Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-19 HPC Packet 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 August 19th, 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 July 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. 2020-20: Consideration of a Design permit fa new 17’ x 17.25’ generator building on the property located at 1850 Tower Drive in the West Business Park. City of Stillwater, property owner. City Water Board, applicant. VI. NEW BUSINESS 3. Case No. 2020-21: Consideration of a Design Permit for new Liftbridge Cowork signage to be located at 109 Myrtle Street East in the Downtown Design Review District. Jill Kaufenberg representing St. Croix Enterprises LLC, property owner and applicant. 4. Case No. 2020-22: Consideration of a preferred Chestnut Street Plaza preliminary design alternative. City of Stillwater, applicant. Minnesota Department of Transportation, owner. VII. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 5. Preservation Ordinance Amendment Recommendation 6. NAPC Forum Discussion and Attendance Reporting – No Packet Materials 7. MNHS and SHPO Ordinance Amendment Grant Reporting – No Packet Materials VIII. FYI 8. South Main Street Retaining Wall IX. ADJOURNMENT HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING July 15, 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, Krakowski, Larson, Thueson, Walls, Council Representative Junker Absent: None Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of June 17, 2020 Meeting Chairwoman Mino pointed out a typo on page 2, full paragraph 13, “content” should be “context.” Motion by Commissioner Walls, seconded by Commissioner Heimdahl, to approve the minutes of the June 17, 2020 meeting with the correction. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioner Krakowski abstaining. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2020-18: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new hanging sign to be located at 226 Chestnut Street East. Gartner Proper LLC, property owner. Ron Brenner Architects, application. Motion by Commissioner Krakowski, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARING 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. Ms. Wittman explained the case. The applicants have requested a Design Permit to construct a 2.5 story single family residence with a two-car, front-facing attached garage to be set back from the front entry/porch by 10’. The home will have fiber cement or LP board and batten siding, horizontal lap siding, and white painted shingles. Standing seam metal shed roofs will be used on the porch, above the garage door, and on single story additions in the east facing rear of the home. Staff recommends approval with six conditions. Chairwoman Mino opened the public hearing. Tom O’Brien, 904 1st St N, inquired whether water service will be extended to the site. Ms. Wittman responded that the applicant was granted permission to install a well. Chairwoman Mino closed the public hearing. Architect Ron Brenner explained the architectural design and offered to answer questions. Commissioner Heimdahl asked if flowers on the site will be preserved. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting July 15, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Brenner said they will keep as much native landscaping as possible. Chairwoman Mino asked if grass will be planted below the deck. Michael Cairl, applicant, replied there will be patio area directly under the deck. Commissioner Larson commended the applicants and architect on the conformance to design guidelines. Commissioner Finwall asked if any variances will be required. Ms. Wittman replied no. The house conforms to all zoning restrictions and setbacks. Commissioner Finwall asked what the rails around the deck will be made of because the appearance is rather modern looking. Mr. Brenner said they are investigating railing options. It might end up being a vertical system. Hopefully there is flexibility to make that choice later. They want the rail to be as transparent as possible. Commissioner Larson remarked that the HPC has allowed a variety of railing systems. From a distance the massing looks as it should. The goal is not to make all new houses look like they are old houses. Councilmember Junker asked if the project will go to the Planning Commission regarding water runoff. City Planner Wittman replied no. The applicants will have to comply with Middle St. Croix Water Management Organization stormwater infiltration requirements via a rain garden or similar system. That will be reviewed by the engineering department at time of building permitting. Motion by Commissioner Thueson, seconded by Commissioner Finwall, to approve Case No. 2020-17, Design Permit for new residence at 905 1st St N, with the six staff-recommended conditions. All in favor. NEW BUSINESS 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. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting approval of a Site Alteration (Design) Permit for entry door system rehabilitation or replacement and HVAC unit installation. The entry doors will be rehabilitated or replaced using one of the following options: new code compliant, historically replicated, wood clad doors under the existing stone transom infill; or new code compliant, historically replicated, wood clad doors under new transom window; or rehabilitation of the existing system. On the west side, an aluminum clad wood door will be installed with design similar to the front. Four, 16” by 37” and 31” tall ductless heat pump systems located on the flat portion of the roof will serve the residential units. The commercial units will be served by one 15-ton commercial condensing unit on the south side of the building; one 20” tall fresh air hood on the northeast corner of the existing garage; and one 42” tall exhaust fan on the southwest corner of the existing garage. Staff finds that, with certain conditions, the proposed improvements conform to City Code and the Downtown Design Review District guidelines and therefore recommends approval with three conditions. Commissioner Larson recused himself from the discussion and vote. Matt Wolf, applicant, stated they considered various locations for the HVAC equipment to be as visually unobtrusive as possible. They may still move the locations around for the rooftop units above Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting July 15, 2020 Page 3 of 4 the garage but will ensure they are screened from street view. Regarding the options for the entry doors, they are working with the National Park Service (NPS) and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to find out what they will find acceptable there. Chairwoman Mino asked what material is being recommended for screening. Ms. Wittman said none has been recommended at this time. There is metal flashing on the roof above the garage. Louvered metal is a standard screening material that is used. Councilmember Junker asked about the role of the NPS in project review. Mr. Wolf replied that part of the financing is historic tax credits. The SHPO makes recommendations to the NPS about Minnesota Standards. Ultimately the NPS has final say because it is a listed building. Councilmember Junker asked if the building is for sale. Mr. Wolf replied it is not. He explained that changes in the tax landscape and funding have allowed the project to move forward. Commissioner Finwall asked if solar energy is planned to be used. Mr. Wolf stated that is up to the NPS as part of final approval. Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to approve Case No. 2020-19, Site Alteration Permit for entry door system rehabilitation or replacement and HVAC unit installation at 107 Chestnut St E, with the six staff-recommended conditions. Commissioner Heimdahl asked if the applicant has a preference for restoring the full glass at the front entrance or keeping the stone in place. Mr. Wolf answered that he prefers to replace the stone transom with a window which would bring it back to a more original look. Motion passed 6-0-1 with Commissioner Larson abstaining. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS HPC Draft Ordinance Review Ms. Wittman updated the Commission on the draft ordinance and Commissioner comments thus far. She asked for the Commissioners’ thoughts on whether staff should incorporate historic interpretation into the HPC activities, for example by doing public education pieces or interpretive panels. Commissioner Thueson commented that the context studies could be shared with more people around these sites to show how the town evolved. He feels the HPC is probably the best organization to share the story of the City of Stillwater. Ms. Wittman stated there could be greater emphasis on providing education about Stillwater’s architectural heritage. The section about education could be expanded to include interpretation, for instance through print and other media. Chairwoman Mino agreed with Commissioner Thueson that it makes sense for interpretation to be an element of the HPC’s work. Ms. Wittman proceeded to discuss major/minor amendments. Currently the City Code allows staff approval of minor amendments to approved design permits. She asked if there should be a dollar threshold, or should it be more of a context change? Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting July 15, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Commissioner Finwall pointed out that a dollar threshold removes the ambiguity of staff determination. The dollar amount could be set by Council resolution, so the dollar amount is not actually in the ordinance itself. Ms. Wittman agreed that a dollar threshold would probably reduce the ambiguity and remove the burden from staff of determining what is a major or minor amendment to a permit. Commissioner Thueson stated perhaps the best formulation might be to state that review would be required either because the project exceeds a certain dollar threshold or because the HPC liaison (staff) deems it to be a significant change that would require review. Ms. Wittman addressed the subject of partial demolition. Currently the HPC reviews demolition of historic resources when it is total demolition. Demolition review also can be triggered by removal of more than 20% of the front façade or more than 50% of the total façade. But some applicants are really skilled at making sure they stay just underneath the threshold. She asked what should trigger partial demolition review. Councilmember Junker remarked that one year a homeowner may do 25% of the back, the next year they do 25% of the front, and pretty soon it is almost total demolition piecemealed, without any review. Consensus of the Commission was that partial demolition should trigger some sort of HPC review. Commissioner Finwall said maybe the HPC should also review additions that expand a certain percent of a home. Commissioner Larson agreed that would be a good thing for review. There is a trend toward small, potentially historic homes getting gigantic additions which could have as big an impact as demolition. Ms. Wittman said she will work with the City Attorney on language to give the HPC a role in reviewing some of the alterations discussed even if they are not truly demolition. She is trying to pull language about total demolition away from language about alterations in the ordinance. She asked, should the threshold triggering HPC review remain 20% of the front and 50% of total? Or 20% overall no matter where it is? Commissioner Walls suggested 20% of the total, and maybe 50% alterations done over the course of three years, to alleviate the scenario brought up by Councilmember Junker. Commissioner Thueson said since the HPC looks at four sided design on new construction, looking at a certain threshold on every façade makes sense. FYI Ms. Wittman stated that the engineering department is looking at constructing a limestone wall at the Main Street stairs. Regarding the Commander grain elevator, an entire sheet of metal was removed so the word Commander is split, and from afar it looks like a massive opening. However she believes the owner intends to get the metal back up so the Commander name is put back. Chairwoman Mino mentioned a new house being built on Churchill Street where the HPC approved a demolition last year - the house is very big. Ms. Wittman said she will keep monitoring the project. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Krakowski, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Amy Mino, Chairwoman ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: HPC 2020-20 REPORT DATE: August 6, 2020 MEETING DATE: August 19, 2020 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater Water Board LANDOWNER: City of Stillwater REQUEST: Construction of a 17’ x 17.25’ generator building LOCATION: 1850 Tower Drive West DESIGNATION: N/A DISTRICT: West Stillwater Business Park REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION The property at 1850 Tower Drive West, owned by the City of Stillwater, is managed by the Stillwater Water Board. They would like to install an (approximately) 17’ square foot generator building on the site next to the existing pump house. SPECIFIC REQUEST A Design Permit for a 294 square foot painted smooth and textured concrete masonry unit generator building. ANALYSIS City Code Regulations (Standards) and Guidelines Street View - August, 2018 (Google Images) HPC Case no. 2020-20 Page 2 City Code Section 31-209 indicates the HPC must take into consideration the applicable standards:  Site layout: The orientation and location of buildings and open spaces in relation to the physical characteristics of the site, the character of the neighborhood and the appearance and harmony of the buildings with adjacent development.  Architectural character: o The suitability of the building for the intended purpose. o The consistency of the applications design with approved design guidelines. o The compatibility of the character of the design with adjacent development.  Special design guidelines for areas or districts of the city officially adopted by the city council. The West Stillwater Business Park guidelines indicates the following applicable guidelines:  Architectural Standards: o Unadorned pre-stressed concrete panels, standard concrete block or metal siding shall not be use as exterior materials for new buildings. Architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels may be acceptable. o All roof or ground mounted mechanical equipment and exterior trash storage areas shall be completely enclosed with building material compatible with the principle structure. Low profile self-contained mechanical units which blend in with the building design located to the side of rear of the building may be permitted. o Architectural consistency on all sides of the building is required in terms of colors, material and details. Proposed Improvements The proposed block building will be constructed of smooth and textured grey and red block. The concreate masonry unit blocks will include: • 4”x16” red, smooth-faced “Quik-Brik” building walls; • 8”x16” gray, smooth-faced “Verastone” building corners; and • 8”x16” gray, textured “Verastone” corner bases. The building will also contain gray metal panel in the gable, soffit and flashing/trim. Acoustical doors and louvers will be located on the north, east and west facades; the southern façade, facing Tower Drive West, will not contain openings. Timberline HD shingles in dark gray will be installed on the roof. No mechanical equipment will be located outside the building. In addition to a water tower, the site contains a single, 25’x35’ pump house structure that has a stucco façade that is painted cream and gray. The site is adjacent to the River Valley Athletic Center which has a concrete façade which has a likeness to vertically laid bricks painted white. While proposed building is made of concrete block, the design mirrors the building onsite with a variety of block sizes and color and uniform corner edges and base. The variation of the color and texture of the block give the building greater dimension and provide visual interest. HPC Case no. 2020-20 Page 3 The use of red block on the walls will contrast with the other building onsite. However, the use of red, brown, and gray bricks, concrete blocks, and wood is prevalent along the street. Designing this building to fit with the existing, painted building could make the site stand out against the rest of Tower Drive West. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: A. Approve the requested Design Permit with the following conditions: 1. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between “major” and “minor” is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. B. Deny the requested Design Permit. With a denial, findings of fact supporting the decision must be provided. C. Table the request for additional information. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION While standard concrete blocks are not encouraged, the design proposes using three different smooth colored and textured block on all four sides of the building. The building fits the scale of the existing site and the color is in harmony with the overall character of the neighborhood. While the building matches the neither the color nor the materials of the existing building, that building be painted to match or be complimentary in the future. Overall the request conforms to the standards set forth in City Code and is in substantial compliance to the West Stillwater Business Park design guidelines. Therefore, staff recommends conditional approval with those conditions outlined in Alterative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map Sheet A110: Floor and Roof Plan Sheet A200-201: Exterior Elevations cc: Robert Bensen Cody Wegner CURVECRESTNORTHWESTERN AVENUE1719 1875 1500 1826 1745 1990 1395 1435 1835 1815 1809 1701 1720 1700 1825 1715 1826 1970 1570 1719 1950 1751 1725 µ 0 220 440110Feet General Site Location Site Location 3203020430006 ^ XS XS XS XS XS XSXSXSXSXSXSXSXSXSXSXSINSTALL NEW BITUMINOUSDRIVEWAY. SLOPE TOSTREET, SEE DETAIL 2INSTALL SILT FENCE ONTHE PERIMETER OFSITE, SEE DETAIL 4TOWER DR WNORTHWESTERN AVEINSTALL NEW BITUMINOUSDRIVEWAY. SLOPE TOSTREET, SEE DETAIL 2EXISTING WELL NO. 9NEW GENERATORBUILDINGEXISTING WATER TOWERPROPERTY BOUNDARYPROTECT EXISTINGCONCRETE SIDEWALKPROVIDE INLET PROTECTIONAT NEXT WESTERN CATCHBASIN, SEE DETAIL 39'-10" WEST DRIVEWAY9-6" EAST DRIVEWAY2%2" BIT BASETACK COAT112" BIT WEAR6" CL 56"WHEN DISTANCE EXCEEDS 150', OR DRAINAGE AREA EXCEEDS 2 ACRES,USE HEAVY DUTY SILTATION FENCE WITHOUT BALE BACKINGNOTES:2 ACRES MAXIMUM DRAINAGE AREAPER FENCE SEGMENT600' MAXIMUM LENGTHPRE-ASSEMBLED SILTATIONFENCE PLACED ON CONTOURMAXIMUM 7 1/2' ON CENTERSPACING OF POSTSTURN ENDS UPSLOPE TOPREVENT FLOW BYPASSPRE-ASSEMBLED SILTATION FENCE6"x6" EARTH FILL ORPLOWED IN MINIMUMIN 6" FABRICMINIMUM 6" BURYCOMPACTED SUBGRADE6" HORIZONTAL MINIMUM1 1/2"x1 1/2"x4'-0" WOOD POSTSMINIMUM 1'-6" EMBEDMENT2 1/2' MIN RUNOFF150'MAXIMUM1.960959958GENERAL NOTES:1.RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHSEED AND MULCH2.TOTAL DISTURBED AREA 5,000 FT² ±NO SCALE4C100SILT FENCE DETAILNO SCALE2C100DRIVEWAY SECTIONSSCALE: 1"=20'1C100SITE PLANDESIGNEDDRAWNCHECKEDDATENO.ISSUE RECORDK:\n-z\StillwaterWtrBd\17575000\04_Production\01_CAD\02_Sheets\C100.dwg May 22, 2020 - 10:30am 10BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. IF NOT ONE INCHON THIS DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY.ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALLVERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS BY MEASUREMENT AT THEBUILDING AND/OR SITEBOARD OF WATERCOMMISSIONERS204 3rd St. N.Stillwater, MN 55082444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500Saint Paul, MN 55101651.292.4400tkda.comWELL NO. 9GENERATORBUILDINGSCALE IN FEET01020402 FOOT CONTAINMENT AREANOTE:1.CURB INLET PROTECTION FILTER INSERTSSHALL BE DANDY CURB SACK, DANDYPRODUCTS INC. OR APPROVED EQUAL.STORM GRATEREINFORCED CORNERSCURBOPENINGLIFTSTRAPSCURBFILTERSTORMINLETNO SCALE3C100STORM INLET PROTECTION DETAILPRINTED NAME:SIGNATURE:LIC. NO.:DATE:DRAWING PATH:DATE PLOTTED:C100SITE PLANIJJIJJMREMATTHEW R. ELLINGSON503525/22/2005/22/20ISSUED FOR BIDI HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYLICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.17575.000 2 A 3 B 1' - 6" TYP12' - 0"CMU-2 BASE, TYP1' - 6" TO FACE OF3' - 9" CONC PAD 9' - 10"3' - 9"CONC PAD3' - 10"4' - 1"A201 2 A200 1 A200 2 A201 1 CMU-2 BASE, TYP 1' - 6" TO FACE OF GENERATOR 101 OF CMU-3, TYP 1' - 4" TYP TO FACE 4' - 0" 2' - 8" M.O.1' - 4"5' - 4" M.O.8"17' - 4"1' - 6" TYP GENERATOR FOOTPRINT GENERATOR FOOTPRINT1' - 4"3' - 4" M.O.1011' - 9"5' - 11"2' - 8"6' - 8" M.O.P1 P2 P2 P2 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P7 P7 TYP TYP TYP TYP P8 1. SEE CIVIL FOR SITE DEMOLITION INFORMATION. 2. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR EXTERIOR STOOP INFORMATION. 3. COORDINATE FLOOR AND ROOF PLANCES WITH STRUCTURAL ROOF FRAMING, BEARING WALL, AND FOOTING/FOUDNATION INFORMATION. 4. SEE MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL FOR GENERATOR INFORMATION. 5. SEE SHEET A600 FOR ROOM FINISH, DOOR, AND INTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULES. FLOOR AND ROOF PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1 2 A C 3 B 21' - 10"17' - 4"12' - 0"8' - 8"PLOT LINE EXIST WELL NO.9 BUILDING EXIST SIDEWALK NIC NEW REPLACEMENT DRIVEWAY - SEE CIVIL EXIST DRIVEWAY TOWER AVENUE WEST 2 A 3 B OVERHANG 2' - 0" TYP OF CMU-3 BELOW 1' - 4" TYP TO FACE 17' - 4"1' - 4"2' - 0"2' - 0"1' - 4"12' - 0"OF CMU-3 BELOW1' - 4" TYP TO FACEOVHERANG2' - 0" TYPR1 R2 TYP A200 2 A200 1 A201 2 A201 1 CODE REVIEW APPLICABLE CODES 2015 MINNESOTA STATE ACCESSIBILITY CODE 2015 MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE 2015 MINNESOTA STATE ENERGY CODE 2015 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CODE 2015 MINNESOTA STATE MECHANICAL AND FUEL GAS CODE 2015 MINNESOTA STATE PLUMBING CODE 2017 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE NEW GENERATOR BUILDING WILL HOUSE A NEW 150kW GENERATOR. THIS GENERATOR WILL PROVIDE THE DAILY OPERATIONAL POWER FOR THE WELL NO. 9 CURRENTLY HOUSED IN THE EXISTING ADJACENT WELL BUILDING. USE AND OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION CHAPTER 3 UTILITY U SECTION 312 BUILDING HEIGHTS AND AREAS CHAPTER 5 FOR A U OCCUPANCY OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE IIB TABLES 504.3, 504.4, 506.2 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT: 55'-0", 2 STORIES ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT: 14'-3", 1 STORY MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA: 8,500 GSF ACTUAL BUILDING AREA: 305 GSF TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CHAPTER 6 CONSTRUCTION CLASSIFICATION: TYPE IIB SECTION 602 FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS (TABLE 601) BUILDING ELEMENT TYPE IIB STRUCUTRAL FRAME INCLUDING 0 HOURS COLUMNS, GIRDERS AND TRUSSES BEARING WALLS (EXTERIOR)0 HOURS BEARING WALLS (INTERIOR)0 HOURS NON-BEARING WALLS AND PARTITIONS (EXTERIOR) 0 HOURS NON-BEARING WALLS AND PARTITIONS (INTERIOR) 0 HOURS FLOOR CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING SUPPORTING BEAMS AND JOIST 0 HOURS ROOF CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING SUPPORTING BEAMS AND JOIST 0 HOURS BUILDING SEPERATION TABLE 602 FOR A U OCCUPANCY OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE IIB (FOR BOTH THE EXIST WELL BLDG AND NEW GENERATOR BLDG) WHERE A FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE IS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 10 FT AND LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 30 FT NO FIRE-RESISTANT RATING IS REQUIRED ACTUAL BUILDING SEPARATION DISTANCE: 19'-1" FIRE AND SMOKE PROTECTIVE FEATURES CHAPTER 7 PER 705.8.1 ALLOWABLE AREA OF OPENINGS EXCEPTION 2 BUILDINGS WHOSE EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS, EXTERIOR NONBEARING WALLS, AND EXTERIOR PRIMARY STRUCTURAL FRAME ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE FIRE RESISTANCE RATED SHALL BE PERMITTED TO HAVE UNLIMITED UNPROTECTED OPENINGS. INTERIOR FINISHES CHAPTER 8 EXIT STAIRWAYS CORRIDORS AND ROOMS AND OCCUPANCY AND PASSAGEWAYS EXIT ACCESS ENCLOSED SPACES U, NON-SPRINKLERED NO RESTRICTIONS NO RESTRICTIONS NO RESTRICTIONS FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS CHAPTER 9 NON-SPRINKLERED SECTION 903 PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS SECTION 906 ORDINARY (MODERATE) HAZARD OCCUPANCY REQUIRES A MINIMUM RATED 2-A FIRE EXTINGUISHER FOR A MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (OF A CLASS A FIRE) 1,500 SF FIRE ALARM AND DETECTION SYSTEMS SECTION 907 FIRE ALARM SYSTEM NOT REQUIRED SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEMS SECTION 909 SMOKE CONTROL SYSTEM NOT REQUIRED MEANS OF EGRESS CHAPTER 10 OCCUPANT LOAD: 305 GSF / 300 GSF = 2 OCCUPANTS SECTION 1004 EGRESS WIDTH MINIMUM ALLOWABLE EGRESS WITDH: 32" ACTUAL EGRESS WIDTH: 60" PER TABLE 1015.1 ONLY ONE EXIT REQUIRED. EGRESS DISTANCE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EGRESS DISTANCE U OCCUPANCY, NON-SPRINKERED: 75 FT COMMON PATH OF EGRESS, 200 FT TOTAL TRAVEL DISTANCE ACTUAL TRAVEL DISTANCE: 27'-0"PLOTTED:DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED SIGNATURE: PRINTED NAME: LICENSE NO:DATE:FILE PATH:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 651.292.4400 Saint Paul, MN 55101 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 tkda.com ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS BY MEASUREMENT AT THE BUILDING AND/OR SITE 10 BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. IF NOT ONE INCH ON THIS DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY.C:\Users\larsonu\Documents\A19_Stillwater Well No 9 Generator Building_larsonu.rvt5/20/2020 5:20:15 PMA110 FLOOR PLAN AND ROOF PLAN BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS WELL NO. 9 GENERATOR BUILDING STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 204 3rd St. N. 17575.000 URSULA LARSON 50943 05-22-2020 BMOUALUAL 55082 1/2" = 1'-0"A110 2 FLOOR PLAN 1" = 20'-0"A110 1 PARTIAL SITE PLAN 0 1 2 4 1/2" -1'-0" 0 1 2 4 1/2" -1'-0" 1/2" = 1'-0"A110 3 ROOF PLAN NO. DATE ISSUE RECORD FLOOR AND ROOF PLAN KEYNOTES Key Value Keynote Text P1 STRUCTURAL CONC STOOP - SEE STRUCT P2 ACOUSTICAL FURRING ASSEMBLY - SEE 1/A300 P3 CONCRETE EQUIPMENT CURB - SEE STRUCT P4 FOOTPRINT OF GENERATOR - SEE MECH AND ELEC P5 ACOUSTICAL CEILING ASSEMBLY ABOVE - SEE 2/A600 P6 18" X 18" ACOUSTICAL ACCESS PANEL, CENTERED BETWEEN STRUCTURAL WOOD TRUSSES ABOVE - SEE 3/A600 P7 ACOUSTICAL MECHANICAL LOUVER - SEE ELEVATIONS P8 THIMBLE ABOVE - SEE MECH R1 RIDGE LINE R2 ROOF SHINGLE (RS-1) - SEE ELEVATIONS T/O MASONRY110' -0"T/O SLAB100' -0"233' - 4"17' - 4"3' - 4"3A35016' - 8"8" 1' - 6"CMU-2CMU-4CMU-3CMU-3CMU-2RS-1MF-1CMU-21' - 4" 7' - 4"CMU-31' - 4"1' - 8" 7' - 0" M.O.ROOF RIDGE114' -3"B/O SOFFIT109' -8 1/2"LOUVER-12' - 8" M.O. 4' - 0"T/O MASONRY (DASHED) BEYONDPENCIL RIB5A3502" TYP2" TYPT/O MASONRY110' -0"T/O SLAB100' -0"AB4A35012' - 0"8"11' - 4"1' - 6"1' - 8"7' - 0" M.O.3' - 4" M.O. 1' - 4"2" TYP5A350DOOR-1LOUVER-1CMU-2CMU-4CMU-3CMU-3CMU-4CMU-2RS-1MF-1MP-1CMU-21' - 4" 2' - 8" 4' - 8"CMU-31' - 4"ROOF RIDGE114' -3"3' - 4"B/O SOFFIT109' -8 1/2"TYP1' - 0"124PENCIL RIBTYP10"3' - 4"2" TYP1. FOR EXHAUST LOUVER INTERIOR DUCT TIE-IN INFORMATION SEE MECHANICAL PLAN 1/M100.2. FOR WALL THIMBLE PENETRATION INFORMATION SEE MECHANICAL PLAN 1/M100.3. FOR NATURAL GAS EXTERIOR PIPING PENETRATION DETAIL SEE MECHANICAL DETAIL 2/M100.EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTESPLOTTED:DESIGNEDDRAWNCHECKEDSIGNATURE:PRINTED NAME:LICENSE NO:DATE:FILE PATH:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION,OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA651.292.4400Saint Paul, MN 55101444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500tkda.comALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS BY MEASUREMENT AT THE BUILDING AND/OR SITE10BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. IF NOT ONE INCH ON THIS DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY.C:\Users\larsonu\Documents\A19_Stillwater Well No 9 Generator Building_larsonu.rvt5/20/2020 5:20:16 PMA200EXTERIORELEVATIONSBOARD OF WATERCOMMISSIONERSWELL NO. 9GENERATORBUILDINGSTILLWATER,MINNESOTA204 3rd St. N.17575.000URSULA LARSON5094305-22-2020BMOUALUAL1/2" = 1'-0"A2002NORTH ELEVATION1/2" = 1'-0"A2001WEST ELEVATIONEXTERIOR MATERIAL SCHEDULEID TAG DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER PRODUCT STYLE / SERIESCOLOR / FINISH SIZE / UNITNOTESCMU-2 CONCRETE MASONRYUNITECHELON TRENWYTH MASONRY BLOCKS / VERASTONETEXTUREDAUSTIN / TEXTURED 8" H X 16" L X 6" D CMU-2 USED AS BASE VENEER (GRAY TEXTURED)CMU-3 CONCRETE MASONRYUNITECHELON TRENWYTH MASONRY BLOCKS / VERASTONEPLUSAUSTIN / SMOOTH 8" H X 16" L X 4" D CMU-3 USED AS ACCENT VENEER (GRAY SMOOTH)CMU-4 CONCRETE MASONRYUNITECHELON SINGLE-WYTHE CMU / HARVARD-BRIK AUSTIN / SMOOTH 4" H X 16" L X 4" D CMU-4 USED AS FIELD VENEER (RED SMOOTH)DOOR-1 ACOUSTICAL DOOR CURRIES 757 STC SERIESPT-1 SEE DOOR SCHEDULE DOOR PAIR RATED STC 49. SEE DOOR SCHEDULE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.LOUVER-1 ACOUSTICAL LOUVER KINETICS NOISE CONTROL,INC.KCALPT-1 12" DEEP SEE MECHANICAL PLAN 1/M100 FOR SIZES.MF-1 METAL FLASHING / TRIM PAC-CLAD FLASHING AND TRIM GRANITE / SMOOTH CUSTOM FOR ROOF OVERHAND FASCIAMP-1 METAL PANEL PAC-CLAD FLUSH PANELGRANITE / SMOOTH 12" WIDE, 1" DEEPMS-1 METAL SOFFIT PAC-CLAD FLUSH SOFFIT PANEL GRANITE / SMOOTH 12" WIDE, 1" DEEP NARROW VENT FLUSH SOFFIT PANEL EVERY 4'-0" O.C.PT-1 EXTERIOR PAINT SHERWIN WILLIAMS PROINDUSTRIAL ACRYLIC SEMI-GLOSS / B66-650SERIESSW 7018 DOVETAIL /SEMI-GLOSS-RS-1 ROOF SHINGLE GAF TIMBERLINE HDCHARCOAL 13 1/4" X 39 3/8"01241/2" -1'-0"01241/2" -1'-0"NO. DATE ISSUE RECORD T/O MASONRY 110' -0" T/O SLAB 100' -0" AB 3' - 4"12' - 0"3' - 4" LOUVER-1CMU-2 CMU-4 CMU-3 CMU-3 CMU-4 CMU-2 RS-1 MF-1 MP-1 CMU-28' - 8"CMU-21' - 4"ROOF RIDGE 114' -3" B/O SOFFIT 109' -8 1/2"2' - 0" 6' - 8" M.O. 1' - 1" 1' - 0" 6' - 8" M.O. 2' - 8" THIMBLE EXHAUST PIPE OPNG 1' - 1" 3" 12 4 5 A350 TYP 1' - 0" PENCIL RIB TYP10"T/O MASONRY 110' -0" T/O SLAB 100' -0" 2 3 1' - 6" 8"16' - 8" 3' - 4"17' - 4"3' - 4" CMU-2 CMU-3 CMU-3 CMU-4 CMU-2 RS-1 MF-1 CMU-2CMU-31' - 4"4' - 8"4' - 0"CMU-21' - 4"7' - 4"ROOF RIDGE 114' -3" B/O SOFFIT 109' -8 1/2" T/O MASONRY (DASHED) BEYOND PENCIL RIB 1. FOR EXHAUST LOUVER INTERIOR DUCT TIE-IN INFORMATION SEE MECHANICAL PLAN 1/M100. 2. FOR WALL THIMBLE PENETRATION INFORMATION SEE MECHANICAL PLAN 1/M100. 3. FOR NATURAL GAS EXTERIOR PIPING PENETRATION DETAIL SEE MECHANICAL DETAIL 2/M100. EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES PLOTTED:DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED SIGNATURE: PRINTED NAME: LICENSE NO:DATE:FILE PATH:I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 651.292.4400 Saint Paul, MN 55101 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 tkda.com ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS BY MEASUREMENT AT THE BUILDING AND/OR SITE 10 BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. IF NOT ONE INCH ON THIS DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY.C:\Users\larsonu\Documents\A19_Stillwater Well No 9 Generator Building_larsonu.rvt5/21/2020 7:34:32 PMA201 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS WELL NO. 9 GENERATOR BUILDING STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 204 3rd St. N. 17575.000 URSULA LARSON 50943 05-22-2020 BMOUALUAL 1/2" = 1'-0"A201 1 EAST ELEVATION 1/2" = 1'-0"A201 2 SOUTH ELEVATION EXTERIOR MATERIAL SCHEDULE ID TAG DESCRIPTION MANUFACTURER PRODUCT STYLE / SERIES COLOR / FINISH SIZE / UNIT NOTES CMU-2 CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT ECHELON TRENWYTH MASONRY BLOCKS / VERASTONE TEXTURED AUSTIN / TEXTURED 8" H X 16" L X 6" D CMU-2 USED AS BASE VENEER (GRAY TEXTURED) CMU-3 CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT ECHELON TRENWYTH MASONRY BLOCKS / VERASTONE PLUS AUSTIN / SMOOTH 8" H X 16" L X 4" D CMU-3 USED AS ACCENT VENEER (GRAY SMOOTH) CMU-4 CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT ECHELON SINGLE-WYTHE CMU / HARVARD-BRIK AUSTIN / SMOOTH 4" H X 16" L X 4" D CMU-4 USED AS FIELD VENEER (RED SMOOTH) DOOR-1 ACOUSTICAL DOOR CURRIES 757 STC SERIES PT-1 SEE DOOR SCHEDULE DOOR PAIR RATED STC 49. SEE DOOR SCHEDULE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. LOUVER-1 ACOUSTICAL LOUVER KINETICS NOISE CONTROL, INC. KCAL PT-1 12" DEEP SEE MECHANICAL PLAN 1/M100 FOR SIZES. MF-1 METAL FLASHING / TRIM PAC-CLAD FLASHING AND TRIM GRANITE / SMOOTH CUSTOM FOR ROOF OVERHAND FASCIA MP-1 METAL PANEL PAC-CLAD FLUSH PANEL GRANITE / SMOOTH 12" WIDE, 1" DEEP MS-1 METAL SOFFIT PAC-CLAD FLUSH SOFFIT PANEL GRANITE / SMOOTH 12" WIDE, 1" DEEP NARROW VENT FLUSH SOFFIT PANEL EVERY 4'-0" O.C. PT-1 EXTERIOR PAINT SHERWIN WILLIAMS PROINDUSTRIAL ACRYLIC SEMI-GLOSS / B66-650 SERIES SW 7018 DOVETAIL / SEMI-GLOSS - RS-1 ROOF SHINGLE GAF TIMBERLINE HD CHARCOAL 13 1/4" X 39 3/8" NO. DATE ISSUE RECORD 0 1 2 4 1/2" -1'-0" 0 1 2 4 1/2" -1'-0" PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2020-21 REPORT DATE: August 14, 2020 MEETING DATE: August 19, 2020 APPLICANT: Jill Kaufenberg representing Liftbridge Cowork LANDOWNER: St. Croix Enterprises LLC REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for business signage LOCATION: 109 Myrtle Street East DESIGNATION: N/A DISTRICT: Downtown Design Review District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION Liftbridge Cowork intends to open at 109 Myrtle Street East. The business proposes to replace the existing onsite signage. SPECIFIC REQUEST Consideration of a Design Permit for the installation of:  An (approximately) 8.7 s.f. freestanding pole hanging sign to be made of painted wood with vinyl lettering and graphics including the business name and logo; and Street View – Google (May, 2019) Case No. 2020-15 Page 2  An (approximately) 4.9 s.f. projecting real estate sign to be made of painted wood with vinyl lettering and graphics. 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:  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. 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. SIGNS AND GRAPHICS GUIDELINES DISCUSSION  Modern sign materials are acceptable provided their design is handled with an understanding of the Victorian spirit.  Only one sign that contains the business name or graphic logo is permitted per street facing side.  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.  Reuse of existing mounting brackets, studs or holes is desirable.  Support brackets for projecting signs should be metal, painted black.  If a project sign is used, keep it simple in shape, small and utilitarian in design. The applicant is proposing simple, contrasting designs that conform to the zoning code and with colors consistent with the district guidelines. The use of the business logo on both signs and vinyl are not consistent with the guidelines. The use of the business logo on both signs is easily rectified. Vinyl on flat panel wood is substantially conforming when given the guidelines for simple, contrasting design. However, the freestanding hanging sign is proposed to replace a dimensional sign. Dimensional signs have been encouraged though no guidelines exist. Consideration to adding some dimension to the sign should be recommended but not required. 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, and the heritage preservation ordinance, then then Commission could move to approve 2020-20. Staff would recommend the following minimum conditions for approval: Case No. 2020-15 Page 3 1. The designs shall be consistent with those on file in the Community Development Department, except as modified herein. 2. The business logo shall only be utilized on one sign. 3. A dimensional component to either the lettering or the logo of the large size should be considered. 4. The existing sign brackets shall be used and, if required, painted black. 5. Prior to the release of a sign permit, the applicant and/or property owner shall provide proof of conformance to the approved Design Permit. 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. 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, or 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 signage conforms to the standards set forth for design review and for therefore recommend conditional approval with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Signage Details (2 pages) Existing Freestanding Sign cc: Jill Kaufenberg PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2020-22 REPORT DATE: August 14, 2020 MEETING DATE: August 19, 2020 APPLICANT: City of Stillwater LANDOWNER: Minnesota Department of Transportation REQUEST: Consideration of a preferred Chestnut Street Plaza preliminary design alternative LOCATION: Chestnut Street, east of Main Street South DESIGNATION: N/A DISTRICT: Stillwater Commercial Historic District Downtown Design Review District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director INTRODUCTION With the closing of the historic Lift Bridge to vehicular traffic, the Chestnut Street approach to the bridge is no longer needed to support vehicular traffic. Consequently, in collaboration with MnDOT (who owns, and will continue to own the right-of- way), the City of Stillwater will convert the street between Main and the Lift Bridge concourse to a non- motorized civic plaza. Three design concepts have been developed by the City’s TKDA consulting team in harmony with community interaction from two visioning sessions and an on-line survey. It is hoped that a Google Street View (August, 2018) HPC 2020-22 Page 2 of 3 preferred design concept will emerge with the guidance of the community and Heritage Preservation Commission, so that it can be submitted to the City Council and SHPO in September. Concept 1 continues several of the themes and elements present in the Commercial Street pedestrian plaza. Of the three concepts, this one might be considered the more formal or traditional. Pedestrian and bicycle uses are both respected with flexibility designed in for a broad spectrum of event and civic use. Concept 3 reflects the softer, more natural lines of the river shoreline, rather than the formal angularity of Concept 1. This concept reflects a modern functional design but still accommodates the multiple uses envisioned for the space. Concept 2 combines the modern functionality of Concept 3 with some of the formality of Concept 1 and provides a dedicated space for bicyclists from the Lift Bridge to Main Street. SPECIFIC REQUEST The City is seeking recommendation of a preferred Chestnut Street Plaza preliminary design. Future design considerations will be brought back before the Commission prior to finalizing the construction documents. ANALYSIS The site is located in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District Downtown Design Review District; both Districts are silent on street and plaza design. Stillwater Commercial Historic District The Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property’s historic character. 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The addition of pedestrian-scaled seating, plantings and other site amenities will not drastically alter the historic character of this streetscape and existing spatial relationships. Question has been raised about the installation of desirable street trees and whether or not they will block the view of the liftbridge. As the bridge is situated at an angle to the shoreline, strategic placement of trees, such as shown in Concept 3, will preserve this view. Additionally, all improvements could be removed and the essential form and integrity of the site would be unimpaired. HPC 2020-22 Page 3 of 3 Downtown Design Review District Some Downtown Design Review District guidelines the Commission should consider as part of their review: Pedestrian-Orientated Design: • Existing uninteresting street facades can be enhanced with detailing, artwork, landscaping or other visually interesting features. Landscaping: • Highlight important architectural features and structures by use of distinctive landscaping. • Visually and physically buffer parking lots from adjacent buildings and pedestrian walkways with groupings of plant materials. • Frame and edge existing and proposed building where feasible with appropriate types of plant material to achieve human scale. • Carefully locate street trees and shrub plantings with the downtown area to buffer and separate walkways from traffic. Create shade where needed for pedestrians establish more clearly defined pedestrian use areas. • Provide canopy trees to shade parked cars, but establish where practical. Tree planting in parking lot islands will reduce heat gain and should be encouraged. Building Materials: • Compatibility with similar exterior construction materials in the immediate area is recommended in order to maintain the distinct character and harmony of the area. All three concept designs substantially conform to the Downtown Design Review District guidelines. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds each of the Concepts substantially conform to the adopted standards and guidelines and would recommend the HPC determine a preferred alternative and make recommendation to the Council for preliminary design approval. Attached: Concepts 1-3 (3 pages) Concept Views (3 pages) Intersection Improvement Map CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZA 08.13.2020Concept 01 PLANTINGSSEATING SITE AMENITIES 5 1 2 3 4 6 TABLE SEATING BENCH SEATING FLEXIBLE EVENT SPACE/ LEISURE GAMES BIKE RACKS LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS GATEWAY TREATMENT 7 CAFE LIGHTING 8 1 3 5 2 4 6 8 1 2 6 7 MAIN STREETPROMENADE3 CURB BUMP-OUTS BUILDING ENTRANCE Leo’s Gril l Leo’s Pat i o MN Nice C r e a m Gartner S t u d i o s Water Str e e t I n n Lowell P a r k WATER STREET (One Way ) CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZA 08.13.2020 SITE AMENITIESSEATING Concept 02 • REMOVE THE BAND THROUGH THE BIKE LANE AND ROADWAY 5 6 GATEWAY TREATMENT LANTERN LIGHTING 1 3 2 2 2 5 5 6 3 4 5 7 WAYFINDING SIGNAGE 7 WATER STREET (One Way )MAIN STREETPROMENADE1 2 3 4 TABLE SEATING BENCH SEATING DEDICATED BIKE-WAY BIKE RACKS LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS 8 CURB BUMP-OUTS BUILDING ENTRANCE 9 6 8 9 PLANTINGS 8 Leo’s Grill MN Nice C r e a m Gartner S t u di o s Water Str e e t I n n Lowell P a r k Leo’s Pati o CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZA 08.13.2020 PLANTINGSSEATING Concept 03 1 3 5 4 1 2 2 3 8 2 9 7 MAIN STREETPROMENADE5 6 SWINGING BENCHES LANTERN LIGHTING WAYFINDING SIGNAGE 7 1 2 3 4 TABLE SEATING BENCH SEATING FLEXIBLE EVENT SPACE BIKE RACKS LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS 8 CURB BUMP-OUTS BUILDING ENTRANCE 9 5 6 8 Leo’s Grill MN Nice C r e a m Gartner S t u di o s Water Str e e t I n n Leo’s Pat i o Lowell P a r k WATER STREET (One Way ) CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZA 08.13.2020 VIEW LOOKING EAST FROM MAIN STREET VIEW LOOKING WEST FROM LIFT BRIDGE Concept 01 CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZA 08.13.2020 Concept 02 VIEW LOOKING EAST FROM MAIN STREET VIEW LOOKING WEST FROM LIFT BRIDGE CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZA 08.13.2020Concept 03 VIEW LOOKING EAST FROM MAIN STREET VIEW LOOKING WEST FROM LIFT BRIDGE Mulberry S t r e t I ntersectionOlive Stre e t I nt ersectionChestnut Stre e t I n t er sectionNelson Str e e t I ntersectionCurb Bu m p-o u t E x ampl eMain Street Intersection Improvements 08.13.2020 Chestnut Street Myrtle Street Mulberry Street Commercial Street CHESTNUT STREET CIVIC PLAZA Olive Street Nelson StreetMain StreetWater Street2 1 2 3 1 3 CURB BUMP-OUT/EXTENSION LANE RECONFIGURATION ADD PARKING 1 1 1 3 Intersection Improvements: »Reduce crossing distances for pedestrians »Increase area of refuge at corners »Provide additional space for street furniture/ amenities »Upgrade pedestrian signal timing 2 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 19, 2020 TO: Heritage Preservation Commission REGARDING: Preservation Ordinance Amendments Recommendation PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION As the Commission is aware, the City has been working on preservation-related ordinance amendments for the better part of one year. This was the first goal of the City’s Comprehensive Plan’s Historic Preservation chapter. The ordinance update is intended to be an overhaul of the existing ordinances for better clarity and understanding but to not substantially change the existing preservation program. Staff has aimed to incorporate comments from the general public, ordinance update committee members and the HPC based on guidance from City Attorney Kori Land. Enclosed is the final version for consideration by the Planning Commission (PC) and City Council (CC). Staff is seeking a recommendation from the HPC to forward to the PC who will consider the matter in a public hearing on August 26. The PC will forward their recommendation to the CC for their consideration on September 1 and 15. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION As noted, the regulations are not intended to be changed as to alter the HPC’s current operations significantly. However, some changed were necessary to help clear up confusion, to create greater flexibility, and to strengthen the review of alterations to older buildings, sites and structures. 22-7: Heritage Preservation Commission Originally adopted in 1973 and minimally altered since that time, this is the enabling ordinance, granting the HPC the right to conduct certain preservation-related activities within the community. Those activities are now specifically spelled out, including details of how to nominate and treat locally-listed heritage preservation sites. This ordinance specifically calls out the HPC’s role in Demolition Permit review and Design Permit review in established preservation related overlay districts (i.e. Downtown Design Review and Neighborhood Conservation). Nomination criteria has been updated to reflect local goals while requiring site integrity (such as retaining original features or maintaining original location) as a component of consideration. Lastly, it requires owners of National Register-listed structures and sites, heritage preservation sites, and pre-1946 buildings or structures of potential historic significance to maintain their properties. 31-209: Design Permit Design Permits have been reviewed and approved by the HPC for decades. However, there was not a strong tie to the HPC enabling ordinance nor a differentiation from Site Alteration Permits. From here on out, all actions reviewed by the Commission (with the exception of complete demolition) to any structure, regardless of its designation, will be a Design Permit; Site Alteration Permits will no longer be referenced in the City Code. Standards have been updated requiring four-sided design, conformance to neighborhood rhythm, mass and scale, and substantial conformance to adopted guidelines; these standards will be applicable to all Design Permit requests. 31-215: Demolition Permit This code section will repeal and replace Site Alteration Permit, making demolition permit review a part of the Zoning Code and subject to the State of MN’s 60-day review though demolition is generally prohibited. The ordinance is specifically for the purpose of achieving community goals focused on community sustainability, protection of affordable housing and the preservation of community character of Stillwater’s residential neighborhoods,. It does allow a property owner (or the City, in the case of neglect) the right to request demolition permit review for a heritage preservation site or a pre-1946 structure. The process can align with a designation process, if a Councilor, HPC member, or HPC staff liaison requests. The process leans on city staff to prepare (or have prepared by a consultant, if needed) historical, condition and appraisal reports for the HPC’s consideration of the demolition permit application (which is required to have reconstruction plans and cost comparison included). The HPC will consider the matter in a public hearing and, in the event they would like to deny the demolition, forward their recommendation onto the City Council. Prior to making the findings, however, the City must determine the demolition is supportive of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and that denial of the demolition permit would deprive the owner of all reasonable economic use or there is a situation substantially inadequate to specific health and/or safety needs. Just the same as the City’s existing demolition review ordinance, the approach may be choppy and it may take the HPC a few demolition permit reviews to determine if the criteria for review and the findings are appropriately protecting the resources they intend to protect. Staff expects there to be minor modifications to the ordinance to ensure the process and requirements fit. That said, it is a straight-forward process that is not overly burdensome to property owners. 41-404: Downtown Design Review District Overlay This is a new section of the City’s Zoning Code. An overlay is a zoning tool designed to regulate properties in the district in a specific way. For this district, the overlay is merely to conduct review of design permit applications for properties in the district. Staff has included HPC review of both private and public projects (similar to the existing ordinance). The code section is specifically tied to adopted guidelines which will be updated 2020-2021. 41-405: Neighborhood Conservation District Overlay This overlay will continue the HPC’s practice of reviewing the design of new homes on vacant lots in the oldest part of Stillwater. It also allows for the HPC to review Design Permits for partial demolition (i.e. alteration of greater than 20% of a front/exterior facing façade or 30% of the total façade – which was proposed by the Commission to be changed from 50%). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the HPC review the enclosed ordinances and make recommendation of approval, with or without modifications, to the PC and CC. Attachments: 22-7: Heritage Preservation Commission 31-209: Design Permit 31-25: Demolition Permit 31-404: Downtown Design Review District Overlay 31-405: Neighborhood Conservation District Overlay HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 1 of 8 Sec. 22-7. - Heritage preservation commission. Subd. 1. Commission established. City of Stillwater Ordinance #506 established the Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission in 1973. Subd. 2. Declaration of public policy and purpose. The city council declares that the preservation, protection, perpetuation and use of areas, lands, places, buildings, structures, districts or other objects having a special historical, community or aesthetic interest or value is a public necessity, and is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the community. The purposes of the heritage preservation commission are to: (1) Safeguard the city's heritage by preserving sites and structures that reflect elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political, visual or architectural history; (2) Protect and enhance the city's appeal and attraction to residents, visitors and tourists and serve as a support and stimulus to business and industry; (3) Enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and interest of the city; (4) Foster civic pride in the beauty and notable accomplishments of the past; and (5) Promote and preservation and continued use of historic sites and structures for the education and general welfare of the city's residents. Subd. 3. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the definitions ascribed to them in this subdivision, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1) Alter or alteration means to change the exterior of an existing building, structure, or site, including features that materially modify its historic appearance or construction. (2) Building, structure, or site of potential historic significance means a building, structure or site, or a portion of same, with a construction date of 50 or more years ago. (3) Character defining features. The particular materials, ornamentation and architectural features that together define the historic character of the building, site, or district. (4) Commission means the heritage preservation commission of the City of Stillwater. (5) Contributing means a designation applied to a building, structure or site that adds to the overall character and significance of an historic district due to its historical, architectural, archaeological, or engineering significance and its compatibility with other buildings, structures and sites within a historic district. A contributing structure has intact major character defining features and although minor alterations may have occurred they are generally reversible. Historic materials may have been covered over but evidence indicates they are intact. (6) Demolition means any act or process that destroys in part or in whole. (7) Demolition by neglect means the long-term neglect of a building, site or structure that contributes to a level of dilapidation so severe that rehabilitation of the building, site or structure may no longer be a viable option. (8) Design permit means the written approval of a permit application for proposed alterations to a heritage preservation site or a contributing building, structure or site within a historic HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 2 of 8 district, based on findings that the work is appropriate and does not adversely affect the heritage preservation site. (9) Heirloom home means a house that has good historical physical integrity and represents one of the architectural styles of the late nineteenth century or the first half of the twentieth century. (10) Heritage preservation site means any areas, lands, places, buildings, structures, districts or other objects that has been duly designated a local heritage preservation site by the city council because of its historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological or engineering significance, pursuant to subdivision 5(2) of this section. (11) Historic context means a summary document created for planning purposes that groups information about historical properties based on a shared theme, specific time period and geographical area. (12) Historic district means a collection of all contributing and non-contributing properties within a defined area designated as a historic district by the city council because of its historical, cultural, architectural, archaeological or engineering significance. A historic district is a type of heritage preservation site, subject to all heritage preservation site regulations, and may contain independently designated heritage preservation sites. (13) Integrity means a site’s ability to convey its historical significance through retention of the physical aspects of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. (14) Inventory means the City’s listing of locally designated heritage preservation sites and districts, including contributing properties within a district. (15) Landmark site means a site that is among the most historically and architecturally significant properties in Stillwater. A landmark retains its architectural integrity and has a strong connection to the history of the city. (16) Non-contributing means a designation applied to a building, structure or site that does not have architectural or historic significance, and does not add to the overall character and significance of an historic district, due to a lack of architectural or historical integrity or its incompatibility with other buildings, structures and sites. Non-contributing buildings can include, but not be limited to, those with incompatible additions or exterior alterations, have lost original integrity, or are outside a district's period of significance. (17) Period of significance means the span of time that properties attain the character defining features that qualify them for designation. (18) Significance means the importance of a heritage preservation site, historic district, or historic resource evidenced by association with significant events or with periods that exemplify broad patterns of cultural, political, economic or social history; association with the lives of significant persons or groups; because it contains or is associated with distinctive elements of city or neighborhood identity; embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of an architectural or engineering type or style, or method of construction; its exemplification of a landscape design or development pattern distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness or quality of design or detail; exemplification as a work of HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 3 of 8 master builders, engineers, designers, artists, craftsmen or architects; because it has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (19) Staff means designated Community Development Department staff liaison to the heritage preservation commission or designee. (20) Survey means a systematic examination of an area designed to gather information about historic properties sufficient to evaluate them against predetermined criteria of significance within specific historic contexts. Subd. 4. Powers and duties of the commission. The commission shall have the following powers and duties, in addition to those otherwise specified in this section: (1) Survey. The commission shall survey all areas, lands, places, buildings, structures, districts or other objects in the city which the commission, on the basis of information available or presented to it, has reason to believe are significant to the city's culture, social, economic, religious, political or architectural history. Surveys are intended to identify potential sites and districts that have the potential for local designation as a heritage preservation site. The city clerk's office is designated as the repository. (2) Designation. The commission shall recommend to the City Council areas, lands, places, buildings, structures, districts or other objects to be considered for designation as a local heritage preservation site or district. The commission shall also recommend to the City Council any city-initiated nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. (3) Recognition. The commission shall maintain a listing of recognized historical properties that constitutes the Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites program. The commission shall review and approve or deny applications submitted by property owners to participate in the Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites program, as outlined in City Code Section 22-7 Subd. 6. (4) Review of permits. In order to protect the architectural and historic character of designated local heritage preservation sites, the commission shall conduct review of applications for demolition, as outlined in City Code Section 31—215, and design permits and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the issuance of design permits. The commission shall also protect the unique character of Stillwater’s downtown and residential neighborhoods through the review and approval or denial of: a. Demolition permits required in City Code Section 31-215 b. Design permits for required projects in the following: 1. Downtown design review overlay district 2. Neighborhood conservation overlay district (5) Advocacy. The commission shall continually survey all areas to determine needed and desirable improvements of older buildings throughout the city, acting in a resource and advisory capacity to owners of historically significant sites regarding their preservation, restoration and rehabilitation. (6) Recommendations. The commission may request the City Council: HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 4 of 8 a. Acquire by purchase, gift, or bequest, of a fee or lesser interest, including preservation restrictions, in designated properties and adjacent or associated lands which are important for the preservation and use of the designated properties. b. Use the City Council’s power of eminent domain to maintain or preserve designated properties, properties eligible for designation, and adjacent or associated lands be acquired by gift, negotiation or by eminent domain as provided for in Minn. Stat. Ch. 117. (7) Public education. The commission strive to develop programming for the continuing education of the city's residents with respect to the city's cultural, architectural, archaeological, and engineering heritage. The commission shall share the history of Stillwater, including its individual sites and neighborhoods, through a broad variety of mediums. (8) Record keeping. The commission shall keep current a public inventory of locally designated heritage preservation sites and districts, including contributing sites within districts. The commission may on a continuing basis collect and review certain city planning and development records, documents, studies, models, maps, plans and drawings to be entered into the public library historical archives as a permanent record of city history and development. (9) Annual reporting. An annual report shall be prepared by October 31st of each year as required in accordance with Minnesota Statues 471.193, subd. 6 for submission to the State Historic Preservation Office and shall file a copy with the city clerk for distribution to the City Council. Subd. 5. Designation of heritage preservation sites. Heritage preservation sites shall be designated as follows: (1) Nomination. The nomination of a heritage preservation site, which may include areas, lands, places, buildings, structures, districts or other objects at least 50 years old or older, shall be made to the commission on a nomination application form and include all supporting documentation. The nomination of a heritage preservation site shall be submitted by one or more of the following: a. A member of the heritage preservation commission. b. A member of the city council. c. The HPC staff liaison. d. Any person with a legal or equitable interest in the subject property. (2) Criteria for heritage preservation site designation. In considering the designation of heritage preservation sites, the commission shall determine the request meet one or more criteria in each of the following subsections: a. Historical physical integrity. One or more of these criteria establishes historical physical integrity due to: i) Retaining original character defining features, materials, and character. HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 5 of 8 ii) Maintaining original location or same historic context after having been moved. iii) The structure has been accurately reconstructed or restored based on historical documentation. b. Historical significance. One or more of the following criteria establishes historical significance: i) The character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, county, or state. ii) The location as a site of a significant historic event for the city, county, or state. iii) The identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the city's culture and development. iv) The embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style, period, form or treatment associated with the city, county, or state. v) The identification as work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has influenced the city's development. vi) The embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant architectural innovation for the city, county or state. vii) The unique location or singular physical characteristic representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the city. viii) The identification with or embodiment of an established historic context. (3) Criteria for designation as a historic district. A district shall be eligible for designation if it constitutes a geographically definable area, which contains two or more areas, places, buildings, structures, lands, or other objects, or a combination thereof which: a. A majority of the areas, places, buildings, structures, lands, or other objects, collectively, contribute to special character or special historical or cultural interest of value of the district; b. Represent one or more periods or styles of architecture typical of one or more periods of significance of the city, county, state or region; and c. Cause such an area, by reason of such factors, to constitute a visually distinctive section of the city. (4) Communications with Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office. A copy of the commission's proposed designation of a heritage preservation site, including boundaries, shall be sent to the State Historic Preservation Office. (5) Planning commission review. All applications for the designation of a heritage preservation site shall be submitted to the planning commission for its recommendation with respect to the relationship of the proposed heritage preservation designation to the HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 6 of 8 comprehensive plan, the effect of the proposed designation upon the surrounding neighborhood and any other planning considerations that may be relevant to the proposed designation. The planning commission shall offer its recommendation of approval, denial or modification of the proposed designation to the commission. (6) Hearings. Following receipt of the recommendation from the planning commission, the commission shall hold a public hearing on the application. Notice of the public hearing shall be published in the city's official legal newspaper at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing, sent to all owners of the property proposed to be designated a historic preservation site, and sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the property lines of the area to be designated. (7) Findings and recommendations. The commission shall determine if the proposed heritage preservation site is eligible for heritage preservation as determined by the criteria specified in Subd. 5 (3) and (4) of this section, and make a recommendation to the city council. (8) City council designation. The city council shall consider the application and may by resolution approve the designation as a heritage preservation site. In the event the proposed designation, including contributing status of a property in a proposed historic district, is not supported by the property owner, the City Council designation shall require a supermajority vote. (9) Stillwater Inventory additions. Following any City Council designation of a heritage preservation site or district, the commission shall update the Stillwater Inventory. The city clerk's office is designated as the repository for at least one copy of all studies, reports, recommendations and programs required under this section. (10) Recording of heritage preservation sites. The resolution designating the heritage preservation site shall be recorded against the property with the county recorder or registered with the registrar of titles and kept on file with the building official. (11) Stillwater inventory removals. In the event any heritage preservation site or district is no longer deemed appropriate for local designation, the commission or property owner may initiate removal of the site or district from the Stillwater Inventory by the same procedure and criteria for establishing the designation, except a supermajority vote of the City Council is required to remove a heritage preservation site designation. Subd. 6. Recognition of Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites. The commission may adopt a policy, subject to approval by the city council, which lists the structures of historical or architectural integrity that have been recognized as Heirloom Homes or Landmark Sites, to which the commission may add to from time to time, in order to recognize and encourage the protection, enhancement, and use of such structures. Nothing in this section shall be constructed to impose any additional regulations or controls upon Heirloom Homes and Landmark Sites included on this list. (1) Nomination. An application for recognition as an Heirloom Home or Landmark Site may be submitted by the property owner or, with the property owner’s permission, any other person or organization, including the heritage preservation commission. HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 7 of 8 (2) Criteria for recognition. The commission shall consider applications to recognize a structure as an Heirloom Home or Landmark Site if the structure is of historical or architectural integrity. a. Heirloom Homes will be recognized for their local historical value. b. Landmark Sites may be eligible for or already listed in the National Register of Historic Places and possess potential for local designation. Subd. 7. Review of design permits for alterations to heritage preservation sites. Requirements for design permits, using the procedure set forth in Zoning, Chapter 31, Sec. 31-209, are as follows: (1) Heritage preservation sites. Prior to the issuance of other applicable city permits and licenses, the commission shall review and approve or deny the issuance of a design permit for any of the following types of alterations to a heritage preservation site that involve: a. Remodeling, alteration or repair that will change the exterior appearance of a heritage preservation site. b. New construction. c. Signs. d. Moving of buildings. (2) Administrative review. To expedite the review process, the following types of applications and plans for minor alterations may be approved by the Community Development Department when the work is in substantial conformance with the criteria identified herein. a. Interior work affecting only the interior of a structure (such as plumbing, insulation, flooring, finishes, etc.) b. Minor alterations in keeping with the integrity of the site and do not impact the overall architecture character including: i. Ordinary and routine maintenance not exceeding $10,000 ii. Siding similar to the existing materials, finish and form iii. 1:1 replacement of windows with same form including pane arrangement, materials and finish iv. Replacement of roofing materials v. Landscaping including fencing vi. Installation of garbage or recycling enclosures vii. Replacement of awnings c. Emergency repair. In emergencies where immediate repair is needed to protect the life, health or safety of the structure and its inhabitants, the building official, in consultation with the HPC staff liaison, may approve the repair to the extent necessary to protect life, health or safety without prior commission action. Additional work shall require a design permit. In the case of a design permit issued HPC Ordinance Amendments: HPC Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 8 of 8 under this subdivision or any emergency repair affecting a heritage preservation site, the building official shall immediately notify the commission of its action and specify the facts or conditions constituting the emergency. (3) Design permit standards for heritage preservation sites. All commission decisions with respect to design permits shall be in substantial accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s General Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. Subd. 8. Maintenance. Owners of National Register-listed structures and sites, heritage preservation sites, and pre-1946 buildings or structures of potential historic significance shall not allow their buildings to deteriorate by neglect (i.e. failing to provide ordinary maintenance or repair). Such conditions as broken windows, doors and openings which allow the elements and vermin to enter, the deterioration of exterior architectural features, or the deterioration of a building’s structure system shall constitute failure to provide ordinary maintenance or repair. Subd. 9. Penalty for violation of section. An owner or occupant of any area, place, building, structure or other object within a duly designated heritage preservation site who remodels, repairs, demolishes or moves a heritage preservation site in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each such day is a separate violation, and it shall be punishable as such. The imposition of the penalties prescribed shall not prevent the city from instituting civil actions allowed by law, such as but not limited to abatement or administrative citations. HPC Ordinance Amendments: Design Permit Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 1 of 2 Sec. 31-209. - Design permit. Design permits shall require the following: 1) Purpose. The purpose of the design permit procedure is to ensure that building and site development is designed to complement the character and integrity of Stillwater’s traditional neighborhoods and commercial districts, including adjacent buildings, the streetscape, and the natural environment. 2) General provisions. Requirement for approval of a design permit shall be established within Sec. 22-7 and the Downtown Design Review (DDR) and Neighborhood Conservation (NC) overlay zoning districts. 3) Procedure. A design permit application is subject to the following procedure: a) Submission of application. Applicant shall submit a complete design permit application accompanied by detailed plans including a site plan, building elevations and design details, application requirements established in adopted special design guidelines, and materials deemed necessary by the Community Development Department to evaluate the request. b) Heritage preservation commission (HPC) review. The HPC shall consider the application at a hearing and approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. If the application involves a new dwelling house within the NC overlay district, the hearing shall be a public hearing. For all other applications, no public hearing is required. 4) Design permit standards. In making a determination whether to approve or deny an application for a design permit, the commission shall be guided by the following standards: a) Proposed alterations to a heritage preservation site shall conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. b) Proposed alterations shall conform to special design guidelines for areas or districts of the City officially adopted by the City Council. c) Proposed alterations shall conform to the existing primary and secondary structure setbacks and neighborhood street rhythm. d) The height, scale, mass and proportion of the proposed alterations, including façade openings and roof style, shall be compatible with the site and its surroundings. e) Proposed alterations shall have four-sided detailing and materials. f) The location, height and material of walls, fences, hedges, trees and screen plantings shall ensure compatibility with adjacent development and the environment and conceal areas, utility installations and other unsightly development. g) The appearance of the number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall be compatible with adjacent development. h) The HPC may include conditions in its decisions that it deems reasonable and necessary to carry out the intent of this chapter and this section. Upon findings by the HPC that the application, subject to conditions as it deems necessary, will meet the above criteria, secure the purpose of this chapter, the comprehensive plan, and the heritage preservation ordinance, the HPC may approve the design permit. If findings are made that an application would violate the criteria of a design permit, the HPC must deny the application. 5) Findings required and criteria. The HPC shall make findings that the application meets each of the following criteria in order to approve a design permit: a) The proposed building alteration or new construction, including its appurtenances, does not materially impair the architectural or historic integrity of the building and site, adjacent HPC Ordinance Amendments: Design Permit Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 2 of 2 buildings and sites, or the neighborhood as a whole. b) If located in a historic district, the proposed building alteration or new construction is compatible with, and will ensure continued significance and integrity of all properties within the historic district based on the period(s) of significance under which the district was designated. c) Granting the design permit will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter and does not negatively alter the essential character and significance of the building, site, and its surroundings. 6) Appeals. The design permit applicant or any party aggrieved by the Community Development Department’s or HPC's decision shall have a right to appeal such order and decision to the City Council as follows: a) Filing. Appeals from a decision of the Community Development Department or HPC shall be made in writing and shall state the reasons for the appeal. The appeal, accompanied by the appropriate fee, must be received by the city clerk not later than ten calendar days following the date of action from which the appeal is being taken, unless otherwise specified in this Section 31-217. b) Stay, pending appeal. The receipt of a written appeal will stay all action and approvals or permits which may have been granted, pending the decision of the City Council. 7) Modifications to design permits. Modification of design permits shall be as follows: a) Minor modifications. The Community Development Department may administratively approve modifications to conditions imposed on any design permit, at the request of the design permit holder, where evidence has been submitted by the design permit holder that the requested modification: i) Is substantially similar to the approved design permit; and ii) Will not significantly alter the design permit; and iii) Is made because of changed circumstances. b) Major modifications. The Community Development Department must refer major modifications to any design permit to the HPC. A modification is considered to be major when it constitutes a significant revision to a permit including but not be limited to setback and rhythm, height, scale/mass and proportion, detailing and materials, or appropriate screening. HPC Ordinance Amendments: Design Permit Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 1 of 3 Sec. 31-215: Building Demolition Permit Subd. 1. Purpose. To aid the City in achieving goals focused on community sustainability, protection of affordable housing, and the preservation of the community character of Stillwater’s residential neighborhoods, the unnecessary demolition of National Register-designated structures and sites, Heritage Preservation Sites and buildings or structures of potential historic significance built prior to January 1, 1946 is generally prohibited. Whenever feasible, National Register-listed structures and sites, heritage preservation sites, and pre-1946 buildings or structures of potential historic significance shall be preserved and repaired, rather than demolished, except as otherwise allowed under this subsection. Subd. 2. Demolition Permit required. Any property that is a National Register-listed structure or sites, Heritage Preservation Site, or pre-1946 building or structure of potential historic significance must obtain a demolition permit prior to demolition. Demolition permit applications may only be submitted by the property owner or the City when said property has been neglected and in disrepair. Subd. 3. Inspections required. The owner shall allow access to the subject property by appropriate city Staff for: a. A mandatory pre-demolition permit application inspection; and b. The purpose of inspections and/or appraisals required city as part of its review of a demolition permit application. Subd. 4. Demolition permit submission requirements. The applicant shall submit a demolition permit application and documentation regarding: a. Architectural plans, elevations and/or renderings depicting the proposed demolition and new construction’s conformance to the Neighborhood Conservation District overlay; b. A cost comparison of the rehabilitation of the existing building or structure of potential historical significance and demolition and redevelopment of the site, including demolition and disposal costs; c. Historic, if any, and current photographs of the elevations, exterior architectural features, and structural members; and d. Photographs of the adjacent buildings or structures, or setting. Subd. 5. Review authority. Demolition permits shall be reviewed by the City upon submittal of a complete demolition permit application. To aid the City in its review of demolition, the City may engage properly licenses architects, engineers, historic preservation specialist, and/or real estate appraisers to investigate and prepare: a. A written report on the significance of the building, site or structure and its ability to reasonable meet the National, state or local criteria for designation as a heritage preservation site; the age and overall integrity of the building, site or structure, including its significant features, unusual or uncommon design, texture, and/or material; and the relative importance of the building, site or structure in the context of the block where such building or structure is located (Historical Report); and b. A written report upon the existing condition and feasibility of preservation of the heritage preservation site proposed for total demolition (Conditions Report). Said Conditions Report HPC Ordinance Amendments: Design Permit Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 2 of 3 shall include an estimate of the reasonable cost of all work required to preserve, rehabilitate, or restore the historic building or structure; and c. A written report upon the County’s ten-year appraised value and/or existing market value of the relevant heritage preservation site (Appraisal Report), for the purposes of comparing this value against the cost estimate contained within the Conditions Report. Subd. 6. Staff review and report development. Upon submission of a complete demolition permit application, City staff or its consultants will prepare and compile the necessary Appraisal, Conditions and/or Historical Reports. Subd. 7. Heritage Preservation Commission review. The Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) who will consider all demolition permit applications in a public hearing. 1. Requests for demolition of a National Register-listed structures or sites or a Heritage Preservation Sites shall be reviewed by the HPC who will make recommendation of permit approval or denial to the City Council. 2. Request for demolition of a pre-1946 buildings or structures of potential historic significance shall be reviewed by the HPC. a. The HPC will consider the following review criteria prior to making its decision: 1. The structural integrity of the building, site or structure proposed for demolition and evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain it; 2. The ability of the building, site or structure to be reused onsite in a reasonably economical way; 3. The cost and economic feasibility of restoring the building, site or structure; 4. The ability of the building, site or structure to be practically moved to another site in the town; and 5. The demolition mitigation proposal’s conformance to the established district adopted guidelines and: a. Any impact(s) that will occur to the visual character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. b. Any impact(s) that will occur to the historic importance of the buildings, structures or objects located on the property and adjacent properties. c. Any impact that will occur to the architectural integrity of the buildings, structures or objects located on the property and adjacent properties. b. Upon reviewing the reports and review criteria, the HPC will make determination the demolition permit should be approved based on demolition permit approval findings found in Subd. 9. If the HPC denies the permit application, it will forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Subd. 8. City Council review. The City Council shall review the HPC recommendation, demolition permit application and all applicable reports and take action on the request. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, demolition permit approval findings found in Subd. 9 shall be made. Subd. 9. Findings. Prior to the approval of a demolition permit, the City must find: 1. Demolition of the resource has been evaluated against and, on balance, has been found supportive of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and relevant area plans, taking into account HPC Ordinance Amendments: Design Permit Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 3 of 3 factors such as: the merits of proposed new development on the site, the merits of preserving the resource, and the area’s desired character; and 2. Denial of a demolition permit would effectively deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the site. a. For investment or income-producing properties, the owner’s inability to obtain a reasonable rate of return in the present condition or if rehabilitated under Design Permit criteria. b. For non-income producing properties consistent of an owner-occupied single- or two-family dwelling and/or institutional use not solely operating for profit, the owner’s inability to convert the property to a compatible and conforming use in its present condition or, if rehabilitated. c. Noneconomic Reason: there is situation substantially inadequate to meet the applicant’s needs because of specific health and/or safety issues. Subd. 10. Penalty for violation of section. An owner or occupant of building, site or structure subject to this section demolishes said structure, or a portion thereof, in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each such day is a separate violation, and it shall be punishable as such. The imposition of the penalties prescribed shall not prevent the city from instituting civil actions allowed by law, such as but not limited to abatement or administrative citations. HPC Ordinance Amendments: DDR Overlay Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 1 of 2 1 Sec. 31-404. – Downtown design review (DDR) overlay district. The downtown design review overlay district shall be regulated as follows: (a) Purpose. The downtown design review overlay district is established to conserve and enhance downtown Stillwater’s appearance, preserve its historical and architectural assets, protect and encourage areas of existing or potential scenic value, and assist property owners. It promotes working together effectively when new construction, renovation, and restoration are proposed. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that building alterations emphasize the design and materials of the original building and remove inconsistent materials and features, that new construction maintains the scale and character of existing buildings and that downtown pedestrian quality is maintained and enhanced. (b) District boundaries. This section shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of the city of Stillwater, Minnesota as shown on the official zoning map and/or the attachments thereto as being located within the boundaries of the downtown design review overlay district. (c) Design permit required. A design permit is required for new construction and any alterations to existing structures/sites that have the potential to alter the architectural integrity of that structure/site, including the following uses and development types: (1) Residential structures except single- and two-family dwellings. (2) Commercial, office, institutional, and industrial structures, including land not involving buildings (e.g. outside storage, loading, or utility areas). (3) Accessory structures and uses. (4) Any structure for which a variance has been requested. (5) All signs requiring a sign permit. (6) Any projects where the applicant is a public agency over which the city exercises land use controls. (7) Parking lots of five or more spaces. (8) Any planned unit development or subdivision. (d) Design standards. The following shall apply: (1) Main Street setbacks. i) Front yard setback. For infill lots fronting on Main Street, the front yard setback shall be zero. Exceptions are allowed if it is designed as an expansion of the public pedestrian environment and generally aligns with the setbacks of adjacent buildings. ii) Side yard setback. For lots fronting on Main Street, the side yard setbacks shall be zero. Exceptions are allowed if it is designed as a public pedestrian way and generally aligns with adjacent street design and form. (2) Façade transparency. i) At street level, a minimum of 60% of the street facing façade(s) shall be transparent; side and rear facades shall be 30% transparent. ii) Reflective glass, mirrored glass, and heavily tinted glass shall be prohibited. (3) Prohibited building exterior materials. Building exteriors shall not utilize exposed or painted concrete masonry units. (4) Lighting. HPC Ordinance Amendments: DDR Overlay Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 2 of 2 2 i) Lighting fixtures shall be concealed or integrated into the overall design of the site; ii) Light sources shall be hidden from direct pedestrian and motorist view; and iii) Unshielded wall pack light fixtures shall be prohibited. (5) Signs. i) Only one sign containing the business name or graphic logo shall be permitted per street- facing side. Projecting signs are not considered to face the street. (1) A window sign, not requiring a sign permit, may be used in addition to other sign types. ii) Signs shall be located in such a way as to not obscure any architectural features of the building. iii) Neon signs shall only be permitted as interior window signs. iv) The following materials or sign types shall be prohibited: (1) Backlit and internally lit signs. (2) Signs with changeable or movable letters or graphics. (e) Design guidelines. The city’s review of any proposed new construction or alteration shall also be subject to any design guidelines specific to the downtown design review district that have been officially adopted by the City Council. HPC Ordinance Amendments: NC Overlay Final Draft: August 14, 2020 Page 1 of 1 1 Sec. 31-405. – Neighborhood conservation (NC) overlay district. The neighborhood conservation overlay district shall be regulated as follows: (a) Purpose. The neighborhood conservation overlay district is established to protect and preserve the unique character of Stillwater’s residential neighborhoods by regulating new infill development and partial demolition within the district. Its purpose is to conserve traditional neighborhood character, guide future infill and partial demolition development within the district, and discourage unnecessary demolition of structures that contribute to the district’s historic character. It also preserves neighborhood pride, property values, a diverse and affordable range of homes, and the general economic vitality of the neighborhood. (b) District boundaries. This section shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of the city of Stillwater, Minnesota shown on the official zoning map and/or the attachments thereto as being located within the boundaries of the neighborhood conservation overlay district. (c) Design permit required. A design permit is required for the following uses and development types: (1) The construction of a new dwelling on a vacant lot (2) The demolition of a pre-1946 building or structure that is of potential historic significance and demolition is: i) greater than twenty-five percent (20%) of all external walls of a building or structure, measured based upon their total surface area, when such walls are visible from a street, public way or the St. Croix River; or ii) greater than 30% of total exterior is demolished regardless of the visibility of such walls from a street, public way or the St. Croix River. (d) Design guidelines. The city’s review of any proposed new construction or alteration shall also be subject to any design guidelines specific to the neighborhood conservation district that have been officially adopted by the City Council.