Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-19 HPC Packet AGENDA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North June 19th, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of May 15th, 2019 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. 2019-15: Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage for the property located at 405 Main St N in the CBD district. Monty Brine, property owner. VI. NEW BUSINESS 3. Case No. 2019-12: Consideration of a Design Permit for an exterior remodel. Property located at 1435 Curve Crest BLVD in the BP-I district. Packard Properties, LLC, property owner and Stiglich Construction, Inc., applicant. 4. Case No. 2019-13: Consideration of a Design Permit amendment for the property located at 232 Main St S in the Downtown Review District. Yaniv Abotbul of Happy Bridge, property owner. 5. Case No. 2019-14: Consideration of a Design Permit for a home remodel for the property located in the Neighborhood Conservation District. ELIN Marco Group, property owner and Patrick Schmeichel, applicant. 6. Case No. 2019-16: Consideration of a Design Permit for new windows and solar panels on south roof. Property located at 107 Chestnut St E in the Downtown Review District. Matt Wolf, property owner. VII. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. 2019-2020 Grant Updates a. HPC Ordinance Amendment b. Statewide Historic Preservation Conference VIII. FYI – NO PACKET MATERIALS 2. 116 Harriet Street North 3. 615 Broadway Street South 4. Bergstein Warehouse and Shoddy Mill IX. ADJOURNMENT HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING May 15, 2019 7:00 P.M. Chairman Larson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Larson, Commissioners Finwall, Krakowski, Mino, Steinwall, Walls, Council Representative Junker Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman Commissioners Shann Finwall and Ken Walls introduced themselves. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion by Chairman Larson, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to elect Commissioner Mino as Chair. All in favor, 6-0. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Chair Mino, to elect Commissioner Steinwall as Vice Chair. All in favor, 6-0. Commissioner Steinwall thanked Commissioner Larson for his service as chair. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of April 3, 2019 and April 17, 2019 Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve the minutes of the April 3, 2019 and the April 17, 2019 meeting. All in favor, 4-0-2 with Commissioners Finwall and Walls abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2019-08: Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for new business signage for the property located at 229 Main Street South in the Downtown Design Review District. Jeff Anderson, property owner and Kelli Kaufer, applicant. Motion by Commissioner Krakowski, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor, 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 2019-09: Consideration of a Demolition Permit for the garage located at 116 Harriet Street North in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Daniel and Allison Boblit, property owners and Jim Barton, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained the case. The applicant is requesting a demolition permit for the garage located at 116 Harriet Street North in order to build a three-car garage. Due to the location, the future garage will require a variance from the Planning Commission. The approximately 900 square foot garage appears to be in the same configuration as the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. Although the interior lumber is dimensional, several boards are stamped with “Gould LBR CO. Seattle, Wash.” There is a sag in the loft floor, a sistered cross beam, and the support poles are starting to rot. The exterior paint, determined to be lead, is peeling. On a March 18 site inspection by Building Official Cindy Shilts and Ms. Wittman, the Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 Page 2 of 3 structure was determined to be in fair to good condition. The existing structure could be repaired. Based on the review of the property and associated records, staff made a determination that the property could potentially be locally designated because of one of the following: a) The character, interest or value as part of the development heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, state or county. b) The location as a site of a significant historic event. c) The identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the city's culture and development. d) The embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period, form or treatment. e) The identification as work of an architect or master builder whose individual work influenced the city's development. f) The embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation. g) The unique location or singular physical characteristic representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the city. Thus, as required by the demolition ordinance, the application is before the HPC for review and consideration. The Commission must first determine if the structure is a historic resource and, if so, if it is worthy of designation. Allison Boblit, applicant, pointed out the work they have done on the house since 2014 shows their dedication to maintaining the historic look of the home. The garage is presently more of an eyesore than an architectural feature. They would like to build a more beautiful and functional garage. Dan Boblit, applicant, added that they want to add a third stall to get their car off the street. Chair Mino opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Finwall asked the applicants if they considered adding onto the existing garage. Mr. Boblit replied there are many things that would need to be replaced from siding to trusses sagging to garage doors and a cracked floor. Mrs. Boblit added it would cost as much or more to repair everything. They would like to get a third stall. Commissioner Larson explained that in the Conservation District a property owner may add onto or alter a structure without coming to the HPC, but demolitions do come to the HPC and restrictions are tight. Whether a structure has spectacular architecture does not matter, only whether it has historic significance. It may be preferable to have a new structure, but it seems that it is feasible to repair it. Chair Mino asked, what was the structure originally? City Planner Wittman replied it is assumed, but not known for sure, that it was Mr. Swain’s workshop. The garage doors have been altered slightly. At one time there was supposedly a pulley lift system in the floor that would lift things into the attic but it is unclear whether that was part of this structure. Commissioner Larson questioned, if it was built at the peak of the local lumber industry, why was the lumber was imported from Seattle? This makes him question whether this was the original building. Commissioner Finwall acknowledged that its historic significance could be its construction by a person contributing to the history of Stillwater. An addition appears to be feasible. Mrs. Boblit replied she doesn’t think they could do an addition and stay under the square footage restriction. City Planner Wittman explained the existing garage is 916 square feet and the proposed new garage would be 994 square feet. A challenge is how to add a third stall and still maintain the integrity of structure. The depth of the structure is almost 30 feet and a stall is about 10 feet wide, so they could not add another stall and still be under the maximum square footage according to zoning code. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to deny a demolition permit for the garage located at 116 Harriet Street North, Case No. 2019-09, and to forward to the City Council a determination that the the structure is a historic resource and there is a feasible alternative to demolition. All in favor, 6-0. Case No. 2019-11: Consideration of a new infill residence for the property located on XXX William Street North in the RB district. Mulcahy Holdings, property owner and Paul Bruggeman, applicant. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 Page 3 of 3 City Planner Wittman stated that the applicant is requesting a permit to construct a two and a half story, one- family residence at XXX William Street North, a lot in the Neighborhood Conservation District. The proposed house will measure approximately 22’ wide by 48’ deep and will contain a 6’ deep front porch and an attached 24X32’ garage. A 12/6 gable will run parallel with the front lot line. It will contain a 10/12 pitch projection that will not rise to the primary gable. The front gable area will contain a 6’ porch with a 4/12 pitch roof. LP lap siding, to extend to the grade level, and aluminum soffit and fascia is proposed on all four sides; LP board and batten will be located on the front of the home, above the porch and on the garage, to add visual interest. Double hung windows are proposed for the front and sides of the home; the rear will have slightly wider windows. All windows and trim boards will be 1X4” LP Smart Siding. Asphalt shingles are proposed. Staff recommends approval with ten conditions. Paul Bruggeman offered to answer questions. Chair Mino opened the public hearing. Jean Heinrichs (no address given), who lives south of the vacant lot, expressed concerns about disruption that will be caused by construction and the amount of rotten and dead wood at the back of the lot drawing carpenter ants. Chair Mino closed the public hearing. Mr. Bruggeman stated the trees at the back of the lot are not desirable trees and they will be removed. Commissioner Finwall suggested adding a condition requiring removal of the dead trees along the lot line. Commissioner Larson suggested that the contractor ensure that the swale directs runoff as shown toward the street as opposed to the property to the south which sometimes is a concern with new construction. Commissioner Finwall said she likes the look of the structure, but the three car garage wider than the house is off-putting. She asked if the applicant considered stepping it back. Mr. Bruggeman replied he could step the garage back. Another idea is to jog the driveway back or put a window in the garage roof to break up the massing. Commissioner Larson remarked a window dormer centered over the double garage door would help. Commissioner Steinwall asked if the applicant considered side-loading the garage. Mr. Bruggeman responded side-loading the garage was considered but it would be too tight. Commissioner Larson stated the pattern of vertical versus horizontal does not follow all the way around the structure. He suggested the use of vertical board and batten on the garage to achieve four-sided design. Mr. Bruggeman said he could run the board and batten around the other two sides of the garage. Commissioner Finwall suggested adding a condition that the color of the house be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to approve Case No. 2019-11, a new infill residence for the property located on XXX Williams Street North, with the ten conditions recommended by staff, adding Condition #11 stating “The vertical board and batten shall be extended around all three sides of the garage” and Condition #12, “The vertical board and batten shall be added to the north and south façade gable above the window line” and Condition #13, “A proportional shed dormer shall be added onto the garage” and Condition #14, “The color of the home shall follow the spirit and intent of the Neighborhood Conservation District Design Guidelines.” All in favor, 6-0. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2019-06: Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for a master sign plan and exterior modifications for the property located at 123 2nd Street North in the Downtown Design Review district. Judd Sather, property owner and Sara Jespersen, applicant. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 Page 4 of 3 Ms. Wittman stated the applicant is requesting approval of façade improvements and signage at 123 Second Street North, a contributing building in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. The request includes: removal of the existing wooden bi-fold doors and replacement with a painted black wood and glass entry door system with gold accents; removal of the arches iron over the entrance and installation of it below the existing awning; installation of iron grates on the first floor windows on the north façade; installation of a 30’ diameter wooden sign above the new storefront entry. The sign will read “The Lumberjack Axe Throwing Bar” in burnt circle with corresponding sign plan; installation of a gas fireplace on the interior of the building, requiring an exterior vent on the east side facade; and installation of new mechanical equipment on the south side of the building in the existing patio area, screened to the west with a 10’ rockface wall and an 8’ chainlink fence. Staff finds the most of the proposed alterations are consistent with the guidelines and recommends approval of the wooden storefront, signage, decorative arched ironwork, awning repairs and painting, as well as all mechanical installations, with seven conditions. However, staff recommends denial of the installation of iron grates on a portion of the building’s windows. Councilmember Junker asked what is the purpose of the iron grates on the lower level. Reagan Nix, Blue Pencil Collective, replied the purpose is building security and protection of the windows. Commissioner Larson asked about the mechanical area, what is there now and what will be new. Judd Sather, applicant, replied the transformer is existing. The the generator will be removed from the interior of the building to the outside, in an enclosure. Councilmember Junker remarked that the alley looks bad. Restaurants on the east side of the alley need to cooperate as Mr. Sather does. There are plans to repave the alley but the City needs cooperation from business owners. Mr. Sather said he is looking at solutions to make the alley a little more walkable. Commissioner Finwall asked if there is an alternative to the grates on the windows for security. Mr. Sather said he is open to suggestions. The windows don’t currently have storm windows and it would be easy to break into the building. Commissioner Larson said adding storm windows would be one alternative. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve Case No. 2019-06, site Alteration Permit for a master sign plan and exterior modifications for the property located at 123 2nd Street North, with the seven conditions recommended by staff. All in favor, 6-0. Case No. 2019-07: Consideration of a Site Alteration Permit for new siding and railings for the property located at 126 Main Street North in the Downtown Design Review District. Murray and Heidi McAllister, property owners. Ms. Wittman stated the applicants are requesting approval of façade improvements at 126 Main Street North, a contributing building in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. The request includes: replace all north elevation doors with a two-paneled solid door painted dark bronze; back addition modifications to include repair and painting of stucco or replacement with bronze board and batten steel; construction of a new rooftop access, sided in bronze colored board and batten steel with French doors; installation of a black metal and steel cable roof railing system; and installation of glass block on a rear window. Staff finds the proposed alterations are consistent with the guidelines and recommends approval with three conditions. Heidi McAllister, applicant, stated there used to be three apartments in the building, now there will be two. Access doors on the north side have original transom windows in the arches which will be retained but the combination screen/storm doors that are all different will be replaced with a consistent style door. She requested feedback on how to improve the overall look of the building. The stucco is in relatively good shape but the paint is inconsistent in places. They may paint it a color more in keeping with the brick. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 Page 5 of 3 Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to approve Case No. 2019-07, Site Alteration Permit for new siding and railings for the property located at 126 Main Street North, with the three conditions recommended by staff. All in favor, 6-0. Case No. 2019-10: Consideration of a Design Permit for store front remodel for the property located at 225 2nd Street North in the Downtown Design Review District. Ann Engstrum, property owner. Ms. Wittman stated the applicant is requesting approval of the storefront alteration of the structure located at 225 2nd Street North. The request includes: siding below each window with LP Smartside in mahogany lap; siding the columns on each side of the door, as well as above all windows and doors, with vertical LP Smartside in onyx; siding the corners with Versetta stone with the Mission Point color; restaining the building canopy and door to match the mahogany lap; replacement of flush-mounted under-canopy lights; and updating the existing signage. Staff recommends approval with two conditions. Ann Engstrum, applicant, said the new signage will be in the same location and the same size but a different look. This is a one-sided facelift because the building is surrounded by the Crosby hotel, parking ramp, and another building. They are doing the facelift because they have lost a lot of tenants and need curb appeal. She provided samples of the materials to be used. Councilmember Junker agreed the building needs a facelift. However the proposal looks very different from the other brick buildings. The wood siding gives it the feel of a rambler home. Ms. Engstrum said they are avoiding brick because they don’t want the building to look like it is part of the Crosby Hotel complex. Commissioner Larson remarked he appreciates the need to update the look of the building. The Design Guidelines point in the direction of relating to the context of other buildings, not doing something completely different. He finds this a struggle because this is a contemporary building. Everything else on the street is brick and stone except for the Rivertown Commons building. The wood siding feels out of place. Ms. Engstrum asked if the HPC would prefer board and batten like the building on Third Street which is the building she modeled this after. Commissioner Larson replied that the nichiha siding on the building on Third Street is not lapped and looks less residential. He suggested using a thin brick that adheres right to the wall with some stone accents. Commissioner Steinwall disagreed that the guidelines push a modern building to look old. She doesn’t feel the HPC is compelled to suggest this building be resided in thin brick. The guidelines advise that buildings should be recognized as products of their own time. Commissioner Larson agreed it should not be made to look old but brick is compatible with existing buildings. There are other materials that could make it compatible. Ms. Engstrum said she is opposed to all brick. She really wants a modern look to match the building style. Chair Mino recognized there is already a lot of brick on the street and this is a modern building. She likes the way it looks as proposed. Commissioner Finwall said she appreciates the applicant trying to dress it up, but a lot more could be done to celebrate the modern feel of the building, for instance making the door and windows more appealing. She suggested looking at metal siding. Ms. Engstrum replied she considered metal siding for where the vertical siding was going to go, but there was a problem with sizing because it was going to go above the windows. Commissioner Larson said vertical black under the windows would be better. He is concerned with how the materials turn corners. The edge should be finished at the corner rather than a sawed raw edge. He suggested using board and batten in a dark color, with the stone on the corners as proposed. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting May 15, 2019 Page 6 of 3 Ms. Engstrum said she would be open to that. They originally wanted to use board and batten. The wood front fascia board needs to be repainted. The window trim on the north side would be painted onyx. The rest of the building needs to be repainted but they have not decided on a color. Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2019-10, Design Permit for store front remodel for the property located at 225 2nd Street North, adding Condition #3, “All vertical mahogany LP siding shall be replaced with LP board and batten style siding in onyx” and Condition #4, “Fine design elements of the stone siding and siding trim shall be reviewed by staff” and Condition #5, “The sign plan shall be reviewed by staff.” All in favor, 6-0. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS HPC Ordinances and Design Guidelines In response to a previous question from Commissioner Larson, City Planner Wittman said if there is not a condition of approval specifically tied to an item, for instance color, then it is not enforceable. There was a question about lighting downtown. City Attorney Land said there are no specific lighting ordinances, only guidelines. A business had an awning that was approved by the Commission but the awning did not include lighting so Ms. Wittman advised the property owner they would have to either amend their permit or remove the lighting. The City has standards and guidelines. Guidelines “should” and standards “shall” be followed. FYI Annual Training Program Ms. Wittman requested the Commissioners attend a new training program for all Boards and Commissions members on Thursday, June 6, 2019, 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers presented by City Attorney Land. Washington County Historical Society Commission Representative Ms. Wittman stated the Washington County Historical Society (WCHS) named Matt Thueson as the WCHS representative to the HPC. He will join the Commission after he is appointed by the City Council. National Preservation Month Ms. Wittman reminded the Commission that Tuesday May 21, the Preservation Awards will be given at the City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski to adjourn. All in favor, 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: HPC 2019-15 REPORT DATE: June 6, 2019 MEETING DATE: June 19, 2019 APPLICANT: Paulette Wentzlaff representing Magnolias LANDOWNER: Monty Brine representing ABS Co. REQUEST: a) a 27 square foot, wall-mounted, wood framed, metal sign to read Magnolias; and b) a 5 square foot, hanging, metal sign to read Magnolias with four lines of the products and services offered LOCATION: 402 Main Street North DESIGNATION: Individual Listing on the National Register of Historic Places DISTRICT: Downtown Design Review District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Paulette Wentlaff has submitted a Design Permit application for the site alteration of the Staples Mill. The site alteration includes the installation of two signs for the business Magnolias. SPECIFIC REQUEST a) A 27 square foot, wood framed, metal storefront sign to read Magnolias; and b) A 5 square foot, metal, free-standing hanging sign to read Magnolias with four lines of the products and services offered August, 2018 (Google Images) HPC Case no. 2019-15 Page 2 ANALYSIS City Code Regulations (Standards) and Guidelines City Code Sections 22-7 and 31-325(f) require the HPC make the findings that alterations or additions to an existing building must not materially impair the architectural or historic value of the building. These findings should consider the existing structures and exterior appearances, building height, building width, depth or other dimensions, roof style, type of building materials, ornamentation and paving setback. City Code Section 22-7, Subd. 6(3) indicates the following applicable guidelines shall be used to evaluate applications:  Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure or site and its environment or to use a property for its originally intended purposes.  Contemporary design for alterations and additions shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.  Whenever possible new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in a manner that if the additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Furthermore, City Code Section 31-209 indicates the HPC must take into consideration special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the City Council. The Downtown Design Review District guidelines indicates the following applicable guidelines:  Multiple-tenant buildings should submit a sign package. Do not put up signs in piecemeal. The maximum sign area is regulated by the sign ordinance  Tenants and owners should use a common lettering style and coloring scheme.  Only one sign that contains the business name or graphic logo is permitted per street facing side  The storefront sign should be used to display the primary name of the business only  Use painted wood where practicable. Proposed Improvements The property owner has divided the 120 square feet up between seven lower level tenants. Each tenant is permitted to have 17 square feet. The application indicates the storefront (wall- mounted) sign will be 27 square feet. The property owner has additionally allowed for a single, free-standing hanging sign for this business in lieu of a sidewalk sign as it can be seen by pedestrians and motorists from a distance down the street. While the storefront sign is proposed to be vinyl on aluminum, materials that are not consistent with the Downtown Design Review District guidelines, the HPC has determined these materials are appropriate for this structure. Furthermore, the HPC has determined the signage on this property does not need to follow a common lettering style and coloring scheme. HPC Case no. 2019-15 Page 3 The storefront sign will contain the business name only. However, the free-standing hanging sign will contain additional information. The guidelines do not prohibit secondary information on hanging signs. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested Design Permit with the following conditions: 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department and on file with HPC Case No. 2019-15. 2.The storefront sign shall be limited to 17 square feet in size. 3.Both signs shall obtain sign permits prior to installation. 4.Disturbance to the exterior wall face shall be done in a fashion as to prevent excess damage and water intrusion. All holes shall be filled and sealed. 5.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. Deny the requested Design Permit. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION While the materials of the storefront and hanging sign does not conform to the design guidelines set forth in the Downtown Design manual, they do not materially impair the architectural or historic value of the building. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the conditions identified in Alternative A. Attachments: Building Photograph Storefront Sign Location & Specification (2) Hanging Sign Location & Specification (2) cc: Paulette Wentzlaff Monty Brine PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: HPC 2019-12 REPORT DATE: June 7, 2019 MEETING DATE: June 19, 2019 APPLICANT: Robert Stiglich of Stiglich Construction, Inc. LANDOWNER: Packard Properties LLC REQUEST: A 5,812 square foot addition faced in EIFS to match the existing painted rock face block building LOCATION: 1435 Curve Crest Blvd DESIGNATION: N/A DISTRICT: West Stillwater Business Park REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION In 1989 the City of Stillwater issued a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) to Robert Stiglich, of Stiglich Construction, for limited warehousing and offices to be located at 1435 Curve Crest Blvd. The CoC approved painted rock face concrete block with a brick solider course accent band. Although this approval superseded the development of the City’s West Stillwater Business Park Plan (District), adopted in December, 1989, the design of the structure conforms to that District’s design guidelines. Front View - August, 2018 (Google Images) Rear Yard View - August, 2017 (Google Images) HPC Case no. 2019-12 Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST A Design Permit for a 5,812 square foot addition faced in EIFS to match the existing painted rock face block building. No rooftop units are proposed nor is any additional landscaping. ANALYSIS City Code Regulations (Standards) and Guidelines City Code Section 31-209 indicates the HPC must take into consideration the applicable standards:  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 buildings with adjacent development.  Architectural character: o The suitability of the building for the intended purpose. o The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines. o The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development.  Drainage: o The effect of the site development plans on the adequacy of the storm and surface water drainage to both the site and adjacent property. o Connection with the existing drainage system.  Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. The West Stillwater Business Park guidelines indicates the following applicable guidelines:  Architectural Standards: o Unadorned pre-stressed concrete panels, standard concrete block or metal siding shall not be use as exterior materials for new buildings. Architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels may be acceptable. o All roof or ground mounted mechanical equipment and exterior trash storage areas shall be completely enclosed with building material compatible with the principle structure. Low profile self-contained mechanical units which blend in with the building design located to the side of rear of the building may be permitted. o Architectural consistency on all sides of the building is required in terms of colors, material and details.  Site Plan: o Overall lighting shall be directed down and shielded from adjacent properties or roadways. All lights shall be contained on the property. Proposed Improvements EIFS is a material found to conform to the District’s guidelines. However, the existing structure is not proposed to be faced with EIFS. Therefore, the structure’s design, if approved, will not have consistency on all four sides. Conformance to the guidelines would require the addition to be painted rock face block or for EIFS to also be installed on the existing portion of the structure. Three new garage doors, proposed to match existing, will also be installed on the eastern façade. HPC Case no. 2019-12 Page 3 While the site can accommodate a 5,812 square foot addition, the site will be slightly overdeveloped for the zoning district; thus, the applicants have applied for a lot coverage variance with the Planning Commission. To address potential effects of the increased coverage, the applicant is proposing the installation of an infiltration basin; this is being reviewed and permitted by Browns Creek Watershed District (BWCD). Provided the applicant can conform to BWCD’s standards, drainage will not negatively impact adjacent properties. No rooftop units are proposed nor is any additional asphalt or landscaping. However, the applicant is proposing two different types of lighting fixtures: wall mounted and parking lot. The proposed wall mounted lighting will be directed downward and will be shielded. The parking lot fixtures are proposed to be changed to LED. One concern is that the light fixture’s edges are not shielded. Therefore, light spill will occur around all sides of the pole bases. The fixture appears to come in three different types, with two types of the types allowing for specific forward or asymmetric lighting direction. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested Design Permit with the following conditions: 1. The exterior of the addition shall match the same level of detail and color as the existing structure. 2. Trash shall be stored inside or, if proposed to be located on the exterior of the building, exterior trash storage area shall be completely enclosed with building material compatible with the principle structure. 3. Overhead parking lot light fixtures shall located near the property lines shall be asymmetrical or forward-throw design. 4. Overall lighting shall be directed down and shielded from adjacent properties and roadways. All lights shall be contained on the property. 5. 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. Deny the requested Design Permit. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION While, with certain conditions, the proposed addition meets the City’s site layout, lighting and drainage standards, the application design is inconsistent with the approved design guidelines as two different exterior materials are proposed. While the HPC may deny the application, this would not be supportive of the business’s expansion efforts. The HPC should discuss with the applicant alternative design options, including painted rock face construction or the installation HPC Case no. 2019-12 Page 4 of EIFS on the primary portion of the building. Based on this discussion, the HPC should further add a condition of approval specifically pertaining to the materials of the structure. Attachments: Site Photographs Existing Conditions Plan Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan Details (2 pages) Building Addition Plans and Elevations (2) EIFS Color Sample cc: Robert Sitglich Adam Johnson PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: HPC 2019-13 REPORT DATE: June 7, 2019 MEETING DATE: June 19, 2019 APPLICANT: Yanni Abutbul LANDOWNER: Happy Bridge LLC REQUEST: Installation of four (4), eight-foot (8’), 6000K LED lights installed under the existing awning LOCATION: 232 Main Street South DESIGNATION: Non-Contributing DISTRICT: Stillwater Commercial Historic District Downtown Design Review District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION In 2018 the HPC approved Design Permit 2018-5, conditionally approving an awning sign for The Shirt Factory. A condition of approval was that the “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”. Yanni Abutbol has submitted a Design Permit application for the installation of four, eight-foot 6000K LED lights to be installed under the existing awning. The awnings have been installed. Staff has determined this to be a major modification to the originally-issued Design Permit 2018-5. August, 2018 (Google Images) HPC Case no. 2019-15 Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST Installation of four (4), eight-foot (8’) 6000K LED lights installed under the existing awning. ANALYSIS City Code Regulations, Standards, and Guidelines City Code Section 31-209 indicates the HPC must take into consideration:  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.  Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the City Council. The Downtown Design Review District guidelines indicates the following applicable guidelines:  Lighting (General): o A coordinated lighting plan should be submitted for review with building plans. o Lighting fixtures should be concealed or integrated into the overall design of the project. The light sour should be hidden from direct pedestrian or motorist view. o Unshielded wall pack light fixtures are not appropriate.  Awnings: o Back lighting of the awnings is inappropriate.  Signs and Graphics: o Use incandescent indirect lighting and place spotlights discreetly, in such a way as to shield the source from pedestrians and vehicular traffic. Proposed Improvement The installed lighting, though tucked under the awning, is not completely hidden from direct pedestrian or motorist view. The unshielded nature of the LED lights does not create a backlit situation. However, the clear bulb and its location in the awning does glare and could be considered a hazard to pedestrians and motorists. When these under-awning lights are coupled with the storefront window LEDs, there is significant glow, spilling out into the public way, from The Shirt Factory. Though not codified nor adopted in HPC guidelines, the HPC has determined downtown LED lighting in excess of 3500K is too cool. The cooler LED temperatures cast a stark white or blue glow, inconsistent with historic lighting. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Planning Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested Design Permit with the following conditions: 1. All four lighting fixtures and bulbs shall not be visible from adjacent properties. HPC Case no. 2019-15 Page 3 2. All four bulbs shall be no greater than 3500K each. 3. All four bulbs shall have a frosted or soft white cover. 4. It is recommended interior lighting temperature be reduced to 3500K each. 5. At no time shall the lights blink or rotate. 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. B. Deny the requested Design Permit. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The existing, 6000K LED lights are a hazard to pedestrians and motorists and their appearance is not in harmony with adjacent development. Therefore, the application does not conform to the Downtown Design Review District guidelines nor the standards set forth in City Code. However, if the property owner was willing to reduce the bulb temperature to 3500K and place the light fixtures higher up into the awning, then the lighting may conform to the Downtown Design Review District guidelines and the standards set forth in City Code. Staff recommends the Commission take action on the request. Attachments: Under-awning Photographs (2) Lighting Specifications (2) cc: Yanniv Abutbol PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: HPC 2019-14 REPORT DATE: June 11, 2019 MEETING DATE: June 19, 2019 APPLICANT: Patrick Schmeichel LANDOWNER: Elin Marco Group REQUEST: Front porch addition, side alteration, and façade improvements to the residence and the installation of a garage LOCATION: 515 3rd Street South DESIGNATION: Non-Contributing DISTRICT: Downtown Design Review District Stillwater (Neighborhood) Conservation District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Recently purchased by the Elin Marco Group, the property at 515 3rd has historically been utilized as a three-unit property; it is the property owner’s intention to rehabilitate the property into a single family dwelling prior to selling the home. While the exact construction year is not known, the structure does appear on the 1884 Sanborn map. Sanborn maps from that time through 1924, attached for the commissions review, show the evolution of physical improvements on the site. As noted in the attached, the existing structure once contained a full—width front porch. As noted in the 1996 City of Stillwater Architectural-History Inventory Form, the house was a Queen Anne with open August, 2013 (Google Images) HPC Case no. 2019-14 Page 2 porches on the front, which “have been removed or have become a part of the house itself…the house has window changes and little historical physical integrity”. SPECIFIC REQUEST Front porch addition, side alteration, and façade improvements for the residence and a garage to be located at 515 3rd Street South. ANALYSIS City Code Regulations, Standards, and Guidelines City Code Section 31-209 indicates the HPC must take into consideration the following applicable standards:  Site layout: The orientation and location and open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site, the character of the neighborhood and the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent development.  Architectural character: o The suitability of the building for the intended purpose. o The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines. o The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development.  Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. While the property is located in the Downtown Design Review District, that district’s guidelines focus on commercial development and improvements. However, the Stillwater (Neighborhood) Conservation District (NCD) guidelines are specifically designed for new construction on residential structures. Therefore, the following NCD guidelines are applicable to this request:  Respect the existing rhythm of the streetscape.  Follow alignment and setbacks predominant on the street and adjacent properties.  Locate garage and driveway to respect existing street and neighborhood patterns.  Design and detail new construction as four-sided architecture. The façade of the new structure should be compatible in scale and character to the houses of the streetscape.  Building elements should be proportional to the scale and style of the building, and its context.  Use architectural details to create visual interest and support architectural style. Proposed Improvements The applicant is proposing to install a full-width, 6’ deep, covered front porch to the structure. The width and depth of the proposed porch is consistent with a porch depicted on this structure on the 1904 Sanborn map. The porch roof is proposed to be supported with four, 10’ square columns with a thicker, square base (to 36”) and post cap. The front of the structure will include changing all three existing windows; the new windows will be appropriately-sized, double-hung and contain three-panes on the upper sash. A fourth window, on the second story, will be installed to balance out the openings on the second floor. HPC Case no. 2019-14 Page 3 The side addition will include enclosing an existing side porch. The enclosure will be two- stories and contain the only stairwell in the home. The exterior will be sided with 4” vertical lap wood siding to match the existing. A single window will be installed on the west façade; this window will look identical to the front façade windows. The existing roof gable would be extended out over this bump out area. The rear of the home will also be altered. The southern wall will be extended to match the existing, adjacent southern wall line. A second story addition would be added and an entirely new north-south running gable roof would be added to this portion of the home. The primary reason for the roofline alteration is to remedy water intrusion occurring from the addition. The addition will also be clad in 4” vertical lap, wood siding. An existing back porch will be repaired with cedar decking and aluminum stair spindles. A 400 square foot garage, sided in 4” wood siding, will be added to the rear of the property. The garage is proposed to have the same level of detail as the residence. It is the owner’s intention to replace all windows of the home with the historically appropriate double hung style in a three over one style. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested Design Permit with the following conditions: 1. With the exception of the conditions outlined herein, plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department. 2. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the home. 3. The upper sash grilles shall be located on the exterior of the window pane. 4. Window trim, with the same level of detail and with the same materials, will be installed on all window and door openings on all four sides of the structure. 5. Siding and corner, soffit, fascia, frieze boards shall utilize the same material on all four sides. 6. Exterior lighting shall be downlit or shielded and not extend over the property line. Exterior lighting shall be submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 7. 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. Deny the requested Design Permit. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION HPC Case no. 2019-14 Page 4 With certain conditions, the project conforms to the standards set forth in City Code as well as the applicable Stillwater Conservation District guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval of the application with those conditions outlined in alternative A, above. Attachments: Project Narrative (2) Applicant Submitted Photos (5) Elevations (5) Existing Site Plan Demolition Plan Proposed Site Plan Floor Plans(2) Site Photos (5) Sanborn Maps cc: Patrick Schmeichel 1884 Sanborn Map 1888 Sanborn Map 1910 Sanborn Map 1924 Sanborn Map PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2019-16 REPORT DATE: June 13, 2019 MEETING DATE: June 18, 2019 APPLICANT: Matthew Wolf LANDOWNER: CVII Holdings, LLC REQUEST: Window replacement, window installation and solar panel installation on the historic armory LOCATION: 107 Chestnut Street East DESIGNATION: Contributing DISTRICT: Stillwater Commercial Historic District Downtown Design Review District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Matthew Wolf of CVII Holdings, LLC purchased the historic armory in September, 2018. The applicant has indicated the building is in repairable condition, though many systems and components of the building are failing. The applicant has submitted a Design Permit application for the site alteration of the historic armory. SPECIFIC REQUEST Window replacement, window installation and solar panel installation on the historic armory. May 2018 (Google Images) HPC Case no. 2019-16 Page 2 ANALYSIS City Code Regulations (Standards) and Guidelines City Code Sections 22-7 and 31-325(f) require the HPC make the findings that alterations or additions to an existing building must not materially impair the architectural or historic value of the building. These findings should consider the existing structures and exterior appearances, building height, building width, depth or other dimensions, roof style, type of building materials, ornamentation and paving setback. City Code Section 22-7, Subd. 6(3) indicates the following applicable guidelines shall be used to evaluate applications:  Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure or site and its environment or to use a property for its originally intended purposes.  The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features must be avoided when possible.  Contemporary design for alterations and additions shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.  Whenever possible new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in a manner that if the additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Furthermore, City Code Section 31-209 indicates the HPC must take into consideration special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the City Council. The Downtown Design Review District guidelines indicates the following applicable guidelines:  For remodeling, the original size, division and shape of…windows…should be preserved.  Painted wood doors and wood framing are preferred.  All roof equipment shall be screened from public view. Proposed Improvements The applicant is proposing to replace all but 27 windows on the southern (rear) façade. These are non-historic windows that do not represent the original window design (as shown on the attached Runk photos). Single hung, black framed windows are proposed. While the applicant’s details show a nine over nine grille pattern, the applicant has indicated they will match each individual window’s grille pattern to what is depicted in the 1922 Runk photos, original plans, or, if no documentation is found, the prevailing pattern on that façade and/or floor. The proposed Anderson 100 Series windows are composed of 40% reclaimed wood fiber by weight and PVC. Additionally, the applicant is proposed to install three new windows on the front façade to balance out the symmetry on the structure. These three openings appear on the structure’s original building plans, attached. HPC Case no. 2019-16 Page 3 As the existing windows are not original, the HPC must determine if the composite material substantially conforms to the City’s standards and guidelines. While the National Parks Service would encourage matching the historic material, the NPS further states “Replacement windows for missing or non-historic windows must be compatible with the historic appearance and character of the building. Although replacement windows may be based on physical or pictorial documentation, if available, recreation of the missing historic windows is not required to meet the Standards. Replacement of missing or non-historic windows must, however, always fill the original window openings and must be compatible with the overall historic character of the building” (https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/windows- replacement.htm). The creation of three new openings is generally not encouraged. However, the applicant is not proposing to use the structure as an armory; it is intended to be redeveloped into residential apartments and commercial/office space. The applicant’s desire to install three new windows on the front façade is a minimal alteration to accommodate residential uses in this area of the building. According to the University of Minnesota, the southern roofline of this structure is one of the best locations for solar panels within downtown Stillwater. However, a portion of the proposed area is visible from the street. Simply put, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation would not encourage the installation in this location due to their visibility from Third Street South. However, if the installation was flush-mounted with the roof, the essential form and integrity of the structure would not be impaired. Furthermore, the installation would not destroy distinguishing original qualities or character of the building. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: A. Approve the Design Permit with the following conditions: 1. The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community Development Department, unless specifically modified by other conditions of approval. 2. The three new window openings shall have the same level of detail as the existing openings on the front façade’s lower level. 3. Replacement windows shall fill the opening. 4. Grilles shall be located on the exterior of the windows. 5. Solar panels shall be flush mounted, set in a symmetrical pattern on the roof. Panels are encouraged to span the entire roof. 6. All rooftop installations and associated components shall be black. 7. Solar installation inverters shall be located indoors, painted to match existing surroundings, or be screened from public view. 8. 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. HPC Case no. 2019-16 Page 4 B. Deny the requested Design Permit. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION With minimum alterations of the materials of the structure, the installation of three windows on the southern façade in order to accommodate the new use is appropriate. Furthermore, the installation single hung windows with grill patterns fitting the historic design in all of the originally-sized openings will be compatible with the overall historic character of the building. While the Downtown Design Review District guidelines require screening of mechanical equipment, the installation of solar panels is to help offset ongoing costs associated with the structure. Though they will be able to be seen on a portion of the roof year around and the entire roof in leaf-off condition, their visibility is specific to a small portion of the Third Street South right-of-way; they will not be visible from the front or side of the structure. As their visibility is limited to a specific location, all rooftop components are proposed to be black, and that, if removed, the panels would not jeopardize the historic character of the structure, with certain conditions the installation could conform to the City Code standards and District guidelines. With certain conditions, staff finds the proposed improvements conform to City Code and the Downtown Design Review District guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval of the project with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Narrative Request (2) Original Building Plans Window Detail Street View and Aerial Preliminary Panel Design Panel, Inverter and Optimizer Details (6) 1922 Runk Photos (2) Solar Analysis Details (2) cc: Matthew Wolf EXHIBIT TO DESIGN PERMIT APPLICATION Historic Stillwater Armory 5/20/2019 Legal Description for Historic Stillwater Armory P IDs: 28-030-20-42-0107 & 28-030-20-41-0083 Lots numbered nine (9) and ten (10) and all of Lot numbered eight (8) except the south twenty- four (24) feet thereof, and the west one third (1/3) of Lots numbered one (1), two (2) and three (3) except the north sixty-five (65) feet of the east six (6) inches thereof, all in Block numbered thirty (30) of the original town (now city) of Stillwater, as surveyed, platted and now of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Washington County, Minnesota. Description of Project This application is for two items relating to the Historic Stillwater Armory Renovation Project: 1) Replacement of windows; 2) Addition of solar panels. The building was constructed in 1922, and was expanded by construction of the connected garage in 1960. We believe the windows were replaced in the 1980’s. The building is in repairable condition, though many systems and components of the building are failing. A number of the windows do not lock, and we have boarded one of the windows to prevent unauthorized access (one of the sashes was prone to falling out, which is an invitation for a break-in). Regarding the replacement of windows, we are seeking to replace the windows on the North, East, and West of the main building, as well as 12 windows on the South face of the main building. Windows which will be part of the proposed office space will we left as-is, as will the windows on the East face of the attached garage structure. Windows were selected to be aesthetically pleasing, accurate in style to the time period and original construction, and environmental conscious. We have selected a window constructed from a composite material that approximates the appearance of the original windows, to the best of our knowledge. Below are portions of the original plans for the building, which show the Colonial style of the windows, and the original placement of the windows. The exterior of the windows will be black in color, and will be trimmed with a period-appropriate brick molding painted the same color black. Additional information on the windows specifications can be found at: https://www.andersenwindows.com/-/media/aw/files/brochures/product-guide-100-series- window-door-9045491.pdf Subject to availability, we plan to bring a sample with to the meeting, so the actual product can be seen up close. Regarding the addition of solar panels, we are seeking to add 100 solar panels to the south roof of the main building. These will be installed at the angle of the roof, and will not extend above the parapet. The panels were selected to be low profile and to blend into the roof as much as possible. Connection hardware will be mounted along existing utility lines at the southwest corner of the building, and will not change the existing appearance of the building. The location of the panels was selected due to the exposure to the sun, and is also the location which hides the panels from street view as much as possible. Due to the geography of downtown Stillwater and the placement of adjacent buildings, the only location where any significant portion of the south roof can be viewed by the public is from Third Street between the Armory and the building immediately to the South (275 Third St S). Existing structures and tree coverage block the view of the South roof from Olive Street and from all locations to the South and East. Original Plans – Note that the West elevation is modified by the addition of the 1960 garage structure. Note: Western-most sets of windows on the Rear elevation (depiction left) will match the other replacement windows (Colonial Style). Not being replaced 5/24/2019 Window & Door Design Tool | 100 Series Single-Hung Window https://www.andersenwindows.com/ideas-and-inspiration/design-tool/100-series-single-hung-window/?widIn=35.5&hgtIn=77.5&frameColor=Interio…1/1 100 Series Single-Hung Window Interior Exterior SUMMARY To purchase this product or customize it further, take this summary to your Andersen dealer. Product Name 100 Series Single-Hung Window Product ID# 100SHS3066 Unit Width 35 1/2" Unit Height 77 1/2" Interior Color White Glass Low-E Glass Hardware Standard Lock and Keeper, White Grille Pattern Colonial Grille Width 3/4" Exterior Color Black −Feedback View from South Third Street (looking NNW). South face of Armory building in center. 275 Third St S on the right. Location of solar panels shown in blue. Hardware shown in orange. Design Overview produced by All Energy Solar © 2019 Folsom Labs 1/2 May 23, 2019 PRELIMINARY FOR DISCUSSION Design Overview produced by All Energy Solar © 2019 Folsom Labs 2/2 May 23, 2019 PRELIMINARY FOR DISCUSSION w w w.jinko s ol a r.c o m KEY FEATURES 385-405 W at t Positive power tolerance of 0~10W MONO CRYSTALLINE MODULE 10 Year Product Warranty 25 Year Linear Power Warranty 80.2% 90% 95% 97% 100% 1 5 12 25 yearsGuaranteed Power Performancelinear performance warranty Standard performance warrantyAddition a l v a l u e f r o m J i n k o S o l a r ’ s l i n e a r w a r r a n t y LINEAR PERFORMANCE WARRANTY Eagle HC 72-V IEC61215, IEC61730 certified products Nomenclature: ISO9001:2008 Quality Standards ISO14001:2004 Environmental Standards OHSAS18001 Occupational Health & Safety Standards Code Certification null V 1000V 1500V JKM405M-PERC-72H-V Code Cell null Full H Half PID RESISTANT Innovative Solar Cells F iv e busb ar mono P E RC ha lf ce ll techno l og y Higher module conversion efficiency (up to 20.55%) due to lower resistance characteristics High Efficiency High Voltage UL an d IEC 1500V cer t if ie d ; lower s BOS c os t s and yi eld s better L C OE PID-Free Wor ld’s 1 st PID-Free mo d u l e Low-Light Performance A dv a nced glas s technol o gy i mpr o ve s li ght ab sor ption a nd reten t ion Strength and Durability Certi fi ed for high sn o w (540 0 Pa ) an d w in d (2400 P a ) loa ds PPEERRCC -50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Isc Voc Pmax -40℃~+85℃ 1500VDC(UL)/1500VDC(IEC) Current-Voltage & Power-Voltage Curves (390W) Temperature Dependence of Isc,Voc,Pmax ( Two pallets =One stack ) 26pcs/pallet , 52pcs/stack, 572 pcs/40'HQ Container Packaging Configuration lEsgniwarD gnireenignE ectrical Performance & Temperature Dependence Mechanical Characteristics Cell Type No.of Half-cells Dimensions Weight Front Glass Frame Junction Box Output Cables Mono-crystalline PERC 156×156mm (6 inch) 144 (12×12) 1987×992×40mm (78.23×39.05×1.57 inch) Anodized Aluminium Alloy IP67 Rated 26.5 kg (58.4 lbs) SPECIFICATIONS Module Type Maximum Power (Pmax) Maximum Power Voltage (Vmp) Maximum Power Current (Imp) Open-circuit Voltage (Voc) Short-circuit Current (Isc) Module Efficiency STC (%) Operating Temperature(℃) Maximum system voltage Maximum series fuse rating Power tolerance Temperature coefficients of Pmax Temperature coefficients of Voc Temperature coefficients of Isc Nominal operating cell temperature (NOCT) The company reserves the final right for explanation on any of the information presented hereby. EN-JKM-PERC-405M-72H-V_v1.0_r ev2017 Irradiance 1000W/m 2 AM=1.5STC: Irradiance 800W/m 2 AM=1.5NOCT: Power measurement tolerance: ± 3%* W ind S p ee d 1m/s Cell Temperature 25°C Ambient Temperature 20 °C H 2+19872+anode 290mm, cathode 145mm 950±2mm (37.40”) Installing Holes Grounding A A2-Ø4942±2mm (37.09”)400mm (15.75”)JKM390M-72H-V STC NOCT JKM395M-72H-V STC NOCT JKM400M-72H-V STC NOCT JKM385M-72H-V STC NOCT JKM405M-72H-V STC NOCT R4. 5 147 7.7 10R 3 . 5 10.5 405555 35 9 5.5 A-A 860±1mm (33.86”)400mm (15.75”)1360±1mm (53.54”)5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 50 150 100 200 250 300 350 400 19.79% 390Wp 40.59V 9.54A 49.55V 9.93A 20.04% 294Wp 7.51A 39.15V 48.60V 7.67A 395Wp 40.67V 9.71A 49.67V 10.03A 20.29% 297Wp 7.57A 39.20V 48.64V 7.71A 400Wp 40.75V 9.82A 49.73V 10.13A 19.53% 300Wp 7.63A 39.30V 48.69V 7.76A 385Wp 40.45V 9.46A 49.35V 9.83A 291Wp 7.47A 38.95V 48.30V 7.61A 20.55% 405Wp 40.81V 9.92A 49.80V 10.23A 303Wp 7.70A 39.35V 48.73V 7.82A 20A 0~10W -0.37%/℃ -0.29%/℃ 0.048%/℃ 45±2℃ 4.0mm, Anti-Reflection Coating,High Transmission, Low Iron, Tempered Glass INVERTERSThe best choice for SolarEdge enabled systems Specifically designed to work with power optimizers Internet connection through Ethernet or Wireless Small, lightweight, and easy to install outdoors or indoors on provided bracket Fixed voltage inverter for longer strings Integrated Safety Switch Supplied with RS485 Surge Protection, to better withstand lightning events Integrated arc fault protection and rapid shutdown for NEC 2014 and 2017, per article 690.11 and 690.12 UL1741 SA certified, for CPUC Rule 21 grid compliance Built-in module-level monitoring Three Phase Inverters For the 208V Grid for North America SE9KUS / SE14.4KUS solaredge.com 12-20 YEAR WARRANTY © SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. All rights reserved. SOLAREDGE, the SolarEdge logo, OPTIMIZED BY SOLAREDGE are trademarks or registered trademarks of SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. All other trademarks mentioned herein are trademarks of their respective owners. Date: 12/2018/V01/ENG NAM. Subject to change without notice. Three Phase Inverters For the 208V Grid for North America SE9KUS / SE14.4KUS SE9KUS SE14.4KUS APPLICABLE TO INVERTERS WITH PART NUMBER SEXXK-XXXXXNXXX OUTPUT Rated AC Power Output 9000 14400 VA Maximum AC Power Output 9000 14400 VA AC Output Line Connections 4-wire WYE (L1-L2-L3-N) plus PE or 3 wire Delta AC Output Voltage Minimum-Nominal-Maximum(2) (L-N)105-120-132.5 Vac AC Output Voltage Minimum-Nominal-Maximum(2) (L-L)183-208-229 Vac AC Frequency Min-Nom-Max(2)59.3 - 60 - 60.5 Hz Max. Continuous Output Current (per Phase) 25 40 A GFDI Threshold 1 A U t i l i t y M o n i t o r i n g , I s l a n d i n g P r o t e c t i o n , C o u n t r y C o n fi g u r a b l e S e t P o i n t s Yes INPUT Maximum DC Power (Module STC)12150 19400 W Transformer-less, Ungrounded Yes Maximum Input Voltage DC to Gnd 250 300 Vdc Maximum Input Voltage DC+ to DC-500 600 Vdc Nominal Input Voltage DC to Gnd 200 Vdc Nominal Input Voltage DC+ to DC-400 Vdc Maximum Input Current 26.5 38 Adc Maximum Input Short Circuit Current 45 Adc Reverse-Polarity Protection Yes Ground-Fault Isolation Detection 1MΩ Sensitivity 350kΩ Sensitivity(3) CEC Weighted Efficiency 96.5 97 % Night-time Power Consumption < 3 < 4 W ADDITIONAL FEATURES Supported Communication Interfaces RS485, Ethernet, ZigBee (optional) Rapid Shutdown – NEC 2014 and 2017 690.12 Automatic Rapid Shutdown upon AC Grid Disconnect RS485 Surge Protection Supplied with the inverter STANDARD COMPLIANCE Safety UL1741, UL1741 SA, UL1699B, CSA C22.2, Canadian AFCI according to T.I.L. M-07 Grid Connection Standards IEEE1547, Rule 21, Rule 14 (HI) Emissions FCC part15 class B INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS AC output conduit size / AWG range 3/4” minimum / 12-6 AWG 3/4” minimum / 8-4 AWG DC input conduit size / AWG range 3/4” minimum / 12-6 AWG Number of DC inputs 2 pairs 3 pairs(4) Dimensions (H x W x D)21 x 12.5 x 10.5 / 540 x 315 x 260 in / mm Dimensions with Safety Switch (H x W x D)30.5 x 12.5 x 10.5 / 775 x 315 x 260 in / mm Weight 73.2 / 33.2 99.5 / 45 lb / kg Weight with Safety Switch 79.7 / 36.2 106 / 48 lb / kg Cooling Fans (user replaceable) Noise < 50 < 55 dBA Operating Temperature Range -40 to +140 / -40 to +60(5)˚F / ˚C Protection Rating NEMA 3R (1) For 277/480V inverters refer to: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-three-phase-us-inverter-datasheet.pdf (2) For other regional settings please contact SolarEdge support (3) Where permitted by local regulations (4) Field replacement kit for 1 pair of inputs P/N: DCD-3PH-1TBK; Field replacement kit for 3 pairs of fuses and holders P/N: DCD-3PH-6FHK-S1 (5) For power de-rating information refer to: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-temperature-derating-note-na.pdf POWER OPTIMIZERPower Optimizer For North America P860 25YEARWARRANTY solaredge.com PV power optimization at the module-levelThe most cost effective solution for commercial and large field installations Specifically designed to work with SolarEdge inverters Up to 25% more energy Fast installation with a single bolt Advanced maintenance with module-level monitoring Module-level voltage shutdown for installer and firefighter safety Meets NEC requirements for arc fault protection (AFCI) and Photovoltaic Rapid Shutdown System (PVRSS) Use with two PV modules connected in parallel Superior efficiency (99.5%) Balance of System cost reduction; 50% less cables, fuses and combiner boxes, over 2x longer string lengths possible PV System Design Using a SolarEdge Inverter(5) Three Phase 208V(6)Three Phase 480V Minimum String Length Power Optimizers 8 13 PV Modules 16 26 Maximum String Length Power Optimizers 30 PV Modules 60 Maximum Power per String 7200 15300 W Parallel Strings of Different Lengths or Orientations Yes (1) Rated power of the module at STC will not exceed the optimizer “Rated Input DC Power”. Modules with up to +5% power tolerance are allowed. (2) NEC 2017 requires max combined input voltage be not more than 80V. (3) In a case of odd number of PV modules in one string, it is allowed to install one P860 power optimizer connected to one PV module. When connecting a single module to P860, seal the unused input connectors with the supplied pair of seals. (4) For ambient temperature above +70˚C / +158˚F power de-rating is applied. Refer to Power Optimizers Temperature De-Rating Application Note for more details. Optimizer Model(Typical Module Compatibility)P860(for 2 x 72 cell modules) INPUT Rated Input DC Power(1)860 W Connection type Dual input for independently connected modules Absolute Maximum Input Voltage(Voc at lowest temperature)60 Vdc MPPT Operating Range 12.5 - 60 Vdc Maximum Short Circuit Current (Isc) 22 Adc Maximum Short Circuit Current per input (Isc) 11 Adc Maximum Efficiency 99.5 % Weighted Efficiency 98.6 % Overvoltage Category II OUTPUT DURING OPERATION (POWER OPTIMIZER CONNECTED TO OPERATING SOLAREDGE INVERTER) Maximum Output Current 18 Adc Maximum Output Voltage 85 Vdc OUTPUT DURING STANDBY (POWER OPTIMIZER DISCONNECTED FROM SOLAREDGE INVERTER OR SOLAREDGE INVERTER OFF) Safety Output Voltage per Power Optimizer 1 ± 0.1 Vdc STANDARD COMPLIANCE Photovoltaic Rapid Shutdown System Compliant with NEC 2014, 2017(2) EMC FCC Part15 Class B, IEC61000-6-2, IEC61000-6-3 Safety IEC62109-1 (class II safety), UL1741 Material UL94 V-0, UV Resistant RoHS Yes INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS Compatible SolarEdge Inverters Three phase inverters Maximum Allowed System Voltage 1000 Vdc Dimensions (W x L x H)128 x 168 x 59 / 5 x 6.61 x 2.32 mm / in Weight (including cables) 1064 / 2.34 gr / lb Input Connector MC4 Dual Input(3) Output Wire Type / Connector Double Insulated; MC4 Output Wire Length 6.9 / 2.1 ft / m Operating Temperature Range(4)-40 - +85 / -40 - +185 ˚C / ˚F Protection Rating IP68 / NEMA6P Relative Humidity 0 - 100 % © SolarEdge Technologies Ltd. All rights reserved. SOLAREDGE, the SolarEdge logo, OPTIMIZED BY SOLAREDGE are trademarks or registered trademarks of SolarEdge Technologies, Inc. All other trademarks mentioned herein are trademarks of their respective owners. Date: 03/2019/V01/ENG NA. Subject to change without notice. Power Optimizer For North America P860 (5) It is not allowed to mix P860 with P730/P800p/P850 in one string or to mix with P300/P320/P400/P405 in one string. (6) P860 design with three phase 208V inverters is limited. Use the SolarEdge Designer for verification. MEMO TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: N/A MEETING DATE: June 19, 2019 REGARDING: 2019-2020 Grant Updates FROM: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner As the Commission is aware, the City has been awarded three grants for 2019-2020 projects and events. This memo is intended to update the Commission on the projects, included their anticipated timelines and associated work. HPC ORDINANCE UPDATE As the Commission was briefed in July, the regulations that govern the HPC are spread over multiple sections of the City Code. This has made deciphering and administering the HPC’s regulations difficult. The draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls for a rewrite of the HPC enabling ordinance. The City has been awarded two grants, one from the State Historic Preservation Office and another from the Minnesota Historical Society, to hire a consultant to assist us with this update. The draft scope of work and anticipated timeline is attached for commission review. Prior to project commencement, City staff will be working with the HPC and the City Council on a rewrite of the demolition ordinance. This is due to the fact that after working through the ordinance a few times in this past year, changes need to be made to ensure it is not only lawful but also in line with national standards for demolition review. It is anticipated a joint HPC/Council workshop will be held prior to consultant selection. STATEWIDE HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONFERENCE The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has approved a City of Stillwater grant request to host the annual statewide historic preservation conference in 2020. The City will work directly with the SHPO on the determination of the event’s location, potential breakout sessions, tours, etc. While the Stillwater Chamber of Commerce, the Main Street Independent Business Association, and the Stillwater Area Convention and Visitor’s Bureau (CVB) have committed to being a partner or a consulting partner to this conference, staff is requesting (at least) a few members of the commission participate on the steering committee; staff anticipates planning meetings shall not exceed a total of five hours, likely spread out over a few different work sessions. June 14, 2019 STILLWATER HPC ORDINANCES AND GUIDELINES SCOPE OF WORK Goal The City of Stillwater (City), in conjunction with its Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), desires its ordinances, design standards and policies to be combined into a clean, clear, well-communicated heritage preservation program. Issue Within the municipal boundaries of the City, there is a National Register-listed historic district, a Neighborhood Conservation District, a draft archaeological district, (approximately) one dozen structures and sites individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places as well as has numerous design review districts. To help protect the character and nature of the community’s historic resources, the City has developed an ordinance specifically pertaining to its Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). However, certain activities of the HPC (or activities which the HPC may be required to be involved with) are also addressed in over one dozen other City Code Sections. In the last thirty years, the City has developed five different sets of design guidelines. While four have been adopted, only three are frequently utilized and one set of residential design guidelines has not been considered for adoption. With these guidelines in place, there are still certain designated properties, or those located in an established design review district, for which no guidelines exist. Additionally, these design guidelines are not specifically tied to the HPC’s enabling ordinance. This complex and disconnected system for the preservation of Stillwater sites and structures has made it difficult for the public to understand and for the HPC to administer. Consequently, City of Stillwater staff are challenged when assisting elected and appointed officials as well as property owners through specific application review processes and permit approvals. Actions The City, in conjunction with its HPC, will: 1. Conduct a detailed and thoughtful review of specific City Code Sections pertaining to the Heritage Preservation Commission 1 and conduct an ordinance amendment to clean up code inconsistencies, strengthen the connected between the City Code and the design guidelines, and to better define HPC activities. 1 Specific City Code Sections are listed in Exhibit A. To view all Code Sections, please visit https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jh6d34qysssrycc/AACFvuJfc2nElMPUZyzNEJ9da?dl=0. June 14, 2019 2. Combine all adopted and draft design guidelines into a single reference document. a. A specific goal of the reference document will tie established design guidelines to the standards set forth in the City Code. b. This will not involve significant alterations of, or additions to, previously adopted guidelines. City staff acknowledges that, due to the overall cost and consultant-recommended timeline, the project may not be able to be completed in a single phase. While the City is favorable to a phased approach, we recognize the challenges that could be presented in addressing only one half of this project at a time. Anticipated Timeline Year Month Activity 2019 July Project Administration August Stakeholder Outreach September Consultant Selection October Existing Ordinance Analysis November Ordinance Reorganization December Stakeholder Survey 2020 January Stakeholder Listening Session February Ordinance Amendments March Public Input April Ordinance Finalization April SHPO Review May Commission(s) Hearing June Council Hearings(s) July Project Conclusion June 14, 2019 EXHIBIT A City Code Title Brief Description Section 22-7 Heritage Preservation Commission The original, but modified, HPC enabling ordinance. Addresses HPC functions, site designation, Conservation District review processes, site alterations and preservation programs. Section 31-101 Definitions The definitions found in the Zoning Code. Section 31-209 Design Permit Identifies requirements of a Design Permit, the most commonly utilized form of HPC review. Section 31-214 Sign Permit Identifies requirements of a Sign Permit. Section 31-215 Site Alteration Permit Addresses the purpose of the Site Alteration Permit and states standards for review and approval of activities. Section 31-308 RB – Two Family Residential District A zoning district which encompasses much of the old residential housing stock. It was once consistent with the Neighborhood Conservation District. Section 31-504 Bed and Breakfast Identifies standards for B&Bs and addresses requirements of the HPC. Section 31-509 Sign Regulations Indicates standard requirements for signs, including that of design review and/or design permit. Section 31-515.2 Large Projects in the CBD Zone Applicable to redevelopment of large tracks of land or buildings within the community core. References both a Design Permit and Site Alteration Permit. Chapter 34 Demolition Includes definitions relevant to Zoning. Section 41-7 Seasonal Outdoor Sales References standards for food trucks in the Downtown Design Review district. The City Code utilizes Design Review, Design Review Permit, and Design Permit rather interchangeably. The following Code Sections reference or require a design-based action though it is note determined who conducts what process for review and approval. City Code Title Section 31-303 Lakeshore Residential District Section 31-322 Campus Research Dev. District Section 31-501 Accessory Dwellings Section 31-503 Accessory Structures Section 31-512 Towers Section 31-310 Townhouse Residential District Section 31-311 Cove Townhouse Res. District Section 31-318 Village Commercial District June 14, 2019