a_
T
1
IN
• i[ `_r_.. -,
1
L
WEST ELEvAT oN
DAN1D hND KF,1 STEM DELF N
scALE' I/4": ►=a'
GATE
*PPR°vED St •
DRAWN BY
REv1SED
NORTH SIDE ADDITION
cs*W*AG Pit) bit 6ER
3orto
East Elevation
November Submission
'r Y_
x i'J
$T ELEVJxYI41,1
New Additions
December Submission
North Elevation
November Submission
December Submission
West Elevation
November Submission December Submission
•• 4 � ce • "Tie
r.. ref Y
▪ •
:-v n'•1.
r
• e
•
,-
- re I
y II
R ¢.
;•
.1
0
'+ 9.0 )6 � 1 /7 • 1
.A 1L
•a Pitt. a •r
• \. r•.
7f �.
;Cm ••J• t-.'
r
r
•
A
—
r
-•
-
1.
r \-.....<2 - may.
--"ce • ` - - + s- •,:1.
\.•yam •n•
as
.J.perre
fir Nit
A N_1
•
ry1
•
K
a./
43 : y� ep
• • I
jr v1.
ti
,
•
.t.
•
Y
440
f �•
1
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,
illwater
THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA
DATE: December 14, 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
This case was previously heard and tabled by the Heritage Presevation Commission (the
"Commission") on November 9, 2022. The Applicant has updated the proposed design
per comments received at the meeting and has resubmitted for consideration. Updates
to the proposed design respond to and incorporate Commission comments as follows:
1. Exterior material treatment is consistent between the front, rear and side
facades, including the gabled ends. The siding material on both the house and
garage will be LP Smartside Expert Finish.
2. The front porch posts have been amended to include additional architectural
details and finishing.
3. The detached garage has been modified to:
a. Reduce width by removing the front service door, relocating it to the side
elevation; and
b. Reduce height through elimination of the attic space to prevent from being
conversion to livable area, including removing stairwell.
c. Square footage of the garage is 585 square feet.
4. The location of the large tree has been identified on the survey, and is located in
the driveway. The Applicant investigated the option of retaining the tree, but
concluded that the construction at the site would damage the root system.
5. New tree planting locations have been identified, including a new maple tree in the
front yard.
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.
Neighborhoods & Streets
The surrounding area contains homes built in the 1880's, 1940's and 1980's. The historic
architectural and visual character is inconsistent, with no dominant style or character. The
proposed design does take inspiration from the more historic homes in the neighborhood,
but would be discernable from them as new. The massing and scale of the proposed
design follows the predominant rhythm and pattern of the older homes of this
neighborhood in terms of setbacks, roof pitch, gable ends, front porch, and set -back
garage. 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 structures 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 & Site
The project site has a gentle slope towards the rear of the parcel, as well as a few mature
trees. The most prominent tree is located approximately 60 feet from the street, and would
be located in the driveway. The Applicant has investigated the option of retaining the tree,
but concluded that any construction at the project site would damage the root system.
The Applicant would also remove some of the front pine trees as well, in order to make
room for utilities, but would replant new trees throughout the project site, including a
maple tree in the front yard. 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. Proposed parking would be located in an accessory garage setback from
the midpoint of the primary structure, and complies with all massing, height and setback
requirements of accessory uses the RB Two -Family Zoning District.
Architectural Details
The proposed design is detailed as four-sided design that uses consistent exterior
treatment and treatment on all sides, including windows. Exterior siding material proposed
for use on the structure would include LP Smart Side Expert Finish in gray with white trim
with shakes located at the gable. The proposed windows are vertically oriented double
hung, and 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 front porch posts have been amended
to include additional architectural details and finishing.
Good Neighbor Considerations
Many of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Guidelines are based on the
goal of helping a new infill project be a "good neighbor" to adjacent structures and the
neighborhood in general. In addition to visual design compatibility, other considerations
have been taken into account, including maintaining privacy by locating the deck in the
rear of the property and replanting trees.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Related to the Stillwater Design Guidelines, the Neighborhood Conservation District
guides this infill style of development/new construction. 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 1880's 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.
POTENTIAL MOTION
Motion to approve the Design Permit for 303 Saint Croix Avenue West with conditions,
including making the required findings noted above.
J'i
Yi f'tiP Yi ti�'ti�ti I'I;r of of i, ,i'1� of i it r of i r i r; f 1 f of ti 1''ti� of ti
f 'i''�'� f 'i' f f'i �tif f iti�� � 1'l f,i1 f i1 f f1,i'r
r �''i 1f f,1 f,1 ,,i',i,,i, Hil
s't*
r � ti NY~ �Y 1 ti�tiiY ,ti�ti�i, ,�ti��i, ,� ��f� f �� ,f tiro ,f ti i , ti f 1 of f, f,
tii f 'r�t i '��� i �i '��� i'�f ��� �'�'f'���u�'�'��u,J'I'�f'1- 11�� i 11I �� si �f1r"�s�''f �r
I•I
Band Omni
I■
•
I■I
Rear Elevation
Scale 1/8"=11-0"
1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I '
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
IT_l I i I T I i I i I i I i I i I 1 '
I I
1 I
LEft Elevation
24'-10" -Overall Grade to Peak
ElEvations
21'-7" —Average Roof Height
ti
}tiy+a r ,yr�yf ti�r k', fi, yr 4
�, i, �, f ti 'ri f, i 'i f, i �s f, i,,,i s i 'i,,,i I,'i, , '�, i '�, ti i '� , i,'i , i, f,1,
�' f � ' r , 'i ,f 'i ' 1f 'i ' 1f 'f 1 'f J 'f 1 i 'r f''r ,, o 'i , ,f 'i ,'1f 'i '1f
tii �' �� �, , I , ti' tii,i''i tii 1 'f si 1 'i 1 i ' �� 1 ���1 I
,i 1 f,tif 1 of ,1 f 1 'i ri i '� f f f of of i f f r,,
i s' f i,"him h _,,i_ i f r 0, ,i f'of,'i, ,i 'tif,'i ,i,, sf,'i �'i 1' �' I i 1,',�' I i 1 i' i' � ti 0 � 1 0 p , tif, i 1 1 of
1 Fti���TPtip �, _, �� i �'�'h, r� hsr H 1 ? r tii f 1, ,Id ti� of '1 , V'f 1 ,I V.'f 1 i?.f J 1 "i 1 1'ti 1 i eV
IN
IN
Y �YN i VYF'YN i r
IN
I■
■
IN
3/12 Pitch'
Siding -Roofing -Windows & Door Styles & Colors
are for Conceptual Illustration Purposes Only !
Final Selections to be Verified By Owner -Builder -Supplier
Right Elevation
PREFERRED
euiioees.ixc.
Scale 1/4"=1'-0"
•
IJ-L I/L nveiuyt
8'43" —tirade to Fascia
r.
N-
m
N.
Qo
'--
Section-Through Garage
32
i
i'n
rr
a
Qa
Trusses 24" O.G. over
Design and Engineering by Supplier
—
® Q
o
Q
a
a
Q
—1
a
a
3„
� 3"/
Elevation
Garage
30'-11 I/8" x 18'-11 1/8"
585 sq ft
%
—i\
a
A
Q
a
3',
Q
1- <7, -1z
a
a a
Q
1
45
�1
q
/1
q /P!
q
♦♦
5,_q„ Jr 1n,_q„ Jr 11J, q„ Jr
—
c,_q„
Main Floor
-,'iY r� �„ rf' h' , h , � ,rri
1 1�, 1 f 1'�'��
t' 01Y ,�' Fti�, �' (ti�,,i' 1f,i,'Ti r'�f,i'1 r'f1��') i'��,t'1 1,�
FiY r ��„���f i �f f Ti fti , Ti fti 1,, r', f, r
i r tit'I''r o 'I'�','Tj of % ''1' Tj ,f''i,1' ',f�'f,1,'f V �f,1 i''
�Yl , ',0'7-r'i '�0r,-,,�,i� r,-',P r'&f�i.' r'&f�f' r1LH,_ ' P1�,�'1
ti
L.Eft EI€vation
6/12 Pitch
Rear Elevation
f tirf', ,f , c
rtiffi ,II,ff'f,11,ff'1ti1t ii ',%itiN1Yi tiN n ti0tiYi ,0 i,
H H H Y
tii of' ,,of,�off rf' iY °tih ir
1,11 'f,1 %,ti11,,foNTJ�FTIY FT1YL 1F,1Yi,
f,, f i r r iY,riY,ti, iY,1
iY
1 �i�,r ,% �',.�r %1�o � 1',�l�tf ti, 1',ti� rf ti�1rLrf tif'1'�'i��r� rf 1''i.'
%f,,, ��f,, i�,f, i�fr, f'riY f'tiriY f'% IY,10Y,,
Right Elevation
Front ElEvation
12" Gable Overhang
24" Eave Overhang
Garage
Scale As Noted
PREFERRED
euiioees.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
915.1
GF
8
2
915.1
X 913.1
0)
I �� T
I 1 1 I
L_ \J 1
X 906.1
X 905.0
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.
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
TCCB
All.'
916.1
BE
SAINT CROIX AVENUE WEST
912.5 913.8
BE -CB
BE
914.7
i9.
ST
N89°19`41"W 5
.66
X 9:5.5
916.6
BE
917.0
917.8
FNDLS13775
FNDLS43775
0)
\
LA
so
910.7
SPK
00
N
Cn
VJ
... '910.•. FND1P ............
909.7
SPK
1
N '
s .
r �Y.
PORCH
L-914
917.6
6.
918.2
00
918.4
918.9
GF-DROPS
NORTH
0 20
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 20 ft.
919.9
GF
909.1
SPK
•
0
908.6
SPK
S.
N
1-
11.0 22.00 913.2
PROPOSED HOUSE
0 8.33' BASEMENT 8 .�.
M LOOKOUT. co
i 1 1 -r- it
910.2 22.00 912.0
41 v..
29.2.
10.
DECK
13.
� 16.2
FNDLS13775!
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 WIN TURF ESTABUSHMENT.
- DRIVEWAYS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC
PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL DRIVEWAY DESIGN AND
LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR
910.3
x
1'
PROPOSED
DRIVEWAY
13.
- 16.5
912.9
10
x
909.8
x
909.8
SNOW
DETACHED GARAGE
S 3
N
91,2.4 ,
91
N 912
ri
x910. 5
911.7
L_
Kc ' 11.3
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.
Revised: 11-2-22 (garage/deck)
Date: 10-24-22 Reg. No. 44655
57.66
N89°19'41"W
AIM
EXIS111NG HOUSE
917.4
SPK-28FTOS
915.3
SPK-2BFTOS
913.3
913.0
SPK-2.5FTOS
912.6
SPK-2.5FTOS
rr7
FNDLS13775
x
912.7
NEVI 0114toS
I J\ --
I II
L_ \J I
919.9
es
1'
10) th,Ntg?
Ac fa] For r n 0a 4-) 1
® - Ex, AlmtVklIkk�
LEGEND
• DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND
o DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET
® DENOTES EXISTING CATCH BASIN
cf-O237 DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION
x1o11.2 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION
DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE
5 DENOTES METAL OFFSET SPIKE
-x DENOTES EXISTING FENCE
DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR
JOB#22260
CRE LAND SURVEYING
Blliilix+, MN 55449 F = I I l
763-239.6278 js.acrelandsurveycgmail.com
1 I
I
OSHUA P. SCHNEIDER
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 1 9 RO
.,..e, .,„ _.,..
ill
{ r J � x lam' �:��d�t
ir-
* Q1111.1 '- ,ti -I, 1hWllouua5ri
• , ,� `' . Pola'StW PoprarStE• TCHTOWN
itt L
'
.cat _ r . �- �. SO
;f r ' , µ tiHwater Country Club • r'..l. •. W
,� oai� Glen`Gdrf Ciub ��'' ,
CA
y '* - { ti.. .- ■� r. i LL _ # • r • _
LAB + i
,' # i r . ., 1 -7. ' •3Saint Croix Av ' V — i +
# * ` r I f ,StilJwakerfAve E
' * rw' rl#Ins S+�...+r+ rimi
+ il 4 F '-1.
.4*, ,a Au L t.4.% IlIi'I1klL1
141.
r0 a" .ry 7�+rnC;; r +tOniJ! P' - •Aspen St SN ,
1 ' :V Le;r-..
rr- 4 C E1 Ol r ', . P • E' St .YV r E I rr} t
r ; F
w +
*a '♦ } Hickory S[ wt.-xisw, _ • �►
'.b. '•`— l . 2Eake MCKusic '' �Maple.St N } `,
+ 4}'-L *�Laurie.' 5# VV*e/ - ,,,,r % ,
.,.' F t.-•", Jaycee's Sports `i°41dFk. jr � _ � • � ' • i _':
Sb Lt. r
I 9
.... i* 1Lrrid 75t. r am -;
r &StiJV } 4 i as too- ko,, .f et ►�—Mulberry St-W y x *'V
St Croix
Saint
Ri
r •
.i
= 1 - w- .f•
1111111111111111immismi1
Front Elevation
November Submission
December Submission
Left Elevation
November Submission
IC11' yc ^ r.. - 3G:17115xl
ilr .,:kt•x.n.M. n.l.x.mir.i
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
rTr
r r i r i i r r r I r-1
December Submission
Right Elevation
November Submission
11111111111111111
111111111111111111
December Submission
Rear Elevation
November Submission
III � I I I I I I III 1" 1 . I I 1; P R 111111 I I I1I I I 111
1 1 1
December Submission
.irlritir - IImlMuIolmlriit.r...i
ior._
.imimm rrnsra - arrnorrnm■-
iiii*lHiimiii• i niliin nii..,
.. r r r u rr 1 r r r. r• r u rr 1 r r r. r r r. r ram, r. r. r r r u rr I r. r .r.
■
November Submission
III II I II
II III
wx.
1
Upper Level Attic Storage
dY410b
N.r
d -0
d
a 1
Main Floor
Garage
Section -Through Garage -Attie Storage
Front Elevation
December Submission
Section -Through Garage
tar _ 4df____4 9 r.
•I I II I
I I n I I I
I I T
11 d - I Id I
I I ' a ,11 I
Main Floor
Left Elevation
Rear Elevation
Right Elevation
Front Elevation