Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-11-20 HPC Packet AGENDA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers, 216 Fourth Street North November 20th, 2019 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of October 16th, 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. VI. NEW BUSINESS 2. Case No. 2019-28: Consideration of a Design permit to remodel the existing store front at 218 Main St N. Property located in the Downtown Design Review District. Michael Lynskey Sr., and Lee Bjerk, property owners, and Dariush andSarah Moslemi, applicants. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3. Case No. 2019-21: Consideration of a Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan for the property located at 1400 (1570) Frontage Rd W in the West Stillwater Buisness Park district. Valley Ridge Holdings, LLC, property owner and Gordon Skamser Jr., applicant. VIII. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 4. 2020 Preserve MN Conference 5. HPC Enabling Ordinance Consultant Recommendation 6. 2020 Work Plan 7. 2020 HPC Meeting Schedule IX. FYI 8. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Adoption X. ADJOURNMENT HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING October 16, 2019 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Present: Chairman Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Krakowski, Larson, Steinwall, Thueson, Walls Absent: Council Representative Junker Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of September 18, 2019 Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to approve the minutes of the September 18, 2019 meeting. Motion passed, 6-0-1 with Commissioner Steinwall abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2019-26, Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage for the property located at 204 Third Street South in the RCM District. Dan Stoudt of Jassoy Block LLC, property owner and Gina Kazmerski of Image360-Woodbury, applicant. Case No. 2019-27, Consideration of a Design Permit for new exterior paint for the storefront located at 224 Chestnut Street East in the CBD District. Tomy O’Brien, property owner and Kathleen Schubert, applicant. Motion by Commissioner Thueson, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor, 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 2019-24: Consideration of a Design Permit for an Infill residence at the property located at 1606 First Street North in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Zach and Meghan Hennessey, property owners. Chairwoman Mino opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairwoman Mino closed the public hearing. City Planner Wittman explained the application. The property owners propose to construct a 2.5- story single family residence with three-car, front-loaded attached garage. The house is a modern split-level design and will be constructed into the slope of the property. The front face of the first floor will be clad in cultured stone and vertical lap siding; the remainder of the foundation will covered with 2” foam board per code and then coated with a pebble texture gray stucco. The main (second) level will be clad in 6” horizontal lap siding with smooth panel boards and 2” battens on the gabled ends. The upper level will be clad in smooth panel boards with 2” battens with shake siding on the gable ends. Two 8” horizontal bands with metal drop caps will circle the home at the floor breaks. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 16, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Concrete steps and an iron railing will be located at the entrance to the home. The main level deck and deck railing will be constructed of wood. Staff finds that with certain modifications, the design can conform to the standards set forth by City Code and the Stillwater Conversation District. The application of stone on portions of the first floor is not authentic. The commission should discuss potential design solutions for the application of stone, potentially carrying the stone around the façade. Staff recommends conditional with eight conditions. Jason Timmers, builder, stated that the top of the stone is at the top of the foundation. They were struggling with what to apply to avoid an exposed concrete foundation. He feels the stone would be considered traditional covering for a foundation. Commissioner Finwall asked if stone could be added to the north/south sides of the home. Mr. Timmers said that would be possible but is a budget concern. Due to insulation values, 2” foam must be applied to any exposed foundation. The more stone covering, the less ability to attach to foam, so it would have to be a product that would not be real stone. Commissioner Larson commented if the stone finish could be used on the front, it could be used on the sides as well. The Design Guidelines refer to four sided design and façade design consistency. He agrees with staff that the stone should be carried around the sides of the house. Mr. Timmers asked if it is necessary to use stone, or could it be exposed block foundation on all four sides? Commissioner Larson replied that exposed block on all sides would not follow some of the other guidelines but siding could be put down to grade on all sides. Commissioner Finwall asked if the proposal complies with the requirements for building on a slope. She likes how it is tucked into the slope with the front walkout. She agrees with the addition of stone on the sides to be consistent. Ms. Wittman replied there are slopes greater than 12% so a topographic survey will be required at the time of construction. Staff believes construction in this location does not compromise the slope. Mr. Timmers suggested stepping the foundation down and focusing the stone on the sides of the stairwell. He could place siding close down to grade and then stucco on the small amount of exposed foundation so it would be 6-10” of exposed stucco. The only stone on the front would be the staircase wall. Motion by Commissioner Steinwall, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve Case No. 2019-24, Design Permit for an Infill residence located at 1606 First Street North, with the eight conditions recommended by staff, and adding Condition #9, plans shall be modified to use lap siding in a stepped down and back fashion on the sides of the home. Exposed foundation shall be stucco or stone but consistent on all four sides. Stone shall be utilized only on the front stairway and columns if desired. Changes shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. All in favor, 7-0. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2019-25: Consideration of a Design Permit for an addition to the building located at 1862 Greeley Street South in the BPI District. Washington County Historical Society, property owner. Commissioner Thueson recused himself from the discussion and the vote. City Planner Wittman explained the application. The Washington County Historical Society (WCHS) is requesting approval of a Design Permit for a 570 finished square foot entrance exhibit area, façade signage, and rooftop mechanical screening associated with a new Washington County Heritage Center. Staff finds that with certain conditions, the Design Permit application request can conform to Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 16, 2019 Page 3 of 4 the standards set forth for Design Permitting as well as the West Stillwater Business Park district guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends approval with seven conditions. Brent Peterson, Executive Director of the Washington County Historical Society, explained that the window openings proposed are the only windows that will be in the building. Windows will not be in storage areas or exhibit areas because light is damaging to artifacts. Emily Kopp, MSR Design, explained that the reason for difference in window depth is that entering the front space, the lobby should feel as if it’s outside. The sills of the other windows will be in the gift shop and will tie into shelves. She added that the screening will be high enough to cover the mechanical units. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Steinwall, to approve Case No. 2019-25, Design Permit for an addition to the building located at 1862 Greeley Street South, with the seven staff- recommended conditions. All in favor, 6-0. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 2020 Preserve MN Conference Committee Ms. Wittman stated that she and Chairwoman Mino met with State Historic Preservation Office staff to discuss roles and responsibilities for hosting the conference, which will draw 200 people. A planning committee will be formed that will include the Commission. Volunteers will be used heavily. There will be some costs to the host community. Donors will be sought. She added that she has discussed the potential for a homeowner workshop(s) with Rethos, formerly Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, which hosts place- based classes. She would like Commissioners to help define what homeowner workshops may generate interest among community members. Chairwoman Mino offered to serve as the liaison with Rethos. Update on 2019-2020 Grant Projects Ms. Wittman said the 2020 Preserve MN Conference is a grant-funded project but it will still need additional funding. A grant was received to complete a historic structure report for the Lowell Park gazebo and levee wall. Though not a grant, the City funded development of a business plan for the Bergstein buildings. The Council has petitioned the legislature for state bonding to help rehabilitate the buildings. A facilitator will be sought to help develop the business use plan, based on agreements with various agencies that may be interested in co-locating in the buildings. FYI HPC and CC Special Joint Meeting Minutes Ms. Wittman provided the joint meeting minutes. She reported that the Council enacted a one year moratorium on demolition of historic resources. HPC Enabling Ordinance Amendment Request for Proposals Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that the City’s request for proposals for development of amendments to the HPC Enabling Ordinance has been issued and proposals are due November 1. She reviewed the qualifications. 515 Third Street South Ms. Wittman reported that a stop work order was placed on this structure, a triplex that the owner would like to convert into a single family residence. The owner received a building permit but the work was not being done to planner specs. The owner had removed a large amount of bracing dirt foundation and compromised the structure’s integrity. The structure is in poor condition. The building official will meet with a company to discuss an emergency order to stabilize and secure the structure. ADJOURNMENT Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting October 16, 2019 Page 4 of 4 Motion by Commissioner Krakowski, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to adjourn. All in favor, 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2019-28 REPORT DATE: November 14, 2019 MEETING DATE: November 20, 2019 APPLICANT: Dariush Moslemi representing the Rusty Mile LLC LANDOWNER: Michael J. Lynskey & Lee T. Bjerk REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for rooftop mechanicals and grill hood, exterior door, wall signage and a graphic design sign LOCATION: 218 Main Street North DESIGNATION: N/A DISTRICT: Downtown Design Review District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Dariush Moslemi is planning to open a new restaurant, to be known as the Rusty Mile, at 218 Main Street North, a building constructed in 1984. Exterior alterations of the structure are required for the use change. Given its location in the Downtown Design Review District, the exterior alterations must be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. SPECIFIC REQUEST Consideration of a Design Permit for the installation of: Street View – Google (May, 2019) Case no. 2019-28 Page 2  A new, hollow metal service door on the south elevation to match the existing service door;  A 4’ tall , 40 square foot Rooftop Unit (RTU) and 4’ tall, (approximately) 17’ long Makeup Air Unit (MAU) that will have two condensers on top of it;  A 40” wide, circular hood exhaust fan to extend three feet beyond the south wall elevation;  A set of two wall signs, described as 24” tall by 10’ wide, proposed to utilize the existing sign brackets. Constructed of metal, the signs will have raised lettering. The signs will be utilize a burnt orange, white and black color scheme to read “Rusty Mile Roadhouse and Nostalgia Bar” as well as possibly “HWY 95 Stillwater EST. 2019”;  A 52” black graphic design (i.e. mural/painted wall) sign to look like a bottle cap. The mural is proposed to advertise the business name with the same language, color and font as the front façade’s wall sign. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES City Code Section Design Permit Standards for Review, Sec. 31-509(f) indicates the HPC shall utilize the following applicable standards:  Architectural Character: i. The suitability of the building for the intended purpose. ii. The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines. iii. The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development.  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.  Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. The Downtown Design Manual section pertaining to Materials, Colors, Lighting and Signs and Graphics is attached for Commission review. ANALYSIS 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 applicable 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  The size and proportion of windows and door openings…should be similar to those on the adjacent facades.  Façade should be composed of materials similar to original adjacent facades. The installation of a new service door on south elevation that is identical to the existing service door is appropriate. However, the plans submitted do not reflect the same level of detail as the existing door in this location. The new door should be white with two window. UTILITY AND MECHANICAL AREAS Case no. 2019-28 Page 3  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.  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.  Large mechanical improvements are proposed to be installed on a significant portion of the building; this will be visible from Main Street. In order to conform to this guideline, all rooftop mechanical units should be screened with some sort of louvered panel. While the City cannot dictate what type of screening the applicant and/or owner should install, metal louvered panels have been determined to be acceptable in the Downtown Design Review District. The 40” wide by 36” tall hood vent, proposed to project out the south elevation would be challenging to conceal. Given this parking area and alley have a service area feel, staff has determined it would not be uncommon to have this improvement in this location. However, it is recommended the applicant provide proof the vent could not be extended through the second story to pop out of the roof (thus being concealed by required rooftop screening. SIGNS AND GRAPHICS  The storefront sign should be used to display the primary name of the business only.  Use simple, bold letting with sufficient contract between the lettering and the background.  The maximum area of the sign is regulated by the sign ordinance.  Use painted wood where practicable.  Design the sign shape to fit and fill the available space. Consider using long narrow signs spanning the full width of the façade.  Reuse of existing mounting brackets, studs or holes is desirable.  Murals on “non-contributing buildings have been allowed with individual review, provided they have a historic theme, and do not advertise an existing business or company. There are challenges with the existing signage on the property: the sign system never received a Design Permit from the City; this previous tenant had two signs (where only one is permitted by the Zoning Code); the signage is not centered on the building; and the signage extends above the traditional sign band (the area delineated in stone on the building). While the applicant is proposing to reuse existing brackets, the guideline to make a long, linear sign across the entire building is in keeping with traditional storefront signage in downtown Stillwater. While either of the proposed wall sign systems (less the ‘additional information’) may be substantially consistent with the City’s guidelines, the sign design should be a single sign (preferably using the existing sign band as the background), reduced in height, extend the length of the storefront, and be centered under the existing lighting proposed to be reused. The applicant should provide detailed information about the materials and size of the sign as well as the dimensional lettering prior to the release of the sign permit. The sign shall not exceed 32 square feet, as per the Zoning Code. With regard to the 52” round bottle cap mural, the applicant’s proposal to advertise the business name is Case no. 2019-28 Page 4 not consistent with the District’s guidelines. However, if the text was changed from the business name to “HWY 95 Stillwater”, then the mural would be in substantial conformance to the HPC’s guidelines. If the applicant chooses to use an establishment date, it would be most appropriate to use the date HWY 95 was created or some other date not reflecting the business. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The HPC has several alternatives related to these this request: 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 2019-28. Staff would recommend the following minimum conditions for approval: 1. The designs shall be consistent with those on file in the Community Development Department, except as modified herein. 2. The storefront sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in size. 3. The storefront sign shall be consolidated into a single panel sign that extends the width of the building, centered under the lighting, and not exceed the height of the sign band area. 4. Details of the storefront lettering dimensions, material, and size shall be submitted for review with conformance to the Zoning Code and Downtown Design Review District guidelines prior to the release of a sign permit. 5. The painted sign mural shall not contain the business name. If the applicant chooses text other than “HWY 95 Stillwater”, the design shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC prior to the release of a sign permit. 6. Disturbance to the exterior wall face shall be done in a fashion as to prevent damage and water intrusion. Any existing drill holes not utilized will be patched. 7. New door on the south elevation shall be white with two windows to match the existing door. 8. It is recommended the kitchen hood exhaust vent be extended through the second story to project out the roof. If it projects out the roof, it shall be screened on the south and east sides. 9. The MAU and RTU shall be screened from public view on, at least, the south and east elevations though, for consistent design, all four sides is preferred. The Rooftop screening shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the release of the building permit. If rooftop screening is not substantially similar to screening materials approved in the Downtown Design Review District, the applicant and/or property owner shall be required to gain HPC review and approval prior to the release of the building permit. 10. Prior to the release of a building permit, the applicant and/or property owner shall provide proof of conformance to the approved Design Permit. 11. Prior to the release of a sign permit, the applicant and/or property owner shall provide proof of conformance to the approved Design Permit. Case no. 2019-28 Page 5 12. 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 AND RECOMMENDATION 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 with certain conditions the proposed improvements conforms to the standards set forth for design review and for therefore recommend conditional approval with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Applicant Narrative Certificate of Survey Floor Plan and Elevation RTU and MAU Plans Kitchen Hood Vent Plans Signage Details cc: Dariush and Sarah Moslemi Michael J. Lynskey & Lee T. Bjerk Heritage Preservation Commission 24 Oct 2019 re. 218 N Main St. Stillwater, MN. Proposed Business: Rusty Mile LLC. Our proposal is to convert the existing space at 218 N. Main St. from a barbershop and former photoshop to a restaurant. Rusty Mile LLC. will combine the two spaces into one via internal demolition only, no structural changes to the building. The space was built in 1984 and is in good condition. We are proposing a new rooftop HVAC system to modernized the efficiency of the space (attached are layout, dimensions and unit type), installing a new delivery door to the back of the space so food and liquor deliveries do not impede parking or main street traffic flow (we will match the existing side door in look and materials), and also, adding a hood termination on the south elevation of the building on the parking lot side (which can be customized per any design request, location is on an attached document). We also plan on re-centering the main sign, materials will be metal backing with metal custom raised lettering utilizing the current bracket system on the building, dimensions are 120 inches by 24 inches. Please see attached concept plans for south elevation logo which will be painted. We also propose to remove the lower level awning which is dated and quite used looking. The business itself will bring affordable lunch and dinner flow with a family friendly atmosphere. Our mission is to create foods that we all crave, in a healthy and natural way, utilizing our extensive knowledge of plant based recipes, keto based foods, paleo and gluten free. We currently own Studio One Yoga located at 402 N Main St, The Velveteen Speakeasy at 123 N 2nd St, and are partners in The Lumberjack 123 N. 2nd St. as well, in addition we have Studio One Yoga locations in White Bear Lake as well Roseville. We are long-time Stillwater residents and are committed to preserving and enhancing our town within the guidance of existing bodies and are happy to answer any questions regarding our newest project. Thank you, Dariush and Sarah Moslemi 651-280-7715 PARCEL 2PARCEL 1NORTH MAIN STREETS.T.H. NO. 95(PUBLIC STREET)NORTH SECOND STREET(PUBLIC STREET)EAST MULBERRY STREET506060666613G13GG2G1PARCEL 1C1PARCEL 2C29a9b9c9d9d(CITY PARCEL)(CITY PARCEL )(GARTNER PARCEL)(GARTNER PARCEL)ANNE LOFFAMG314 1ST AVE NORTHSUITE 300MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401612-987-2044FILE NAMEPROJECT NO.REVISIONDATECONTACT:PRELIMINARY ISSUE09-07-16Suite #16750 Stillwater Blvd. N.Stillwater, MN 55082Phone 651.275.8969Fax 651.275.8976dan@cssurvey.net40200SCALE: 1 INCH = 20 FEETNORTHREVISIONS:COUNTY/CITY:SURVEYCERTIFICATE OFSURVRM03RM05003VICINITY MAPPROJECT LOCATION:SHEET 1 OF 2SEE SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS FOR LEGALDESCRIPTIONS AND EASEMENT INFORMATION.INITIAL ISSUE10-04-16UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES:THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELDSURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NOGUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCHUTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYORFURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWNARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THATTHEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATIONAVAILABLE. THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THEUNDERGROUND UTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKETNUMBER(S) 162462206. SOME MAPS WERE RECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIESDID NOT RESPOND TO THE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OFWHICH WE ARE UNAWARE MAY EXIST. OTHER UTILITIES MAY EXIST ON THISSITE THAT WERE NOT MARKED UP.LINETYPE ADJUSTMENT11-08-16TITLE UPDATE12-05-16 REST ROOMREST ROOMFREEZERCOOLERN S &EXTERIOR 406 TecCORPFax 7Tel 7MenomAuth Consulting/associatesPRSREVISIOS&N Land SurveyingTel 7Huds2920 BRANSuDRAREDWG CHECDJOB NNDPROPOSED BUILDING ALTERATIONRUSTY MILESTILLWATER, M1.1HVAC FLOOR PLANSDD10-022-0%%UHVAC FLOOR PLAN%%UHVAC ROOF PLANSHEET INDEXDUCTWORK/INSULATION SCHEDULE1. ALL DUCTWORK TO BE FABRICATED & INSTALLED PER SMACNA STANDARDS WITH A CLASS "B" SEAL RATING. 2. PROVIDE FLEXIBLE DUCT CONNECTORS GALVANIZED SHEET METAL DUCTWORK WITH 1 1/2" EXTERIOR DUCT WRAP INSULATION, (MIN. R-SUPPLY AND RETURN GALVANIZED SHEET METAL DUCTWORK WITH 1 1/2" EXTERIOR DUCT WRAP INSULATION, (MIN. R-SUPPLY AND RETURN BRANCH DUCTS FROM INSULATED FLEX DUCT FROM GALVANIZED BRANCH OR MAIN DUCT TO SUPPLY AIR DIFFUSER. MAX. 6' OF FLEX DUCT (INSULATION SUPPLY AND RETURN BRANCH DUCTS FROM GALVANIZED SHEET METAL DUCTWORK WITH 1 1/2" EXTERIOR DUCT WRAP INSULATION WITHIN MECHANICAL LEGENDMECHANICAL GENERAL NOTES1. ALL WORK SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL CODES. ALL WORK SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL CODES. 2. INSTALL ALL EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. INSTALL ALL EQUIPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING AND COORDINATING FINAL HVAC EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS WITH OTHER TRADES AND CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING AND COORDINATING FINAL HVAC EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS WITH OTHER TRADES AND ENGINEER. 4. PROVIDE (2) COPIES OF 3-RING BINDERS WITH O&M MANUALS, AND BALANCING REPORT TO AC/a. PROVIDE START-UP TO PROVIDE (2) COPIES OF 3-RING BINDERS WITH O&M MANUALS, AND BALANCING REPORT TO AC/a. PROVIDE START-UP TO ASSURE AN EFFICIENTLY OPERATING SYSTEM TO THE OWNER'S SATISFACTION. 5. ANY HVAC PENETRATIONS THROUGH FIRE RATED ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE A U.L. LISTED ASSEMBLY. MATCHING THE HOURLY ANY HVAC PENETRATIONS THROUGH FIRE RATED ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE A U.L. LISTED ASSEMBLY. MATCHING THE HOURLY RATING OF THE FLOOR/WALL PENETRATION. SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR LOCATIONS OF THE FIRE RATED ASSEMBLIES AND U.L. PENETRATION DETAILS. 6. ALL L.P. 7.5 to 12.5 Tons Energence®Rooftop Units 60 HZ Bulletin No. 210555 July 2019 Supersedes February 2019 Brand/Family L = Energence® Unit Type G = Packaged Gas Heat w/ Electric Cooling Major Design Sequence H = 1st Generation Nominal Cooling Capacity - Tons 092 = 7.5 Tons 102 = 8.5 Tons 120 = 10 Tons 150 = 12.5 Tons Refrigerant Type 4 = R-410A Heating Type S = Standard Gas Heat, 2 Stage M = Medium Gas Heat, 2 Stage H = High Gas Heat, 2 Stage Minor Design Sequence 1 = 1st Revision 2 = 2nd Revision 3 = 3rd Revision Voltage Y = 208/230V-3 phase-60hz G = 460V-3 phase-60hz J = 575V-3 phase-60hz Blower Type B = Belt Drive, Constant Air Volume (CAV) M = MSAV® (Multi-Stage Air Volume) Supply Air Blower Option, Belt Drive COMPLIANT Energence® Packaged Gas / Electric 7.5 to 12.5 Ton / Page 37 Model No. CORNER WEIGHTS CENTER OF GRAVITY AA BB CC DD EE FF Base Max. Base Max. Base Max. Base Max. Base Max. Base Max. lbs. kg lbs. kg lbs. kg lbs. kg lbs. kg lbs. kg lbs. kg lbs. kg in. mm in. mm in. mm in. mm 092 293 133 338 153 263 119 295 134 286 130 316 143 326 148 370 168 46.5 1181 45.5 1156 24.5 622 25.5 648 102 294 134 340 154 265 120 297 135 288 131 318 144 328 149 372 169 46.5 1181 45.5 1156 24.5 622 25.5 648 120 306 139 349 158 275 125 305 138 295 134 326 148 334 152 382 173 46.5 1181 45.5 1156 24.5 622 25.5 648 150 316 143 359 163 284 129 314 142 304 138 393 178 345 157 393 178 46.5 1181 45.5 1156 24.5 622 25.5 648 Base Unit - The unit with NO INTERNAL OPTIONS. Max. Unit - The unit with ALL INTERNAL OPTIONS Installed. (Economizer, Standard Static Power Exhaust Fans, Controls, etc.). Does not include accessories external to unit or high static power exhaust. 1500500 FLOW RATE (cfm) 1000 0.00 0 0.50PRESSURE DROP (in. H20)PRESSURE DROP VS. FLOW RATE FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY (%)0 0.1 20 40 1.0 PARTICLE DIAMETER (um) 10.0 EFFICIENCY VS. PARTICLE DIAMETER 60 80 100 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 SHEET NO. SCALE: DWG.#: DRAWN DATE: BY: REVISIONS www.captiveaire.com MASTER DRAWING Minnesota Office14505 21st Ave. N., Suite 222, Plymouth, MN, 55447 PHONE: (763) 432-5354 FAX: (919) 747-5666 EMAIL: reg75@captiveaire.com SHEET NO. SCALE: DWG.#: DRAWN DATE: BY: REVISIONS www.captiveaire.com MASTER DRAWING Minnesota Office14505 21st Ave. N., Suite 222, Plymouth, MN, 55447 PHONE: (763) 432-5354 FAX: (919) 747-5666 EMAIL: reg75@captiveaire.com OPTION 1 PRIMARY LOGO HORIZONTAL LOGO ROAD H O USE & N OSTA L G IA BARR OADHOUse & N OSTALGIA BARRustyMile Ru sty M ileRustyMile OPTION 2 PRIMARY LOGO &NOSTALGIA BAR Roadhouse R USTYMILE & NOSTALGIA BAR Roadhouse R USTYMILE HORIZONTAL LOGOS BONUS IDEA: SIDE MURAL OPTION 1 SIGN EST. STILL W A T ERHIG H W AY 95 2019RustyMileROADHOUSE& N OSTALGIA BAR OPTION 1 SIGN RENDERING Roadhouse R USTYMILE OPTION 2 SIGN &NOSTALGIA BAR OPTION 2 SIGN RENDERING PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: HPC 2019-21 REPORT DATE: November 15, 2019 MEETING DATE: November 20, 2019 APPLICANT: Gordon Skamser Jr. LANDOWNER: Valley Ridge Holdings LLC REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan amendments LOCATION: 1570 Frontage Road West ZONING: Central Business District (CBD) DISTRICT: West Stillwater Business Park REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION In September the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed a Design Permit request from Gordon Skamser Jr. of Norman Quacks to amend the multi-tenant sign plan for Valley Ridge Mall. If approved, the specific amendments would allow Norman Quacks to keep their illegally installed, nonconforming neon sign in place on the building, on an architectural feature and above the parapet line. At the meeting the HPC determined the sign may not obscure the architectural feature. The HPC tabled consideration of the Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan for the property located at 1400 (1570) Frontage Road West, directing staff to work with the applicant on amendments that would not jeopardize staff’s ability to administer the plan but would allow for increased signage opportunities for this business given its uniqueness. A copy of the HPC’s September 18, 2019 minutes is attached for review. On October 4 City staff met with the applicant to discuss potential changes to the sign plan. Staff advised the applicant to work on the development of a new zone for their tenant space that could be incorporated into the approved multi-tenant sign plan. Staff also indicated we would work to see if there are options for modification of the plan that may be more fair and equitable to all tenants in the building. Later that same day staff asked the applicant and the owner’s representative to clarify the tenant map on file. The applicant asked if it would be wise to move forward with their request if staff was exploring options for a sign plan amendment. Staff advised they should proceed with the development of their desirable zone changes. Case no. 2019-21 Page 2 On October 9 staff requested the applicant submit their desired changes as soon as possible for the October 16 HPC packet release. On October 10 staff advised material submission (for the October meeting) was needed that day in order for the HPC to consider the amended request at the October 16 HPC meeting. The applicant indicated they needed additional time. Staff advised a deadline of noon on November 6th for inclusion in the HPC’s November meeting packet. On November 11 staff emailed the applicant asking for an updated proposal. To the date of memo development, the applicant has not submitted any updated plans for staff. ANALYSIS In September staff identified the following concerns: • Changing the sign plan to have less clarity for how much individual signage is permitted for each elevation and zone will make the plan difficult for the City to administer. The difficulties include understanding total elevation/zone signage permitted at any given point as well as the risk one tenant space will consume portions of signage for other tenants. Furthermore, the plan gives no reference to how many signs any one business may have; this is in direct conflict with the City Code. If approved, the applicant would have three signs on the building; the total square footage (as per City Code) may be exceeded. • The plan additionally proposes the removal of regulations pertaining to exposed bulbs, including neon. While this is not in conflict with City code, there is concern this could set a precedence for the property, allowing for signage that has not traditionally been permitted on the property. • The plan further proposes allowing for modifications to the tenant banner program, designed to accommodate for onsite temporary signage as temporary signage has tended to become long-term building and ground clutter on the property. This program was created to allow for flexible, rotating temporary signage to reduce visual clutter. Modifying this existing program could have negative implications. • Lastly, the plan allows for an additional sign to be located on an existing architectural feature where signage is currently not permitted. All signs on the property are located in one of two places: on the traditional sign band area or in an area where the surface is flat and designed to accommodate the installation of signage. Installation of signage in this area obscures the architectural features. POSSIBLE ACTIONS Because of Sate statutory requirements, the Heritage Preservation Commission must take action on the original request. The HPC has the following options: A. Approve the requested Design Permit with or without conditions. B. Deny the requested Design Permit. Case no. 2019-21 Page 3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION As the amendments to the multi-tenant sign plan do not conform to City Code nor the approved multi-tenant sign plan, staff recommends denial of Design Permit No. 2019-21. Attachments: September 18 HPC Minutes September, 2019 staff report (no attachments) Applicant Narrative Amended Sign Plan Proposal (4 pages) cc: Gordon Skamser Jr., applicant Francis Skamser Lewis Alon Ventura, Valley Ridge Mall HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2019 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Present: Chairman Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Krakowski, Larson, Thueson (arrived approximately 7:15), Walls, Council Representative Junker Absent: Commissioner Steinwall Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of August 21, 2019 Motion by Commissioner Walls, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to approve the minutes of the August 21, 2019 meeting with the correction of the word “worthy” in full paragraph 8 on page 2. 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. 2019-21: Consideration of a Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan for the property located at 1400 (1570) Frontage Road West in the BPC District. Valley Ridge Holdings, LLC, property owner and Gordon Skamser Jr. and Francis Skamser Lewis, applicants. Ms. Wittman stated that in 1987 the City granted a variance allowing the property at 1570 Frontage Road West to have more than one business sign. In 2013 a multi-tenant sign plan was approved by the HPC and the City Council rescinded the original variance approval, clearing the title to the property for it to be subdivided to allow for the construction of the Dairy Queen building. Gordon Skamser Jr. has requested a Design Permit for the alteration of the existing multi-tenant sign plan to accommodate the installation of a new sign for Norman Quacks Chophouse. Ms. Wittman reviewed the proposed sign plan modifications. Staff has concern that the requested changes will make the plan difficult for staff to administer because there will be less clarity on how much individual signage is permitted for each elevation and zone. Also, there is concern that the proposed sign plan changes could increase visual clutter and set precedent. Francis Skamser Lewis, applicant, told the Commission they learned of the sign plan only last week. They realize some of the suggested revisions may make it more difficult for staff to enforce, and are open to discussion. Commissioner Larson asked the applicants to summarize their proposed changes. Ms. Skamser Lewis explained that their sign designer gave them the impression that the proposed Norman Quacks sign was in conformance with City ordinances. They later discovered there was a sign plan. The existing sign plan didn’t make sense because they are renting 5,000 square feet of space, 140 linear feet, compared with the average tenant who has 40 linear feet. They wanted to simplify the sign plan so that for every zone and elevation there is a maximum amount of square footage and it is up to the tenants to make Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 18, 2019 Page 2 of 4 sure their signs are in conformance with City code. Specifically, they removed 12a, the prohibition on signs with exposed neon/exposed bulbs, because they are not prohibited by City code, and 12e, the prohibition on exposed sign illumination or exposed sign cabinets or modules. They removed these prohibitions because they had seen those elements in existing signs that were on the property. They replaced the maximum sign square footage with a table that showed the maximum amount of square feet allowed per elevation and zone. Commissioner Larson asked how the suggested changes could be administered. Ms. Wittman said one of the largest challenges is that tenant spaces change frequently. If a particular zone is allotted 290 square feet, enforcing how that gets broken up by tenant is hard for staff to administer. The existing sign plan is one that staff uses as a model. The table clearly states what is allowed. Ms. Skamser Lewis said from a business standpoint it is very difficult to work in the old model because tenants consolidate and subdivide spaces. If you are the 5,000 square foot restaurant space, to have the same amount of signage available to you as the 50 square foot shop is inequitable; your signage is quite limited if you’re the last tenant to join your zone. Now that they understand the staff perspective, they would be open to a different plan that is reasonable and is more easily administered. Councilmember Junker noted that he opened up Anytime Fitness in 2006 with 4,600 square feet of space, then expanded gaining another 1,500 square feet but could not increase the signage. The Norman Quacks tenant space is essentially like an endcap space. Commissioner Larson suggested if the space is unique, can we address this space and still keep most of the existing sign plan in tact? Ms. Wittman replied she does not believe it is grounds for amending what looks to be complex sign language in the table - it has been easy for staff. If there is a desire to allot more signage for this tenant space then maybe there needs to be discussion of whether a new zone needs to be created. She explained that the current plan allows for three signs in that zone which runs from the right edge of one of the primary entrances to the mall, all the way to the corner, the theory being there would be a maximum of three tenant spaces. Norman Quack, the duck sign, is significantly larger than allowed and is on an architectural feature. Chairwoman Mino asked, if it were removed from the architectural feature, could it be accommodated elsewhere or is it over the square footage? Ms. Wittman replied it is over square footage for this zone. As proposed, a height variance would be required because the code does not allow the sign to go above the parapet or to obscure an architectural feature. The Planning Commission will consider the needed height variance. Ms. Skamser Lewis said their sign professional gave them 2-3 options for locations based on what he thought conformed to code. He interpreted the roofline or parapet being the top of the architectural feature rather than the line below. Another option is the space to the right, but it’s not visible from the road. They considered having the sign be smaller but visibility was a challenge. Commissioner Finwall commented that the sign is already up. It is hard for the HPC to approve a change if they don’t know if the variance will be approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Larson asked how did these signs get there without being reviewed by the City? Ms. Skamser Lewis said they hired a sign professional to create the signs and were under the impression that the signs complied with City code. Then they got a letter from the City notifying them of the issues. Ms. Wittman pointed out that to be compliant, they would be allowed to have 2 signs, one on each sign band façade area. The logo is the portion that is non-compliant. Chairwoman Mino said the restaurant’s signage in Forest Lake has the logo alongside the words and that could probably have been done here and not be out of compliance. Ms. Skamser Lewis replied the Forest Lake Norman Quacks location is much older. When they considered leasing the Stillwater space they had concerns that there has been a lot of turnover in that space over the Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 18, 2019 Page 3 of 4 years particularly with restaurants. They made a significant capital investment in signage to bring the space in line with their aesthetic and brand. They need visibility to the public. Mr. Skamser added that the restaurant in Forest Lake has been there 19 years and people still have no idea it is there. They did a bad job with signage in Forest Lake, and felt the architectural feature at this site gave the opportunity to express their individual business brand. Councilmember Junker noted everyone the City deals with would love to have as large a sign as possible. Unfortunately ordinances prohibit that. The restaurants there didn’t fail because of poor signage. It defaces the building to cover up the architectural feature. Commissioner Larson agreed that it’s a matter of being consistent. If every one of the tenants had a different sign it would be unattractive. To approve this sign would seem unfair to current tenants and does not follow the intent of the design guidelines. He would support a larger sign within the sign band, maybe consolidating the square footage area from both sides. Ms. Skamser Lewis noted that the zone and elevation includes Mongolian Barbecue, so technically Norman Quacks wouldn’t be able to have any signs. The Norman Quacks sign and the duck total 110 square feet. Ms. Wittman added that staff would interpret one of the Mongolian Barbecue signs to be illegally installed. Until early last week staff was unaware they had two signs. Chairwoman Mino agreed that the sign should be confined to the sign band area. Commissioner Larson said there is a lack of definition of the sign band. He would consider it being from the windows up. Ms. Skamser Lewis stated that they were confused by 12a and 12b because those are currently used by signs in the mall so they thought that was an antiquated gesture. It was articulated as exposed neon and theirs is not exposed. It is encased in a clear plastic cabinet. Ms. Wittman stated there is no prohibition in City code to exposed bulbs or neon, it was a condition of approval of the 1987 sign plan that was carried forward to the 2013 plan. Whether the clear plexiglass case makes it allowable or not is a great question. She suggested that staff work with the applicant on possibly amending the elevation plan for the building. She understands that the HPC is not favorable to covering up the architectural element in this location, that the HPC would like to see the logo of the duck incorporated into the business name, and is favorable to having a wider sign band in this area to accommodate the logo, and is more favorable to the duck dipping below the sign band but not going above the sign band. Commissioner Larson clarified he would support allowing the logo to go below the sign band in this one case but not rewriting it into the sign ordinance. It could be justified in this corner location. Commissioner Finwall said maybe an exception could be made for one tenant so when that tenant is no longer there it would not apply. Ms. Wittman agreed that the design permit approval could contain a condition that if the duck goes away the right to go below the sign band goes away. She would have to check this with the City Attorney. The only way to approve something for this applicant is to amend the sign plan because that is the only thing the HPC has control over. Councilmember Junker said the HPC could probably amend a certain zone. He has been in the mall 13 years and does not want to be inconsistent with other tenants. Ms. Skamser Lewis asked if the HPC would consider the sign to be exposed neon or not. Commissioner Larson replied if it’s not exposed and it’s cabineted, then it complies. Ms. Wittman asked if the HPC is OK with neon in the business district. The consensus was yes, it should all be covered, not exposed, with nothing broken or hazardous. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting September 18, 2019 Page 4 of 4 Ms. Skamser Lewis asked if it is possible to do an interim sign plan for a particular tenant, applicable to that location so long as Norman Quacks is the tenant. Ms. Wittman replied there are no provisions in the zoning code for interim sign plans. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to table Case No. 2019-21, Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan for the property located at 1400 (1570) Frontage Road West, directing staff to work with the applicant on amendments that would not jeopardize staff’s ability to administer the plan but would allow for increased signage opportunities for this business given its uniqueness All in favor, 5-0. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS HPC/City Council Workshop Feedback and Enabling Ordinance Discussion Ms. Wittman thanked the Commissioners for attending a September 10 joint City Council and HPC meeting. She was pleased to hear that the Council is willing to consider not requiring an outside consultant to do designation studies. This will allow local resources to be better utilized. Staff has direction to draft a request for proposals for a consultant to assist with ordinance amendment. A Request for Proposals will be distributed and citizens will be asked for input. Councilmember Junker added that the Council passed a 1-year moratorium on demolition applications. FYI 2019 Preserve MN Conference September 11-13 Ms. Wittman, Chairwoman Mino and Commissioner Walls reported on the State Historic Preservation Conference held in St. Cloud. She reminded the Commission that Stillwater is hosting the 2020 Conference September 16-18. She asked for volunteers to sit on the planning committee which will meet October 7. Other Ms. Wittman added the State is seeking input, via a postcard survey, to update its historic preservation plan. Northern Bedrock Preservation Corps is clearing invasive species south of St. Croix Boat and Packet and the Bergstein Shoddy Mill and Warehouse. Staff met with the Met Council’s subcommittee which praised the City’s comprehensive plan. Commissioner Larson recapped an American Institute of Architects meeting held in Stillwater. Commissioner Thueson invited Commissioners to the Washington County Historical Society’s fall dinner meeting at the new South Greeley Street history center building. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Walls, seconded by Commissioner Finwall to adjourn. All in favor, 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Kink, Recording Secretary PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: HPC 2019-21 REPORT DATE: September 12, 2019 MEETING DATE: September 18, 2019 APPLICANT: Gordon Skamser Jr. LANDOWNER: Valley Ridge Holdings LLC REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan amendments LOCATION: 1570 Frontage Road West ZONING: Central Business District (CBD) DISTRICT: West Stillwater Business Park REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION In 1987 the City of Stillwater granted a variance (Case No. 1987-017) to the property at 1570 Frontage Road West; the variance allowed the property to have greater than one business sign. Conditions of the approval were made and are attached for your review. In 2013 South Metro Centers V LLC, then property owner, requested approval of a Design Permit for a multi-tenant sign plan and free-standing signage on the property. The property owner incorporated all Case No. 1987-017 conditions of approval into the sign plan; the multi- tenant sign plan was approved by the Stillwater HPC. Subsequently, the City Council rescinded the variance approval, clearing the title to the property for it to be subdivided to allow for the construction of the Dairy Queen building on a future outlot. A copy of the approved sign plan and Design Permit is attached for your review. SPECIFIC REQUEST Gordon Skamser Jr. has requested a Design Permit for the alteration of the existing multi-tenant sign plan to accommodate the installation of a new sign for Norman Quacks. The sign plan modifications1 include: 1 Underlined and Italics is proposed to be removed Case no. Page 2 • Neon must be double-row for even illumination • All signs must have equal margin on each side of their allotted sign band relative to the size of the overall size. • “All letters must be constructed to U. L. standards and must be U. L. approved” is proposed to read: “All letters must be constructed to modern safety standards”. • The following is not permitted and is expressly prohibited: o Signs with exposed neon, fluorescent tubing or exposed o Exposed sign illumination or illuminated sign cabinets or modules. • Sections 13 through 25, clarifying the sign plan, are proposed to be removed in their entirety. They are proposed to be replaced with “total square footage of each sign must fit within the total square footage of the Elevation and Zone of the sign placement”. The applicant is proposing a single “total square footage of allowed sign” column for each elevation/zone. • For the pylon banner sign program, the applicant is proposing to change the sign’s maximum size, of 4’x6’ to include sizes “otherwise mutually agreed upon by the owner”; this phrase is also used as a caveat to the total time period allowed for each banner. • The proposed plan allows for the placement of a sign on the South elevation, on the corner’s architectural feature. ANALYSIS The intent of the design review procedure is to secure the general purposes of the comprehensive plan, West Stillwater Business Park Plan and downtown plan, to maintain the character and integrity of neighborhoods and commercial districts by promoting excellence of design and development, preventing traffic hazards, providing adequate services and encouraging development in harmony with its neighborhood or planning area. City Code Section 31-209, Design Permits, require the HPC to review multi-tenant sign plans for conformance with adopted standards and guidelines. However, neither the City Code nor the West Stillwater Business Park Plan have standards and guidelines for the review of multi-tenant sign plans. The following standards have been developed for 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”. This sign plan is utilized as an example for other property owners seeking to develop comprehensive, multi-tenant sign plans as it is not only well thought and fairly distributes signage allotments between all businesses in the mall, it is relatively easy for the City to approve sign permits for this property. Staff has the following concerns: • Changing the sign plan to have less clarity for how much individual signage is permitted for each elevation and zone will make the plan difficult for the City to administer. The difficulties include understanding total elevation/zone signage permitted at any given point as well as the risk one tenant space will consume portions of signage for other tenants. Furthermore, the plan gives no reference to how many signs any one business may have; this is in direct conflict with the City Code. If approved, the applicant would Case no. Page 3 have three signs on the building; the total square footage (as per City Code) may be exceeded. • The plan additionally proposes the removal of regulations pertaining to exposed bulbs, including neon. While this is not in conflict with City code, there is concern this could set a precedence for the property, allowing for signage that has not traditionally been permitted on the property. • The plan further proposes allowing for modifications to the tenant banner program, designed to accommodate for onsite temporary signage as temporary signage has tended to become long-term building and ground clutter on the property. This program was created to allow for flexible, rotating temporary signage to reduce visual clutter. Modifying this existing program could have negative implications. • Lastly, the plan allows for an additional sign to be located on an existing architectural feature where signage is currently not permitted. All signs on the property are located in one of two places: on the traditional sign band area or in an area where the surface is flat and designed to accommodate the installation of signage. Installation of signage in this area obscures the architectural features. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested Design Permit with or without conditions. B. Deny the requested Design Permit. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 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 this chapter, 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. The lack of detail regarding the allowance of specific maximum number of signs is not consistent with the appearance and harmony with adjacent development. Additionally, the proposed location, size and height of the new corner sign location does not keep with the appearance of the building and is not in harmony with the overall placement of signs on the property. Staff recommends the HPC discuss the proposed multi-tenant sign plan with the applicant and take action on the request. Case no. Page 4 Attachments: Applicant Narrative Existing Sign Plan (8 pages) Design Permit 2013-42 Amended Sign Plan Proposal (4 pages) Variance 1987-17 (4 pages) cc: Gordon Skamser Jr., applicant Francis Skamser Lewis Alon Ventura, Valley Ridge Mall HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 20, 2019 REGARDING: 2020 Preserve MN Conference PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office’s CLG Coordinator & Historic Preservation Specialist Michael Koop will be at the meeting to introduce himself and discuss conference preparations to date. In addition he would like to discuss the Commission’s thoughts on the potential keynote. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 20, 2019 REGARDING: HPC Enabling Ordinance Amendment Consultation Selection PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner BACKGROUND As a reminder to the Commission, city staff secured funding to update the HPC enabling ordinance and to consolidate design guidelines. A Request for Proposals was distributed and the City has received two qualified proposals; the RFP and all proposals are attached for the Commission’s review. Notes from each of the proposals include: 106 Group - NTE fee: $26,000  27 years of experience  Four staff; three meet SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards  Experience developing Master Plans & Context Studies  Experience interpreting HPC ordinances and applying local designation criteria  Stillwater work: o Prepared two demolition designation studies (2019) o Assisted with design of HHLS program and researched properties for inclusion o Conducted Phase I reconnaissance and Phase II intensive architectural history survey for St. Croix River Crossing o Prepared Bergstein site assessment and NR nomination for mill HKGi & Landscape Research – NTE fee: $26,000  35 years (HKGi) & 42 years (LR) of experience  Five staff: two meet the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards and three planners  Ordinance development and updates: o Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Regulations Update o Downtown Chaska Zoning Code & Signage Design Guidelines o Eden Prairie Town Center Zoning Ordinance & Design Guidelines  Stillwater work: o Stillwater Comprehensive Plan (HKGi) & HR Chapter (LR) o Stillwater Cultural Landscape District o Supported CDD during staff absence (2017) PROPOSAL REVIEW HPC Ordinance Update Proposals Page 2 The Request for Proposals indicates he proposal selected for award of the contract will not necessarily be the lowest cost. Rather, the selection will be based upon the proposal that is most responsive, responsible and the most advantageous to the City, evaluating proposals based on past experience and performance, current performance capability, fees and other criteria outlined in the RFP. Specific evaluation criteria includes: Qualifications  Consulting experiences with similar types of projects.  Demonstrated understanding of the Scope of Work.  Work experience and educational background of assigned staff members and their direct knowledge/experience specific to the Scope of Work. Proposed Project Work Plan  Overall content and concept. Cost  Overall cost, including reimbursable expenses and the ability to produce the final products within the budget limitations identified in this RFP. Time Schedule  Ability to comply with the proposed time schedule for the project. It is clear both proposals understand the scope of work and are able to complete the project on time and within the City’s budget. Furthermore, both proposals include project staff who meet or exceed the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. However, HKGi and Landscape Research have more experience with code and ordinance updates. HPC ACTION Make a recommendation to the City Council to enter into contract for services with one of the proposers. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the HPC consider recommending the Council enter into contract with HKGi and Landscape Research LLC. ATTACHED Request for Proposals 106 Group Proposal HKGi Proposal CITY OF STILLWATER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Development of the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission Enabling Ordinance Amendments Proposals Due: 12:00 p.m., November 1, 2019 RFP: Stillwater HPC Enabling Ordinance Amendments, Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of Request Page 3 B. Objective of this RFP Page 3 C. Background Page 3 II. SCOPE OF WORK A. Overview Page 6 B. Professional Qualifications Required Page 6 C. Budget and Support Services Page 6 D. Deliverables Page 6 E. Project Work Plan and Timeline of Specific Tasks Page 6 III. PROPOSAL FORMAT A. Professional Qualifications Page 7 B. Required Proposal Contents Page 8 D. Fee Quotation Page 8 E. Optional Information Page 8 IV. RFP PROCESS A. Responders’ Questions Page 9 B. Proposal Submission Page 9 V. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION A. Overview of Evaluation Methodology Page 9 B. Evaluation Criteria Page 9 VI. REQUIRED CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page 10 VII. RIGHTS RESERVED Page 11 RFP: Stillwater HPC Enabling Ordinance Amendments, Page 3 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE OF REQUEST The City of Stillwater (Stillwater), in coordination with its Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), is seeking proposals from consultants to update the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission enabling ordinance and associated city code sections pertaining to HPC activities. B. OBJECTIVE OF THIS RFP The objective of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to obtain proposals from, and enter into contract with, a qualified Responder(s) to perform the tasks and services set forth in this RFP. The term of any resulting contract is anticipated to run from November 4, 2019 through June 30, 2020. C. BACKGROUND To help protect the character and nature of the community and its historic resources, in 1987 the City of Stillwater developed an ordinance specifically pertaining to its Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). The framework created remains mostly intact today with minimal modifications in the last three decades. 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. A list of referenced City Code Sections is attached as Exhibit A. Within the municipal boundaries of the City of Stillwater, there is a National Register- listed historic district (the Stillwater Commercial Historic District), a Neighborhood Conservation District, a National-Register eligible archaeological district (the South Main Street Archeological District), a National-Register eligible Cultural Landscape District, and over one dozen structures and sites individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as numerous design review districts. 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. A complete list of all HPC-related City Code Sections, RFP: Stillwater HPC Enabling Ordinance Amendments, Page 4 code references, and existing and drafted guidelines is available at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/udr58o6xjyq8nl4/AABTTYBr8ibCB4DYbKctMUfaa? dl=0. On September 17, 2019 the City Council adopted a moratorium on the issuance of demolition permits for locally-designated heritage preservation sites and historic resources. The City has one year to revise demolition review processes which will be led by City staff. The final demolition review amendment will be incorporated into this HPC-enabling ordinance amendment. II. SCOPE OF WORK A. OVERVIEW In conjunction with its HPC, an outside consultant and a both small citizen advisory committee made up of business and property owners and the general public, the desire of the City is to: 1. Conduct a detailed and thoughtful review of specific City Code Sections pertaining to the Heritage Preservation Commission (listed as Exhibit A) and draft an ordinance amendment to clean up code inconsistencies, strengthen the connection between the City Code and the design guidelines, to better define HPC activities, as well as strengthen the connection between HPC activities and the City’s Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. 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. B. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED With an understanding of Heritage Preservation Commission enabling ordinances, and a thorough knowledge of municipal codes and ordinance development, the Consultant or a member of the consulting team shall meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (as published in the Federal Register of September 29, 1983). C. BUDGET AND SUPPORT SERVICES This project has been financed in part with funds provided by the Minnesota Historical Society from the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund and the National Park Service’s Certified Local Government grant program, administered by the State Historic Preservation Office. A total of $26,000 will be available for all consulting services. Stillwater staff, including but not limited to the Community Development Director, City RFP: Stillwater HPC Enabling Ordinance Amendments, Page 5 Attorney, and City Planner will: 1. Lead the demolition review update portion of this project; 2. Serve as the primary point of contact for the consultant, coordinating correspondence between the city staff, the HPC, and members of the community; 3. Staff may also be available to assist with guideline consolidation, if needed; and 4. Administer the grant project. D. FINAL PROJECT DELVERABLES 1. Recommended ordinance revisions in electronic format. 2. Five printed copies of consolidated design guidelines. 3. One electronic copy of the of the consolidated design guidelines in MS Word format or other format, as agreed to by the City of Stillwater. E. PROJECT WORK PLAN AND TIMELINE OF SPECIFIC TASKS The process and timeline will roughly follow the following tentative timeline: 9/30/2019 – 11/1/2019 (Committee Solicitation): Staff will coordinate with the HPC to identify individuals to work with the HPC and the consultant on the enabling ordinance amendment. 9/30/2019 – 11/1/2019 (Procurement Period): Staff will develop a Request for Proposals, soliciting consultant bids on the ordinance amendment. 11/20/2019 (HPC Consultant Selection): Staff will work with the HPC on determining a consultant recommendation to the City Council. 12/3/2019 (City Council Consideration): Consultant contract anticipated to be approved by the City Council. 12/4/2019 – 1/15/2019 (Inventory): HPC, Committee and Consultant review of Stillwater preservation ordinances and design guidelines. Consultant will coordinate with the HPC and staff on at least one public visioning/listening session. 1/16/2019 – 3/2/2019 (Ordinance Drafting): Consultant develop recommendations for ordinance amendments. 3/2/2019 – 4/30/2019 (Ordinance Revision and Guideline Consolidation): HPC, City staff, members of the public, MNHS, and SHPO to review draft ordinances and work with consultant on appropriate amendments. Consultant to draft consolidated guidelines. 4/30/2019 (Final Draft Submittal): The consultant will submit final ordinance draft RFP: Stillwater HPC Enabling Ordinance Amendments, Page 6 and consolidated guidelines to the City. 5/20/2019 (HPC Review and Recommendation): The HPC will review the proposed ordinance amendments and consolidated design guidelines, and make a formal recommendation to the City Council. 5/27/2019 (Planning Commission Review and Recommendation): The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to review the proposed ordinance amendments and consolidated design guidelines, and make a formal recommendation to the City Council. 6/2/2019 (City Council Consideration): The City Council will hold a public hearing on the 1st reading of the proposed ordinance amendments and associated Resolution(s). 6/15/2019 (City Council Consideration): The City Council will hold a public hearing on the 2nd reading of the proposed ordinance amendments and associated Resolution(s). III. PROPOSAL FORMAT A. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 1. Provide a brief description of the consultant’s capability, history and organization. 2. State the full name and address of your organization, and the branch office or other subordinate element that will perform or assist in performing the work hereunder. Indicate whether it operates as an individual, partnership, or corporation; if as a corporation, include the state in which it is incorporated. If applicable, state whether it is licensed to operate in the State of Minnesota. 3. Identify the executive and professional personnel by skill and qualification that will be employed in the work. Show where these personnel will be physically located during the time they are engaged in the work. Indicate which of these individuals you consider key to the successful completion of the study or project. Identify major responsibilities of individuals and their respective areas of expertise. 4. Identify the name of the person designated as the contact person for this proposal with mailing address, telephone number and e-mail address. If not the contact person, include the name and phone number of person(s) in your organization authorized to negotiate/expedite the proposal contract with the City. 5. Describe how the consultant or organization is in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for history, architectural RFP: Stillwater HPC Enabling Ordinance Amendments, Page 7 history or historical architecture as published in the Federal Register of September 29, 1983. B. REQUIRED PROPOSAL CONTENTS 1. Develop a Project Work Plan and schedule for the proposal in accordance with the Overview, Timelines of Specific Tasks and Project Deliverables, above. 2. Within the schedule, identify the minimum of three site visit meetings anticipated to occur. Given the partnership, identify the location and purpose of site visit meetings with the City. 3. Identify opportunities for engagement with the City and community including conference calls with city staff. 4. Identify similar projects completed by the consultant or consulting team, including contacts that can be used for reference. C. FEE QUOTATION 1. Submit a fee proposal, which includes your firm’s “not to exceed” fee for the total project. The consultant shall provide a separate cost for each product. The quoted fee shall include estimated reimbursable fees. The quoted fee shall also include sales tax, if applicable, and provide the detail. 2. Signature of authorized firm negotiator/expeditor. D. OPTIONAL INFORMATION Include any other information that may be pertinent, but not specifically asked for elsewhere. IV. RFP PROCESS A. RESPONDERS’ QUESTIONS The Stillwater staff member listed below will be the contact for all inquiries related to this RFP. All questions or requests for information should be sent by email to: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner, awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us All inquiries received by email before 12:00 pm (noon) on October 11, 2019, will receive responses. Responses which involve an interpretation or change to this RFP will be issued by addendum, e-mailed to all parties recorded by Stillwater as having received a copy of this RFP or those who have notified the City of Stillwater of their obtaining of the RFP. All such addenda issued by Stillwater shall be considered part of the RFP. Any addenda will be issued in writing by email by 4:30 PM on October 18, 2019. This is two weeks prior to the proposal submission deadline. Only additional information provided by formal written addenda will be binding. Oral RFP: Stillwater HPC Enabling Ordinance Amendments, Page 8 and other interpretations or clarifications will be without legal effect. B. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION To be considered, each firm must email one complete pdf copy of their proposal. The subject line of the email is to be: “Stillwater HPC Ordinance Update Proposal”. Email the proposal to Abbi Jo Wittman (awittman@ci.stillwater.mn.us). All proposals must be emailed by 12:00 PM, Friday, February 1, 2019. Proposals sent after that time will not be considered. V. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION A. OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The proposal selected for award of the contract will not necessarily be the lowest cost. Rather, the selection will be based upon the proposal that is most responsive, responsible and the most advantageous to the City. The City intends to award a contract, subject to the terms of this RFP, to the consultant that offers the best overall value. Proposals will be evaluated based on past experience and performance, current performance capability, fees and other criteria as outlined in this document. B. EVALUATION CRITERIA Proposals will be evaluated by the City on the following: Qualifications  Consulting experiences with similar types of projects.  Demonstrated understanding of the Scope of Work.  Work experience and educational background of assigned staff members and their direct knowledge/experience specific to the Scope of Work. Proposed Project Work Plan  Overall content and concept. Cost  Overall cost, including reimbursable expenses and the ability to produce the final products within the budget limitations identified in this RFP. Time Schedule  Ability to comply with the proposed time schedule for the project. VI. REQUIRED CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. The City, or members thereof, is/are not liable for any cost incurred by Responders in the preparation and production of a Proposal. Any work performed prior to the issuance of a fully executed contract will be done only to the extent the Responder voluntarily assumes risk of non-payment. RFP: Stillwater HPC Enabling Ordinance Amendments, Page 9 B. All materials produced by the consultant during the course of the project will be owned by the City of Stillwater. C. The contents of this RFP and, by reference, the proposal will become a part of any subsequent formal agreement if a contract ensues. D. All information in a proposal, except fee quotation, is subject to disclosure under the provisions of Minnesota Statute Chapter 13 “Minnesota Government Data Practices Act”. E. The consultant acknowledges that in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work on the project that no contractor, material supplier or vendor shall, by reason of race, creed, color, religion, national original, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a local commission, disability, sexual orientation, or ago, discriminate against any person or person who are citizens of the United States, or resident aliens, who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates. No contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in previous section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, membership or activity in a local commission, disability, sexual orientation, or age. F. The consultant agrees any publicity releases, informational brochures, publications, studies, reports, presentations, files, audio visual materials, exhibits, or other material prepared with grant assistance will contain the following acknowledgements: “This project has been financed in part with funds provided by the State of Minnesota from the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund through the Minnesota Historical Society.” “The activity that is the subject of this publication has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior. This program receives Federal financial assistance for identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office for Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, 1849 C RFP: Stillwater HPC Enabling Ordinance Amendments, Page 10 St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20240.” VII. RIGHTS RESERVED Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the City and members thereof, reserve the right to: A. Reject any and all Proposals received in response to this RFP; B. Disqualify any Responder whose conduct or Proposal fails to conform to the requirements of this RFP; C. Waive any technicalities, informalities, or irregularities in any proposal at its sole option and discretion; D. To request clarification or additional information; E. Have unlimited rights to duplicate all materials submitted for purposes of RFP evaluation, and duplicate all public information in response to data requests regarding the Proposal; F. Select for contract or for negotiations a Proposal other than that with the lowest cost; G. Negotiate as to any aspect of the Proposal with any Responder and negotiate with more than one Responder at the same time, including asking for Responders’ “Best and Final” offers as to price, technical provisions, or both; H. To award a contract or to re-solicit proposals; I. Cancel the Request for Proposal at any time and for any reason with no cost or penalty to the City or members thereof. HPC Enabling Ordinance Amendment, Page 11 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 City of Stillwater HPC Ordinance Update Request for Proposals Addendum, Page 1 CITY OF STILLWATER STILLWATER HPC ENABLING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ADDENDA October 18, 2019 INQUIRY RESPONSE Timeline The cover page states the proposal is due November 1, 2019, while on page 8 is states proposals are due February 1, 2019. Can you please clarify the due date? The proposal submittal deadline is November 1, 2019. Site Visits The RFP states the schedule should identify a minimum of three site visit meetings. Can you clarify the purpose of the site visit meetings and what role the consultant should play at these meetings? Does the City envision more than three meetings? Who do you anticipate will lead the site visit meetings and public visioning/listening sessions? The site visit meetings are intended to meet with staff, members of the HPC and/or elected officials, as well as the general public to better understand challenges associated with existing code provisions pertaining to the HPC. No specific purpose for the three meetings has been identified. While the City does not envision more than three meetings with appointed/elected officials and/or the general public, meetings with staff may need to occur; this will be at the discretion of the consultant. It is anticipated city staff and/or members of the HPC will lead site visit meetings and visioning/listening sessions. The consultant may be asked to participate in small group dialogue discussions. Under both scenarios, the consulted will be expected to document concerns of the public, appointed/elected officials, and city staff to use as a basis for potential ordinance alterations. Guideline Consolidation The RFP talks about consolidating the guidelines. Can you elaborate on this goal? For example, is the intent to consolidate the guidelines into or outside of the City’s zoning ordinance? What is the review process of the draft consolidated guidelines? Will the document need to be reviewed by MNHS and SHPO? Some guidelines, but not all, are anticipated to be codified. For example, the City’s Neighborhood Conservation District has a design guideline for four-sided architecture on new residences in that district. The HPC may determine this is an appropriate guideline to codify into a community standard, applicable in all design review districts. The bulk of the guideline consolidation, however, will be in a separate document referenced in the City Code. The draft consolidated guidelines, developed as a separate document referenced in the City Code, does not need to be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for review; staff may send the document as a courtesy. The Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) has requested review of draft guidelines to be submitted 30 days prior to final ordinance submission. City of Stillwater / October 30, 2019 DEVELOPMENT OF THE STILLWATER HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ENABLING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Dear Ms. Wittman: The 106 Group Ltd. (106 Group) is pleased to present a proposal to partner with the City of Stillwater staff and Heritage Preservation Commission [HPC], a small citizen advisory committee, and the residents of Stillwater to prepare an amendment to the current HPC enabling ordinance and consolidation of design guidelines. Having worked with you this year on two local designation studies prompted by applications for demolition permits, we understand the challenges of the existing legal preservation framework. We also believe Stillwater has many historic resources worthy of designation and we are eager to: • help you streamline the process by updating the HPC enabling ordinance and relevant city code sections, and consolidating the existing sets of design guidelines, • make the legal framework easier for property owners to understand and the City to administer, and • strengthen ties between the community and City in becoming partners to preserve Stillwater’s built heritage. We Are Knowledgeable: Our architectural historians are well-versed in survey and documentation of historic properties, applying National Register and local criteria to determine eligibility, and working with communities to fulfill heritage preservation goals. Our public engagement process engages all stakeholders in a supportive, authentic, and transparent forum. We value every voice at the table. We Are Experienced: We have contributed to preservation plans and completed local designation studies for multiple cities. We have experience interpreting HPC ordinances and applying local designation criteria, and can offer you a user’s perspective. We have also facilitated community engagement for numerous communities and city departments. We Are Reliable: As our current partnership with you demonstrates, we have provided thorough, detailed studies, on time or ahead of schedule so you can meet your deadlines. We appreciate the opportunity to continue our work with you. If you have any questions, please contact Erin Que at ErinQue@106group.com or by phone at 651-403-8710. Sincerely, THE 106 GROUP LTD. Erin Que Sr. Architectural Historian K. Anne Ketz CEO and Services Director Main Office 1295 Bandana Blvd Suite 335 St Paul MN 55108 Locations Boston MA Richmond VA Washington DC 106group.com Previous Work in Stillwater This year, we completed local designation studies for 615 Broadway Street South and 116 Harriet Street North. We assisted City staff with the design of the Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites’ website and a database to power it, created promotional materials for the program, developed a brochure on historic house rehabilitation, and conducted survey and research to develop detailed property narratives for the website. As part of the Section 106 documentation for the St. Croix River Crossing Project, we conducted Phase I reconnaissance and Phase II intensive architectural history survey of over 100 properties in and around Stillwater, and collaborated on a proposed site assessment for the Bergstein property (Shoddy Mill). We also completed the National Register nomination for Shoddy Mill. We conducted Phase I and II archaeological survey as part of the redevelopment of the Minnesota Territorial/State Prison in Stillwater. As part of the Section 106 documentation for the Manning Avenue Improvements project from Highway 5 to Hudson Boulevard, we conducted Phase I and II archaeological and architectural history surveys. ABOUT 106 GROUP The 106 Group Ltd. (106 Group) is a Minnesota subchapter-S corporation in the State of Minnesota and Certified Woman-owned Business Enterprise (WBE). For over 27 years, 106 Group has guided the planning, management, and interpretation of natural, historical, and cultural resources. As an award-winning firm with a dedication to history and culture, we’ve developed innovative solutions to document resources and foster collaborations among stakeholders. From our beginnings as a small, family-owned business, 106 Group has grown into a nationally and internationally recognized firm. PROJECT WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE Our Approach For more than two decades, the 106 Group team has supported numerous heritage preservation projects for cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, and federal agencies. We understand the importance of advanced planning and clear communication to complete the project on time and within budget. Our work plan and schedule presented below identify key project milestones, opportunities for community engagement, and our responsibilities as the consultant. Engagement activities will include conference calls with City staff; site visit meetings with the Project Team (consultant, City staff, HPC, and citizen advisory committee [CAC]); public visioning/listening sessions; online forum for public comment on project deliverables; and attendance at public hearings to usher the project through its completion. Dates, activities, agendas, and locations are proposed, and will be finalized in coordination with City staff. This schedule follows that suggested by the City in the Request for Proposals, with one exception: we feel input from the City, HPC, and CAC is critical to the development of the project deliverables. Therefore, we propose to start the Project Team’s review of draft deliverables earlier in the process and prior to submitting draft deliverables for external review. Inventory Kick-off Site Visit Meeting Dec. 4th–13th Participants: 106 Group, City, HPC, and CAC Location: Stillwater City Hall Purpose: To kick-off the project Agenda: Team introductions, discuss and finalize schedule, and plan for public visioning/listening sessions. Discuss opportunities for the public to participate virtually if unable to attend either session. City staff and/or the HPC will lead this meeting. 106 Group will take notes to be shared after the meeting. Ordinance and Guidelines Review Dec. 4th–16th HPC, CAC, and 106 Group review existing ordinance and guidelines Public Visioning/Listening Session #1 Dec. 16th–20th Participants: 106 Group, City, HPC, CAC, and residential property owners Location: Stillwater Public Library Purpose: To introduce the project and seek input from residential property owners Agenda: Project overview, get feedback about the existing HPC ordinance from residents’ perspectives, and imagine the future of heritage preservation in Stillwater City staff and/or the HPC will lead the session. 106 Group will participate in discussions and take notes to be shared after the session. Public Visioning/Listening Session #2 Jan 6th–10th Participants: 106 Group, City, HPC, CAC, and commercial property owners Location: Stillwater Public Library Purpose: To introduce the project and seek input from commercial property owners Agenda: Project overview, get feedback about the existing HPC ordinance from business owners’ perspectives, and imagine the future of heritage preservation in Stillwater City staff and/or the HPC will lead the session. 106 Group will participate in discussions and take notes to be shared after the session. 106 Group will also prepare a summary of both sessions for the City’s records. Debrief Site Visit Meeting Jan. 13th–16th Participants: 106 Group, City, HPC, and CAC Location: Stillwater City Hall Purpose: To discuss feedback from public sessions and prioritize updates to the ordinance City staff and/or the HPC will lead this meeting. 106 Group will take notes to be shared after the meeting. Ordinance Amendment Draft Jan. 16th–Feb 3rd 106 Group develops recommendations for ordinance amendment, and submits to City staff by email. Project Team Review Feb. 3rd–10th City, HPC, and CAC review 1st draft. Comments should be consolidated into one document and shared with 106 Group via email. Site Visit Meeting Feb. 10th–14th Participants: 106 Group, City, HPC, and CAC Location: Stillwater City Hall Purpose: To discuss Project Team comments on ordinance amendment and approach for consolidating design guidelines City staff and/or the HPC will lead this meeting. 106 Group will take notes to be shared after the meeting. Consolidated Design Guidelines Site Visit Meeting Feb. 10th–14th Participants: 106 Group, City, HPC, and CAC Purpose: To discuss Project Team comments on ordinance amendment and approach for consolidating design guidelines City staff and/or the HPC will lead this meeting. 106 Group will take notes to be shared after the meeting. Draft Feb. 14th–26th 106 Group drafts consolidated design guidelines Project Team Review Mar. 2nd–16th City, HPC, and CAC review consolidated design guidelines Comments should be consolidated into one document and shared with 106 Group via email. Revise Mar. 16th–20th 106 Group revises consolidated design guidelines in response to Project Team comments Project Team Review Mar 20th–24th City staff reviews consolidated design guidelines, prior to submission to MNHS MNHS Review Mar. 24th–Apr. 23rd City staff submits draft consolidated design guidelines to MNHS for 30-day review Revise Feb. 14th–26th 106 Group revises draft recommendations on ordinance amendment in response to Project Team comments Project Team Review Feb. 27th–Mar. 4th City staff reviews 2nd draft, prior to submission to SHPO, Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS), and the public SHPO, MNHS, and Public Review Mar. 4th–Apr. 3rd City staff submits draft of ordinance amendment to MNHS and SHPO for 30-day review City staff posts draft of ordinance amendment on City website for 30 days for public comment Conference Call Apr. 6th–10th Participants: 106 Group, City staff Purpose: To discuss MNHS, SHPO, and public comments on ordinance amendment, and determine approach to finalize ordinance amendment Finalize Apr. 10th–30th 106 Group prepares final draft of ordinance amendment Conference Call Apr. 24th Participants: 106 Group, City staff Purpose: To discuss MNHS, SHPO, and public comments on ordinance amendment, and determine approach to finalize ordinance amendment Finalize Apr. 24th–30th 106 Group prepares final draft of consolidated design guidelines Deliverable Approval Final Draft Submittal Apr. 30th 106 Group submits final drafts to City including: • one electronic copy of the ordinance amendment • five printed copies and one electronic copy of the consolidated design guidelines • Deliverables will acknowledge funding provided by the Minnesota Historical Society Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund and National Park Service’s Certified Local Government grant program HPC Review and Recommendation May 20th Planning Commission Review and Recommendation May 27th Location: Stillwater City Hall 106 Group attends public hearing to answer questions as needed City Council Consideration #1 Jun. 2nd Location: Stillwater City Hall 106 Group attends public hearing to answer questions as needed City Council Consideration #2 Jun. 15th Location: Stillwater City Hall 106 Group attends public hearing to answer questions as needed Contract Closeout Jun. 30th PROJECT WORK PLAN AND SCHEDULE We will maintain a flexible project schedule that responds to the City of Stillwater’s needs as they arise. This proposed timeline presents a framework within which we can meet key project milestones and complete the work prior to the conclusion of the grant cycle. TASK 2019 2020 DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN INVENTORY Kick-off Site Visit Meeting Ordinance and Guideline Review Public Visioning/Listening Session #1 • Public Visioning/Listening Session #2 Debrief Site Visit Meeting ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONSOLIDATED DESIGN GUIDELINES Draft Project Team Review Site Visit Meeting Revise Project Team Review SHPO, MNHS, and Public Review Conference Call Finalize DELIVERABLE APPROVAL Final Draft Submittal HPC Review and Recommendation Planning Commission Review City Council Consideration #1 City Council Consideration #2 Contract Closeout FEE QUOTATION 106 Group can complete the Stillwater HPC Ordinance Amendment for an amount not-to-exceed $26,000. We have provided a breakdown of tasks with hourly rates and associated hours for key personnel and support staff. We will invoice the City of Stillwater on a monthly basis for all service fees, including expenses, accrued during the preceding month. The amounts due under such invoice shall be payable within thirty (30) days after receipt of invoice. TASK PROFESSIONAL RATE HOURS TOTAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Erin $107 49 $5,243 Juliet $86 30 $2,580 Total Labor 79 $7,823 Expenses $247 Total $8,070 HPC ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Anne $185 2 $370 Saleh $150 15 $2,250 Erin $107 59 $6,313 Total Labor 76 $8,933 Total $8,933 CONSOLIDATED DESIGN GUIDELINES Anne $185 2 $370 Saleh $150 14 $2,100 Erin $107 61 $6,527 Total Labor 77 $8,997 Total $8,997 TOTAL 232 $26,000 K. Anne Ketz CEO and Services Director Erin Que Project Manager and Technical Lead, St. Paul office M.A. Architectural History and Certificate in Historic Preservation, University of Virginia B.A Architecture, Washington University in St. Louis Exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural History and History As Project Manager and Technical Lead, Erin will be the primary point of contact for the City of Stillwater. Having conducted two local designation studies for the City this year, she is experienced with the current HPC ordinance and working with the City. Erin is also adept at facilitating public meetings and supporting client needs with thorough notes and timely follow-up to ensure everyone is on the same page. She will coordinate with City staff to prepare agendas and other meeting materials for all site visit meetings and public visioning/ listening sessions, participate in small group dialogue discussions, and ensure concerns and ideas are documented. She will also attend the public hearings during the approval process to assist with any questions. Through consultation with the City, HPC, and citizen advisory committee, Erin will prepare draft and final versions of the ordinance amendment and consolidated design guidelines document. She is highly detail-oriented and committed to developing a thorough and legible framework within which the City can achieve its preservation goals. Juliet Ogembo Community Engagement and Legal Specialist, St. Paul office LL.M International Law, University of Edinburgh School of Law B.A. International Relations & Communication Studies, St. Cloud State University Areas of Expertise: Collaborative Planning, Creative Problem-Solving, Stakeholder and Community Outreach As Community Engagement and Legal Specialist, Juliet will guide the development of community engagement for the project. She will support City staff and the HPC to develop agendas and activities for the public visioning/listening sessions. She will also attend site visit meetings and public visioning/listening sessions, and document concerns and ideas throughout the process. Juliet is committed to developing creative solutions that promote productive dialogue and build meaningful relationships among stakeholders. She is an experienced mediator equipped to navigate and manage differing perspectives in order to reach consensus. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Key Staff 11 years of professional experience, including 3 years as an architectural historian 5 years of professional experience Saleh Miller Technical Reviewer, Kansas location M.S. Historic Preservation, School of the Art Institute of Chicago B.A. Art History, Architectural History Emphasis, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural History and History. Having grown up in Stillwater, Saleh is passionate about her hometown’s rich architectural heritage. As Technical Reviewer, she will review draft and final deliverables prior to submission to the City and other reviewing parties. Saleh’s extensive experience as a senior architectural historian includes reconnaissance and intensive architectural history surveys, historical research, eligibility evaluations, historic context development, National Register of Historic Places nominations, local designation studies, and assessment of effects studies. 15 years of professional experience, including 13 years as an architectural historian Anne Ketz Principal in Charge, St. Paul office M.A. Historical Archaeology, University of Massachusetts-Boston Graduate Studies on Historic Preservation, Colorado State University B.A. Honors in Ancient History & Archaeology, University of Manchester, England Exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural History, History, and Archaeology (prehistoric and historical) Anne’s career in cultural resources management and planning extends over 40 years and three continents. A recognized leader in guiding clients through the maze of federal, state, and local preservation legislation, Anne’s diplomacy brings successful resolution to complex and controversial projects. Since founding the 106 Group in 1992, she has worked with a broad range of stakeholders, including community activists, planners, and Native American leaders. As Principal in Charge, Anne will ensure contractual compliance and will be available to support the project team as needed. Over 40 years of professional experience PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Quality Assurance City of Rochester Preservation Planning Consultation April 2014–September 2017 Reference Aaron S. Reeves, former Rochester City Administrator Hudson City Administrator 505 3rd Street, Hudson, WI 54106 (715) 716-5741 areeves@hudsonwi.gov RELEVANT PROJECTS AND REFERENCES We worked with Rochester’s inaugural HPC to develop a list of properties eligible for local designation and navigate development pressures converging around historic properties. We surveyed over 300 properties and evaluated their significance within established local criteria. We also worked with City staff and the HPC to advise on how best to move forward with a realistic ordinance that will help navigate historic preservation issues in the future. We later completed a local designation study for the Hotel Carlton. City of St. Paul St. Paul Preservation Plan October 2007–August 2008 St. Paul Fire Department Context & Evaluation July 2016–March 2017 Reference Christine Boulware, Heritage Preservation Specialist City of St. Paul 375 Jackson Street, Suite 220, St. Paul, MN 55101 (651) 266-9078 christine.boulware@ci.stpaul.mn.us We assisted the City of St. Paul in developing its first historic preservation plan to acknowledge the city’s Native American, industrial, commercial, and immigrant heritage and integrate its historic resources in future planning initiatives. We collected baseline data, generated multi-layered GIS maps, and facilitated task force and public meetings. The plan establishes preservation goals, expands the existing preservation program, and recommends ways to implement preservation into the greater planning process. In fulfillment of one of the City’s preservation goals, we subsequently authored a historic context study of the St. Paul Fire Department’s engine houses from 1869 to 1930 and completed a Phase II intensive evaluation of the Hope Engine House within this historic context. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Mississippi Gorge Regional Park Master Plan March 2018–January 2019 Reference Tyler Pederson, Project Manager and Landscape Architect Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 2117 West River Road North, Minneapolis, MN 55411 (612) 499-9084 tpederson@minneapolisparks.org We coordinated the public engagement process to support the development of the master plan. We strategized community engagement activities and outreach; and supported the Project Team by attending, documenting, and reporting on all engagement events. Additionally, we developed an interpretive framework for the Park and provided historical research about the Park’s resources. A successful master plan was dependent on broad and meaningful participation from the community. We worked with the City, project team, and stakeholders to encompass a broad perspective of ideas, input and expertise. Aurora-St. Anthony Neighborhood Development Council St. Paul African American Context December 2016–May 2017 Reference Nieeta Presley, Executive Director Aurora-St. Anthony Neighborhood Development Council 774 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55102 (651) 288-9320 nieeta@aurorastanthony.org We prepared a citywide historical and cultural context study of the historical development of the African American community in St. Paul to provide a framework for the evaluation and preservation of key historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering, and cultural sites. This is the first historic context to focus on a non-European cultural group in St. Paul. An advisory group and series of community workshops guided the process, contributing to an ongoing process of restoration and healing. The study offers a solid foundation for the preservation of African American historic sites and provides tools to help promote African American cultural heritage and heritage tourism in St. Paul. This project was funded by a Minnesota Historical and Cultural Heritage grant, and received a 2019 American Association of State and Local History Award of Excellence for Leadership in History. Prepared by HKGi and Landscape Research November 1, 2019 ProPosal for Professional services Heritage Preservation commission enabling ordinance amendments stillwater, minnesota contents 01 Project team 1 02 aPProach & Work Plan 9 03 Project exPerience 15 04 Fee ProPosal 23 HPC OrdinanCe amendments PrOPOsalii Landscape Architecture Planning Urban Design 123 N. 3rd Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-338-0800 Collaborate listen explore Create HKGi believes that design, when inspired by the character of the people and the land, can create a unique and identifiable sense of community. November 1, 2019 Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner City of Stillwater 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 RE: Proposal for Professional Services - Development of the Heritage Preservation Commission Enabling Ordinance Amendments Dear Ms. Wittman, On behalf of HKGi and Landscape Research, I am pleased to submit our proposal to assist the City and the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) in the inventory, evaluation, and updating of its heritage preservation related ordinances and design guidelines. Stillwater enjoys an extraordinarily well-preserved historic downtown and neighborhoods that attract residents and visitors to the community. The city and its downtown are also on the cusp of a new and exciting era with the recent closing of the city’s Lift Bridge to automobile traffic, which has relieved downtown of heavy traffic congestion, and the bridge’s upcoming reopening as a bicycle/pedestrian crossing that will attract new visitors and businesses to the downtown area. Heritage preservation is key to Stillwater’s community identity and economic development. The City’s recent update of its Comprehensive Plan identified significant issues related to its heritage preservation ordinances and design guidelines, making this an ideal time to update them. This project will be critical to positioning the City to better support rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic resources and accommodate new development while still maintaining those unique historic qualities that attract people downtown and make it a desirable destination. The team that we have assembled for this project includes planners who will bring a strong foundation of knowledge about Stillwater’s development context, its Comprehensive Plan directions and policies, and the City’s existing ordinances and regulations. All of the members of our team have been involved in prior planning initiatives in Stillwater, either through the recent comprehensive planning process, by providing direct planning assistance to the HPC, or by providing planning assistance for the review of development applications and ordinance development or revision. In addition, our team brings a substantial amount of experience developing/updating ordinances, design guidelines, and conducting heritage preservation related planning for other historic downtowns and riverfront communities. In particular, HKGi’s experience rewriting entire zoning ordinances for the purpose of achieving unified development codes will benefit Stillwater’s need for more unified heritage preservation ordinances. Our team members’ experience is outlined in greater detail beginning on page 4 of this proposal. I will serve as the Project Manager for the HKGi/Landscape Research team. I can be reached at 612-252-7123 or at jeff.miller@hkgi.com if you have any questions about our proposal or would like to discuss this project in greater detail. This is an exciting time for the City of Stillwater, and this is an intriguing project that will provide the City with great benefits moving forward. We are happy to have the opportunity to be considered for this project, and we look forward to speaking with you. Sincerely, Jeff Miller, AICP Associate Stillwater, MinneSota iii 01. Project team HPC OrdinanCe amendments PrOPOsal1 Project team HKgi For more than thirty-five years HKGi has helped communities throughout the Upper Midwest create great places for people to live, work and play. HKGi’s planners and landscape architects understand the issues communities face as they seek to grow, invest, and evolve. We have worked with dozens of communities to learn about the needs of stakeholders, explore strategies to position them for the future, and produce actionable plans that help communities achieve their development goals. By combining experience and knowledge with creativity, technical expertise, strong leadership, and passion for their work, HKGi’s professionals deliver innovative, effective solutions that prepare communities for the future. Zoning Ordinances, Design Guidelines, and Regulatory Tools HKGi’s planning and design team have provided general planning services to dozens of communities throughout the state of Minnesota. This work requires us to review development applications to ensure their adherence to zoning codes, design guidelines, and other regulatory tools communities use to preserve and shape the character of the built environment. Through this work, we have a practical understanding of how these regulations translate into actual buildings, streets, and other public spaces. We have the knowledge, therefore, to write regulatory tools and ordinances that will achieve a community’s desired results while minimizing unintended consequences that can negatively impact the community’s ability to grow and evolve. landscape research Landscape Research LLC provides cultural resource consulting services to communities, planning agencies, architecture and engineering firms, and other private and institutional clients. Our experience documenting and evaluating historic properties includes preparation of National Register nominations, environmental impact and Section 106 compliance studies, historic structure reports, federal historic tax credit certification, design guidelines, and preservation plans. Firm principals, Carole Zellie M.S., M.A. and Amy Lucas M.S., have more than thirty years of experience with many aspects of the National Register and local designation processes and have evaluated commercial, industrial and residential properties as well as designed historic landscapes, mining landscapes, and traditional cultural properties. We have assisted communities such as Saint Paul, Minneapolis, Northfield, Hastings and Lanesboro with ordinance, design guideline, and public information program development. We regularly work with planning staff, developers and neighborhood groups on design review for new construction and historic rehabilitation related to single buildings and landscapes as well as districts and corridors. In 2018 Landscape Research was hired by the City of Stillwater to prepare the Historic Resources Chapter of the 2040 Plan of Stillwater. The project included meetings with City staff, Heritage Preservation Commissioners and other stakeholders, and a complete review of existing plans and studies, as well as ordinances and design guidelines. Previous Stillwater projects include the Stillwater Cultural Landscape District Report (2011) and planning assistance to the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission (2015). 123 North Third Street Suite 100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 p: 612.338.0800 f: 612.338.6838 w: www.hkgi.com Est. 1982 Staff: »7 Licensed Landscape Architects »5 Certified Planners »5 Urban Designers/Planners »1 Communications Staff Planning Landscape Architecture Urban Design 765 Hampden Avenue #315 St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 p: 651-641-1230 e: czellie@landscaperesearch.net w: www.landscaperesearch.net Stillwater, MinneSota 2 Project team meet tHe team HKgi Jeff Miller, AICP - Project Manager and Lead Planner Laura Chamberlain, AICP - Planning Lance Bernard - Background Planning Context landscape research Carole Zellie - Project Manager for Historical and Cultural Research and Planning Amy Lucas - Historical and Cultural Resource Research and Planning HPC OrdinanCe amendments PrOPOsal3 Project team <Align image to this guide Prior to working as a consulting planner with HKGi, Jeff worked as a city planner in Chaska, a city with an historic downtown core, and as a researcher with the Design Center for the American Urban Landscape. This range of experience enables him to understand the issues communities face from a variety of perspectives, and has allowed him to develop a planning approach that integrates these diverse perspectives. Jeff is valued by clients for his outstanding listening and communication skills as well as his critical thinking abilities. In the past few years Jeff has provided planning services for Stillwater, including writing a short term rental housing ordinance. Jeff has conducted a variety of planning work for historic downtowns and can also bring the benefit of broad experience writing and revising zoning ordinances and design guidelines. His portfolio of project work includes several projects that address historic preservation, particularly within downtown commercial centers. Most notably, Jeff led the award-winning Downtown Master Plan and Downtown Signage Design Guidelines for Chaska and continues to provide the City with planning services. Jeff’s portfolio of zoning ordinance and design guideline projects includes his work in Chaska, rewriting the uniform development code for Winona, and performing the same work currently in Onalaska. He contributed to a rezoning study for the North Loop in Minneapolis, an area composed of historic buildings and new construction, has worked on a variety of ordinance and regulatory tools work for St. Louis Park. Relevant Planning Experience »General Planning Services | Stillwater, MN »Downtown Master Plan and Streetscape Planning | Chaska, MN »Downtown Signage Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance | Chaska, MN »Dynamic Signage Ordinance | Chaska, MN »Downtown Redevelopment Plan | Farmington, MN »Downtown/Riverfront Redevelopment Master Plan | Fergus Falls, MN »Unified Development Code Rewrite and Downtown Redevelopment Planning | Onalaska, WI »Town Center Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance | Eden Prairie, MN »Exterior Lighting Zoning Ordinance | St. Louis Park, MN »Unified Development Code Update | Winona, MN »North Loop Small Area Plan | Minneapolis, MN »Downtown East/North Loop Rezoning Study | Minneapolis, MN »Eliot School Site Reuse Design Guidelines | St. Louis Park, MN »*Downtown Preservation Design Manual | Chaska, MN Years of Experience: 17 Education »Master of Planning - University of Minnesota »B.A., Economics - St. Olaf College, Northfield, MN Certifications »American Institute of Certified Planners, Certification #025995 Awards »2019 MN APA Excellence in Community Engagement Award - Red Wing 2040 Community Plan »2017 MN APA Success Stories in Implementation Award - Chaska Downtown Master Plan »2017 MN APA Context in Planning Award - Eliot School Site Reuse Study - St. Louis Park, MN »2014 MN APA Planning in Context Award - Chaska Downtown Signage Design Guidelines jeff miller, AICP Associate | 612.252.7123 | jeff.miller@hkgi.com Stillwater, MinneSota 4 Project team <Align image to this guide Years of Experience: 6 Education »Master of City and Regional Planning - Rutgers, State University of New Jersey »B.A., Geography - Macalester College, Saint Paul, MN Certification »American Institute of Certified Planners - Cert. #028530 Memberships/Affiliations »American Planning Association Laura is a certified planner whose work focuses on providing municipal clients with general planning services, zoning ordinance review and writing, comprehensive planning, grant writing, and environmental review projects. She served on the planning team that completed Stillwater’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and since 2016 she has provided general planning services to the City. She contributed to writing the City’s short term rental housing ordinance. Laura is experienced working with zoning ordinances and understands the ways in which ordinances and other regulatory tools shape a community’s development character. She has provided general planning services to numerous communities both in the Twin Cities metro and in Greater Minnesota, and she is currently leading a significant zoning ordinance update for Kasson. Each of the municipalities for which she has provided planning services includes a traditional downtown core. These communities include Faribault, Mound, Victoria, and Lindström. Laura is an experienced GIS and mapping technician at HKGi, and she has also worked as a GIS consultant for a neighborhood housing services organization in Minneapolis. As a graduate student she provided planning support and GIS services for the Voorhees Transportation Center and the Voorhees Center for Civic Engagement. Relevant Planning Experience »Comprehensive Plan | Chaska, MN »Comprehensive Plan Update | Farmington, MN »Comprehensive Plan | Stillwater, MN »Zoning Ordinance Update and General Planning Services | Kasson, MN »Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Modifications | Benton County, MN »General Planning Services | Faribault, MN »General Planning Services | Lindström, MN »General Planning Services | Mound, MN »General Planning Services | Stillwater, MN »General Planning Services | Victoria, MN laura chamberlain AICP Planner | 612.252.7126 | laura@hkgi.com HPC OrdinanCe amendments PrOPOsal5 Project team <Align image to this guide Years of Experience: 15 Education »B.S. Community Development/ Urban Affairs, St. Cloud State University Memberships/Affiliations »Past President for the Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association »Past Treasurer for the Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association »Past Conference Chair for the Minnesota Chapter of the American Planning Association With a broad portfolio of planning experience, Lance brings a passion for community and transportation planning to HKGi, as well as established relationships with communities and agencies. The breadth of Lance’s work has touched on all aspects of planning, including comprehensive plans, long-range transportation plans, parking studies, and downtown master plans. Lance recently worked with the City of Stillwater to complete the community’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan and has also conducted planning related to Stillwater’s historic downtown core. The planning team for this project will benefit from Lance’s broad- ranging knowledge about the community and the surrounding area based on his experience working with Stillwater and Washington County. In recent years, Lance has been recognized as a leader in developing grants, asset management plans and financial plans for various agencies. His approach has helped his clients recognize their asset management needs, while aligning those needs with innovative funding mechanisms. In the last five years, Lance has helped his clients secure over $250 million in grant dollars. Relevant Planning Experience »Comprehensive Plan | Stillwater, MN »Downtown Parking Study | Stillwater, MN »Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Modifications | Benton County, MN »Downtown Parking Study | Victoria, MN »Parking Ordinance Revisions | St. Francis, MN »Downtown and Canal Park Parking Study | Duluth, MN »Historic Walker-Lake District Parking Study | St. Louis Park, MN »Comprehensive Plan | Victoria, MN lance bernard Planner | 612.252.7133 | lance@hkgi.com Stillwater, MinneSota 6 Project team <Align image to this guide Carole Zellie has provided historical preservation and urban design services to various agencies and communities and recently wrote the Historic Resources chapter for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for Stillwater. She has created preservation plans, design guidelines and ordinances for several districts and locations in Minneapolis and her urban design clients include Hennepin County, Washington County, and the City of Saint Paul. She has also conducted historic context studies for the Lowry Hill, East Isles, and Wedge neighborhoods (2005-6). Carole meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for History and Architectural History. RECENT AND REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS PRESERVATION PLANS AND HISTORIC AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ORDINANCES »City of Stillwater, Minnesota. Preparation of Historic Resources Chapter for 2040 Plan of Stillwater (2018). »Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission. University of Minnesota Greek Letter Chapter House Design Guidelines (2002-2003); Fire Station #13 Design Guidelines (2003); Harmon Place Historic District Design Guidelines (2001); MacPhail School of Music Guidelines (2001). URBAN DESIGN AND RELATED PRESERVATION CORRIDOR PLANNING »City of St. Paul. St. Paul Grand Round Bikeway Study. Cultural resources evaluation to support planning for historic parkway corridor transportation study. With SEH (2015). »City of St. Paul. Downtown Bike Loop. Cultural resources evaluation to support planning for transportation study. With Toole Design Group (2015). »City of St. Paul. River Balcony Project. Cultural resources evaluation to support planning for historic parkway corridor transportation study. With Toole Design Group (2015). »Washington County. Preliminary cultural resources evaluation for the Red Rock Corridor in Ramsey, Washington, and Dakota counties. Historic context development and evaluation of the proposed transit corridor and station locations (2010). »Hennepin County Housing, Community Works and Transit. Historic context development and evaluation of the Minnehaha-Hiawatha corridor as part of a land use and urban design study (2007-2009). EDUCATION »1989 M.S. University of Wisconsin- Madison. Department of Geography (urban and historical geography) »1975-77 Ph.D. Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Department of Art History (American architecture) »1974 Master of Arts, University of Minnesota. Department of Art History (American and European architecture) »1972 Bachelor of Arts, University of Minnesota. School of Architecture and Department of Art History carole s. Zellie PRINCIPAL HPC OrdinanCe amendments PrOPOsal7 Project team <Align image to this guide amy m. lucas PRINCIPAL Amy Lucas joined Landscape Research in 2006 following twelve years as a planner with the City of Minneapolis and its Heritage Preservation Commission. Amy has extensive experience with historical research and cultural resource planning at the neighborhood scale. In addition to the City of Minneapolis, Amy has also provided expertise to the City of Saint Paul, Waseca, MnDOT, St. Cloud, Hennepin County, and Chisago County. She meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications for History and Architectural History. RECENT AND REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS HISTORIC AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ORDINANCES »Central Station and Lowertown Design Guidelines, St. Paul (with Winter & Company, 2016). »Conservation District Technical Advisory Team, Minneapolis (2013). »Waseca, Minnesota Courthouse Historic Landscape Study (2008). »Chapter 599 of the Minneapolis City Code of Ordinances “Heritage Preservation Regulations” (2001). »Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Design Guidelines for On-Premise Signs and Awnings (2003). »Design Guidelines for individual properties including seven Minneapolis libraries, Orpheum Theater, Band Box Diner and Cream of Wheat Building (1994- 2006). SECTION 106 REVIEW »Veterans Hospital Building #13, Minneapolis. Section 106 Evaluation (2014, Cuddy Santine). »Main Street Evaluation, Barnum. Section 106 Evaluation (2013, City of Barnum). »St. Cloud AmTrak Depot, St. Cloud. Section 106 Evaluation (2013, Judd Allen Group Architects). »Veterans Hospital Building #10, Minneapolis. Section 106 Evaluation (2013, Cuddy Santine). »Minnehaha-Hiawatha Corridor Cultural Resources Study (2008-9; Hennepin County HCWT, Minneapolis). »Chisago County, Minnesota TH& Architectural History Evaluation (2010, MDOT). »Chisago County, Minnesota TH8 Phase I and II Architectural History Investigation (2007 and 2010, MnDOT). »Salem English Lutheran Church, Minneapolis. Section 106 Evaluation (2008, Brighton Development). »Section 106 Minneapolis CPED reviews including Sumner-Olson Housing, FERC EDUCATION »1993 Master of Science, Columbia University, Graduate School of Architecture Preservation and Planning (Historic Preservation) »1991 Bachelor of Arts, Bryn Mawr College, (Art History and City Planning) EXPERIENCE »2006- Principal, Landscape Research LLC -Conducts research and planning for cultural resource projects including building and landscape inventory and research, historic tax certification and Section 106 evaluations, and National Register nominations. »1994-2006 Senior City Planner, City of Minneapolis -Staff to Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission included city-wide preservation consultation, historic resources inventory management, historic plaque program, design review, historic variances, local and national designation studies, grants, contract management, neighborhood and comprehensive plans, walking tours, retreats. »1992 Associate, Paul Madson and Associate Architects »1991 Manager, Kentucky State Historic Preservation Office »1988-1991 Manager, Rockwood Museum of Delaware Stillwater, MinneSota 8 02. aPProacH & worK Plan HPC OrdinanCe amendments PrOPOsal9 aPProacH & worK Plan Project Understanding The City has a wealth of unique historic districts, structures and sites that have been designated as historic places, both national and local. To preserve these historic resources, the City has established heritage preservation regulations in the form of ordinances, which serve as requirements, and design guidelines, which are advisory rather than required elements or characteristics. Based on the background provided in the City’s RFP and our team’s experience working with the City on its recent Comprehensive Plan Update, it is our understanding that the City has identified that its heritage preservation regulations have become complex, disconnected, and outdated. This issue has resulted in the heritage preservation regulations being difficult for the public to understand and for the City’s Historic Preservation Commission and staff to use. In 2019, the City completed the 10-year update of its Comprehensive Plan, which includes a Historic Resources chapter. The intent of the update to this chapter was to strengthen the City’s preservation planning framework by evaluating existing needs and identifying opportunities for improvement. The Historic Resources chapter also establishes the City’s goals, objectives, and policies for heritage preservation and identifies and prioritizes implementation action steps for improving heritage preservation in the community, including ordinances and design guidelines. Currently, the heritage preservation related ordinances are scattered across multiple chapters of the City’s Code of Ordinances (including Zoning, City Administration, Building Demolition, and Licenses/Permits/Prohibitions). Heritage preservation related ordinances can also be found in multiple articles/divisions/sections within the Zoning Ordinance. Likewise, the design guidelines, which are not codified in the Code of Ordinances, are scattered across multiple historic and zoning districts, vary in format, and vary in their enforceability (e.g. some sets of guidelines have not been adopted). The intent of this project is generally to inventory and evaluate all of these regulations and design guidelines; clean up inconsistencies, redundancies, and stumbling blocks; create a connected system of regulations; and connect the regulations and the HPC’s practices to the updated Comprehensive Plan. The general inTenT of This projecT is To: »inventory and evaluate heritage preservation related ordinances and design guidelines »revise to eliminate inconsistencies, redundancies and to update outmoded language and concepts »create a connected system of regulations that are more user-friendly and easily navigable »connect the update regulations and HPC practices to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Stillwater, MinneSota 10 aPProacH & worK Plan work Plan overview Task 1 inventory and evalUate ordinances & gUidelines 1.1 Review existing ordinances and guidelines 1.2 Review Comprehensive Plan’s Historic Resources goals and policies 1.3 Kickoff meeting with staff 1.4 Identify ordinance challenges, inconsistencies, and redundancies 1.5 Visioning/listening session with HPC, citizen advisory committee and staff 1.6 Identify potential existing guidelines to be codified in ordinance Task 2 recommend ordinance amendments 2.1 Research ordinance best practices 2.2 Develop recommendations for ordinance amendments 2.3 Meeting/conference call with staff 2.4 Public information/listening session Task 3 PrePare draft ordinance amendments and consolidated gUidelines manUal 3.1 Prepare draft ordinance amendments 3.2 Prepare draft consolidated guidelines manual 3.3 Meeting/conference call with staff 3.4 Revise draft ordinance 3.5 Feedback session with HPC and citizen advisory committee Task 4 PrePare final ordinance amendments and gUidelines manUal 4.1 Meeting/conference call with staff 4.2 Prepare final ordinance amendments for review 4.3 Prepare final guidelines manual for review Task 5 condUct review and aPProval Process 5.1 HPC meeting 5.2 PC meeting/public hearing 5.3 City Council meeting/public hearing (1st reading) 5.4 City Council meeting/public hearing (2nd reading) HPC OrdinanCe amendments PrOPOsal11 aPProacH & worK Plan Project approach Our proposed work plan is structured to incorporate the specific tasks and timeline outlined in the City’s RFP. Our team’s approach is conduct a thorough inventory, review, and audit of the City’s current heritage preservation regulations. We view this project as a partnership with the City, particularly City staff (Community Development Director, City Planner and City Attorney), to compile existing ordinances and design guidelines, compare and analyze them to identify inconsistencies, redundancies, and other stumbling blocks that make them challenging to understand and use. Based on this upfront inventory and evaluation, our work plan proposes researching best practices and identifying recommended ordinance revisions. We will then offer these recommended revisions to the public for their review and feedback, which will provide us with critical input and guidance for the next step in the process, the drafting of proposed ordinance amendments. Working with City staff, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), and a citizen advisory committee, we will review and collect feedback on the draft amendments before completing the final ordinance amendments. Our work plan proposes the creation of a working document that will enable an initial inventory and analysis of the City’s various sets of design guidelines. While it is our understanding that this project is not intended to result in changes to the actual design guidelines, consolidating these sets of guidelines will better facilitate the planning team’s ability to identify recommended improvements for future consideration. Community Engagement Our proposed project schedule includes three meetings for community stakeholders. All three meetings are intended to include City staff, the HPC, and a small citizen advisory committee (as identified in the RFP). It is our intent to make use of the Statewide HPC Training Manual and Online Training materials, which the City of Stillwater helped develop, in facilitating these meetings. These materials will enable our team to provide meaningful heritage preservation educational and technical information to the public and better enable community members to evaluate and respond to ideas, concepts, and recommendations under consideration during this process. Our experience with ordinance update projects suggests that it is not beneficial to schedule meetings with the community too early in the process. The technical and detailed nature of ordinances makes it challenging to collect meaningful input from community members until something is actually proposed or recommended. For that reason, we are proposing that we complete some of the upfront inventory and analysis work before holding the first meeting, a visioning/listening session, with the HPC and citizen advisory committee near the end of Task 1. We propose that the second meeting be open to the general public, in addition to the HPC and citizen advisory committee, as an information sharing and listening session. This meeting is proposed to take place during Task 2 after we have identified some recommended changes to the ordinances. Finally, we propose that the third meeting, will be focused on the actual detailed amendments to the ordinances, be conducted with City staff, the HPC, and the citizen advisory committee. As the project progresses, we will discuss with the City whether or not it would be beneficial or necessary to open up this meeting to the Stillwater, MinneSota 12 aPProacH & worK Plan general public should be part of this third meeting, but at least for this proposal, we are proposing the more limited, but focused, level of participation City staff, the HPC, and the citizen advisory committee can provide. We anticipate that these three community meetings will occur in Stillwater, if possible at a location in the commercial historic district. Per the RFP Addendum, it is our understanding that City staff and/or HPC members will lead these three community meetings. Our work plan also includes a number of meetings with City staff. We anticipate that some of these meetings could be facilitated as virtual meetings, e.g. GoToMeeting online meetings. community-based Planning Philosophy HKGi is committed to a community-based planning approach that emphasizes listening to the client, community members, and other stakeholders, and then leveraging our experience and knowledge to create plans and designs that fit the community’s vision for the future. This philosophy has been at the heart of our practice for more than 35 years and has enabled us to continue to serve our clients and help them achieve their community development, preservation, sustainability, and resiliency goals. CREATE COLLABORATE LIST E N EXPLORE A spirit of collaboration. An approach that emphasizes listening first. An enthusiasm for exploring potential ideas and outcomes. Together these inputs result in the creation of plans and designs that respond to a community’s unique context and lead to a more sustainable future. HPC OrdinanCe amendments PrOPOsal13 aPProacH & worK Plan Meeting w/City Staff Community Meeting Historic Preservation Commission Planning Commission City Council Meeting Project schedule The schedule below outlines the anticipated timeframe for each task and identifies the meeting schedule as outlined in the request for proposals. Exact meeting dates will be confirmed or revised in collaboration with City staff at the project kick-off meeting in Task 1. dec 19 jan 20 feb mar aPr m ay jUn task 1 - inventory and evaluate ordinances and Guidelines task 2 - recommend ordinance amendments task 3 - Prepare Draft ordinance amendments and consolidated Guidelines manual task 4 - Prepare Final ordinance amendments and Guidelines manual task 5 - conduct review and approval Process Stillwater, MinneSota 14 03. Project exPerience HPC OrdinanCe amendments PrOPOsal15 Project exPerience Zoning ordinance, design guidelines & regulatory tools Regulatory tools such as design guidelines, development codes and zoning ordinances translate planning visions and recommendations into enforceable policy language that shapes the physical development of the community. They are essential in determining a community’s character, be it the preservation of historic qualities, promoting the use of high-quality building materials, or specifying building massing or density to create or preserve neighborhood livability. Creation of effective regulatory tools requires a deep understanding of how the shapes, materials and design of the built environment influence a community’s unique character. HKGi has conducted planning related to zoning, design guidelines and regulatory tools in communities such as »Uniform Development Code Rewrite - Winona, MN »Uniform Development Code Rewrite - Onalaska, WI »Zoning Ordinance Update - Kasson, MN »Zoning Ordinance Updates and Revisions - Mound, MN »Zoning Ordinance Update - Lindström, MN »Zoning Ordinance Revisions - St. Louis Park, MN »Zoning Ordinance Revisions - Grand Marais, MN »Zoning Ordinance Revisions - Stillwater, MN »Town Center Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines - Eden Prairie, MN »Zoning Ordinance Revisions - Maplewood, MN »Design Guidelines - St. Louis Park Eliot School »Design Guidelines - West Side Flats, Saint Paul »Zoning Ordinance Update and Design Guidelines - North Loop, Minneapolis »Design Guidelines - Penn Avenue Revitalization, Richfield »Design Guidelines - Downtown Hastings Garage Alley/Service Drive Heat Island Reduction Effect Rainwater Gardens Airy Trees. Protection from weather and sun Stillwater, MinneSota 16 Project exPerience < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide Historic downtown Planning The Downtown is typically the heart of a community, its character synonymous with the city’s identity. Communities with downtowns want to keep them vibrant. Those without want to create them. Downtown plans can be particularly challenging, involving issues like historical preservation, underutilized aging properties, innovative financing, public space design, connectivity, riverfront access, parking and transportation, or revision of regulatory tools. Successful downtown plans help communities kick-start their revitalization efforts and build momentum for future economic activity. HKGi’s downtown planning clients have included: »Chaska Downtown Plan, Streetscape Design, Redevelopment Planning, and Ordinance Writing »Osseo Downtown Plan and Streetscape Design »Red Wing Downtown Action Plan and Streetscape Design »Fergus Falls Riverfront/Downtown Plan »Alexandria Broadway Streetscape Design »St. Louis Park Historic Walker-Lake Parking Study »Duluth Downtown and Canal Park Parking Study »Hermantown Marketplace Redevelopment Concept »Elk River River’s Edge Commons Site Design »Chanhassen Downtown Vision »Excelsior Downtown Revitalization Plan »Farmington Downtown Master Plan »Hopkins ARTery Streetscape Concept »Hutchinson Downtown Revitalization Plan, Action Plan, and Wayfinding Plan »Lakeville Downtown Development Guide »Le Sueur Downtown Plan »North St. Paul Redevelopment Plan »Onalaska (WI) Downtown Redevelopment Planning »Victoria Downtown Development Plan HPC OrdinanCe amendments PrOPOsal17 Project exPerience < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide Unified development code Winona, Minnesota HKGi recently conducted a review and rewrite of the City of Winona’s subdivision code, zoning code and map, and site plan ordinance to modernize the code in accordance with the City’s 2007 Comprehensive Plan. HKGi worked with City staff over the course of the two year project to combine the different components into a Unified Development Code. In addition to conducting the analysis, writing draft and final code versions, and presenting to the Planning Commission and City Council, HKGi also led an extensive public participation process to ensure that members of the public has a voice throughout the planning process. Project objectives included the creation of the Unified Development Code; incorporation of form-based and design standard strategies for downtown Winona; inclusion of illustrations and graphics in the code to facilitate a better understanding of code requirements; establishment of mixed-use zoning districts and regulations; and consideration of Winona’s natural setting and its impact on greenfield development. Reference Carlos Espinosa, City Planner City of Winona cespinosa@ci.winona.mn.us 507-457-8250 Stillwater, MinneSota 18 Project exPerience < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide Unified development code Onalaska, Wisconsin Input from the community has been collected on a variety of topics including accessory uses in residential areas. HKGi is currently rewriting the Unified Development Code for the City of Onalaska, Wisconsin, which lies along the Mississippi River immediately north of La Crosse. The project’s objectives include making the UDC easier to understand and use; ensuring that the code meets state statutes; reflects the direction of the 2016 comprehensive plan; and includes a modernization of development standards to encourage high- quality, context-sensitive development. The Zoning Map for the City will also be updated to reflect new zoning regulations. HKGi has completed the initial phases of the project, including reviewing the existing code, conducting a diagnostic, and creating an annotated outline for consideration and review by the Plan Commission. The current phase involves drafting the new code in modules to facilitate an effective review by the public and municipal boards and commissions. Stakeholder feedback has indicated a strong desire to simplify the UDC and streamline procedures. Input has also indicated a desire to allow more mixed-use development, evaluate parking requirements and ensure adequate parking in a reinvigorated downtown, allow for more food trucks, regulate exterior lighting more effectively, and address a host of residential issues to allow for more affordable housing and an expansion of the housing types available in the city. Reference Katie Aspenson, Planning/Zoning Inspector City of Onalaska kaspenson@onalaskawi.gov 608-781-9590 HPC OrdinanCe amendments PrOPOsal19 Project exPerience < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide chaska downtown signage design guidelines Chaska, Minnesota 2014 Planning in Context Award As a result of the downtown plan and the signage design guidelines, the City established a grant and loan program to assist businesses with upgrading their signage. One of the first implementation actions the City of Chaska took following the completion and adoption of the Downtown Master Plan in 2012 was to establish design guidelines for downtown signage and update the City’s Sign Ordinance. HKGi facilitated this City-businessowner collaboration and worked with a project task force that included downtown business owners, Planning Commissioners, Heritage Preservation Commissioners, City Staff, and sign makers. HKGi provided educational and precedent resources regarding appropriate signage in historic downtown districts and developed a visual preference survey to identify the community’s signage preferences. The Downtown Chaska Signage Design Guidelines was built based on this community input and was designed to be a concise, user-friendly visual design guidelines manual. HKGi also updated the City’s Sign Ordinance to align it with the design guidelines and improve its clarity and organization, ultimately making it easier to understand and use. 4 t h S t r e e t 3 r d S t r e e t 2 n d S t r e e t 1 s t S t r e e tWalnut St reet Chestnut St reetPi ne St reet Cedar St r eet El m St reet Hi ckor y St reet Spr uce Street 1 s t S t r e e t 4 t h S t r e e t 3 r d S t r e e t 2 n d S t r e e tOak St r eet Ash St reet Mapl e St r eet Beech St reetC a s c a d e D riv e 5 t h S t r e e t 6 t h S t r e e t Tupelo WayYellow Brick RoadB ie rlin e S tre e t7th Street 6th Street S to u g h to n A v e n u e Woodland Drive C o u nty R o a d 1 1 0 Edgehill Road¬«61 6 t h S t r e e t ¬«61 "¯41 ¬«140 Downtown Historic Building Designation Building Footprint Designation Walnut Street National Historic District (NHD) NHD Contributing Property Only NHD Contributing Property & Local Historic Designation National Register of Historic Places & Local Historic Designation Local Historic Designation Only Open Space Park / Recreation Prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. on August 10, 2010 J City Square Hickory Park Winkel Park Fireman's II Park MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge MN Valley State Recreational Area Schimelpfenig Park Fireman's Clayhole Fireman's I Park Athletic Park Courthouse Lake Area Highland Park Riverbend Park Schalow Park Brickyard Clayhole Courthouse Lake Brickyard Park M in n e s o t a R iv e r 4 t h S t r e e t 3 r d S t r e e t 2 n d S t r e e t 1 s t S t r e e tWalnut Street Chest nut St reetPi ne St r eet Cedar St reet El m St r eet Hi ckor y St reet Spruce Street 1 s t S t r e e t 4 t h S t r e e t 3 r d S t r e e t 2 n d S t r e e tOak St reet Ash St reet Mapl e St reet Beech Street C a s c a d e D riv e 5 t h S t r e e t 6 t h S t r e e t Tupelo WayYellow Brick RoadB ie rlin e S tre e t7th Street 6th Street S to u g h to n A v e n u e Woodland Drive C o u nty R o a d 1 1 0 Edgehill Road¬«61 6 t h S t r e e t ¬«61 "¯41 ¬«140 Downtown Historic Building Designation Building Footprint Designation Walnut Street National Historic District (NHD) NHD Contributing Property Only NHD Contributing Property & Local Historic Designation National Register of Historic Places & Local Historic Designation Local Historic Designation Only Open Space Park / Recreation Prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. on August 10, 2010 J City Square Hickory Park Winkel Park Fireman's II Park MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge MN Valley State Recreational Area Schimelpfenig Park Fireman's Clayhole Fireman's I Park Athletic Park Courthouse Lake Area Highland Park Riverbend Park Schalow Park Brickyard Clayhole Courthouse Lake Brickyard Park M in n e s o t a R iv e r Reference Kevin Ringwald, Director Planning and Development City of Chaska kringwald@chaskamn.com 952-448-9200 Stillwater, MinneSota 20 Project exPerience < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide downtown master Plan Chaska, Minnesota HKGi led the City’s effort to create a Downtown Master Plan for Chaska’s historic downtown, which still retains much of its character as a past center for brickmaking and ironwork. The plan seeks to preserve and strengthen downtown as the center of the community by addressing existing land use patterns, identifying priority opportunity sites, redevelopment strategies, and streetscape and public realm investments, and improving connectivity, accessibility, and heritage preservation. Although it has many advantages, such as proximity to the Minnesota River, the downtown is somewhat isolated by two highways, and most of Chaska’s residential development is occurring at the northern edge of the city, far from the downtown. Despite the challenges, however, significant progress has been made on implementing plan initiatives, and downtown Chaska is quickly becoming a draw thanks to some key redevelopment that emerged from this plan. HKGi created redevelopment concepts for several key sites. One site at the southern gateway to the city has been redeveloped as residential units, setting the stage for more riverfront residential redevelopment. Another priority site, Fireman’s Park, has been redeveloped into a popular park and event center featuring a restaurant and curling center. HKGi is currently designing a Veteran’s Memorial Park to complement Fireman’s Park. A third site, Town Square West, is in the early planning stages for redevelopment, and streetscape reconstruction is nearly complete, including creation of a more pedestrian-friendly streetscape along the highway at the northern edge of downtown. Implementation efforts have included redevelopment at the southern gateway to the City (bottom). 2017 Success Stories in Implementation Award HPC OrdinanCe amendments PrOPOsal21 Project exPerience < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide landscape research representative experience Stillwater 2040 Comprehensive Plan - Historic Resources Chapter In 2018 Landscape Research was hired by the City of Stillwater to prepare the Historic Resources Chapter of the 2040 Plan of Stillwater. The project included meetings with City staff, Heritage Preservation Commissioners and other stakeholders, and a complete review of existing plans and studies, as well as ordinances and design guidelines. Previous Stillwater projects include the Stillwater Cultural Landscape District Report (2011) and planning assistance to the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission (2015). Hastings Design Review Guidelines The City of Hastings contracted with Landscape Research to revise existing guidelines for the Main Street Historic District, two residential areas, and a proposed conservation district. The final product was the result of a series of planning sessions with HPC commissioners and city staff. The 48-page document is available on CD-ROM and on the city’s website, and can be distributed as a booklet or as single pages. Dayton’s Bluff Design Review Guidelines and Historic District Handbook St. Paul, Minnesota The Dayton’s Bluff Design Review Guidelines and ordinance revisions were prepared for an area that included many small vernacular houses originally owned by German and Scandinavian immigrants, as well as high- styled mansions. An alternate conservation district proposal was also developed. The area was undergoing new investment and the city continues to use the guidelines to work with homeowners and developers. Recipient of St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission Award. University of Minnesota Chapter House Design Guidelines MacPhail School of Music Design Guidelines Firestation #13 Design Guidelines Client: Minneapolis Planning Department / Heritage Preservation Commission Landscape Research developed design guidelines for two historic districts and two commercial properties following local designation. The consultant worked with city staff and property owners to customize language that fit the requirements of each property and area. Near North Conservation District Ordinance and Design Guidelines Client: Iowa City Community Development Department, Iowa City, Iowa Landscape Research wrote a new conservation district ordinance and design guidelines for four historic neighborhoods at the heart of Iowa City. These areas contained lots with high development potential and the guidelines were proposed as the basis of building permit review. Many of the concepts proposed in 1995 have been incorporated into current planning regulations. Stillwater, MinneSota 22 04. fee ProPosal HPC OrdinanCe amendments PrOPOsal23 fee ProPosal fee Proposal est. HoUrs fee Task 1 - Inventory and Evaluate Ordinances and Guidelines 40 $5,100 Task 2 - Recommend Ordinance Amendments 50 $6,300 Task 3 - Prepare Draft Ordinance Amendments and Consolidated Guidelines Manual 70 $8,100 Task 4 - Prepare Final Ordinance Amendments and Guidelines Manual 30 $3,300 Task 5 - Conduct Review and Approval Process 20 $2,600 subtotal 210 $25,300 expenses $700 Total not-To-exceed $26,000 Stillwater, MinneSota 24 creating places that enrich people’s lives HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 20, 2020 REGARDING: 2020 Work Plan Discussion PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner Below is a list of 2019 HPC-related Community Development Department (CDD) projects and their status. PROJECT STATUS MISC. NOTES HPC Enabling Ordinance Update & Demolition Review Rewrite 2019-2020 SHPO and MNHS Grant Funded; contract to be approved by City Council on 12/3/2019 Ordinance revisions must be approved by July, 2020 Heirloom Homes & Landmark Sites (HHLS) Website Update 2019 CDD Professional Services Budget Funded; Contract Executed This project is anticipated to be completed by 12/31/2019 2020 Preserve MN Conference 2019-2020 SHPO Grant Funded Lowell Park Historic Structure Report (HSR) Request for Proposals to be released prior to HPC 11/20 Meeting HSR must be completed by July, 2020 Bergstein Buildings Business Plan Preliminary conversations with stakeholders has occurred; project has not started While this project was funded in 2019, funding shifted to the HHLS website update. The City has preliminarily budgeted $5,000 for the HPC to use for 2020 projects and programs. The only earmarked funding is $1,500 for the 2020 Preserve MN conference. The following are identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan: I-3 years: Revise Regulations Consolidate Guidelines & Standards Adopt Standards Analyze and Prioritize Designation Opportunities (Local & National) 3-5 years: Analyze Public Structures Inventory Landscapes Identify & Protect Viewsheds Analyze and Prioritize Designation Opportunities 5-10 years: Complete New Context Studies Other 2019-2022 projects currently identified in the CDD work plan include: 2019 Funding Notes Bergstein Buildings Business Plan Grant Eligible An appropriation has been requested for the rehabilitation of the site. The business plan must be completed prior to working on rehabilitation. 2020 Assess Sunken Garden General Fund Public Works/Engineering Partnership Project Chestnut Plaza and Main Street Design Outside Funding Hersey Bean Wall Stabilization Not Funded South Hill Historic District Not Funded South Main Arch. District Preservation & Interpretation Plan Not Funded Bergstein Building Design and Remodeling Requested Dependent on Business Plan Development 2021 Bergstein Building Remodeling Requested Chestnut Plaza and Main Street Improvements Not Funded Repair Sunken Garden Not Funded City Council was advised of this work during 2020 budget discussions. 2022 Lowell Park/Sam Bloomer Design Not Funded Teddy Bear Park Historic Structure Report Not Funded As the CDD works towards updating its five-year work plan and scoping 2020 projects, staff wants HPC input on how to best direct 2020 resources. As not all projects will be able to be accomplished, the HPC will need to discuss project and program priorities. The HPC’s discussion and recommendations will be used for the finalization of the CDD work plan projects pertaining to historic resources and preservation. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 20, 2019 REGARDING: September, 2020 Meeting Calendar PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner The September 16, 2020 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting is scheduled for the first day of the 2020 Preserve MN conference. Staff is proposing changing the meeting date to avoid conflict. The following dates are available to hold the meeting: September 14, 2020 September 21, 2020 September 22, 2020 Please bring your calendars to the meeting to that the HPC can set the date and the City may be able to finalize the 2020 public meeting calendar.