Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-12-19 HPC Packet AGENDA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North December 19th, 2018 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of November 7th, 2018 regular meeting minutes 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. 1. Case No. 2018-30: Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage and exterior paint. Property located at 120 Main St N in the Downtown Commercial Historic District. Katherine Francis, property owner and Kristy Wilson, applicant. 2. Case No, 2018-31: Consideration of a Design permit for new business signage at the property located at 310 Main St S. Property located in the Downtown Commercial Historic district. Jill and Justin Kaufenberg, property owners. VI. NEW BUSINESS 3. Case No. 2018-29: Consideration of a Design Permit Amendment for the Crosby Hotel to allow for landscape screening of at-grade mechanical equipment and the installation of four Main Street balconies. Property located at 232 Main St N in the CBD district. Property owner, Anne Loff. VII. FYI – STAFF UPDATES 4. 2019 Workplan Update 5. 2019 Meeting Schedule 6. HPC Vacancy (WA. County Historical Society Representative) – No Packet Materials VIII. ADJOURNMENT HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING November 7, 2018 7:00 P.M. Chairman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Larson, Commissioners Goodman (left at 8:15), Krakowski, Mino, Steinwall and Welty Absent: Commissioner Hadrits, Council Representative Junker Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of October 17, 2018 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the minutes of the October 17, 2018 meeting. Motion passed 6-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 2018-28: Consideration of a demolition permit to demolish and reconstruct the residential structure on the property located at 904 Harriet Street South in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Brian and Kasey Posch, property owners. City Planner Wittman stated that in May, 2016, she and Building Official Shilts walked through the property after the property owners had requested Washington County Public Health condemn the structure. At the time, City staff determined the house was structurally sound, that no life, health, or safety violations were present, and that condemnation would not occur. The property was subsequently purchased by a different party who obtained a Design Permit from the HPC to demolish the single-story, pre-1945 portion of the home and reconstruct it on a new foundation along with an addition. The approved Design Permit was not implemented. The current property owners, Brian and Kasey Posch, purchased the property in May 2017. The house has been vacant, without utilities, since at least January of 2016. Its condition has deteriorated since the 2016 walkthrough. The property value is $127,000 as of 2018. The applicants are requesting approval of the demolition of the structure and a design permit for a new residence. She reviewed the proposed design of the new home. Three public comments have been received: Robert Gambone and James Peterson of 622 Churchill expressed support for the demolition and the reconstruction but concerns about sight lines of the new driveway off Churchill Street, the roof design, and yard landscaping and maintenance. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 7, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Mildred Westcott, 918 South Harriet Street, expressed support for the application. Jeanne and Bruce Booher, 921 South Harriet Street, are also supportive. Staff recommends that the HPC make a finding the structure is a historic resource and that there is no feasible alternative to demolition; review the proposed reconstruction plans in relationship to the Neighborhood Conservation District guidelines; and approve the demolition permit and Design Permit with nine conditions. Kasey Posch, owner, said they are excited to be part of the neighborhood. but they are not interested in rehabilitating the house, which is currently uninhabitable. Brian Posch added that they have tried their best to replicate the existing structure and to work with the topography in designing the new home. Chairman Larson opened the public hearing. Sarah Handley, 702 Churchill Street, spoke in support of the demolition. Chairman Larson closed the public hearing. Ms. Posch asked about the 2016 determination that the house was in decent condition. Ms. Wittman replied that staff walked through the house in 2016 and could not administratively approve the demolition because there were no grounds to condemn the structure. At that time, only the single story portion of the house was proposed to be demolished. The one and a half/two story portion was not proposed to be demolished. Chairman Larson reminded the Commission that the first question to address is whether or not the building is a historic resource. Even though an individual house may not be unique, as part of the context of the neighborhood it may be a historic resource. Commissioner Welty remarked the house is a typical vernacular Stillwater home. Commissioner Mino noted for the record that in the November 2016 HPC meeting, the HPC determined that the structure was a historic resource and that there were feasible alternatives to demolition. Commissioner Welty asked what recourse the City has if a building is neglected? It would have been easier to save this house two years ago. City Planner Wittman replied that prior to January 2017, the City did not have an active enforcement program. Enforcement of any ordinance was complaint-based. Staff did not go out looking for possible violations. The City may approve demolition when there is demolition by neglect. However City Attorney Land indicated that neglect is a lot harder for a city to act on, whereas if there are exterior building code violations that threaten the life, health or safety of a structure, the city can order a condition be corrected. In 2016, had staff seen anything from the street that was a life health safety violation, the City could have ordered a correction. Staff could not have ordered any of the interior items to be fixed. Motion by Commissioner Welty to determine that the structure at 904 South Harriet Street is a historic resource. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Goodman, to determine that the home at 904 Harriet Street South is a historic resource, but given the very poor condition of the property including most notably the foundation, demolition would be necessary to correct an unsafe and dangerous condition, and that the only feasible alternative would be demolition at this point given the very poor condition of the property. Commissioner Welty withdrew her motion to allow Commissioner Steinwall’s motion to proceed. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 7, 2018 Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Mino asked how can the City avoid this type of situation? She expressed concern that two years after determining that it was a historic resource, the Commission is faced with a demolition because the structure was neglected. Ms. Wittman replied staff is working on better enforcement with the new City Attorney. Commissioner Mino reminded the applicants that the Commission is entrusted with safeguarding the City’s heritage by preserving structures that reflect elements of the City’s history. Ms. Posch expressed doubt that the structure was in much better shape two years ago. She believes the former owner was not able to complete the project feasibly and financially so they abandoned it. Mr. Posch stated that renovation would cost about $135,000 more than reconstruction. Ms. Posch said the cost mainly comes from having to lift the whole house and rebuild the existing foundation. She pointed out that mold in the ceiling is present in several of the photos due to roof leakage. She suspects the roof is starting to collapse. Her entire family has allergies. The staircase is too narrow and dangerous. Someone fell down the stairs and died. Mr. Posch added that they originally tried to design a plan that would include the stairs but found that all the floor joists are rotten. Chairman Larson said it sounds like the structural deterioration is excessive to even lift up the house. Motion passed 6-0. Regarding the proposed design for the new house, Chairman Larson commended the applicants on the massing and how it fits into the neighborhood. He noted there are several rooflines with different roof pitches and asked if this was done intentionally. Mr. Posch responded that the single story addition reflects the current structure but they struggled with the roof pitch. Their ultimate goal was to design a house that looked identical to what was there. He feels they achieved this with the two story portion but could still refine the other portion. Ms. Posch explained that in the 1800s, additions were common so the new house was designed to make it look like a building that had additions done with a good eye. Commissioner Krakowski referred to a letter from a neighbor asking about the accessory dwelling unit. Ms. Posch stated they intend to live there with their family and have a small apartment above the garage that could be used as rental for a couple or single person or their parents. Commissioner Welty noted it might help resolve some of the roofline issues if the T-gable did not connect with the porch. Motion by Commissioner Goodman, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the Design Permit for Case No. 2018-28, a residential structure on the property located at 904 Harriet Street South, with the nine conditions recommended by staff. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 7, 2018 Page 4 of 5 Chairman Larson read the guideline about four sided architecture, and said anything the applicant can do to enhance this would be appreciated. Commissioner Welty said to solve some of the roofline issues, if this [referring to a portion of the drawing] didn’t slope all the way down to the porch but was a flat wall with a little bit of a break there, it would be a little more traditional. Mr. Posch said they could incorporate Commissioner Welty’s suggestion. Commissioners Goodman and Steinwall agreed to amend the motion by adding Condition #10 to state, “The one and a half story T-gable roofline shall not extend to the one story and porch addition roof. Some fascia shall be present.” Motion passed 6-0. CONTINUED BUSINESS There was no continued business. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION 2018-2022 Workplan City Planner Wittman led discussion on a proposed Historic Preservation Commission workplan and a Community Development Department draft workplan. The workplans will be brought before the City Council. Revising the HPC ordinance is high on the priority list. Upcoming Meeting Changes Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that they will be asked to sit at the dais in December because City Administration is requesting the HPC be televised starting in December. Chairman Larson asked the reason for the change. Ms. Wittman said in early 2018 or late 2017, the Council adopted a strategic plan looking at organizational excellence and transparency. The Council and the Planning Commission meetings are televised. Chairman Larson asked, by more transparent, does that mean more visually accessible? Ms. Wittman replied yes. Video would allow the public to see the design plans discussed in meetings. Chairman Larson asked if meetings could be televised from the table where the Commission now sits. Ms. Wittman replied it may be possible to televise meetings from the back table. She acknowledged that sitting around the table is more comfortable for the Commission and the applicants. Commissioner Welty remarked the HPC is already fighting a reputation of being the “no” group. Sitting at the dais would give meetings a totally different feel. The Commission can be more helpful to applicants sharing the table with them. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 7, 2018 Page 5 of 5 Chairman Larson said it appears there are two issues. If the meetings must be broadcast, hopefully the Commission can still sit at the table rather than the dais. The HPC is more visually interactive than other Commissions and the table works well for that. Ms. Wittman responded the Commission can’t continue sitting at the table logistically. She can relay to the administration that the dais gives a different image and this Commission fights what she would say are potentially negative stereotypes that could be exacerbated by sitting at the dais and that a shared table is more accessible to applicants. Commissioner Welty questioned if having a raised dais is becoming outdated. Commissioner Mino acknowledged that a lot of what the Commission does is visual. She is not an elected official and sitting at the dais is a completely different way of approaching the Commission’s work. As a citizen volunteer she has a problem with that. City Planner Wittman said she will share the concerns with City Administrator McCarty and City Clerk Ward tomorrow and advocate for remaining at the back table. She encouraged commissioners to voice their concerns to Ms. Ward, Mr. McCarty and Mr. Turnblad. Commissioner Welty asked if just the handouts could be televised and that way the Commission could stay around the table. STAFF UPDATES 2020 Statewide Preservation Conference Letter of Interest Ms. Wittman said a letter of interest was submitted to the State regarding hosting the conference. Ordinance No. 1105 Ms. Wittman said the City’s charter has changed to reflect the required attendance schedule for commissioners. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Krakowski, seconded by Commissioner Mino, to adjourn. All in favor, 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 19, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-30 APPLICANT: Kristy Wilson, representing Uptown Curl REQUEST: Request for a Design Permit to paint the exterior of, and to install a projecting sign for Uptown Curl on, the structure located at 120 Main Street North ZONING: Central Business COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of the following improvements to the structure located at 109 Main Street North, a contributing building in the Downtown Commercial Historic District:  Exterior painting of the existing black, wooden façade elements to gray (Pittsburgh Paints Phoenix Fossil) and light blue-green (Pittsburgh Paints Aqua Fiesta; and  The installation of one, 36” by 24” projecting painted foam sign proposed to be hung from the existing umbrella bracket. The sign would read “Uptown Curl”. The sign would be white with the lettering in the light blue-green color. APPLICABLE GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS One hanging sign, no greater than six square feet, Case No. 2018-30 HPC: December 12, 2018 Page 2 of 3 is permitted per business in the CBD. The sign ordinance further indicates projecting signs must be visible from the sidewalk and not be a hazard to pedestrians. If lighted, the sign must be externally lit. The sign conforms to these standards. The Downtown Design Review Manual indicates:  Materials: Modern sign materials are acceptable provided their design is handled with an understanding of the Victorian spirit.  Color: Choose tones with sufficient contrast to be clearly legible: dark on light or light on dark. The relationship of the colors and tones used on new or improved structures must be compatible with the color and tone patterns already established by adjacent buildings. The tasteful use of color and accent can introduce variety and charm, whereas the indiscriminate use of colors and color combinations can overload the senses and produce visual conflict and chaos. The goal is to achieve an area-wide complementary blend of background colors combined with selected and limited uses of primary and focal colors. • The color of buildings should relate to the adjacent buildings colors to create a harmonious effect. • Avoid colors which visually overpower or strongly contrast with adjacent building colors and established downtown color schemes as a whole. ALTERNATIVES A. Approve, whole or in part. If the proposed application meets the Downtown Design Review District standards, and the standards set forth for Design Permits, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2018-30. Staff recommends the following conditions for approval: 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department and on file with HPC Case No. 2018-30. 2. The sign shall have a matte finish. 3. The sign shall obtain a sign permit prior to the installation of the sign. 4. Disturbance to the exterior wall face shall be done in a fashion as to prevent excess damage. 5. Prior to painting the structure, the applicant or representative shall obtain a contractor’s license as well as any required and necessary obstruction permits. 6. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. 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. Case No. 2018-30 HPC: December 12, 2018 Page 3 of 3 B. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Downtown Design Review District standards, then the Commission may deny the request. With a denial, the basis of action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial with prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a similar application for one year. C. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request may be tabled to the following hearing. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The painting of a contributing building in the National Register listed Stillwater Commercial Historic District requires. Many storefronts are all solid colors, including black, white and gray. The use of gray on the wooden storefront elements are in keeping with the Victorian tradition. The applicant’s dimensional projecting sign conform to the Zoning Code and Downtown Design Review District guidelines. On the basis HPC Case No. 2018-06 conforms to the Downtown Design Review District standards, staff recommends conditional approval of the projecting sign and painting at 120 Main Street South. ATTACHMENTS Applicant submission (3 pages) HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 19, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-31 APPLICANT: Jill Kaufenberg, property owner, representing Lift Bridge Cowork and Mon Petit Cheri REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for new signage at 310 Main Street South, in the Downtown Design Review District. ZONING: Central Business District COMP PLAN DISTRICT: DMU–Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit to install an unlit, projecting steel sign frame at 310 Main Street South. The sign frame will measure 52” tall and 35” in length. The (approximately) 12 square frame will contain two, six square foot painted metal signs:  The upper sign will be painted black and, in white lettering, will read “Lift Bridge Cowork”  The lower sign will be painted reddish brown and, in white lettering, will read “Mon Petit Cheri; Bakery & Kitchen; Est. 2014” APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES Projecting signs are permitted by the sign ordinance so long as the sign is no greater than six (6) square feet. The Downtown Design Review Manual indicates: Photo Credit: Traditional Construction Services, 2018 310 Main Street South Case No. HPC 2018-31 Page 2 of 2  Materials: Modern sign materials are acceptable provided their design is handled with an understanding of the Victorian spirit.  Color: Choose tones with sufficient contrast to be clearly legible: dark on light or light on dark. ALTERNATIVES The HPC has alternatives related to this request. A. Approve. If the proposed application meets the Design Permit standards and the Downtown Design Review District guidelines, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2018-31. Staff recommends the following conditions for approval: a. Plans shall be consistent with what is on file with HPC Case No. 2018-31. b. The sign frame shall be installed to minimize damage to the brick. c. The sign shall hang a minimum of eight feet off of the public sidewalk area. d. The sign shall obtain a Sign Permit prior to the installation of the sign. e. All modifications shall be reviewed and approved prior to be implemented. Major modifications shall be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission; minor modifications shall be reviewed by staff. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the Design Permit standards, and the design review district guidelines, then the Commission may deny the request. With a denial, the basis of action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial with prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a similar application for one year. D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request may be tabled to the following meeting. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The sign frame aims to consolidate signage on this structure. This projecting sign uses simple, bold type style lettering in colors that keep with the Victorian tradition. The signs have sufficient contrast between the lettering and background. While painted wood is encouraged, painted aluminum signs have also been determined to be consistent with the Downtown Historic District. Staff recommends conditional approval of HPC Case No. 2018-31 for the Our Bridal Shop projecting sign. ATTACHMENTS Sign Design Exterior Elevation HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 19, 2018 CASE NO.: 2018-29 APPLICANT: Anne Loff, representing Midnight Real Estate Group REQUEST: Consideration of an amendment to Design Permit 2016-27 for the Crosby Hotel located at 251 2nd Street South in the Downtown Design Review District ZONING: Central Business District COMP PLAN DISTRICT: Downtown Mixed Use PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND In late 2016 the HPC conditionally approved a design permit for the Crosby hotel to be located on North Main Street. In 2017 the applicant requested the HPC’s consideration of an amendment that included the installation of four, Main Street facing balconies. The HPC partially denied the request, citing full depth balconies, extending fully in front of the wall face was not consistent with the character of the downtown core. The HPC conditioned their Case No. 2017-38 approval to include: “Main Street balconies shall not have a projecting walking surface and be designed with a balcony railing to match proposed railings elsewhere on the structure”. Although the applicant did not return an executed Design Permit, accepting the conditions of approval, installation of second and third floor railings are in conformance with the HPC’s approval condition. Earlier this year the HPC approved (Case No. 2018-12) a screening plan for all at-grade mechanical units, screening and a rooftop pool patio. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of certain modifications to the hotel’s previously approved design. The modified proposal includes:  Balconies, ranging between four and five feet deep, are proposed on the east elevation’s second and third stories; and HPC 2018-29 December 19, 2018 Page 2 of 5  A modified screening plan to allow for only landscaping as a screening plan around all mechanical units. The plan includes: o The installation of a wood privacy fence and screen around the external cooler, visible from Main Street on the south side of the property. o The replacement of a black aluminum, horizontal louvered screening around the 1,200 MBH ground mounted air intake, bordering the property located at 218 Main Street North, to be screened with 4’ ornamental grasses and, to be planted in the spring, four arborvitae trees. o The installation of ornamental grasses and shrubs around five, ground-mounted air conditioning units on the north, west, and south sides of the building. Arborvitae would be planted on the North façade. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES Municipal Code Section 31-209, Design permit states: • The Standards for Review , Sec. 31-509(f) indicates the HPC shall utilize the following standards: o Site Layout: The orientation and location of buildings and open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site, the character of the neighborhood and the appearance and harmony of the building with adjacent development. o Architectural character:  The suitability of the building for the intended purpose.  The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines.  The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development. o Outdoor advertising: The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures in relation to the creation of traffic hazards and the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. o Historical structures, vistas, sites and the impact of development on these resources. o Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. The property is subject to the guidelines set forth in the Commercial Historic District Design Manual, as identified in the Stillwater Downtown Plan. The following guidelines can help assist the HPC in determining compliance with the guidelines as well as design consistency, detailing and materials with the existing structure and the previously approved Design Permit. DETAILING, FAÇADE OPENINGS, AND MATERIALS  …architecture should reflect some of the detailing of surrounding buildings in window shape, cornice lines and brick work.  The size and proportion of windows and door openings…should be similar to those on the adjacent facades.  Recessed entries should be…required in new storefront construction. Four quasi-private balconies are proposed for guestrooms on the Main Street façade. The balconies extend from the front face of the building. While Main Street balconies exist on modern buildings to the north, they are not common in the downtown core. Furthermore, where balconies do exist, they are either recessed within the architecture of the building HPC 2018-29 December 19, 2018 Page 3 of 5  Painted wood doors and wood framing are preferred.  façade should be composed of materials similar to original adjacent facades.  New buildings should not stand out against the others but be compatible with the general area. or are Juliet balconies. In other words, Main Street The removal of awnings on the north and east side are minimal. However, the awnings on the Main Street elevation helped give more of a storefront appearance than the proposed balconies. UTILITY AND MECHANICAL AREAS  Screen exterior trash and storage areas, service yards, loading areas, transformers and air conditioning units from view of nearby streets and adjacent structures in a manner that is compatible with the building and site design. All roof equipment shall be screened from public view.  Use architectural elements to screen mechanical equipment  In attempting to create the most aesthetic pedestrian experience possible, it is important to conceal the visually intrusive material from view. The originally-approved metal panel was a design aimed to conceal theses mechanical components while also blending with the structure as all at-grade mechanical located directly adjacent to the building was proposed to be installed in front of metal façade. This was consistent with the guidelines for these type of improvements which further states “In attempting to create the most aesthetic pedestrian experience possible, it is important to conceal the visually intrusive material from view”. Without the metal screening for the air intake and air conditioning units, these improvements will be visible from the street and adjacent properties and will not conform to City Code Section 31-209(f)(3)I which states The location, height and material of walls, fences, hedges, trees and screen plantings to ensure harmony with adjacent development or to conceal areas, utility installations or other unsightly development”. As the Landscaping guidelines indicate to “Frame and edge existing and proposed building where feasible with appropriate types of plant material to achieve human scale”, utilizing both screening and landscaping (as originally proposed) is appropriate. Lastly, the installation of a wooden privacy fence and gate, facing Main Street, introduces a new material not currently found on the building or site. ALTERNATIVES The HPC has several alternatives related to these this request: HPC 2018-29 December 19, 2018 Page 4 of 5 A. Approve. If the HPC finds the attached request conforms to the standards of design review for the Downtown Design Review District, the purpose of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, the heritage preservation ordinance, then then Commission could move to approve 2018-29. Staff would recommend the following minimum conditions for approval: 1. All conditions of HPC Case No. 2016-27, 2017-28, 2017-33, and 2018-12 shall remain in effect. 2. The designs shall be consistent with those on file in the Community Development Department and dated November 15, 2018, except as modified herein. 3. The wood screening shall be installed as to eliminate view of the external cooler and mechanical equipment while not block exiting onto a public way. The wood screening shall be stained, sealed and maintained by the property owner. 4. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. 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. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the standards of design review for the Downtown Design Review District, the purpose of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan, and the heritage preservation ordinance, then the Commission could deny the request with or without prejudice. With a denial, the basis of the action is required to be given. The denial, with prejudice, would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a substantially similar application within one year. D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the requests could be tabled until January meeting and direct the applicant to modify the request for greater consistency with the Downtown Design Review guidelines. FINDINGS According to City Code Section 31-209(h), upon a finding by the design review committee that the application, subject to any conditions imposed, will meet the standards of design review, secure the purpose of the Zoning Code, the comprehensive plan and the heritage preservation ordinance, the design review committee may approve the design permit, subject to conditions as it deems necessary. If a finding is made that the permit would violate the standards of design review, it must deny the application. Staff finds:  the proportion of Main Street balconies, including their projection from the front of the building face and the total balcony depth, are not compatible with the character of the neighborhood and are not in harmony with the design of adjacent development; and  that landscaping, alone, does not conform to City Code Section 31-209(f)(3)I nor the Downtown Design Review District guidelines pertaining to utility and mechanical areas; and HPC 2018-29 December 19, 2018 Page 5 of 5  while the installation of a wooden gate, visible from Main Street, introduces a new material to the site, wood fences to access mechanical equipment areas are not uncommon in the downtown core. ATTACHED Narrative Request Balcony Floor Plan Existing Façade (without patio guardrails) Proposed Façade Rendering with Full-depth Balcony Landscape Site Plan Landscape Narrative with species type Photo: Pedestrian “Alley” on South Façade Photo: Air Conditioning Condensers (West Façade) with Dogwood Plantings Photo: Air Handling Unit (South Façade) with Grasses Photo: Air Conditioning Condensers (North Façade) with Arborvitae HPC Minutes: 12/20/2017 Metal Screening Design Photo: 5/6/2018 Screening Plan Rendering (North Façade) Photo: 5/6/2018 Screening Plan Rendering (North and West Façade) Photo: 5/6/2018 Screening Plan Rendering (West Façade) Photo: 5/6/2018 Screening Plan Rendering (South Façade) HPC Minutes: 5/6/2018 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING December 20, 2017 7:00 P.M. Chairman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Commissioners Goodman (left at 8:00 p.m.), Krakowski, Mino, Steinwall, Chairman Larson, Council Representative Junker Absent: Commissioners Hadrits and Welty Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of November 15, 2017 meeting minutes Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Goodman, to approve the minutes of the November 15, 2017 meeting. All in favor, 5-0. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2017-38: Amended Design Review Permit, amending the designs proposed in HPC/2017-28 for the property located at 232 Main Street North and 251 Second Street North in the CBD district. Midnight Real Estate, property owners. City Planner Wittman reviewed the request. In late 2016, the HPC conditionally approved a design permit for the Crosby hotel to be located on North Main Street. Since that time, the applicant has made design changes. Staff has determined the changes to be substantial, not in conformance with the originally- approved design permit, and requested the applicant file for an amendment. The applicant is requesting approval of the following modifications. 1) A portion of the third story façade is proposed to be broken up to accommodate a rooftop water feature; and 2) balconies are proposed on the east elevation’s second and third stories; and 3) awnings are removed from first, second and third story windows on the north and east elevations; and 4) the north elevation has changed, as a result of rearranging the interior rooms. No changes are proposed in color, signs, lighting, or landscaping. Staff recommends approval with five conditions. Mr. Hoefler explained that the balconies on the Main Street side are a result of those rooms now being used as guest rooms. Previously, those front rooms were used for meeting space and conference rooms and therefore had awnings. Architects feel the balconies create a more human scale on the front elevation rather Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting December 20, 2017 Page 2 of 4 than a really large three story building. The other big design difference is a water feature on the third floor rooftop deck area, resulting in a slightly different front design that still mimics what was originally submitted. He went on to state that the north elevation staircase is bumped out slightly, as required by building code. The stair tower is wrapped in the same metal paneling that was originally approved. Part of the reason why the stair bumpout is metal is because brick veneer would add another 6 inches encroaching into the property setback. Commissioner Goodman asked about the room on the top floor labeled as storage. Mr. Hoefler said that room is meant to be storage for the summertime pieces. It may or may not be for assembly use. Chairman Larson asked about the rooftop water element and whether there will be five feet clear all the way around as required for pools. Mr. Hoefler stated it will be only 3.5 feet deep and therefore as long as there is access on two sides, there’s an exception. It will require changing rooms and the two restrooms that are there but no shower will be required. Commissioner Krakowski remarked that the building doesn’t resemble other buildings in downtown Stillwater because of the use of metal. He would prefer all brick. Mr. Hoefler replied the intent is to use brick on any part of the building that protrudes out, and use metal for the rest of the body of the building with the exception of the staircase due to the issue of the property line. Chairman Larson said the originally approved building was clearly contemporary, but had a lot of brick. He feels that the metal has grown in proportion and instead of being brick-dominant, it almost seems metal- dominant. He would like to see brick in some of the other areas including the stair tower, and feels that the additional few inches of space required for brick can be found somewhere within the building plans. Mr. Hoefler replied he thinks it’s 10” away from the property line at the worst case, which is so close already that architects didn’t want to add another 6”. It could be done in a thin brick veneer. It would be difficult to do a full brick veneer since the foundation for the stair tower is in. City Planner Wittman noted a setback variance has already been granted. When staff recommended wrapping the tower, she was thinking of the thin brick veneer that is on the parking garage. Mr. Hoefler said he would be amenable to using the thin brick veneer on the north stairwell. Chairman Larson said another option, if using brick on the stairwell is too troublesome, would be to consider making some of the other areas on that façade brick instead of metal, which would help the building look more like it fits into downtown Stillwater. Commissioner Goodman stated that street balconies are not typical of any buildings in the area. It works well for New Orleans but seems quite unusual for Stillwater. Chairman Larson noted there are balconies on downtown condos but they are recessed. He agrees with staff that the projecting balconies don’t fit, especially on Main Street. Ms. Wittman stated that nearby Mills on Main has true balconies (not Juliet balconies) but they don’t protrude out. Other condos, like the Lofts, also have balconies but they are integrated into the architecture. Chairman Larson explained that Juliet balconies open up the doors and there is a guardrail flush with the building. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting December 20, 2017 Page 3 of 6 Mr. Hoefler pointed out that the balconies would protrude the same amount as the first floor awning. Decks were needed to help with the overall unit mix. A room without a deck/balcony would be much cheaper than a room with a deck. When they talk about putting $16 million into a project, every dollar for that room rental rate is very important. The balconies are a very important element to the ownership group. Chairman Larson explained the issue is about how the massing fits the street. If there were a way of providing fully recessed balconies or Juliet balconies, that would be acceptable. Council Representative Junker remarked that the revised design looks like a different building than originally approved. Mr. Hoefler wholeheartedly disagreed. The balconies are not meant to offend or discredit surroundings, or to go against the design standards, they are simple balconies added because those are now guest rooms. The third floor has always been stepped back so it’s not a huge difference. To the trained eye, the new design is not different. The building still has the same shape, number of rooms, rooftop deck features, and investment of $16 million into Stillwater. Overall the project will be a huge benefit to the community so in his opinion to knit-pick things like balconies is off-putting. Chairman Larson pointed out that staff made the judgement call that the revised design was different enough to require another review. The balconies have a significant effect on the outside of the building and set a precedent for Main Street. There are no issues with balconies elsewhere in the building, but just in the front. Commissioner Steinwall questioned if the Commission would need to review what the Juliet balcony would look like and how the railings would look. Chairman Larson suggested if Juliet balconies are used, the railings should be similar to others on the building. City Planner Wittman suggest the Commission could amend recommended Condition #3 that the Main Street balconies be designed as Juliet balconies not to exceed so many inches, with railings designed similarly to other railings on the building. Chairman Larson suggested stating the Condition by including that there should be no projecting walking surface, just the railing system. He feels the amount of metal used on the exterior is still a concern and that a brick covered stairwell would break up the metal surface. Motion by Commissioner Mino, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2017-38, Amended Design Review Permit, amending the designs proposed in HPC/2017-28 for the property located at 232 Main Street North and 251 Second Street North in the CBD district, with the five staff-recommended conditions, amending Condition #3 to read “Main Street balconies shall not have a projecting walking surface and shall be designed with a balcony railing to match proposed railings elsewhere on the structure.” All in favor, 5-0. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION City-initiated Small Wireless Facilities Zoning Text Amendment City Planner Wittman informed the Commission that in May 2017, the state’s Telecommunications Right- of-Way User Law was amended to streamline permitting systems for small cell infrastructure, which can be bulky and obtrusive. Use permits are not required. Ms. Wittman led discussion of the need to address a possible future Zoning Text Amendment, whose purpose would be twofold: 1) to provide for fair, Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 16, 2018 Page 3 of 3 Commissioner Steinwall asked if the rear basket is considered signage. Ms. Wittman replied that staff determined that to be exempt. It will not be considered offsite advertising. Motion by Commissioner Hadrits, seconded by Chairman Larson, to approve Case No. 2018-11, Design Permit for a self-serve bicycle kiosk to be located on an undeveloped portion of the parking lot associated with 101 Water Street South, the Water Street Inn, with the two conditions recommended by staff. Motion passed 5-0. Case No. 2018-12: Consideration of an amendment to Design Permit 2016-27 for the Crosby Hotel to be located at 232 Main Street South in the Downtown Design Review district. Anne Loff, property owner and Matt Hoefler, applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that design permit was granted in 2016, additional design modifications have necessitated new Design Permits. This request is a combination of certain design changes that staff has determined to be substantial and not in conformance with the originally-approved design permit, as well as improvements requested by the HPC to be brought back for review. The applicant is requesting approval of modifications to the hotel’s previously approved design as well as approval of all mechanical components. The modified proposal includes: North Elevation: • The addition of balconies on the second story that will serve as an overhang above a first story entrance. East Elevation: • Changing single doors to double doors on the 1’ depth balcony units. • Reconsideration of full-depth balconies proposed in 2017, and partially denied by the HPC, on the second and third stories. Ms. Wittman noted that last night, the City Council denied the applicant’s request to direct the HPC to reconsider the full-depth balconies. • Addition of a rooftop mechanical guardrail. South Elevation: • Second story balconies, above a kitchen expansion approved by the HPC in 2017. Mechanical and Plumbing: • The installation of five ground-mounted air conditioning units on the north, west and south sides of the building. • The installation of a 1,200 MBH ground mounted air intake to be situated directly to the west of the property located at 218 Main Street North. • Air conditioner units (exteriors to be black) on all façades. • A series of rooftop heating units, all situated back from the 24” parapet. • A total of 15 rooftop plumbing protrusions to be painted black. • Three stainless steel kitchen vents located on the southern elevation. The applicant’s submission indicates there is a request to review a roof deck. No specifications or details were included in the plans. Staff recommends approval with seven conditions, not including the balcony expansion. Chairman Larson asked if the screening proposed will have a cap. Mr. Hoefler said it will be six feet tall and will block the view of the all the AC condenser units. Chris Ziebol, property owner, said as a result of meeting with the Building Inspector regarding the mechanical designs, all but one of them were moved from the north to the west side of the building. Councilmember Junker asked if the screen will muffle the sound from the mechanicals. Mr. Hoefler said somewhat. Chairman Larson asked about the mechanical unit’s close proximity to the property line. Mr. Hoefler replied that it is within code as long as the intake is at least ten feet from the property line, which it is. Chairman Larson asked about the protruding steel pipes. Mr. Hoefler said the 24” stainless steel ducts will be flush with the top of the two foot parapet on the roof. There will be three rooftop units, two hood vent exhausts and 15 plumbing vents that will be painted black. Councilmember Junker asked about the view from Second Street. Mr. Hoefler reiterated that the two foot parapet will surround the vents. Ms. Wittman noted that industry standards are trending toward higher rooftop units due to snow load. Building codes also are becoming concerned with screens becoming junk collectors for debris. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 16, 2018 Page 4 of 4 Mr. Ziebol said a neighborhood meeting was held and neighbors seemed excited about the project. He explained the unique wood burning grill design that will be used for the restaurant. He said he is optimistic for a September 2018 opening. Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2018-12, amendment to Design Permit 2016-27 for the Crosby Hotel to be located at 232 Main Street South, with the seven conditions recommended by staff, modifying Condition #2 to state “those plans submitted for and viewed at the May 16, 2018 meeting” and modifying Condition #6 to indicate “an 80% louvered metal panel shall be utilized for screening.” Motion passed 5-0. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Heritage Preservation Awards Councilmember Junker commended staff and Chairman Larson on the well done presentation of the Heritage Preservation Awards at last night’s City Council meeting. STAFF UPDATES Comprehensive Plan Historic Resources Chapter Update Ms. Wittman provided a draft chapter for review and invited the Commission to a Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee meeting May 23. Other Projects Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that the retaining wall at the Historic Courthouse will be repaired. She also stated MnDOT is constructing the upper loop trail. On May 10, work was stopped because two small wall and foundation segments were found in the archaeological district. They were determined by the onsite archaeologist not to be historically significant. City staff has asked that any additional artifacts found be retained for City review. Also some carved stones were found on the Aiple property which are now in possession of the City. In addition, the Historic Courthouse is doing an architecture exhibit which will include some of the City’s resources. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Goodman, seconded by Chairman Larson, to adjourn. All in favor, 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary DATE: November 29, 2018 TO: Mayor and Council Members SUBJECT: Planning division work plan FROM: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION The planning division of the community development department will be involved in a wide spectrum of projects in the next several years. The public works department will take lead on some of the projects, and the planning division will take lead on others. The project list includes some that are approved and funded, some that are in the Capital Improvement Plan but not funded, some that are mandated by the state, some that have been requested by the City Council, some from the 2008 Comprehensive Plan, some that would require additional staff if implemented, some from approved park plans, some that have been identified by the Planning Division. To manage resources necessary to accomplish the list of projects, a draft four year work plan has been developed. The timeline for a few of the projects is set by the state, other entities, or funding sources. For these projects there is not much flexibility in the schedule. However, for most of the projects, timing is flexible. Therefore, it is expected that the attached draft work plan will be revised, likely several times, before it is used to assign work to the planning staff. COMMENTS Like the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, a number of the projects in this work plan are not yet funded. So, like the CIP, this work plan serves in part like a guide. While it would be great to complete each project in the year that it is listed, that probably will not happen. But, simply by being on the work list, the projects will not be forgotten. Project scopes have not been established yet, so the time resources shown in the draft plan are only estimates. As each project is considered for approval in an operating or capital budget in the next year, the scope will be defined and the actual cost in time will become clearer. Since the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is still in the process of being reviewed, its projects are not included in the work plan yet. Only the state mandated zoning code update is Planning Division work plan November 29, 2018 Page 2 included. And the Chestnut Street Plaza is included because $2 million in State funding is available for the project. A summary of the higher profile projects by year: 2019 – Sign ordinance amendment; adoption of 2040 Comp Plan; develop GreenStep Cities work plan; create new development ordinance(s) for the Minar Neighborhood; design the riverwalk and shoreline restoration south of Nelson Street; develop a master park plan for the Aiple property; construct park improvements for the former Palmer property (2019-20) 2020 – Design Chestnut Street Plaza; construct riverwalk and shoreline restoration; construct park improvements for former Aiple property; create remodeling plans for Bergstein buildings; consider creation of housing maintenance and rental property ordinances 2021 – Construct Chestnut Street Plaza; design improvements in Bridgeview Park; design pedestrian improvements for Commercial Street between 2nd Street and Main Street REQUESTED ACTION The goal at the December 4, 2018 work session is for the Council to discuss the draft work plan and give direction for revisions. bt Attachments: 2019-22 Work Plan Planning Department Work Plan 2019-2022 Project Resources Project Resources Project Resources Project Resources 1. Improve economic development web presence CDD's time (5-10 hrs)1. Chestnut Street plaza and Main St design (CDD L, w CP) CDD's time (40-60 hrs) + CP's time (30-40 hrs) + design consultant (50% MnDOT funding; $70K City unfunded) 1. Chestnut Plaza and Main Street improvements (CDD L, w CP) CDD's time (40-60 hrs) + CP's time (40-60 hrs) + PW's time + construction manager (in 2021 CIP; $2 million available from MnDOT) 1. Parking ramp construction on 2nd between Olive and Chestnut CDD's time (100-120 hrs) + construction manager (In 2022 CIP, but unfunded) 2. Escrow tracking system CDD's time (20-25 hrs)2. Update city code + zoning map for consistency w Comp Plan (2019-20) CDD's time (60-80 hrs)2. Design of parking ramp on 2nd between Olive and Chestnut CDD's time (60-80 hrs)+ design consultants (in 2022 CIP, but unfunded) 2. Commercial Street pedestrian improvements CDD's time (50-80 hrs) + PW's time + construction manager (In 2022 CIP, but unfunded) 3. Sign ordinance amendment CDD's time (35-45 hrs)3. Housing maintenance ordinance (CDD L, w ZA) CDD's time (20-25 hrs) + ZA's time (45-50 hrs)(additional staff for administration of ordinance not funded) 3. Bridgeview Park design CDD's time (30-50 hrs) + design consultants (in 2022 CIP, but unfunded) 3. Bridgeview Park improvements (with Public Works) CDD's time (30-50 hrs) + PW's time + construction manager ($4 million in 2022 CIP, but unfunded) 4. MnDOT license for use of Chestnut St CDD's time (10-15 hrs)4. Rental ordinance (CDD L, w ZA) CDD's time (20-25 hrs) + ZA's time (45-50 hrs)(additional staff for administration of ordinance not funded) 5. Formalize complaint procedures (ZA L) CDD's time (15-20 hrs) + ZA's time (30-40 hrs) + PD time 5. Riverwalk construction monitoring (2019-20, Public Works L) CDD's time (10-15 hrs) + PW time + construction manager (50% state bond; 50% TIF) 6. Update zoning code + zoning map for consistency w Comp Plan (2019-20) CDD's time (50-70 hrs) 7. Riverwalk design & construction asst (2019-20, Public Works L) CDD's time (10-20 hrs) + City engineer's time + construction manager (50% state bond; 50% TIF) 8. 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2017-19)CDD's time (20-40 hrs) + consultant time (funded) 9. Downtown parking capacity study (w ZA) CDD's time (10-15 hrs) + ZA's time (15-20 hrs) + consultant time (funding: parking enterprise fund) 10. Expand municipal lot 16, asst (Public Works L) CDD's time (10-15 hrs) + PW's time (2019 CIP, parking entpr fund) 11. GreenStep Cities Program: develop 2019-21 work plan (ZA L) CDD's time (10-20 hrs) + ZA's time (30-40) + Sustainable Stillwater 1. Update planning case database (more user friendly search options) CP's time (5-10 hrs) + programming consultant (unfunded) 1. Bergstein building design and remodeling (2020-21, CP L w ZA) CP's time (20-35 hrs) + ZA's time (10- 15 hrs) + construction manager (In 2020 CIP, but unfunded) 1. Bergstein building design and remodeling (2020-21, CP L w ZA) CP's time (40-60 hrs) + ZA's time (20- 30 hrs) + construction manager (In 2020 CIP, but unfunded) 1. Lowell Park/Sam Bloomer design CP's time (30-40 hrs) + consultant (unfunded) 2. Minar Neighborhood ordinance amendments (2018-19) CP's time (30-40 hrs)2. Chestnut St plaza & Main St design (CDD L) CDD's time (40-60 hrs) + CP's time (30-40 hrs) + design consultant (50% MnDOT funding; $70K City unfunded) 2. Chestnut Plaza and Main Street improvements (CDD L) CP's time (40-60 hrs) + CDD's time (40-60 hrs) + PW's time + construction manager (in 2021 CIP; $2 million available from MnDOT) 2. South Main Archaeological Preservation & Interpretation Plan CP's time (15-20 hrs) + consultant (unfunded) 3. Business plan for Bergstein bldgs.CP's time (30-40 hrs) + consultant ($15K budgeted) 3. Consolidate historic preservation design standards CP's time (40-50 hrs)3. Commercial street pedestrian improvements design CP's time (40-60 hrs) + design consultants (unfunded) 3. Teddy Bear Park Barn – Historic structure report CP's time (15-20 hrs) + consultant (unfunded) 4. Hwy 95 south entrance monument design CP's time (25-30 hrs) + design consultant (in CIP 2019, but unfunded) 4. Host 2020 State Historic Pres Conference CP's time (40-60 hrs)+ HPC time 4. Update Heirloom Homes website CP's time (30-40 hrs) + consultant (unfunded) 5. Update HPC enabling ordinance (2018-19) CP's time 5. Assess and repair Sunken Garden CP's time (20-30 hrs)+ design consultant + construction manager (unfunded) 5. Aiple property park development (w Public Works) (2020-21) CP's time (40-60 hrs) + PW's time + construction manager (with Public Works)(In 2020 CIP, but unfunded) 6. Hersey Bean wall stabilization CP's time (15-20 hrs) + consultant (unfunded) 6. Palmer Park improvements (Public Works L) CP's time (15-20 hrs) + PW's time + contractors ($75K in 2020 CIP) 7. Aiple property master park plan CP's time (40-60 hrs) + consultant time ($35K budgeted - CD prof services + park dedication funds?) 7. Aiple property park development (2020- 21) CP's time (30-60 hrs) + PW's time + construction manager (In 2020 CIP, but unfunded) 8. Lowell Park Pavilion - historic structure report CP's time (15-20 hrs) + consultant (unfunded) 8. Hwy 95 south entrance monument construction (CP L w ZA) CP's time (10-15 hrs) + ZA's time (10- 15 hrs) + construction management? (in CIP 2019, but unfunded) 9. Palmer Park improvements (Public Works L) CP's time (10-15 hrs) + contractors ($50K in 2019 CIP) 10. Stormwater ordinance amendment (2018-19) CP's time (20-30 hrs) 2022 Community Development Director 2019 City Planner 2020 2021 November 28, 2018 Planning Department Work Plan 2019-2022 1. Create tracking system for land use enforcement ZA's time (20-15 hrs)1. Bergstein building design and remodeling (2020-21, CP L) CP's time (20-35 hrs) + ZA's time (10- 15 hrs) + construction manager (In 2020 CIP, but unfunded) 1. Bergstein building design and remodeling (2020-21, CP L) CP's time (40-60 hrs) + ZA's time (20- 30 hrs) + construction manager (In 2020 CIP, but unfunded) 1. GreenStep Cities Program ZA's time + Sustainable Stillwater 2. Formalize complaint procedures (2018-19, ZA L w CDD) ZA's time (30-40 hrs) + CDD's time (15-20 hrs) + PD's time 2. GreenStep Cities Program ZA's time + Sustainable Stillwater 2. GreenStep Cities Program ZA's time + Sustainable Stillwater 3. Aiple property vegetation management plan ZA's time (15-20 hrs) + consultant (underfunded: $7.5K budgeted; $17.5K estimated need - BCWD possible funding source) 3. Housing maintenance ordinance (CDD L) CDD's time (20-25 hrs) + ZA's time (45-50 hrs)(additional staff for administration of ordinance not funded) 4. GreenStep Cities Program: Develop 2019-21 Work Plan (ZA L, w CDD) ZA's time (30-40 hrs) + CDD's time (10-20 hrs) + Sustainable Stillwater 4. Rental ordinance (CDD L)CDD's time (22-258 hrs) + ZA's time (45-50 hrs)(additional staff for administration of ordinance not funded) 5. Downtown parking capacity study (2018-19, CDD L) ZA's time (15-20 hrs) + CDD's time (10-15 hrs) + consultant time (funding: parking enterprise fund) 5. Hwy 95 south entrance monument construction (CP L) CP's time (10-15 hrs) + ZA's time (10- 15 hrs) + construction management? (in CIP 2019, but unfunded) 6. Private event tracker system (ZA L, w AA) ZA's time (5-10 hrs) + AA's time (5- 10 hrs) 7. Short Term Home Rental ordinance revisions (ZA L, w AA) ZA's time (10-15 hrs) + AA's time (5 hrs) 1. Private event tracker system (ZA L)ZA's time (5-10 hrs) + AA's time (5- 10 hrs) 1. Old file management AA's time 2. Laserfiche links to sign and misc permits AA's time (60-70 hrs)2. Digitize remainder of Architecture Inventory Records and Rivertown Restoration files AA's time (80-100 hrs) 3. Digitize CPC and HPC packets AA's time (40-50 hrs) 4. Old file management AA's time 5. Short Term Home Rental ordinance revisions (ZA L) ZA's time (10-15 hrs) + AA's time (5 hrs) Notes: 1. This work plan does not generally include work from the 2040 Comp Plan yet. Exceptions are the mandated update of City Code and zoning map within 9 monts of Comp Plan adoption, and the Chestnut Street plaza 2. Project scopes and time allotments are rough estimates. More detailed project scopes will be necessary. 3. CDD = Community Development Director; CP = City Planner; ZA = Zoning Administrator; AA = Administrative Assistant; L = leads the project team; PD = Police Department; PW = Public Works Zoning Administrator Administrative Assistant November 28, 2018 2019 SMTWTFS SMTWTFS 12345 12 6789101112 345 6789 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 SMTWTFS SMTWTFS 12 1 2 3456 345 6789 78910111213 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 SMTWTFS SMTWTFS 1234 1 567 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5678 12 13 14 15 16 1718 9 101112131415 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 SMTWTFS SMTWTFS 1 2 3456 123 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 78910 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 SMTWTFS SMTWTFS 1 234567 1 2345 891011121314 6789101112 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 27 28 29 30 31 SMTWTFS SMTWTFS 12 12 3 4567 34 5 6789 89 10 11 12 13 14 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24* 25 26 27 28 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31* Charter Commission Human Rights Commission Meeting (7 pm) City Council Meeting Night to Unite (Workshop 1st Tues. 4:30 pm; 3rd Tues. 7 pm ) Park Commission Meeting (7 pm) Downtown Parking Comm. Mtg (8:30 am) PC and HPC Submittal Deadline (4:30 pm) Heritage Preservation Comm. Mtg (7 pm) Planning Commission Meeting (7 pm) Holiday - Office Closed Traffic Safety Review Committee (5:30 pm) * 1/2 day holidays (closed at noon) MLK Holiday & HRC at Breakfast SEPTEMBER OCTOBER JULY AUGUST NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE CPC (Chambers) & HRC (Riverview) DTPC (Riverview) & CPC (Chambers)