Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-15 HPC PacketTHE 11ATNPLACE OF YINNEEOTA PLEASE NOTE: Heritage Preservation Commission meetings are streamed live on the city website and available to view on Channel 16. Public can participate by logging into zoom.us/join or by calling 1- 312-626-6799 and enter the meeting ID number: 503 594 024 AGENDA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING July 15th, 2020 CONFERENCE PLANNING WORKSHOP - CANCELLED 6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of June 17th, 2020 regular meeting IV. OPEN FORUM - The Open Forum is a portion of the Commission meeting to address subjects which are not a part of the meeting agenda. The Chairperson may reply at the time of the statement of may give direction to staff regarding investigation of the concerns expressed. Out of respect for others in attendance, please limit your comments to 5 minutes or less. V. CONSENT AGENDA (ROLL CALL) - All items listed under the consent agenda are considered to be routine by the Heritage Preservation Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a commission member or citizen so requests, in which event, the items will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. 2. Case No. 2020-18: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new handing sign to be located at 226 Chestnut Street East in the Downtown Design Review District. Gartner Proper LLC, property owner. Ron Brenner Architects, application. VI. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Case No. 2020-17: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new residence at 905 1st St N in the Neighborhood Conservation District. Michael and Christine Cairl, property owners and Rob Brenner Architects, applicant. VII. NEW BUSINESS 4. Case No. 2020-19: Consideration of a Site Alteration (Design) Permit for entry door system rehabilitation or replacement and HVAC unit installation at 107 Chestnut Street East in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. CVII Holdings, LLC, property owner and applicant. VIII. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 5. HPC Draft Ordinance Review IX. FYI X. ADJOURNMENT Zoom Meeting Participants (13) ob 11 water. THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA City of Stil 4v 1 t) V/1j3S¼t Dave Junker Shann'Finwall Program Ken Walls r Fitzie Heimdahl Matt Thuesorh Ron Brenner Tom O'Brien Matt Wolf ( Q. Find a participant City of Stillwater (Host, me) ® City Hall (Co -host) GBBrian Larson Fitzie Heimdahl ® Matt Thueson CIReggie Krakowski GBDave Junker aKen Walls aShann Finwall Matt Wolf 0 Program GBRon Brenner 0 Tom O'Brien Invite Mute All Chat R To: Everyone v Type message here... meeting_saved_chat 19:15:16 From Kathy Fagerlund : Just listening in. Page 1 i I I \ i's'Ater THE OIRTNPLACE OF NINNESOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING June 17, 2020 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:03 p.m. Present: Chairwoman Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Heimdahl, Larson, Thueson, Walls, Council Representative Junker Absent: Commissioner Krakowski Staff: City Planner Wittman, Public Works Director Sanders APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of May 20, 2020 Meeting Commissioner Thueson clarified that his intent in referring to the former Reeds drugstore was that in addition to considering how the building looks, he hopes that the opportunities for designing the plaza will allow for some sort of public face on that building in the future. Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to approve the minutes of the May 20, 2020 meeting with the clarification. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING There were no public hearings. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2020-16: Consideration of a Design Permit for exterior building modifications on the property located at 401 Main St S in the Downtown Design Review District. Dennis Kilbane of DCK Enterprises WI, property owner and Todd Konigson, applicant. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit for exterior remodeling and a semi -permanent seasonal outdoor food vending stand. Details include: 1. Main Street/front (western) facade and entryway: a. Install stained cedar, nickel gap wood ship lap siding on the front (western) and a portion of the northern facade; and b. Install an aluminum clad take-out food window. 2. Front entrance: a. Replace the front entrance with wood clad and glass sidelights. 3. Nelson Street/side (northern) facade: a. Remove the western loading dock, stairs, and "Stillwater Farm Store" mural replacing it with four aluminum clad windows of the same dimensions as the front facade. An overhang is proposed over these new windows; b. Remove the eastern loading dock and stairs, enlarging the loading area to a glass paneled garage door. An overhang is proposed to be installed over the loading bay; and c. Installation of a recessed doorway and stairs; and d. Replace the existing glass block with tempered/laminated glass. 4. Rear (east) facade: a. Replace the existing overhead door with one identical to the new loading bay. 5. Installation of a 15' wide by 6' deep wood and metal seasonal food vendor. a. This would be located onsite until the to -go food window is Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting June 17, 2020 installed. Staff finds that, with certain conditions, the project substantially conforms to the Downtown Design Review District guidelines and recommends approval with four conditions. Jennifer Noden, 7 Edges Design, added that due to structural members inside the building that they need to avoid, they are jutting in the exit on the north side for access to the warehouse and splitting up the windows on the north side. This is a minor change from what was submitted. Councilmember Junker questioned covering up the brick with the lap cedar siding proposed for the Main Street side. Ms. Noden replied that they considered keeping the brick as a base but the brick is not in good condition. Mr. Konigson's other business is restoring brick in historic buildings. The application of the cladding would be on fir strips that are applied to the mortar of the brick, so at some time in the future it could be pulled off if desired without damaging the brick. Mr. Konigson added that their initial intent was to paint the brick but they realized that is not desirable by the HPC. They are willing to use any material that staff and the HPC prefer. Chairwoman Mino said she struggles with the large amount of horizontal wood siding proposed. She asked about the possibility of keeping the brick on either side of the door. Ms. Noden said they can look at keeping the brick below the windows down to the curb. She shared a graphic showing the brick columns on either side of the existing door. Commissioner Heimdahl agreed he would like to see less siding used. Even if the siding is along the top and bottom, it would not stick out as much. Commissioner Walls said he likes the idea of having the brick break up the wood. Mr. Konigson acknowledged it is challenging to harmonize with the green and orange brick which is not historic. They could paint it similar to other painted brick buildings downtown. Councilmember Junker said he likes the brick and feels it looks better unpainted. Commissioner Thueson asked how the new materials (primarily the wood) will last and be maintained. Mr. Konigson replied that they chose cedar because it is less susceptible to decay. Window framing has been neglected so they will paint, caulk and putty the front storefront. Commissioner Larson pointed out that the downtown design manual talks about fitting into the content of downtown and there are not many facades that use horizontal siding. He agreed that covering up the brick seems unfortunate. Applying a veneer of wood on what is clearly a masonry building makes the wood seem like a foreign material with an almost distracting inauthenticity to it. Even high quality cedar weathers, especially in contact with salt and snow. He would like to see as much brick as possible retained. The new image of the double door on the Main Street side looks like interruption of a storefront. It would be better if it were metal and glass the way the rest of the storefront is. Mr. Konigson said the intent was to make this building harmonize better with the historical buildings. It stands out now as a 60s era building with the type of brick not found anywhere else on Main Street. Commissioner Larson commented that the siding as proposed would not accomplish that and would be more visually distracting than the brick, in his opinion. It is not a historic building but it has its own integrity. Mr. Konigson said his preference would be to paint the brick to a more suitable look. Siding is being proposed because they didn't think staff would approving painting of brick. Page 2 of 5 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting June 17, 2020 Councilmember Junker said the brick, unpainted as it is currently, fits in nicely. It would stick out more with the cedar siding. Mr. Konigson reiterated if the HPC would allow them to paint that 20" of brick, they would love to do so. If the HPC wants it left natural they are fine with that. Commissioner Larson suggested keeping the brick and introducing a smooth material for the upper band that fades away above the windows. Ms. Noden said maybe they can apply batten to what is up there now and paint it. Commissioner Finwall asked if it is possible to put brick above the window. Commissioner Larson said the applicant said it would be a difficult brick to match. Putting brick above a long horizontal piece of glass is tough to do technically. Mr. Konigson stated that thin brick can be applied to the substrate. It would have to be painted as the current brick is no longer available. Commissioner Larson summarized his recommendations: keeping the brick at the base, not painted, doing the planned improvements in terms of flashing, sills, window improvements, painting the header above the windows and adding some battens that align with the mullions, adding a panel if it needs to be replaced, and at the entrance, placing storefront glass working between the columns that would now be brick. Mr. Konigson and Ms. Noden said they are willing to comply with the recommendations. Motion by Commissioner Larson to approve the application with the existing brick remaining on the base and the corner of the building, and the panels above the windows to be painted and possibly battens, and the northwest corner entrance to be storefront and glass. Ms. Wittman pointed out that the motion is essentially denying the application. She suggested a simple denial of the lap siding. Motion by Commissioner Larson to deny the horizontal lap siding, approve the existing brick to remain, unpainted, and approve the other improvements including painted panels above the existing windows with battens. Ms. Noden asked what about painting the brick? Mr. Konigson asked if the Commission would allow them to do mockup to see if that is acceptable. Ms. Wittman replied that would have to come back before the Commission, causing a month delay. Motion seconded by Commissioner Finwall. All in favor. OLD BUSINESS Case No. 2020-03: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new retaining wall near the Main Street stairs. City of Stillwater applicant. Ms. Wittman stated that in February the HPC denied a City of Stillwater Design Permit application for the new Main Street retaining wall design and staining. The Commission cited the wall is uncharacteristic of any wall along Main Street and is not compatible with the historic district. The Public Works Department has explored costs of staining the new wall or applying a 4-6" veneer to the front face of the structure. Applying the stone veneer would be twice the cost, at $56,000, compared with staining the wall. Staff finds that the application of stone veneer on the wall would help reduce the visual impact, and recommends approval of the application of a limestone veneer to the wall face. Commissioner Heimdahl asked if there is a way to see how close the color would match the limestone. Ms. Wittman replied that could be arranged. Page 3 of 5 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting June 17, 2020 Public Works Director Sanders said per the contractor, there are resources to make the wall any color desired. Commissioner Thueson asked about the overall cost of the project. Mr. Sanders said $80,000-85,000 has been spent to date. The existing wall was starting to fail. Loose pieces of limestone were breaking off and falling to the ground. The contractor had to remove all the loose rock to make it more stable and then build a wall in front of it. Commissioner Walls asked Councilmember Junker if an $80,000 project would need Council approval. Commissioner Junker replied the wall had washed away. He asked Mr. Sanders to explain the situation. Mr. Sanders explained that the turret at the north side of the new wall is actually a storm sewer manhole. To the west between the turret and stairs is a sanitary sewer line. The sanitary sewer and storm sewer lines run along the slope from the top of the hill at Broadway St. Those two pipes were in danger of failing and the City wanted to get it repaired as soon as possible. Councilmember Junker added that the Council's main concern was not losing more of the wall and the jeopardy of the storm sewer and regular sewer lines. Commissioner Larson commented that the option of real stone seems to be the right thing to do. Staining it would still leave the appearance of a non -authentic stone wall. Commissioner Thueson agreed with Commissioner Larson. This will be a very prominent feature of Main Street for 60-70 years into the future and it seems worth making it look like it fits in the historic downtown. Chairwoman Mino agreed. She does not think there is a way to stain what is there and make it stand out less than it does. Commissioner Finwall thanked Public Works Director Sanders for attending the meeting and explaining the reason for the rush to build the wall without appropriate approval. She agreed that limestone covering would be best. Commissioner Larson said he would like City Planner Wittman to review the samples before proceeding. Motion by Chairwoman Mino seconded by Commissioner Larson to approve Case No. 2020-03, Design Permit for a new retaining wall near the Main Street stairs, authorizing the application of a 4-6" limestone veneer to the new wall face. All in favor. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS HPC Ordinance Policy Direction and Review Process Ms. Wittman led a high level discussion of a draft set of ordinances designed to update and improve the City's heritage preservation programs. The draft has not been publicly released as it has not yet been reviewed by City Attorney Kori Land. Ms. Wittman summarized the changes. Commissioner Finwall asked if there is a dollar threshold between major and minor projects. Ms. Wittman replied there is a dollar threshold. It can be included in the ordinance, however sometimes there are projects that are below a dollar threshold that the HPC should be reviewing. She will keep this in mind to make sure there are no gaps between what is reviewed by staff and what is reviewed by the Commission. When the draft comes out this week, she will ask the Commission for comments. Staff will start working through the demolition ordinance before finalizing this ordinance. It will all be reviewed in subsequent public hearings before the HPC, Planning Commission and City Council. Page 4 of 5 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting June 17, 2020 Chairwoman Mino asked about the intent of removing the West Stillwater Business Park from HPC purview. She feels the decisions of the HPC over time have made a positive difference in that corridor. Ms. Wittman explained that when the West Stillwater Business Park was created, before the HPC, there was a design review committee. The City then questioned having two design review committees. A couple of the Councilmembers indicated they would like to have the HPC continue to review the West Stillwater Business Park but the consultant is recommending not having the HPC review it. She will convey to the Council that the HPC would like to ensure that commercial/industrial construction standards are applied and ensure that area is reviewed by itself or some other body. FYI 2020 Preserve MN Conference Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that it is not official yet, but the 2020 Preserve MN Conference will be postponed to 2021. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Amy Mino, Chairwoman Page 5 of 5 Jll!r FHE 6 I R T H P I A [. E OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: DESIGNATION: DISTRICT: REPORT BY: Heritage Preservation Commission July 8, 2020 July 15, 2020 Ron Brenner representing Ron Brenner Architects Gartner Prop LLC Approval of a Design Permit for a 2.5 square foot projecting sign 226 Chestnut Street East (132 Main Street South) Contributing ("Commercial Building") Downtown Design Review District Stillwater Commercial Historic District Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner CASE NO.: 2020-18 SPECIFIC REQUEST Ron Brenner Architects is requesting approval of a Design Permit for 2.5 square foot hanging sign to be located at 226 Chestnut Street East. ANALYSIS The 1' tall by 30" wide wood sign will read "ron brenner architects" in gray and orange dimensional lettering on a white background. It is proposed to be hung 1" below the awning frame by eye hooks. The Downtown Design Review District (DTDRD) guidelines indicate: Case no. 2020-18 Page 2 • The maximum area of the sign and minimum height above the sidewalk is regulated by the sign ordinance. • Use materials consistent with the period, such as wood signboards and metal brackets. The zoning code allows for projecting signs so long as they are not greater than six square feet in size. Traditional placement of projecting signs is (at least) 8' above the sidewalk. This request is in compliance with the zoning code. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested Design Permit with the following conditions: 1. The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community Development Department, unless specifically modified by other conditions of approval. 2. All future signs shall obtain Design Permit approval to ensure conformance to the City Code, Downtown Design Review District Design Guidelines. 3. The sign and its lettering shall be non -glossy and non -reflective. 4. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of new signage. Source: Google Maps (August, 2018) B. Deny the requested Design Permit. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that, with certain conditions, the proposed request conforms to the City Code and relevant Downtown Design Review District guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval of the Ron Brenner Architect hanging sign for the building at 226 Chestnut Street East with those conditions outline in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Sign Details cc: Ron Brenner RON BRENNER A R CHITE CTS : SIGNA GE PACKAGE HANGING SIGN ron Brenner architects 2'-6" WHITE BACKGROUND, GRAY & ORANGE, BRANDED, 3 DIMENSIONAL LETTERING (CENTURY GOTHIC), 1" RADIUS CUT CORNERS (HANGING FROM EXISTING AWNING LOCATION) ron brenner r rchitects SIDEWALK APPROACH RON BRENNER ARCHITECTS 226 CHESTNUT RBA SIGNAGE PACKAGE 07.02.2020 PAGE 1 Jll!r FHE 6 I R T H P I A [. E OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2020-17 REPORT DATE: July 8, 2020 MEETING DATE: July 15, 2020 APPLICANT: Ron Brenner Architects LANDOWNER: Michael and Christine Cairl REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new single family residence LOCATION: 905 1st Street North DESIGNATION: N/A DISTRICT: Neighborhood Conservation District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Michael and Christine Cairl own the property at 905 1st Street North, at that street's intersection with Elm Street East — directly above and to the north of the former prison site. This is a newly -created property split from 900 Broadway Street North. SPECIFIC REQUEST Site View (Google Maps — August, 2017) The applicant has requested Design Permit approval for the construction of a single family residence to be located at the subject property in the (Stillwater) Neighborhood Conservation District. The specific request is for the construction of 2.5 story single family residence. A two -car, front - facing garage is proposed to be attached to the residence but set back from the front entry/porch by 10'. The house's architectural design is based on Stillwater's traditional vernacular homes. Case no. 2020-17 Page 2 The home will be sided with fiber cement or LP board and batten siding, horizontal lap siding, and shingles all painted white. White frieze, corner and water table boards are proposed on all four sides. Four over four, black framed windows will be placed on all sides of the home, included on the garage. While architectural shingles will be utilized on the residence, standing seam metal shed roofs will be utilized on the porch, above the garage door, and on single story additions in the (east facing) rear of the home. ANALYSIS All infill homes in the NCD are required to follow the NCD design guidelines. These design guidelines recommend the following: Neighborhood and Streets Massing and scale of a new building should be compatible with neighboring structures. The house is mildly isolated with only one single family home directly across 1st Street North; other 1.5-2 story homes are located further to the north. Situated lower in elevation than homes along this street, but higher than the Terra Springs condo association, the mass is compatible with the neighboring structures. Respect the existing rhythm of the streetscape. Follow alignment and setbacks predominant on the street and adjacent properties. There is no prevailing front yard setback along 1st Street North, with homes situated on the right-of-way line to others being situated greater than 40' back. The home is proposed to be situated 20' from the edge of the right-of-way. The house directly across 1st Street North is situated at approximately the same distance. Design new roofs to be compatible with forms of existing roofs in the neighborhood. Gabled roofs with additions are common within the vicinity. Building height should be considered in choosing roof forms, architectural style, and relating to context. From 1st Street North, the building's height (as measured from the average elevation of the front of the building to the midway between the eave and the peak) is proposed to be 27' tall. The site's grade change from the northwest to southeast allows for a walk -out design. The design also encompasses single story additions on this facade to help break the mass and height of the building. Building and site design should respond to natural features. Respect the site's natural slope in new building design: minimize cut, fill and retaining walls. When retaining walls are necessary, minimize their The property owner is proposing minimal cut and fill on the property. The walkout design is achieved by the natural slope of the property. One retaining wall is proposed in the front of the home. It is proposed to be constructed of stacked stone, a common (historic) wall construction material. Landscaping will be installed behind and in front of the wall. impact. Case no. 2020-17 Page 3 Preserve significant trees. Eight walnut trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate adequate construction area for the new home. A tree replacement plan for tree loss in exceed of 35% will be required as per the Zoning Code. A tree replacement plan will be required to be submitted with the building permit plan and release of the grading escrow will not occur until planting has occurred. Building Site Locate garage and driveway to respect existing street and neighborhood patterns. The garage is proposed to be located 30' from the edge of the right-of-way, behind the front line of the house and porch. Minimize garage impact on The two -car garage is not only set back but minimized with by new structure massing and street front. a standing seam shed roof overhang. The size and mass of the structure should be compatible with the size of the property. The property is significantly sized to accommodate the structure. Consider front porch elements in the design of infill structures. The owners are proposing a porch/stoop at the front of the home and a large second story deck on the back of the home. Accessory buildings should be compatible with the main building. No accessory buildings are proposed. Design and detail new construction as four-sided architecture. This guideline has been met. Architectural Detail The facade of the structure should be compatible in scale and character to the houses of the streetscape. The variety of siding materials is in line with adjacent properties. The predominant style, lap siding, is the most common siding material on 1st Street North. Building elements should be proportional to the scale and style of the building, and its context. The building's form and its additions are proportional to the scale of the site. The use of large, consistently sized windows is proportional to the architectural style and scale of the home. Use architectural details to create visual interest and support architectural style. In new building design, consider appropriate materials, textures and colors, The proposed design creates visual interest on all facades and floor levels of the home. The materials, textures, and colors are compatible with the surrounding properties and will not detract from the character of the neighborhood. Case no. 2020-17 Page 4 and their relationship to other buildings of the neighborhood. Use masonry and stone authentically. In addition to the stacked stone retaining wall, cultured stone will be used on the walk -out level of the home. This is consistent with exposed stone foundations of older homes in Stillwater. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: A. Approval If the Heritage Preservation Commission finds the proposed application meets standards set forth in the Neighborhood Conservation District, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2020-17 with or without the following conditions. 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department and found on file with HPC Case No. 2020-17, except as modified by conditions herein or other City of Stillwater Planning Commission and/or City Council approval. 2. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the home. 3. Exterior lighting shall be shielded from neighboring properties. 4. The driveway shall be improved in conformance with City Code Section 33-5. 5. A tree replacement plan for significant tee loss greater than 35% shall be submitted at the time of the building permit. The grading escrow shall not be returned until the landscaping and trees have been installed. 6. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. B. Table If the Heritage Preservation Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information. C. Denial If the Heritage Preservation Commission finds the proposal is not consistent with the, the Commission could deny the application. The Commission should indicate a reason for the denial and state whether or not the denial is with prejudice. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The purpose for the Neighborhood Conservation District and the review of the design of new residential structures is to help ensure the traditional neighborhood fabric is preserved. The review is intended to ensure new development does not contrast with the existing, historic character of the neighborhood. The proposed project has been designed to fit with Stillwater's traditional neighborhood design. Therefore, staff would recommend conditional approval with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Case no. 2020-17 Page 5 Attachments: Site Location Map Applicant Narrative NCD Application Form (2 pages) Site Plan Drone Views (2 pages) Elevations (4 pages) Floor Plans (3 pages) cc: Michael & Christine Cairl Ron Brenner Architects 1.1111111.111„ple_u•V-11EPtilliarlm.,t,11...."1" 1 650 650 650 650 650 650 654 i `�. .' 650 650 650 650 650 650 65Q I---.-.--. _� ' � . 4 660 C43 0 650 650 650 650 - I �.���\` ,. 650 650 650 i/ 6/26/2020 905 North First Street — Residence for Michael and Christine Cairl PROJECT OVERVIEW Michael and Christine Cairl are seeking Design Review approval to construct a new home on the vacant / unimproved property at the northeast intersection of North First Street and Elm Street. The home will be high quality, modestly scaled, architecturally appropriate and complementary to the neighborhood in general. The lot lies within Stillwater's RB Two Family District. Prevailing development patterns do not exist for this property as the site is surrounded by vacated Aspen Street to the north, a sloped bluff to the east, the terra springs condominium development to the south, and another undeveloped lot to the west. Within the greater neighborhood one finds a wide variety of architectural styles and plan types (one- story, 1 % story and 2 story). The home design will have no impact on access to daylight and air for any neighboring property. The applicant has also taken care to design a home that is appropriately scaled and architecturally complementary with the neighborhood. The homes exterior design draws inspiration from the many 1 1/2 and 2 story vernacular style homes that can be found throughout the city. The homes massing is broken down by utilizing simple two-story gables with additive 1-story shed forms; much in the same way that a traditional vernacular style would have been added on to over years of improvement. The overall building height is minimized by maintaining modest ceiling heights (9' at main floor and 8' at second floor) and maintaining narrower gable widths. The existing topography has been considered by placing the garage and entry at the highest grade and allowing the natural slope to create a walkout level along the southeast corner of the home. - t o Design Review Application and Checklist This Design Review Application and Checklist should be submitted with a City Planning Application Form Contact: Stillwater City Planning Office 651-430-8821 City Hall 216 N. 4th St. Stillwater, MN 55082 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us Project5ddr 6Y,�1 rlrSL C}y€ it' Applicant I , 1 . e , tel ho : i iC . GI vie Air' 4'0171 i 5he�rgo eU, /v1 55 E o (I2i ll10 • , 1. Neighborhood Architectural Styles: .4 32 )<Vernacular u, Queen Anne u Greek Revival ❑ American Foursquare u 14 Other: 2. Prevailing neighborhood streetfront setback: (Guidelines #1, #2, #3) Prevailing setback on block (est.) Average setback on block (est.) Proposed new house setback 201, ({ 1c�l 3. Is thepattern of homes in your Y neighborhood 1,1-1 /2, or 2 stories high? (Guidelines #4, #5) Stories House on right House on left House to rear Prevailing on block Prevailing opposite block Proposed new house ❑ Italianate Gothic Second Empire Stick 1 1-1/2 2 • ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o Li Li Li ❑ ❑ 4. Prevailing Front Porch pattern in your neighborhood: (Guideline #13) Front Porch None House on right ❑ o House on left ❑ ❑ House to rear ❑ ❑ Prevailing on block ❑ Prevailing opposite block o Proposed newhq �Se�� Zf� Notes: � �_1_ �j (/Yl S 5. Prevailing Garage Location pattern in your neighborhood: (Guidelines #10, #11) Front Rear Side Garage Garage Garage �� 0 ❑ ❑ tel ❑ ❑ House on right House on left ❑ House to rear ❑ Prevailing on block ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ Proposed new house u 6. Prevailing Garage Size in your neighborhood: (Guidelines #10, #11) 1 stall 2 stall 3 stall Garage Garage Garage House on right ❑ 0 0 House on left ❑ ❑ ❑ House to rear ❑ ❑ ❑ Prevailing on block ❑ ❑ ❑ Prevailing opposite block ❑ ❑ ❑ Proposed new house ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Is the proposed garage compatible in form and detail with the design character of the main house? (Guideline #14) wviSStt 1S stlIbDcekiyi ivy 1/11,1,5•0 avO broYetn Acc,p) 8. If the proposed structure/garage location, setbacks, size or general design character does not fit prevailing neighborhood patterns, how do you propose to reduce its impact on the neighborhood and streetscape? : insitO r_ VOW Or _t► o r►ai'e �: OA 1.4 Gem) A; rtn iyMS'4 I tS iw►�A(� "' t orw►Savf�� cA Stillwater Conservation District (p 1 of 2) Design Guidelines Design Review Application and Checklist 9. Does the proposed structure work with natural slopes and contours of the property? (Guidelines #6, #7, #8) X Structure sited parallel to slope `y Building deigned to reduce cut and fill (minimized retaining walls) Landscaping incorporated into grading changes Notes: 10. Are there significant trees on the property? Will any trees be removed or damaged by new construction? (Guideline #9) � ❑ Types of trees ❑ Heights ❑ Trunk diam. Notes: i hAele l&aiiova . rtre€s / -yr4i4 �► heA'nvi ooteS 141 reA;n Good Neighbor Considerations 1. Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbor's access to sunlight in adjacent yards, patios or rooms? (Guideline #21) House to right: House to left: House to rear: No 1 v1k ()VIP eeS ►vt� eA How will you mitigate any negative sunlight impacts on neighbors? \\IPs' ❑ Locate structure on lot to minimize impact ❑ Adjust building height, or portions of building, to minimize impact >1 Other: 'Ain.eAr1 1. Yio ivv 4' Stillwater Conservation District 2. Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbors' privacy?(Guidelines #22, #23) House to right: House to left: House to rear: '1\11 Notes:_ 15 5 r1 i S 41/102 ate How will you mitigate any negative impacts on neighbors' privacy? N PS ❑ Offset/locate windows to reduce impact ❑ Use obscure glass in window ❑ Locate balconies to minimize impact. ❑ Use landscaping elements for screening , ' Other: Ve Are no V12�}cr\VJ InDacts Do r 3. How is outdoor lighting impact minimized for neighbors?(Guideline #25) ❑ Lights are located or directed away from neighboring property NPr ❑ Light fixtures are shielded to prevent glare at neighboring property ❑ Other: To be included with this Application and Checklist: ❑ Site Plan: include location of proposed building(s) on property, lot area; indicate impervious surface, property lines, street/ sidewalk location and approximate location of adjacent structures. Indicate proposed outdoor deck/patio and landscaping features. ❑ Building Plan: dimensions, first floor area square footage. ❑ Building Elevations: indicate building height, windows, materials, and color on all elevations. Indicate proposed exterior lighting. ❑ Photographs of site and streetscape. ❑ Regular Planning Department Development Application Form Design Guidelines (p 2 of 2) aa. i* io 77 (\o Cae ecrGTEO <ovvrov.e Et. Ta 770 9-9-/7 do iw 6-474iniom 61rof 2Y'vice.ir ti to. Fou► . 71�0.So C Met t 17(, 5kw,ee 7,1.'03 c el° W.6. 7oo7. G4 T 4 L/NE ,4 v sr £- C- �la,/o/ 7/dA' vay cq 70o Z./ AIs //894 £/TY A/d. // 1) A-� ter; v APoc S88''¢'2/"LI 7/. GZ -- • Tee I,eftelAiV� 1- X Try tD e _. (wathw fiv.ees) GASH, tTs bt J 7 -trips -h 1* SITS 'LPr 3 DIA.W1111A Y?rw►oveo► T)11_41UC0 t`=2o b 1. L NTEiezme4 J. ti • �v N88' 40'//47 1 � E� M Fcae.�Ev 7bo 0 .49.8°574e r- 53-545 f tZ f YG 0 .fd. L'in /'90-taW .�T. �;% - :4)("4? Ap chi \ 4:,wil 3 \\ I Sr. t, goe- Oa A < to fxtovttr v611 i t66tS DRONE VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST Residence for Mike and Chris Cairl EXTERIOR IMAGE SKETCHES 6/24/2020 COPYRIGHT 2020, RON BRENNER ARCHITECTS DRONE VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST Residence for Mike and Chris Cairl EXTERIOR IMAGE SKETCHES 6/24/2020 COPYRIGHT 2020, RON BRENNER ARCHITECTS STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING • 1111 11 11 11 10" SQUARE COLUMNS 10" MIRATEC FRIEZE BOARDS • STACKED STONE RETAINING WALL FIBER CEMENT OR LP SHINGLES - PAINTED FIBER CEMENT OR LP HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING FIBERGLASS / ASPHALT SHINGLES - TYPICAL FIBER CEMENT OR LP BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING 6" CORNER BOARDS CABLE RAILING OR STEEL RAILING SYSTEM CULTURED STONE FRONT (WEST) ELEVATION Residence for Mike and Chris Cairl EXTERIOR IMAGE SKETCHES 6/24/2020 COPYRIGHT 2020, RON BRENNER ARCHITECTS SIDE (SOUTH) ELEVATION Residence for Mike and Chris Cairl EXTERIOR IMAGE SKETCHES 6/24/2020 COPYRIGHT 2020, RON BRENNER ARCHITECTS REAR (EAST) ELEVATION Residence for Mike and Chris Cairl EXTERIOR IMAGE SKETCHES 6/24/2020 COPYRIGHT 2020, RON BRENNER ARCHITECTS SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATION Residence for Mike and Chris Cairl EXTERIOR IMAGE SKETCHES 6/24/2020 COPYRIGHT 2020, RON BRENNER ARCHITECTS MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN' 2110 SQUARE FEET FINISHED 6/24/2020 - RON BRENNER ARCHITECTS CAIRL RESIDENCE UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1470 SQUARE FEET FINISHED 6/24/2020 - RON BRENNER ARCHITECTS LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1580 SQUARE FEET FINISHED 6/24/2020 - RON BRENNER ARCHITECTS Received July 10, 2020 Historic Preservation Commission Members C/O Abbi Jo Wittman City Planner City of Stillwater 216 4th St. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Historic Preservation Commission Members, J U L 1 3 2020 Community Development Department On July 15, 2020, you will be having a Public Hearing regarding Case No. 2020-17 for the consideration of a Design Permit for a new residence at 905 1st St. N. Our property is adjacent to 905 1st. St. N. We have reviewed the materials in the Case No. 2020-17 packet. We fully support how Michael and Christine Cairl are proposing to develop their property. The house that Ron Brenner has designed for them truly respects our historic North Hill neighborhood. We believe that the site has been given careful consideration and that the Cairls are being good stewards of their unique property. Sincerely, L Larry nd Paulette Lappi 1\'4 C).k*we,- li PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: DESIGNATION: DISTRICT: REPORT BY: Heritage Preservation Commission July 9, 2020 June 15, 2020 CVII Holdings, LLC CVII Holdings, LLC Site Alteration (Design) Permit for entry door system rehabilitation or replacement and HVAC unit installation 107 Chestnut Street East Contributing (Stillwater Historic Armory) Stillwater Commercial Historic District Downtown Design Review District Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner CASE NO.: 2020-19 INTRODUCTION CVII Holdings purchased the historic armory in 2018. Since that time the City has granted the owner permission to use the building for both commercial and residential uses. In order to accommodate those uses, the owner desires making changes to the structure. The HPC has approved one Site Alteration (i.e. Design) Permit to install new windows and solar panels on the building. SPECIFIC REQUEST May 2018 (Google Images) Consideration of a Site Alteration (Design) Permit for entry door system rehabilitation or replacement and HVAC unit installation. This specifically includes: Case no. 2020-19 Page 2 A. Door entry door system — Rehabilitate or replace the existing door entry systems with one of the following options: 1. Front (North): • Installation of new code compliant, historically replicated, wood clad doors under the existing stone transom infill; or • Installation of new code compliant, historically replicated, wood clad doors under new transom window; or • Rehabilitate the existing system. 2. Side (West): Install an aluminum clad wood door with design similar to the front. B. HVAC installation: 1. Residential units: Installation of four, 16" by 37" and 31" tall ductless heat pump systems to be located on the flat portion of the roof; and 2. Commercial units: Installation of: • One, 15-ton commercial condensing unit on the south side of the building; • One 20" tall fresh air hood to be located on the northeast corner of the existing garage; and • One 42" tall exhaust fan located on the southwest corner of the existing garage. ANALYSIS City Code Regulations (Standards) and Guidelines May 2019 (Google Images) City Code Sections 22-7 and 31-325(0 require the HPC make the findings that alterations or additions to an existing building must not materially impair the architectural or historic value of the building. These findings should consider the existing structures and exterior appearances, building height, building width, depth or other dimensions, roof style, type of building materials, ornamentation and paving setback. City Code Section 22-7, Subd. 6(3) indicates the following applicable standards shall be used to evaluate applications: Case no. 2020-19 Page 3 ■ Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure or site and its environment or to use a property for its originally intended purposes. ■ The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features must be avoided when possible. ■ Contemporary design for alterations and additions shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. ■ Whenever possible new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in a manner that if the additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. Furthermore, City Code Section 31-209 indicates the HPC must take into consideration special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the City Council. The Downtown Design Review District guidelines indicates the following applicable guidelines: ■ An infill building and facade should be composed of materials similar to original adjacent facades (example: local brick or stone). ■ For remodeling, the original size, division and shape of...windows...should be preserved. ■ Solid or residential -type doors with small areas of glass should be avoided. ■ Where detailing has already been removed, every effort should be made to replicate them. The use of the extensive historic photographic records of Downtown Stillwater is highly recommended to discover missing detailing. ■ Use architectural elements to screen mechanical equipment ■ 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. ■ Painted wood doors and wood framing are preferred. Aluminum doors and doorframes, aluminum windows and their accessories with a clear aluminum finish are not acceptable, although colored anodized aluminum is acceptable. • Painted wood doors and wood framing are preferred. • All roof equipment shall be screened from public view. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: A. Find the proposed improvements conform to City Code standards and established guidelines and approve the Site Alteration Permit with the following conditions: Case no. 2020-19 Page 4 1. The project shall be completed according to the plans on file in the Community Development Department, unless specifically modified by other conditions of approval. 2. Rooftop screening of the garage mechanical equipment shall be required. Screening shall be of similar material and color found onsite. 3. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. B. Deny the requested Site Alteration Permit. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION While rehabilitation of existing components is generally encouraged, the existing door systems are not original. Code compliant wood clad doors under the existing stone infill or new, historically replicated transom windows is in what is encouraged. The existing side door does not fill the original opening. It is not the applicant's intent to replicate the original. Thus, an aluminum clad wood door to replace the side door is appropriate. The installation of four residential heat pump units on the flat roof and the 15-ton commercial unit will be minimally visible from any existing street or way. Their placement conforms to the City Code standards and guidelines. The placement of the fresh air hood and exhaust fan on the garage roof will be visible from Chestnut Street East. Screening these improvements would conform to the established guidelines. Staff finds that, with certain conditions, the proposed improvements conform to City Code and the Downtown Design Review District guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval of the project with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Narrative Request (9 pages) Elevations (4 pages) cc: Matthew Wolf EXHIBIT TO DESIGN PERMIT APPLICATION Historic Stillwater Armory 7/6/2020 Legal Description for Historic Stillwater Armory PIDs: 28-030-20-42-0107 & 28-030-20-41-0083 Lots numbered nine (9) and ten (10) and all of Lot numbered eight (8) except the south twenty- four (24) feet thereof, and the west one third (1/3) of Lots numbered one (1), two (2) and three (3) except the north sixty-five (65) feet of the east six (6) inches thereof, all in Block numbered thirty (30) of the original town (now city) of Stillwater, as surveyed, platted and now of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Washington County, Minnesota. Description of Project This application is for three items relating to the Historic Stillwater Armory Renovation Project: 1) Replacement of Entryway systems; 2) HVAC unit placement; 3) Tuckpointing. The building was constructed in 1922, and was expanded by construction of the connected garage in 1960. We believe the entryway doors were replaced at the same time as the windows, which were replaced in the 1980's. The building is in repairable condition, though many systems and components of the building are failing. 1) Regarding the replacement of entryway systems, we are seeking to replace the main entrance on the North face of the main building, and the entrance to the gymnasium on the West face of the main building. Three options for entryway systems are requested for approval — one of which will be selected based on review and input from the SHPO: a) Historic design (rectangular) — Below is shown the proposed historic door which mimics the original design of the door system, but brings opening widths up to current code and leaves the existing stone transoms (likely added in the 1980s) in place above the door. This option would be a wood or clad -wood option with non -obscured glass. b) Historic design (glass transom) — This option would be the same as the option above, except the stone transoms would be replaced with glass and mimic the original design. c) Refurbish existing — This option would leave the existing entrance system in place, but the non -glass portions of the system would either be refinished or wrapped in wood cladding to give a more historic look if the options above are cost prohibitive. ** The entryway system for the West face of the building would be replaced or refinished to match the style/finish of the North face entryway system (either #a or #b above), but would fill the existing opening rather than the historic opening. HI Op ON 80VIN HILO JTGni 1Y LIVATFOK CY IkrT Gli.f ea. y.q 2) Regarding the HVAC unit placement, we are seeking to place new HVAC units in the locations least visible or noticeable from the street, and in a location which is acceptable to the SHPO and the National Park Service. We have identified two distinct needs, and two distinct locations for placement that will meet that criteria. a. Residential units — the residential units will require rooftop condensers for the HVAC units. Due to the relatively small capacity needed for the residential units, the units will be lower profile than most rooftop units (31.89" high). The roof also has great areas that are virtually hidden from streetview. See pictures below. b. Commercial units — the commercial units will need to be located on a pad adjacent to the building, or on a rooftop. The unit may only be located on certain portions of the the south side of the building due to egress issues. Since the only acceptable rooftop location was on the attached garage overlooking downtown, we identified the Southeast corner of the main building as the best location. This location is best, because it is already screened from most surrounding locations by either the building or existing retaining walls. The neighbor immediately to the South may be able to see the unit from some windows in their building, however we cannot verify that and believe it is unlikely. The fresh air handlers and exhaust fans are code required in the locations shown and will not be visible from street level. 3) Regarding tuckpointing, we will be doing some repairs of tuckpointing and brick repair in areas where the materials are missing or deteriorated, as well as cleaning of staining on the North and West faces of the building. The professionals doing the work will use matching materials to minimize any aesthetic issues. Materials and methods can be submitted by the contractor to the appropriate City official for final administrative review. Commercial HVAC 952-881-1557 View from North side of Chestnut, looking south — rooftop and ground HVAC units are not visible. View from NE corner of Third and Chestnut. Top corner of mock-HVAC ground unit is slightly visible. Rooftop HVAC units screened by building and tree. View from parking lot adjacent to the Chestnut stairway, from elevated position. —50% of the RTU would be visible when leaves are off. View from north of staircase, in highest viewing position. RTU would be —50% visible from this position. View from in front of the Montessori Spanish Immersion School, looking Southeast. RTU would barely be visible since screened by the building and leaves. Slightly different angle from above. RTUs not visible due to building and tree. 71.L li. it M4 DI 111 ■1E i LL J1 f .1 ti r Y•rffr l rIc p L IiI 61LI a; I1•61111 EI.111,DI. �1 ,a ■■ 111 1l 91Ll li1il 1 1 IliN11! 1111 11 `I!IML TLlN C LP T �zr 11 _ . EXISTING NON-FIISTORIC ALUf1 WINEi WS - FACTQRY PAINTED FINISH{TM . =�1 am ASPHALT ROOF airmen t- 7.p�pp r�y9t3 i�ffilfP!' ES F%tia r - = IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I11111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIf 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 . ES ES '_-_.•••••M DIDI1G7■I.1.11111.11111.1.11111.1111=■=■_■_■_■=■=■a f f D a;f a D f'?:c EPIIFARIP744 a iaLLVawJVJVJVJ.►wrwrJVJY wr -_ - 1JfrJ1111MIfrJfrJY L9L9a9L9aJ�J�JaJaJ�JaJaJ�1�JaJaJ�Ja7a7�7�7at�7�7a7oL4L4L9L9C QL'OL9L41 rarxx xxvmennna vnnmw ennmo nnmenn .z w wanrawiranlo. —STCPAPRONT- OQ R— J =z--5— ' ninTininiiniiinnniiii _� I 1r_Lai r _i jai' :! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ERRE RSRS RSRSRSRSRSRSR9L7 lirtmem r SINnnenn omminR7R7RWArJfr 7RSRSR7nnenn RSRSRSR7RSRWArJfr iY1161111111R 1wrKK IJVJVJVJVI- REMOVE EXIST NON -HISTORIC ALUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM AND REPLACE VET1-1 NEW NOW INTERIOR/ALUM CLAD EXTERIOR ENTRY SYSTEM. 1 r Fi i r -ivI4 Y- li ▪ t Mill el. A-■ I ! ' a �l-f JJrbti H siii ins 1 GJ.- J I 4.1,e -- - a fL!pl wird SwF ♦wipe. -- - ---' I 41.1:. J.1 JSo,,.:.kl - I I 1 � .----- -I- - -.-. - ..A -� �-r - - d. liog ow 4 oirTH 1"EL D JMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMML BRIM BOILER C-IIALIEY FLUE STACA MVO ND — DIVING ItION-HISTOIRIQ ALUM W I N O FACTORY - PMITED FIP SH {MI . mm. . .= m..mm..mm. +laru1uuu1uu1: ...............•uuuu1111111 r�ruu11uu1uuu•................................................ 1uu1uuuu1u1urcau1uu1uuu1r.-.r...... ........vuu1uu1uu1.1+: -� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illllllllllllllllllllllllllll�ti;��;����==,��������f�lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIII w.11..1.'1.1.1.11.1.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.--�---''a--'-------'------_ --- I1.1III.l .1.11.II: 1■1•, 1II•I•IIbI•III 1■1111.11.11II. 1II.IIIIIII.l.II11•1111•1......l 1•1•11:,1•11:1. REP Y/E MOH-NI!TORJG HOLLOW METAL DOOR AM MAWS AM) REFtd1 MTH NEW VIIOOD INTERIOR! ALUM CLAD EXTERJOR ENTRY DOORS - SIMILAR IN DESIGN TO NEW MAIN ENTRY DOOR SYSTEM FX3TI1413FINISIIED I GRADE ' H F B I R THPACF OF MINNESOIA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 15, 2020 REGARDING: HPC Draft Ordinance Review PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner Review Update Comments on the draft ordinances have been received from commissioners, members of the HPC's ordinance advisory committee, staff and the City's consulting firm. Changes have been incorporated to the draft ordinances to clarify intent of definitions a requirements, processes and/or procedures. Staff has not included the drafts in this packet as all changes to date are minor; they are available by request. A few things to note: • City staff is exploring how the definition of building, structure, or site of potential historic significance can include structures that are 50 years old or older. Since the City does not have post-1946 historic context statements nor has conducted reconnaissance level surveys for more modern neighborhoods, HPC review for activities that are proposed for these structures will be challenging. This could introduced new policies to the HPC ordinance that have not yet been well vetted. • Expanded definitions for adjacent, contributing, essential character, general harmony, and integrity are being created to help clarify intent. Furthermore, as the demolition components of the ordinance are drafted, expanding on the definition of partial demolition will occur; greater analysis follows later in this memo. • Single- and two-family residential located in the Downtown Design Review District will be reviewed as part of the Neighborhood Conservation District requirements; this will include new construction or construction associated with partial demolition. The purpose of this is to ensure design review consistency for the use type. • The City Council would like to continue to have the West Stillwater Business Park Design Review District, codify the design guidelines and reassign the duties to the Planning Commission and staff. Design standard updates will be discussed with the HPC as part of the guideline codified project to start in the fall/winter. o This guideline codification project will take a deep -dive into all adopted design guidelines for determination of which should be codified and what new standards are needed. Any comments related to guidelines (i.e. signage, including who reviews, lighting, etc.) will remain as proposed for the time being. • Interim protection will not be included in this ordinance amendment. The City Council would like the HPC to work with the revised ordinance to designate structures, first determining if the updated ordinances better protect Stillwater's resources. • The drafted language will be revised to ensure public projects will continue as it has. This will continue to treat public and private project reviews the same. • References to `preservation program' will be removed from all sections of the proposed ordinances, even if it exists to date. The MNHS and SHPO are further reviewing the draft ordinances. Once staff receives these comments, we will incorporate relevant changes into the proposed amendments. Discussion Items Some comments regarding HPC activities and procedures need further review: Interpretation: The current code nor the proposed draft indicate interpretation as a requirement of the HPC. Should staff incorporate interpretation into the HPC's activities? Minor/major amendment: Current City Code allows staff approval of projects less than $5,000, adjusted annually based on the CPI; to date that is (approximately) $10,500. Should there be a dollar threshold for minor site alterations and/or changes to approved permits? Partial Demolition: The current code indicates demolition is full removal, more than 50% of the total, or more than 20% of the front facade of a structure. Under the current code, demolition (even partial) triggers designation review. Separating the two for partial demolitions may provide HPC with the opportunity to review projects that alter the front or exterior side of a structure. What should constitute as partial demolition, requiring HPC review but not necessarily triggering demolition/designation review? Next Steps Once the final drafts are complete, staff will submit to the MNHS and the SHPO to finalize the granting obligations. We will continue to work on City Code Chapter 34 demolition review amendments. At the next meeting the HPC will see the final draft of all proposed ordinance amendments (including demolition) and make recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council for their public hearings in September.