Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-12-16 HPC PacketJ1!water THE BIRTHPLACE M 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 December 16th, 2020 REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Possible approval of minutes of November 18th, 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. VI. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Case No. 2020-31: Consideration of a new home to be built on the property located at 709 3rd St S, in the Neighborhood Conversation district. Jason Hohn, representing Bald Eagle Builders, Inc, property owners. VII. NEW BUSINESS 3. Case No. 2020-32: Consideration of a new building design in the Downtown Design Review district, property located at 200 Chestnut St. Joel Hauck, applicant, and 200 Chestnut Partners, LLC, property owners. VIII. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS 4. Downtown Lighting Study — Materials available Monday 12/14 IX. FYI — NO PACKET MATERIALS 5. Design Guideline Consolidation Project Request for Proposals X. ADJOURNMENT i I I \ i's'Ater THE OIRTNPLACE OF NINNESOTA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING November 18, 2020 7:00 P.M. Chairwoman Mino called the meeting to order via Zoom at 7:03 p.m. Present: Chair Mino, Commissioners Finwall, Larson, Thueson, Walls Absent: Commissioners Heimdahl and Krakowski, Councilmember Junker Staff: City Planner Wittman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Possible approval of minutes of October 21, 2020 Meeting Commissioner Finwall requested the following changes to the minutes: 1) page 1, last paragraph, "street trees" should be "three trees"; 2) page 4, fifth full paragraph, she "asked if the owners of the Dock Cafe were concerned about tree removal with the trail construction because she saw a big save the trees sign installed on the fence." Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to approve the minutes of the October 21, 2020 meeting as amended. All in favor. OPEN FORUM There were no public comments. CONSENT AGENDA Case No. 2020-30: Consideration of a Design Permit for new business signage at 216 Main St S in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. Nick Grunzke, applicant. Mick Lynskey or Lynskey and Clark, property owner. Case No. 2020-29: Consideration of a Design Permit for a multi -tenant sign plan at 321 Main Street South in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. Spectrum Sign Systems, Inc., Rick Ferraro, applicant. Patrick Anderson of Marine Leasing, property owner. Motion by Commissioner Thueson, seconded by Commissioner Walls, to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor. PUBLIC HEARING There were no public hearings. NEW BUSINESS Case No. 2020-27: Consideration of a Design Permit for rooftop improvements at 223 Main Street South in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. Ion 4 Group, applicant. White Bear Ventures LLC, property owner. City Planner Wittman explained that Richard Farrell of White Bear Ventures LLC is renovating the third story of the building at 223 Main Street South into a single family residence. As part of the project, he would like to remove the existing elevator bulkhead and a stairwell access from the roof, and reconstruct the elevator access directly adjacent to an existing skylight near the northwest corner of the building. This skylight lights a three-story stairwell that would be extended to the roof. In addition to these improvements, the owner would like to add a 250 +/- square foot area for storage. Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 18, 2020 The elevator access from the third floor to the roof and the enclosed storage area will require a variance from the Planning Commission. To the date of memo development, no variance request has been submitted. The request was presented to the HPC on October 21, 2020 and the HPC tabled the case until the property owner or property owner's representative could be present. Since that meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans requesting approval of a Design Permit for: 1) the demolition of existing rooftop stairwell, elevator bulkhead and chimney; and 2) construction of a new stairwell access, elevator bulkhead, and a 250 +/- square feet enclosure out of standing seam metal. Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that in June 2020, the applicant asked the building official to consider approving emergency removal of the chimney. Building official Cindy Schilts and Ms. Wittman determined it was a public health hazard and a portion of it would need to be removed, but the chimney would need to be maintained five feet above the parapet level. No further action was taken by the applicant and the applicant is presently requesting full removal of the chimney. She stated that the addition of a minimum code -compliant stairwell and elevator bulkhead on the rooftop in an area of an existing opening and that will tie into the three-story stairwell is appropriate. However, the 10' tall stairwell, in combination with the 14' elevator bulkhead, and the 250 +1- square foot enclosure addition is not compatible with the structure and its surroundings given that it will rise above any other structure on this block. Staff recommends approval of a code -complaint elevator bulkhead and stairwell access with two conditions, but recommends denial of the enclosure addition and chimney removal. Staff also recommends the applicant provide further details on the chimney's condition, citing why repair is not feasible. Kevin Souja, Ion 4 Group LLC, stated that the applicants are willing to repair the chimney or take it down to the five foot height. They are willing to use standing seam metal rather than the corrugated metal as proposed, which is on the existing structures already. Their intent is to consolidate all the structures into one rather than a hodgepodge. They feel the windows will reduce the bulkiness. They are willing to downsize the storage area. If the entrance to the stairs and elevator is not covered, they are concerned about weather damage. Their proposed structure would hide some of the neighboring building's rooftop equipment. Chairwoman Mino asked how the 250 square feet of storage area will be used. She asked about the height, adding that its location makes it very visible from Main Street so a lower profile would be appreciated due to sight lines to the top of the building. Mr. Souja replied it's an exit from the elevator and stairs, also for storage of patio equipment in the winter. The inside ceiling height is 8'; with the framing timbers, 9'7" height on the exterior. When it was designed, they didn't realize there was a height restriction. If they have to go to 7', they could adjust. Commissioner Larson stated that 7' is allowed by the International Building Code so it could be that low. He asked if there is an occupancy separation. Mr. Souja replied that the applicants want to keep the separation between the 1st floor bakery and the 2nd floor. The owner plans to use it as some sort of restaurant bakery in the future and use the 2nd and 3rd floor as a private residence. They intend to keep the stairway between the two. Currently they are framing in the elevator access on the 2nd and 3rd floor. Eventually the elevator will go all the way to the 1st floor. For now, the elevator chase will be a storage area until they can access the 1st floor to get the elevator in and accessible to the top. Commissioner Larson voiced concern about the visual impact of the elevator access. He asked if the applicants looked at using a limited use limited access (LULA) elevator. Mr. Souja replied it is too long of a run. They must be ADA compliant. They wanted to use a residential elevator but a LULA would not fit. Page 2 of 4 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 18, 2020 Commissioner Finwall asked if the two existing structures will be removed. Mr. Souja responded yes, everything existing will be removed. They only plan on refurbishing the deck, not increasing the size. They will verify that everything on the deck is up to code for inspection. Commissioner Finwall commented that 250 feet seems large for patio furniture. Mr. Souja answered it's also access to the roof. They can't have anything in front of the door to the elevator per code. Commissioner Finwall asked if the chimney could be rebuilt since it is a contributing factor to the historic structure. Mr. Souja replied the chimney is leaning toward the center of the building, the brick is cracked and mortar is missing. He would gladly rebuild it. Chairwoman Mino asked if the applicants are willing to bring height of all structures down to 7'. Mr. Souja said they are willing to bring the storage area, stairway access, and everything except the elevator shaft down to 7'. The elevator shaft needs to accommodate the steel hoistway inside the elevator. Ms. Wittman remarked this is an intersection between zoning code and preservation regulations. Zoning code allows improvements above a roofline that are customary and incidental to a use. That is why staff is stating that a minimum code compliant stairwell and elevator bulkhead would be allowed by zoning code. Anything excess to that would require variances. So staff is recommending approval of the minimum code requirement which would be 7'. Mr. Souja pointed out that shortening the other structures to 7' may make the elevator shaft stand out more. Commissioner Larson remarked that reducing the bulk wherever possible is a good thing. The intent is to accommodate access to roof but not to add living space or storage space due to the bulk. Mr. Souja clarified that 7' would be the inside height, not the outside height. The framing members would still increase the height so will still be 8'6" on the outside. Commissioner Larson said the standing seam metal roof should be a dark color to recede visually. He feels the color should be approved by staff. Motion by Commissioner Finwall, seconded by Commissioner Larson, to approve Case No. 2020-27, Design Permit for rooftop improvements at 223 Main Street South, with the two staff -recommended conditions, adding Condition #3, the maximum height and area of the rooftop improvements shall not exceed the code compliant minimums for ADA accessibility; adding Condition #4, the exterior facade shall be a dark, subdued standing seam metal; adding Condition #5, the chimney shall be repaired to its current height; and adding Condition #6, the color of the exterior window frame shall be dark and subdued. All in favor. Case No. 2020-28: Consideration of a Design Permit for a patio overhang at 217 Main St N in the Downtown Design Review District. Brad Smith of Traditional Construction Services, applicant. Pugsley LLC, Molly Rice, property owner. City Planner Wittman explained that the applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit for construction of a 22' wide by 15' deep wooden and copper colored standing seam metal overhang over that portion of the rear deck associated with the Daily Grind. Staff finds that, with certain conditions, the project is compatible with all properties in the area and recommends approval with five conditions. Page 3 of 5 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 18, 2020 Chairwoman Mino asked if the adjacent property owners are aware of the proposal. Brad Smith, applicant, explained that he spoke with one of the tenants of the adjoining space to make them aware. Currently the deck spaces are used independently of one another. If the overhang continued across, its roofline would have to be changed slightly because the neighboring space has windows. He feels it will not look odd to have only part of the patio covered. Commissioner Larson asked if the Valley Bookseller signage will be moved. Mr. Smith said he assumes it will be moved just above the roofline. He said it is painted on the building. Commissioner Finwall asked about the alignment of the posts to the existing deck posts. Mr. Smith replied the drawing submitted was rough. The posts will align. Referring to Valley Bookseller, Commissioner Finwall asked, does the City allow painted signs? Ms. Wittman replied the code does not allow painted -on signs but she would have to look back to see how this one was approved. Sometimes the City has inadvertently approved painted signs. Commissioner Finwall suggested adding a condition that any new signage meet code requirements. She asked if the metal skirting under the deck will change. Mr. Smith replied he does not plan on doing anything with the existing skirting. It continues all the way around the other portion of the deck which is not owned by the Valley Bookseller owners. Commissioner Thueson noted that the Maple Island complex has a linear nature to it. He asked if the applicants considered a flat roof. Mr. Smith answered no. Chairwoman Mino noted that the slope of the roof is very gradual according to the submitted materials. Commissioner Finwall said she assumes the awning will be removed? Mr. Smith answered yes. Commissioner Larson remarked that the design is very simple and appropriate especially since it is not a residential building. What is okay in residential areas may not be okay in commercial areas. The material would better fit the building if it were a darker color that doesn't stand out as much, for example a dark bronze or dark gray. Mr . Smith said the owners probably will not be opposed to using a slightly darker color. Commissioner Finwall asked if the Commission wants to see something different like metal posts. Commissioner Larson said he would prefer that but he doesn't think there is enough specificity in the ordinance to require that and there are other instances of timber being used. Commissioner Finwall noted on the examples provided, there are "V" boards coming in. She asked, is that proposed on this application? Mr. Smith said no. It would be a cleaner look. He only showed the pictures because it will be similar but will not have the angled boards on the posts. Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to approve Case No. 2020-28, Design Permit for a patio overhang at 217 Main St N, with the five staff -recommended conditions, adding Condition #6, all new signage shall meet code requirements; adding Condition #7, the metal roof must be Page 4 of 4 Heritage Preservation Commission Meeting November 18, 2020 a dark, more subdued color; and adding Condition #8, the posts of the roof overhang must line up with the existing deck posts. All in favor. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS There were no other discussion items. FYI St. Croix Riverbank Restoration and Riverwalk Project Ms. Wittman informed the Commission that the City Council held a public hearing on this project last week. She reviewed design changes that she hopes are more in line with the Commission's approval. Staff met with representatives of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to review the entire project. The new wall that will extend in front of the Dock Cafe as part of the river trail is a very vertical board form pattern that is intended to not contrast with this portion of the cultural landscape district. The board pattern is a very prominent design that would have been seen along the shoreline historically. The overlooks have been brought closer to the shoreline. The City is aware the overlooks will be underwater during flood season. Staff is trying to minimize their impact as much as possible. She asked if the Commissioners feel these designs help minimize previously expressed concerns about the bulk and mass of the structures. SHPO feels this is more compatible than the City's previous designs. Commissioners Larson, Thueson, and Chairwoman Mino responded that the design is an improvement. Commissioner Finwall recalled the original plans showing rip rap between the trail and the Dock Cafe. She asked if the large wall has been proposed for more flooding protection. Ms. Wittman replied flood protection is secondary - the wall is a delineator between the private land uses. In order to construct this trail and maintain the public way, a delineating factor is needed. There was concern of the private property owner about things like trespassing and public -private interaction in that location. Commissioner Finwall said she feels the additional landscaping will help soften the wall. The trail will be an asset for the City. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Thueson, to adjourn. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ATTEST: Abbi Wittman, City Planner Amy Mino, Chair Page 5 of 5 ti 1 1water ' i- E BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA PLANNING REPORT TO: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: REQUEST: LOCATION: DESIGNATION: DISTRICT: REPORT BY: INTRODUCTION Heritage Preservation Commission December 7, 2020 December 16, 2020 Jason Hohn representing Bald Eagle Builders Bald Eagle Builders Consideration of a Design Permit for a new single family residence 709 3rd Street South N/A Neighborhood Conservation District Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner Bald Eagle Builders own the property at 709 31d Street South, a property recently split from 703 3rd Street South located directly to the north. SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant has requested Design Permit for approval of the design of a new single family residence to be located at the subject property in the (Stillwater) Neighborhood Conservation District. The house's architectural design is based on Stillwater's traditional vernacular - styled homes. CASE NO.: 2020-31 709 3''d Street South (Google Street View — May, 2019) The specific request is for the construction of two story single family residence with detached garage located in the rear of the property. The home will be sided with a 4" horizontal lap HPC Case 2020-31 Page 2 of 5 siding, 4" corner boards and 6" frieze, fascia, and trim boards all painted white. A front porch, with four columns, will run the width of the front facade. Three over one black framed windows will be placed on all sides of the home. Transom windows are used on all facades, with the exception of the front of the home; these, too, will have a three -pane appearance and will be clad in black. Black architectural shingles are proposed for the 12/9 pitched roof. The home's modest design features and roof pitch are carried through to the detached garage. ANALYSIS All infill homes in the NCD are required to follow the NCD design guidelines. These design guidelines recommend the following: Neighborhood and Streets Massing and scale of a new building should be compatible with neighboring structures. The 28' wide, 2.5' story home is in line with the mass and scale of the neighboring structures. On either side of the proposed home, two story structures exist; additionally, 3rd Street South is flanked with 1.5+ story homes with 2+ stories being more prevalent. Respect the existing rhythm of the streetscape. Follow alignment and setbacks predominant on the street and adjacent properties. There is no prevailing front yard setback along 1st Street North, with homes situated very close (10-15') from their front property lines where others, including the house directly to the south of this property, are set back 30-40'. This has created a jagged setback along this street frontage. See the attached building setback aerial for reference. The home's front porch is proposed to be situated 20' from the edge of the right-of-way. This will be in front of homes on either side of it despite the house directly across 3rd Street South being situated at approximately the same distance to the ROW. One of the reasons the home is being pushed closer to the ROW is to maintain rear yard space given the rear yard accessory structure must maintain distance from established structures in the area. The commission should discuss whether or not the proposed setback respects the existing rhythm of the streetscape and, particularly the homes on either side of it. Design new roofs to be compatible with forms of existing roofs in the neighborhood. Gabled roofs with additions are common within the vicinity. Building height should be considered in choosing roof forms, architectural style, and relating to context. The height, as measured from the average elevation of the front of the building to the mid -point between the eave and the gable is (approximately) 24'. The height of the home is consistent with homes on either side of it. HPC Case 2020-31 Page 3 of 5 Building and site design The property is flat. While a basement will be excavated, no should respond to natural cutting or filling of the land will be required to accommodate features. Respect the site's natural slope in new building design: minimize cut, fill and retaining walls. When retaining walls are necessary, minimize their impact. this home's design. No retaining walls are proposed. Preserve significant trees. One cedar tree near the northern property line is proposed to be removed and replaced with six arborvitae trees. All other trees onsite are proposed to be retained. However, there is concern for two maple trees near the front property line as the applicant is proposing to install a driveway between these two trees; this could cause damage to the trees' root systems. According to the City's Natural Resource Technician Taylor Stockert, the maple tree to the north of the driveway is decaying; preservation of this tree may be fruitless. The tree to the south of the driveway, however, should be protected with construction fencing around the tree (to the greatest extent possible while maintaining access to the site) and mulching outside the tree to prevent equipment damage to the root system. Building Site Locate garage and driveway to respect existing street and neighborhood patterns. The garage is proposed to be located in the rear yard. Minimize garage impact on The two -car garage is not only set back but minimized with its new structure massing and street front. one-story design. The size and mass of the structure should be compatible with the size of the property. The property is significantly sized to accommodate the structure. The combination of the residence and garage does not exceed the maximum 25% total lot area allowed in this zoning district. Consider front porch elements in the design of infill structures. The owners are proposing a porch/stoop at the front of the home. Accessory buildings should be compatible with the main building. One garage, proposed to match the residence's materials and level of detail, is compatible with the residence. Design and detail new construction as four-sided architecture. This guideline has been met. HPC Case 2020-31 Page 4 of 5 Architectural Detail The facade of the structure should be compatible in scale and character to the houses of the streetscape. The vertical lap siding is the most common siding material on this street frontage. The use of LP or Hardie is most consistent with the large amount of vertical wood lap siding within the vicinity. Building elements should be proportional to the scale and style of the building, and its context. The building's form and its additions are proportional to the scale of the site and the context of 3rd Street South. Use architectural details to create visual interest and support architectural style. In new building design, consider appropriate materials, textures and colors, and their relationship to other buildings of the neighborhood. The proposed design is simple which supports the architectural style. The materials, textures, and colors are compatible with the surrounding properties and will not detract from the character of the neighborhood. In fact, with houses on either side of it inspired by Italianate and Tudor architecture, this new home will allow these other homes to stand out more significantly. Use masonry and stone authentically. No stone is proposed. Exposed masonry is kept to a minimum. POSSIBLE ACTIONS The Heritage Preservation Commission has the following options: A. Approval If the Heritage Preservation Commission finds the proposed application meets standards set forth in the Neighborhood Conservation District, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2020-31 with or without the following conditions. 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department and found on file with HPC Case No. 2020-31, except as modified by conditions herein or other City of Stillwater Planning Commission and/or City Council approval. 2. All new utilities will be located underground. To the greatest extent possible, the owner should work with adjacent property owners to bury existing overhead electrical. 3. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the home. 4. Exterior lighting shall be shielded from neighboring properties. 5. The driveway shall be improved in conformance with City Code Section 33-5. 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. HPC Case 2020-31 Page 5 of 5 B. Table If the Heritage Preservation Commission finds that the application is not complete enough to make a decision, it could continue the review for additional information. C. Denial If the Heritage Preservation Commission finds the proposal is not consistent with the, the Commission could deny the application. The Commission should indicate a reason for the denial and state whether or not the denial is with prejudice. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The purpose for the Neighborhood Conservation District and the review of the design of new residential structures is to help ensure the traditional neighborhood fabric is preserved. The review is intended to ensure new development does not contrast with the existing, historic character of the neighborhood. The proposed project has been designed to fit with Stillwater's traditional neighborhood design. Staff would recommend the HPC discuss the home's proposed placement with respect to the street's rhythm. However, staff recommends conditional approval with those conditions outlined in Alternative A, above. Attachments: Site Location Map NCD Application Form (2 pages) Certificate of Survey/Site Plan Elevations House elevations Floor Plans (2 pages) Building Setback Aerial Garage elevations Landscape Plan Property and Neighborhood Photos (20 pages) cc: Jason Hohn _ 2 _ 15, . 518 �,. fk '' `' 519 P1i V V V- A _ r 11 t.. - ��� - 61 t :a ■ '. Ri613 r 8n* * �. R 1�1 �*9�lCl� _\';3 _ ilia ..,Ar s "'.,il= e . t r; +r ,d `" _ ; , = gg ; r. ,,'*�`�� `id�•>. -_ :fir". i. ;(tl 657 . 663 St The Birthplace I arer of Minnesota OA - "` .4 � -� ik/ Y 1 622' t K 609 � "+ a �` ' # i \ 663 - i -. . nlrg• i • ,� 670 N ,84 . Y M• Site Location 709 3rd St S EAST --1---V J ARD------$-T} - _- 7704 70 1 1 a*‘ y " 793 704 14,a. 10 �-ot� CO ' - • 708 203 =_ 0 709 i idalle I I 1— • - . N :.....2 0 115 230 460 Feet 1---- - .g 713 . -1 - •- 2 L ►'1- 71 - 11, 712 712 • �1 • `715 r• : 716 " 1' si, Imi.. 713 .r'f 11-1-1 lll- y General Site Location r , ` �I I• " T _ 1 1���� ` ! 0 �,'■71 - . .., f Al719 718 0' 'r• 719 802 w 801 �_ i 717 718 .' , 72iiii (n r.717 - i�m■ NI ' .� II i �� IIIIhnnllLt� IP =�� it en �.�• =\ -� iiA11, \ ' .gin �. 804 802 801 ,806, Ct I 8011 f 1 805-f 0 — _ 4 IX `@. � 808 ""- \. � � \ \11., :I' 1 i— - i. 801- CO $ip 80Tr„ r y 8071 s 1 ���ll► ■I�; a r' ins�` �� 7 41V� p 807 ] 811 - r8081� Ir ; __.. �15 = 834 , 808jo. �8 — n 812 • • l�.'J:ra IIL41 Inhisssle:141 �h I llll g; .® �-4li I ®0.'4�I � jitt. w 813 814 •�*� 815�� Mi}. �, 816 I 1 �•ii�// ra Tilesr .y- '��,� �� _ 817' "d is ti . " ., 820 I< • - 4 W r' . ,r. ? - _ d y = -' 'a 822 ( 4 '.- . 81 AIL ,.'� �• �• +.�-\ ;KL`. . , r v r ®' ®®� �� , mom@ IIII�' 1� �., „ •� 8 ' f 8$3 yn .821 1114 i— 822 - le 819 la ' ifir$ OIL04 822 . i ' 'I ; _ ®®\ �• . -�- „- �-------- - EAST CHURC4-IIL� STREET_ �,,, . 7=11-3�= 3 .. mr r,•• f 90 �., • ig _ 1i 901 `903 i 904 .�v� 3 07 317: J�� n �E. %N -_.L_ � . um _. ! ;' �r a . y �..r^.. 905 905 r iliwater Planning Department 216 4th Street North Stillwater MN 55082 651-430-8800 www.ci.stillwater.mn.us PlanningDept@ci.stillwater.mn.us Design Review Application and Checklist Address of Property: Permit No. Date Filed: Base Fee: $25.00 Receipt No.: Property Owner: _ -AL) Mailing Address: c w= Telephone No.: **Signature 1. Neighborhood Architectural Styles: %&Vernacular %oQueen Anne %oGreek revival %oAmerican Foursquare &Other: %oltalianate %0Gothic %oSecond Empire %oStick 2. Prevailing neighborhood streetfront setback: (Guidelines #1, #2, #3) Prevailing setback on block (est.) Average setback on block (est.) 7 Proposed new house setback ail 3. Is the pattern of homes in your neighborhood 1, 1-1/2, or 2 stories high? (Guidelines #4, #5) Stories 1 1-1/2 2 House on right % %o House on left %o %o House to rear Prevailing on block %o %o Prevailing opposite block %o % Proposed new house %o %. 4. Prevailing Front Porch pattern in your neighborhood: (Guideline #13) Front Porch %o %o %o House on right House on left House to rear Prevailing on block Prevailing opposite block Proposed new house Notes: None %o %o %o %o %o %0 Representative: Mailing Address: Telephone No.: Signature 5. Prevailing Garage Location pattern in your neighborhood: (Guidelines #10, #11) Front Garage House on right House on left House to rear Prevailing on block Prevailing opposite block Proposed new house %o %o %o %o Rear Garage o %o %o %o %o %o v : %o Side Garage %o %o %o %o %o %o 6. Prevailing Garage Size in your neighborhood: (Guidelines #10, #11) 1 stall 2 stall House on right House on left House to rear Prevailing on block Prevailing opposite block Proposed new house Garage Garage %o %o %o %o %o %o %o %o %o %o ? %o %o %o %o %o 3 stall Garage %o %o %o 7. Is the proposed garage compatible in form and detail with the design character of the main house? (Guideline #14) 8. If the proposed structure/garage location, setbacks, size or general design character does not fit prevailing neighborhood patterns, how do you propose to reduce its impact on the neighborhood and streetscape? 9. Does the proposed structure work with natural slopes and contours of the property? (Guidelines #6, #7, #8) /&Structure sited parallel to slope &&Building deigned to reduce cut and fill (minimized retaining walls) %&Landscaping incorporated into grading changes Notes: 10. Are there significant trees on the property? Will any trees be removed or damaged by new construction? (Guideline #9) &&Types of trees fik << f &&Heights i&Trunk diam. Notes: t .4.6, Good Neighbor Considerations 1. Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbor's access to sunlight in adjacent yards, patios or rooms? (Guideline #21) House to right: House to left: House to rear: Notes: How will you mitigate any negative sunlight impacts on neighbors? &&Locate structure on lot to minimize impact %oAdjust building height, or portions of building, to minimize impact %oOther: 2. Will the proposed structure significantly affect your neighbors' privacy? (Guidelines #22, #23) House to right: House to left: House to rear: Notes: 9 How will you mitigate any negative impacts on neighbors' privacy? /&Offset/locate windows to reduce impact &&Use obscure glass in window &&Locate balconies to minimize impact. &Use landscaping elements for screening ether: 3. How is outdoor lighting impact minimized for neighbors? (Guideline #25) k &&Lights are located or directed away from neighboring property &&Light fixtures are shielded to prevent glare at neighboring property %o Other:,.._. . • • • • • • To be included with this Application and Checklist: 1 L ❑ Site Plan: Include location of proposed building(s) on property, lot area; indicate impervious surface, property lines, street/ sidewalk location and approximate location of adjacent structures. Indicate proposed outdoor deck/patio and landscaping features. ❑ Building Plan: dimensions, first floor area square footage. ❑ Building Elevations: indicate building height, windows, materials, and color on all elevations. Indicate proposed exterior lighting. ❑ Photographs of site and streetscape. ❑ Regular Planning Department Development Application Form CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY -for- BALD EAGLE BUILDERS -of- 703 3RD STREET SOUTH STILLWATER, MN =fir a6 EST.ien www.eg ud.com ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE REQUIRED 860.06 861. 861.12 861.33 (861.2) 10 26.4 20.4 622 NOTES • BUILDER TO VERIFY HOUSE DIMENSIONS, SEWER DEPTH AND FOUNDATION DEPTH. * DRIVEWAYS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL DRIVEWAY DESIGN AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR. FINISHED GRADE ADJACENT TO HOME SHALL BE 0.5 FEET BELOW TOP OF BLOCK EXCEPT AT DRIVEWAY AND PATIO. 861, s 86 s2 e6iii�. 8614. 0.00 861.36 L '% 861.14 6 61F13775 5 -Lel E.G. RUQ & SONS, INC. Professional Land Surveyors 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Tel. (651) 361-8200 Fax (651) 361-8701 862 861, 881.33 c 861.40 ! N89'49'59 E { 135.31 861.6 „ x 861.43 (.861.0.) 45.110 .861.2 PROPOSED HOUSE 48.00 (862.5) 28 / 861.2* 060.94 TO BE REROUTED) OVERHEAD WIRE (862.4) x 28.4 80. ®61.6 _ ...... 862.0 • 55 5 5 ..___...N89.49'59'E7 f 135.28 p863.1 e6z2z yt_ FENCECORNERLIESS:C•-. _SOON OF LOT LINE *861.5 LEGEND • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET • sao.o DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION / DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE s DENOTES WOOD HUB/METAL SPIKE AT 11 FOOT OFFSET (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) 5 DENOTES SILT FENCE BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT YARD = 20ft SIDE YARD = 5ft MINIMUM PER SIDE AT LEAST 15ft TOTAL 3ft DETACHED GARAGE REAR YARD = 25ft MAIN BUILDING 3ft DETACHED GARAGE 86283 DIAG: 50.00 X 45.00 = 67.27 (8 FOOT POURED WALL BASEMENT) PROPOSED HOUSE ELEVATIONS TOP OF WALL = 863.2 LOWEST FLOOR = 855.5 TOP OF FOOTING = 855.2 DIAG: 47.00 X 24.00 = 52.77 (SLAB ON GRADE) PROPOSED GARAGE ELEVATIONS TOP OF BLOCK = 863.2 GARAGE FLOOR = 862.8 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Lots 28 and 29, Block 3, CHURCHILL, NELSON, AND SLAUGHTERS ADDITION, Washington County, Minnesota, which lies southerly of a line drawn 60 feet northerly and parallel with the south line of said Lot 28. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 11.00 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS TOTAL LOT AREA 8,118 S.F. PROPOSED HOUSE AND PORCH 1,428 S.F. PROPOSED GARAGE 600 S.F. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 1,299 S.F. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 3,327 S.F. PERCENT IMPERVIOUS 41.0% / 202/ / 858.90 r860 ' PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR=862.8 (867..5) 8 861.33 X(862.2) 0162-s) ye61.33 .861.3 861.3. tun 5 JJThINA0JAND 5 UT'[LTTY EASEME 86248 8623 1,118 • 861, 861.36 5 5 =-k z = 861.30 FENCE CORNER LIES 2.3' / SOUfti OF LOT CORNER---" 861.10 GRAPHIC SCALE 0 0 5 10 EMSTING GARAGE 20 1 INCH = 10 FEET I hereby certify that thls survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ASON E. ' D Date: 11/05/2020 License No. 41578 DRAWN BY: BCD CHECK BY: 7ER 706 901 1992215 DATE: 12/17/19 FIELD CREW: DT/CT 08/19/20 ADDED PROP. EASEMENT INFO BCD 10/23/20 ADDED PROP. HOUSE & GARAGE BCD 3 11/02/20 CLIENTS COMMENTS BCD 4 11/04/20 CLIENTS COMMENTS BCD 11/05/20 CLIENTS COMMENTS BCD N0. DATE DESCRIPTION BY SSRUD\CAD\19PRO3\19922L5\19922LS-(NEW PROPOSED PLAN).DWG 19922LS REVISION DATE: BY: 9/ 1 2 12 rr L 8 KAC KET D ETA I L 0" CEDAR BRACKET 6" TRIM BD. TYP. - 6" TRIM BD. TYP. -4" CORNER BD. TYP. 5/ 1 2 12 4 LP OR HARDIE BD. 6" WINDOW AND DOOR TRIM TYP. SIDING TYP. LEI=T ELEVATION SCALE I /4"= I '-0" ROOF VENTS AS REQD. 9/ 1 2 12 9 24"x42" Sh T/WND= 15'-3" BLACK -OUT WND. 6" FRIEZE BOARD 6" FASCIA BD. TYP. 6" TRIM BD. TYP. 4" CORNER BD. TYP.-1 LP OR HARDIE BD. - SIDING TYP. 5 12 1 I '-6" 4112 SECOND FLR. CLG. SECOND FLOOR mI1- MAIN FLOOR CLG. MAIN FLOOR EXTE�10 \OTES * ELEVATIONS ARE DESIGNERS INTERPRETATION AND FINAL ELEVATIONS MAY VARY FROM DRAWING. FLASHING NOTES • KICKOUT FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED AS NEEDED BY ROOFING CONTRACTOR • EXTERIOR WALL FINISHER TO VERIFY THAT KICKOUT FLASHING IS INSTALLED PRIOR TO FINISHING • CARPENTER TO FLASH ALL EXTERIOR WINDOWS & DOORS PER MINNESOTA & IRC CODE REQUIREMENTS WINDOW NOTES ANDERSEN 100 SERIES WINDOWS SIZES/R.0 ARE SHOWN ON PLAN (BUILDER/HOMEOWNER TO VERIFY WINDOW BRAND FOR CORRECT ROUGH OPENINGS) •• CODE MIN. U VALUE = 0.32 MIN. STHC = 0.35 • BUILDER TO PROVIDE WINDOW ORDER LIST WITH U FACTOR, SGHC, & STC RATING FOR EACH WINDOW & EXTERIOR DOOR • BUILDER TO VERIFY ALL WINDOW, DOOR & OPENING HEADER HEIGHTS. EXT. FINISHING NOTES • LP SMART BOARD SIDING (HARDIE BOARD OPTION) • 4" LP CORNER BOARDS (HARDIE BOARD OPTION) • ALUMINUM FASCIA • ALUMINUM SOFFIT • 6" LP SMART BOARD DOOR & WINDOW TRIM (HARDIE BOARD OPTION) • ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLES 12 4� 5/ 1 2 - 6" TRIM BD. TYP. CORNER BD. TYP. 12 6 6" TRIM BD. TYP. 4'-0" CEDAR BRACKET LP OR HARDIE BD. SIDING TYP. 1II III III I I1 III III EGRESS WELL III I III III AS REQD. II II II II III II LL - = J_ I LL - = -II 6" WINDOW AND DOOR TRIM TYP. KIGI-1T ELEVATION SCALE 1 /4"= I '-0" EGRESS WELL AS REQD. 717 -57 11 6" WINDOW AND DOOR TRIM TYP. EKO NT E LEVATI ON SCALE 1 /4"= 1 '-0" 1260 SQ. FT. MAIN FLR. 1260 SQ. FT. 2ND FLK. 2520 SQ. FT. TOTAL 838 SQ. FT. BASEMENT FUT. FIN. 9 12 6" FRIEZE BOARD 6" FASCIA BD. TYP. 24"x42" Sh T/WND = 1 5'-3" BLACK -OUT WND. BASEMENT CLG. BASEMENT FLOOR SECOND FLR. CLG. 6" TRIM BD. TYP. SECOND FLOOR —I0o 611 2 CEDAR BRACKET 2 MAIN FLOOR CLG. 6" TRIM BD. TYP. -4" CORNER BD. TYP. MAIN FLOOR LP OR HARDIE BD. SIDING TYP. III II1III IIIIIIII 1 1III II11I III 111 II II II II II II EGRESS WELL I I I AS REQD. 1II III III II 1 �L _ = JAL _ = JAL _ = A L J 6" WINDOW AND DOOR TRIM TYP. KEAK ELEVATION SCALE I /4"= 1 '-0" BASEMENT CLG. BASEMENT FLOOR #I XX/XX/20 XX #2 #3 #4 O cr, z LLJ > 111 Lil Q(c � Q co X x MAIN FLOOR DRAWN BY: SP CHECKED BY: Jh DATE: I 1 -09-20 SCALE: 1 /4" = I-0" JOB NO. SHEET # OF 6 REVISION DATE: BY: #I XX/XX/20 xx DASHED LINE AT FULL BASEMENT SHOWS SHEATHING LINE ABOVE FOUNDATION IS HELD IN 2" FOR INSULATION (TYP) 2'- 10" r 28'-0" 8" OF 96" POURED CONC. 16" X 8" CONT. CONC. FTC,. 0 0 z O r� r — J EGRESS WELL AS REQD. L- /0= 108"X42" I 36" x 42" CSMT. (3)V' SET ON SILL J T 7 13'-2" / / TRTD. POST ON 1 2" 0 SONATUBE TO FROST (TYP.) 2 2X8 (51H).1 DECK " I ABOVE m 1 III \ /2' III 8 - -11 FOUND. T- 18" FLOOR TRUSSES C9 I i 8" FLOOR SSE 1I9.2SO.CY - RN 11 io 11 1 2-2X 10 DBL.TRIMMER5 JJ T 1 @ 19.2" O.0 - Eo/I 0 fi L- r6 - -� I / I, 1 @ FUTURE FAMILY - \\\\ ROOM N FUTURE FAMILY ROOM N rj ct II- ijF- 1 126 - UNFINISHED 3 1 /2" CONC. SLAB 1 I • I I `0 \ I H II_doN\ // Il 0ii 2 III \/ II 12'-4" 4'-3' I -I 1 I ROD $ SN. -L 1 1 12° 5'- I " TRODSSH._ T---- cv II 0-4" /\ II 1 60"x34" TUB/11 1 1111\ SHOWER 1 1 11 J11 71 J o x N I 1 26 // 1 / �� IIL /"/ \\ )1I1 2-2X10 L_ J _L'DBL.TRIMMERS 1 r .s_ F 24 FUTURE \\ \\\-11 cV FUTURE n UNBFN S�ED El I L 1 BEDROOM #5 N 60" VANITY 1 • II ILi 0-- LI I I I UNFINISHED 1-1 ---4--- I -1 r 12'-6" I J IJP H I I AIR L ,I EXCH. HIGH -I-\ m 1 2/� 1 FURN. L L I J II/1 // = f_ I MECH.I\ /IOPG. �� AABOVE' /X\ 1 FD J \ _ r 5 2 6 0 J 5, 5,1 `\ 2 8fF 11 II I I'-5" \N 11 JJ / UNFINISHED b t\ MECI-I. ROOM - ' UNFINISHED STORAGE -\-- N \ \ 28 \ I-- 3 1 /2" CONC. SLAB 1 8' FLOOR TRUSSES r —� - - 8" FLOOR 4 TRUSSES L { } @ 19.2" O.C. J N J @ 19.2" O.C. RADON VENT L UMP p J 2-2x 12 TREATED 8'-I I" DECK ABOVE 2-2x 12 TREATED 2-2x 1 2 TREATED V7 9'-8" 6X6 POST ON 18"O SONATUBE TO FROST TYP. 8'-II" FOUNDATION 15 HELD IN 2" FOR INSULATION (TYP) DASHED LINE AT FULL BASEMENT SHOWS SHEATHING LINE ABOVE 0 En H —IN N N EGRESS WELL AS REQD. A-2 5 A-3 5 N N 0 \ Ln- N ►T� y 1 3" 28'-0' FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE I /4"= I '-011 838 SQ. FT. FUT. FIN. EGRESS WELL AS REQD. N 1 4'-3" 6'-0" SHEET ROCK MANTLE) BENCH W/-7- WOOD TG 5 0 0 4± D.V GAS F.P. BENCH W/ WOOD TOP co LP 0 FLUSH HEARTH FRONT VIEW SHEET ROCK —I c° T II 1 I '-0" BENCH Eo cc) EXTERIOR WALL SIDE VIEW GKEATKOOIV FIREPLACE OPTION SCALE 1 /4"= 1 '-0" 6'-0" FLUSH HEARTH FRONT VIEW CERAM C TILE FACE ONLY SHEET ROCK T -� 1 I '-8" 0 CABINET EXTERIOR WALL SIDE VIEW GKEATKOOIV FIREPLACE OPTION SCALE 1 /4"= 1 '-0" CERAM C TILE FACE ONLY POU\RATIO\ PLA\ SCALE: 1 /4"=1'-0" EXTERIOR DIMENSION ARE FROM EXTERIOR OF SHEATHING ABOVE AT FULL BASEMENT AREAS AND AS NOTED AT FRAMED WALLS, LOOKOUT AND WALKOUT AREAS BASEMENT FUTURE FINISHED 838 SQ. FT. • • • • • WINDOW & DOOR NOTES 0.32 MIN. STHC = 0.35 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ORDER LIST WITH U FACTOR, SGHC, & STC RATING DOOR DOOR & OPENING HDR. HTS. DEPTH OF MORE THAN 44" MUST BE EQUIPPED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ANDERSEN 100 SERIES WINDOWS •• CODE MIN. U VALUE = ALL WINDOWS SET ON SILL BUILDER TO PROVIDE WINDOW FOR EACH WINDOW & EXTERIOR BUILDER TO VERIFY ALL WINDOW, WINDOW WELLS WITH A VERTICAL WITH AN APPROVED LADDER • ALL DOORS ARE 6'-8" TALL GUARDRAIL NOTES ON OPEN SIDE OF ANY STAIR MORE THAN 30" ABOVE THAN 4" AT ALL GUARDRAILS • GUARDRAIL REQUIRED FLOOR • ALL OPENINGS LESS FLOOR SYSTEM NOTES TO VERIFY FRAMING BELOW GRANITE TOPS ABOVE TO PROVIDE HEAT SUPPLY & RETURN CHASE IN WITH TRUSS LAYOUT PLANS IF NEEDED • ALL FLOORS TO BE L/480 • FLOOR TRUSS MANUFACTURER • FLOOR TRUSS MANUFACTURER TRUSSES • BUILDER TO PROVIDE CITY FOUNDATION WALL & FOUNDATION INSULATION NOTES • 8'-0" POURED FOUNDATION WALLS W/ SINGLE PLATE • ASSUMED SOIL BEARING CAPACITY 2,000 PSF • MAINTAIN 42" MIN. GRADE ABOVE EXTERIOR WALL FOOTINGS (VERIFY FOR CITY/COUNTY/STATE) • BOTTOM OF DECK & PORCH FOOTINGS TO BE 72" BELOW GRADE • CONCRETE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WALL & FOOTING REQUIREMENTS WITH SITE CONDITIONS • CONCRETE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL WALL AND FOOTING REQUIREMENTS AT ALL UNBALANCED BACKFILL LOCATIONS • FOUNDATION WALLS HELD IN FROM SHEATHING ABOVE AS INDICATED BY FOUNDATION WALL DETAIL • SILL PLATE OVERHANGS FOUNDATION 1 I" MAXIMUM SEE FOUNDATION WALL DETAILS (WHEN TRTD 2X8 PLATE IS USED) • PROVIDE 2-#4 REBAR IN ALL CONCRETE FOOTINGS SHEETROCK & INSULATION NOTES (EXCEPT 80 SQ.FT. MAXIMUM AT STAIRS COVERED BY MIN. 3" GYP. BD. AT • GYP. BD. REQUIRED AT ENTIRE CEILING MECHANICAL) • 3" GYP. BD. AT WALLS & CEILING BELOW • ALL SPRAY FOAM INSULATION MUST BE HABITABLE AREAS FRAMING NOTES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE DOOR WALLS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ALL WINDOW & PATIO DOOR HEADERS UNLESS NOTED BLOCKING AT ALL POINT LOADS, SUPPORT BEAMS, TRUSSES TO FOUNDATION VERTICALLY ® CEILINGS & FLOORS & HORIZONTALLY 10'-0" (CONCEALED SPACES e SOFFITS, DROPPED STAIR STRINGERS Sc BETWEEN STORIES) BETWEEN STORIES DIVIDED INTO APPROXIMATELY EQUAL 1,000 SQ.FT. • 8'-1" PLATE HEIGHT • 2X4 STUDS 0 POCKET • DOUBLE STUDS AT OTHERWISE • PROVIDE LVL/LSL SOLID MICROLAMS, & GIRDER • PROVIDE FIRE BLOCKING INTERVALS NOT EXCEEDING CEILINGS, BETWEEN • PROVIDE DRAFT STOPPING SPACES NOT EXCEEDING SMOKE AND CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS • PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTORS IN EVERY BEDROOM & THE CORRIDOR GIVING ACCESS TO THE BEDROOM ON EACH FLOOR INCLUDING THE BASEMENT, & IN AY ROOM THAT HAS A CEILING HEIGHT MORE THAN 24" HIGHER THAN A CORRIDOR GIVING ACCESS TO THE BEDROOMS. • PROVIDE CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS WITHIN 10'-0" OF ALL BEDROOMS #2 #3 #4 MAIN FLOOR DRAWN BY: SP CHECKED BY: Jh DATE: 1 1 -09-20 SCALE: 1 /4" = I '-0" JOB NO. SHEET # OF 6 REVISION DATE: BY: #1 XX/XX/20 XX '<1111)6-\4 / / 28'-0" 3W-36"X 18"-TR 3W-36"X60"-SH/FP KO= 108"X78" T/WND=8'-2" 0 O —I N 0 \ \ E0 0 \ m00� z 1 1 a a i 2- 9 I/2" LVL 'DBL.TRIMMERS 14'-3" GREAT ROOM WOOD 15'-I" / 6'-0" 4'-1" "I w 0 v 0 co 2-2X6 DECK 5/4" DECKING / / LLD ROD $S11 W.I.0 LVT 5'-5" 24 PANTRY LVT / 1 8" FLOOR I = d TRUSSES N @ 19.2" O.C. II >1 J ad_ -6? - IN DINING ROOM WOOD 0 m \ 5'-2" HALF WALL--� W/ STAINED = WOOD CAP T m 2x6 x N N 0 w 0 H 0 II O 4C0 L \ 1 UP 17R O w 0 5 10 \ 2x6 1 1 '-2" DN 16R 0 24 L7 8" FLOOR { TRUSSES @ 1 9.2" O.C. 8 6'-0" MUD LVT 22 0 O 0 0 �oz Q N KITChEN WOOD $ REF ////-7 2x6 VANITY 3/4 BATh 2 LVT 0 ECH m CZ W 8 4'-2" ROD 4 SH 40 5'-8" O 0 OFFICE CARPET 1 8" FLOOR { TRUSSES @ 1 9.2" O.C. 0 5C0 T ll= 111 I II III 1 m FOYER WOOD c 3 2W-36" X GO" SH R0=72"X60" COVERED PORCH 5/4" DECKING 2-9 1/2" LVL FLEX/GUEST ROOM CARPET 8" FLOOR { TRUSSES @ 1 9.2" O.C. 0 ON z(0 0 0 O N 0) 2W-36" X GO' SH R0=72"X60" 2-9 1/2" LVL 2-9 1/2" LVL 1 f 2W-30" X 24" AWN. 1- N x 0 II 0 \ N N �-SOFFIT-� O 0 10'-1" 8'-4" 28 -0" MAIN LOOK FLAN SCALE I /4"= I '-0" 1260 SQ. FT. / 6x6 POST BOXED TO 10"x 10" @ CNTR. TYPICAL v AI \ FLOO PLA\ SCALE: 1 /4"=1'-0" EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE SHEATHING TO SHEATHING MAIN FLOOR FINISHED 1260 SQ. FT. WINDOW & DOOR NOTES SIZES/R.0. ARE SHOWN ON PLAN (HOMEOWNER CORRECT ROUGH OPENINGS) MIN. STHC = 0.35 7-0" UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ORDER LIST WITH U FACTOR, SGHC, & STC RATING DOOR DOOR & OPENING HDR. HTS. ® OPERATING WINDOWS NOTED OTHERWISE • ANDERSEN 100 SERIES WINDOW TO VERIFY WINDOW BRAND FOR •• CODE MIN. U VALUE = 0.32 • ALL TOP OF WINDOWS SET ® • BUILDER TO PROVIDE WINDOW FOR EACH WINDOW & EXTERIOR • BUILDER TO VERIFY ALL WINDOW, • FP = PROVIDE FALL PROTECTION • ALL DOORS ARE 6'-8" TALL UNLESS GUARDRAIL NOTES ON OPEN SIDE OF ANY STAIR MORE THAN 30" ABOVE MUST BE LESS THAN 4" AT ALL GUARDRAILS • GUARDRAIL REQUIRED FLOOR • ALL SPACES/OPENINGS FLOOR SYSTEM NOTES VERIFY FRAMING SUPPORT BELOW GRANITE TOPS PROVIDE HEAT SUPPLY & RETURN CHASE IN TRUSS LAYOUT PLANS IF NEEDED • ALL FLOORS TO BE L/480 • FLOOR JOIST MANUFACTURER TO & FREESTANDING TUB ABOVE • FLOOR JOIST MANUFACTURER TO JOISTS • BUILDER TO PROVIDE CITY WITH FRAMING NOTES HEIGHT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE DOOR WALLS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ARE 2X6 STUDS CO 16" OC SOLID BLOCKING AT ALL POINT LOADS, SUPPORT BEAMS, GIRDER TRUSSES TO FOUNDATION VERTICALLY CO CEILINGS & FLOORS & HORIZONTALLY EXCEEDING 10'-0" (CONCEALED SPACES ® SOFFITS, DROPPED STAIR STRINGERS & BETWEEN STORIES STOPPING BETWEEN STORIES DIVIDED INTO APPROXIMATELY EQUAL 1,000 SQ.FT. INSULATION MUST BE COVERED BY MIN. i" GYP. BD AT AT BEARING WALLS TO HAVE 2-2x10 #2 GRADE HEADER NOTED OTHERWISE) • 9'-1 i" CEILING • 2X4 STUDS © POCKET • EXTERIOR WALLS • PROVIDE LVL/LSL MICROLAMS, AND • PROVIDE FIREBLOCKING INTERVALS NOT CEILINGS, BETWEEN • PROVIDE DRAFT SPACES NOT EXCEEDING • ALL SPRAY FOAM HABITABLE AREAS • ALL INTERIOR OPENINGS OR BETTER (UNLESS SMOKE AND CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS • PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTORS IN EVERY BEDROOM & ANY CORRIDOR PROVIDING ACCESS TO BEDROOMS ON EACH FLOOR INCLUDING THE BASEMENT, & IN ANY ROOM THAT HAS A CEILING HEIGHT MORE THAN 24" HIGHER THAN A CORRIDOR PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE BEDROOMS. • PROVIDE CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS WITHIN 10'-0" OF ALL BEDROOMS SECO\ 3 FLOO PLA\ SCALE: 1 /4"=1'-0" EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE SHEATHING TO SHEATHING SECOND FLOOR FINISHED 1260 SQ. FT. WINDOW & DOOR NOTES ARE SHOWN ON PLAN (HOME OWNER ROUGH OPENING SIZES) STHC = 0.35 OTHERWISE LIST WITH U FACTOR, SGHC, & STC RATING & OPENING HDR. HTS. OPERATING WINDOWS NOTED OTHERWISE • ANDERSEN 100 SERIES WINDOW SIZES/R.0 TO VERIFY WINDOW BRAND FOR CORRECT •• CODE MIN. U VALUE = 0.32 MIN. • ALL WINDOWS SET 6'-10" UNLESS NOTED • BUILDER TO PROVIDE WINDOW ORDER FOR EACH WINDOW & EXTERIOR DOOR • BUILDER TO VERIFY ALL WINDOW, DOOR • FP = PROVIDE FALL PROTECTION ® • ALL DOORS ARE 6'-8" TALL UNLESS GUARDRAIL NOTES ON OPEN SIDE OF ANY STAIR MORE THAN 30" ABOVE MUST BE LESS THAN 4" AT ALL GUARDRAILS • GUARDRAIL REQUIRED FLOOR • ALL SPACES/OPENINGS FRAMING NOTES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE DOOR WALLS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE TO BE ENERCEPT NOMINAL 6" SIP'S BLOCKING AT ALL POINT LOADS, SUPPORT BEAMS, TRUSSES TO FOUNDATION VERTICALLY ® CEILINGS & FLOORS & HORIZONTALLY CO 10'-0" (CONCEALED SPACES © SOFFITS, DROPPED STRINGERS & BETWEEN STORIES BETWEEN STORIES DIVIDED INTO APPROXIMATELY EQUAL 1,000 SQ.FT. MUST BE COVERED BY MIN. i" GYP. BD AT • 8'-1 i" PLATE HEIGHT • 2X4 STUDS CO POCKET • EXTERIOR WALLS ARE • PROVIDE LVL/LSL SOLID MICROLAMS, AND GIRDER • PROVIDE FIRE BLOCKING INTERVALS NOT EXCEEDING CEILINGS, BETWEEN STAIR • PROVIDE DRAFT STOPPING SPACES NOT EXCEEDING • ALL SPRAY FOAM INSULATION HABITABLE AREAS SMOKE AND CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS CORRIDOR GIVING ACCESS & IN ANY ROOM THAN A CORRIDOR GIVING OF ALL BEDROOMS • PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTORS IN EVERY BEDROOM & THE TO THE BEDROOM ON EACH FLOOR INCLUDING THE BASEMENT, THAT HAS A CEILING HEIGHT MORE THAN 24" HIGHER ACCESS TO THE BEDROOMS. • PROVIDE CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS WITHIN 10'-O" '41)lh'\4 24"x48"-SH FP RO=24"X48" 24" X 48" 5h m m O 0 z 71- Q N x N N x II N 0 N 12'-0" / 3 W-36"x60"-S H EGRESS/FP R0= 1 08"X60" 7'-92" BENCH 36" VANITY MASTER36" VANITY 4 BATh 2 PD 4 3 C.T I LE 4'-10" 2- 9 I/2" LVL 15'-3" 0 X N N 1 } m 0 N 0 ,O GLS PANEL 1/2 WALL C. T LE - SHOWER LO - 72" 4 SHELVES W.I.0 CARPET 4 ROD 4 SH 6'-8" 6 LLD 3'-7" MASTER BEDROOM CARPET �0 ROOF ATRUSSES N @ 24" O.C. 1 1' 8" 0 X N J 0> 50 �9 N ROOF dTRUSSES N @ 24" O.C. BEDROOM #4 CARPET 8'-7" 4'-2" ROD $ SH 26 28 \ m 0> 0 X N N x N N X N 1 '-7" m HALF WALL W/ STAINED WOOD CAP DN ROOF TRUSSES @ 24" 0.0 BEDROOM #3 CARPET 1 1 '-9" 17R m 3'-7" 26 2x6 22 SINK OPT. 0? LAUNDRY E- LVT 1 ATTIC I 1 ACCES I L---J 1 24 LVT I n VANITY 2x6 \ 4 410'1 IIPD 6'-I0" BATH 20 4'-5" I OPT. UP RS W D CZ CZ W z O O > J O z m • z a_ 0 O 0 m cz x0 O= ROD $ SH 52 LP N 7'-3 ROD $ SH W.1.0 0 CARPET 4'-7" ROOF A TRUSSES h @ 24" O.C. BEDROOM #2 q CARPET x N N 2-2X I 0 24 1 2-2X I 0 / 1 36"X60"SH EGRESS/ FP R0 = 3 6"X60" 5'-10' 8'-2" 36" X GO" SH R0 = 3 6"X60" FP 2-2X I 0 1 m II 00 1 QN N 0 x m II 00 0 36" X GO" SH EGRESS/ FP R0 = 3 6"X60" 8' 2" / 5'-10' / 28 -0" SECOND LOOK FLAN SCALE I /4"= I '-0" 1260 SQ. FT. #2 #3 #4 O OZ�z LL1 L11 Q � Q coc° (I) X x 2ND FLOOR DRAWN BY: SP CHECKED BY: JH DATE: I 1 -09-20 SCALE: 1/4" = 1 '-0" JOB NO. SHEET # OF G The Birthplace of Minnesota N Building Setback Aerial 700-800 Block Third Street South GProposed Structural Footprints 0 45 90 180 Feet r — 0 1 , 25'-0" ,I- I— 8 8" OF 6" POURED CONC. 40" OF 8" POURED CONC. 20" X 8' CONC. FTG. UNEXCAVATED 8" OF 6" POURED CONC. 40" OF 8" POURED CONC. 20" X 8" CONC. FTG. 0 `o J - 1 6'-3" MO 0 1 I 12'-0" 12'-0" J 24 -0" i DETACHED GARAGOU N DATI ON FLAN SCALE I /4" = I '-0" 12 6" FASCIA BD. TYP. 6" FRIEZE BOARD 24"x42" SH T/WND= 16'- 1 BLACK -OUT 6" TRIM BD. TYP. LP OR HARDIE B SIDING TYP. 4" CORNER BD. 16'-0" X 8-0" 0.H GARAGE DOOR G" WINDOW AND DOOR TRIM TYP. FRONT ELEVATION SCALE I /4"= I '-0" 9/1 2 6" FASCIA BD. TYP. L 6" TRIM BD. TYP JI D. TYP. LP OR HARDIE BD. SIDING TYP. N'"---4" CORNER BD. TYP. 1 '-6" 1' UNFINISHED GARAGE 2x4 OR 2X6 WALLS @ 1 6"OC 4" CONC. SLAB F 7 1 G'-0" X 8'-0" 0.H GARAGE DOOR 0 x N 30 N 'DBL TRIMMERS EACH END CONT. 2- 117/8" LVL 1 2'-0" 12'-0" 24 / -0" -71 LP OR HARDIE BD. SIDING TYP. DETACHED GARAGE FLAN SCALE I /4"= I '-0" CORNER BD. TYP. REAR ELEVATION SCALE I /4"= I '-0" ROOF VENTS AS REQD. 0/1 2 6" FASCIA BD. TYP. L 6" TRIM BD. TYP LP OR HARDIE BD. SIDING TYP. 4" CORNER BD. TYP. RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE I /4"= I '-0" ROOF MATERIAL: ASPHALT SHINGLES 1 5# FELT PAPER 1/2" 055 SHEATHING ROOF TRUSSES @ 24" 0.0 BY MANUF. ICE WATER MEMBRANE 24" FROM INSIDE WALL ALUM. FASCIA ALUM. SOFFIT W/ VENTS 1' EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL: SIDING PER ELEVATION TYVEK HOUSE WRAP 7/ 16" OSB SHEATHING 2X STUDS @ 1 6" 0.C. 00100 VENT ROOF AS READ. UNFINISHED GARAGE 24'-0" 12 9 0 PRE-CUT STUDS '-6' 8" OF 6" POURED CONC. 40" OF 8" POURED CONC. 20" X 8" CONC. FTG. 4" CONC. SLAB GARAGE SECTION "C" SCALE I /4"= I '-0" ROOF VENTS AS REQD. 9/ 1 2 In i UNFINISHED GARAGE PRE-CUT STUDS 4" CONC. SLAB i ROOF MATERIAL: ASPHALT SHINGLES 1 5# FELT PAPER 1/2" 05B SHEATHING ROOF TRUSSES @ 24" 0.0 BY MANUF. ICE WATER MEMBRANE 24" FROM INSIDE WALL ALUM. FASCIA ALUM. SOFFIT W/ VENTS EXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL: SIDING PER ELEVATION TYVEK HOUSE WRAP 7/1 6" 0SB SHEATHING 2X STUDS @ 16" O.C. 8" OF 6" POURED CONC. 40" OF 8" POURED CONC. 20" X 8" CONC. FTG. 8" OF 6" POURED CONC. 40" OF 8" POURED CONC. 20" X 8" CONC. FTG. REVISION DATE: BY: #I 07/20/ 1 8 SP #2 09/10/18 SP #3 10/5/18 SF' #4 1 1/2/18 SP #5 3/18/19 SF' BUILDING SECTIONS DRAWN BY: 5P CHECKED BY: JH DATE: 1 1 -09-20 SCALE: 1 /4" = I-0" JOB NO. SHEET # LEFT ELEVATION SCALE I /4"= I '-0" GARAGE SECTION "D" SCALE I /4"= I '-0" OF 6 e5rb A4w, 7i'ih°'17 J104 rnC I V:In) a74) av 711 F r. 0 e in 0,1,00:4 „ " ' Nfkogn ' 0440'W'? '400 ,V„r „ „ .,„ „r+fS , LL 4041.0-ck 44.04-X, z&;;* At'W z zw,ZAW Heritage Preservation Commission / Stillwater City Council Regards to Case NO. 2020-31 Consideration of a Design Permit for a new single family residence Location 709 Third street South Neighborhood Conservation district Mark and Nancy Feely 715 south Third Street Received 2020 Community Development Department We would like to submit a request as to the new construction proposal for 709 Third Street South. Our concern is the depth of the setback of the front porch and main house. The plan shows the porch is at 20.4' setback and the front of the house at 26.4'. In 2016 we built a new porch on the front of our house and planned it to be in line with adjacent neighbors on both sides of us. We followed the (Stillwater Conservation District Design Guidelines) in regards with guideline #2 and #3 following alignment and setbacks to be predominant on the street and adjacent properties. Our setback is 34' to the porch and 42'to house front. This basically matches my neighbor to the south 719 Third Street South. My neighbor to the north, 703 Third Street South is 26.4 to the porch and 34.5 to the front of the house. I ask that you please take into consideration changing the front setbacks for the porch and house as to be more in line with the predominant neighbors to the north, south as well as across the street. With a request to have additional planting of arborvitaes on the south side of the main house where it will just be a blank wall from our view to the north. Landscaping seems to be minima; all aro id. In addition being concerned about the maple trees located in the front property where a driveway will be accessed, if any of these trees are removed, that replacements be made with substantially mature trees. Sincerely Mark and Nancy Feely ilwater THE BIRTH P L A C E OF MINSOA PLANNING REPORT TO: Heritage Preservation Commission CASE NO.: 2020-32 REPORT DATE: December 9, 2020 MEETING DATE: December 16, 2020 APPLICANT: Joel Hauck, AIA, of ESG Architecture LANDOWNER: 200 Chestnut Partners, LLC REQUEST: Consideration of a Design Permit for a new apartment building LOCATION: 200 Chestnut Street East DESIGNATION: N/A DISTRICT: Downtown Design Review District REPORT BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner INTRODUCTION 200 Chestnut Partners, LLC would like to demolish the structure located at 200 Chestnut Street East and construct a four-story, 73-unit apartment building with underground parking. The proposed building will border 2nd Street South, Chestnut and Myrtle Street East, and Union Alley. While the property is not located in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District (SCHD), it is located in the Downtown Design Review District and border on three sides by the SCHD. The structure, originally constructed in 1965 and added onto in 1986, is not designated as historic nor it is subject to the City's demolition review requirements; staff can administratively approve the demolition of this structure. Chestnut Street View (August, 2018 © Google) Myrtle Street/Union Alley Intersection View (August, 2018 © Google) HPC 2020-32 November 18, 2020 Page 2 of 5 SPECIFIC REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Design Permit for approval of the design of a four story, 73-unit apartment building. ANALYSIS As noted, the property is not located in the Stillwater Commercial Historic District (SCHD). However, given its adjacency on three sides to contributing structures within the District, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) must look to see the new design is in general conformance to the City's adopted Downtown Design Review District guidelines and that it will not jeopardize the integrity of the structure's within the district or the SCHD itself Adopted guidelines indicate new infill buildings should fit into the fabric of existing buildings and the overall streetscape and not present a jarring contrast with what is already there. The basic principle for new construction in downtown is to maintain the scale and character of existing buildings. Generally speaking, new structures should provide height, massing, scale, setback, materials and rhythm compatibility to surrounding structures. For the most part, the proposed structure meets most of the City's adopted design guidelines, including (but not limited to) four sided design'. However, portions of the building are proposed to be four stories and 50' tall (as measured from 2nd Street South). Though the Downtown Design Review District's guidelines indicate this is the maximum height allowed downtown2, no other four-story building exists within two blocks of this one; additionally, only one four story building exists within the SCHD. While some buildings within the historic district exceed the 37' maximum height requirement, most are historic buildings that have been designated as contributing to the SCHD's historic character. The guidelines indicate: "while varied heights can mix with each other in visually interesting ways, a building, which is significantly taller than adjacent development, will seriously disrupt the existing scale of the downtown area". While the design aims to maintain street -facing floor to floor height compatibility on 2nd Street South and utilizes a flat roof to help support the street's rhythm3, the building's height (especially when combined with the block wide/long mass) will not help "unify the street elevation as a whole" 3, 4 given the one- and two-story buildings along the west side of 2nd Street South in this location. This concern was also raised by Kristina Marshall, a local business owner who submitted the enclosed comments and photos. While portions of the building are proposed to exceed the zoning code's allowable height (in feet and stories), the design aims to break up the building's mass into units of scale4. By creating two brick `bookend' buildings facing both Chestnut and Myrtle Street East and recessing the center portion of the building, the building gives the appears of several different buildings when viewed from the Chestnut and Myrtle Street rights -of -ways. The center portion of the building gives a stepped appearance, helping to support the City's intent that buildings in front have less height than those behind it. The standard, warm toned brick in a traditional running bond pattern and 1 Design Permit Standard: Proposed alterations shall have four-sided detailing and materials. 2 Downtown Design Manual Height Guideline: The height of new buildings shall be four (4) stories and fifty feet (50) maximum or two (2) stories minimum, and within ten percent (10%) of existing adjacent buildings. 3 Downtown Design Manual Guidelines: Height and Roofs a Downtown Design Manual Guideline: Proportion. HPC 2020-32 November 18, 2020 Page 3 of 5 horizontal lap fiber cement siding in dark gray are not visually overpowering and create a harmonious effects. While the horizontal lap siding is not as prevalent in downtown Stillwater, it is a material used on streets off of Main — including as an accent material directly across 2nd Street South. That said, it is a material that is traditionally used on residential buildings. Though this is a residential building, its construction one block off of Main Street and bordered by the SCHD should feel more commercial. On most of the four street frontages, to where the building sits nearly flush with the property line6'7, the building aims to make the street enjoyable, visually interesting and comfortable8. Though a residential structure, the size and proportion of windows and door openings are similar to those on the adjacent facades°. The design incorporates recessed aluminum storefronts10 on Chestnut Street at the building's main entrance and on Union Alley; these help provide the feeling associated with ground level commercial development. As solid residential -type doors with small areas of glass are discouraged10, the design incorporates fiberglass sliding patio doors on ground -level units to help keep the feeling of commercial storefronts. Facade details (including recast stone sills, louvered mechanical panels and aluminum and glass balconies), window openings and entries add visual detail and conform to approximately the same proportional patterns of adjacent structures, as recommended in adopted guidelines' 1. While underground parking and utility/trash removal, accessed off of Union Alley, take advantage of the topography of the site to conceal these amenities from public view12, the first floor level is raised (approximately) 5' above the Union Alley sidewalk grade. In some spots this, along with a 4-5' tall concrete planter designed to separate public and private spaces and a screened area for the building's transformer along Union Alley can create a blank facade which is not encouraged13. While the Myrtle/Union intersection building corner is broken up by with patio spaces and windows near eye level and the garage/service doors, the primary concern along this Union Alley is the (nearly) 100' long pedestrian barrier; this is not consistent with adopted standards14. Landscaping guidelines encourage highlighting architectural features and visually buffering pedestrian walkway but to also frame and edge existing and proposed building where feasible with appropriate types of plant material to achieve human scale. Reducing the wall height and incorporating deciduous plantings for year-round enjoyment must be considered. ALTERNATIVES 5 Downtown Design Manual Guidelines: Colors, Detailing and Materials 6 Downtown Design Manual Guideline: Setback 7 Design Permit Standard: Proposed alterations shall conform to the existing primary and secondary structure setbacks and neighborhood street rhythm. 8 Downtown Design Manual Guideline: Pedestrian -Orientated Design 9 Downtown Design Manual Guidelines: Facade Openings 10 Downtown Design Manual Entries Guideline: Recessed entries should be retained in existing buildings and required in new storefront construction. Commercial entry doors use large, glass panels with vertical proportions to aid a sense of invitation and openness to the business. 11 Downtown Design Manual Guideline: Detailing, Facade Openings and Proportion 12 Downtown Design Manual Guidelines: Parking and Utility Areas and Mechanical Equipment 13 Downtown Design Manual Guidelines: Parking and Pedestrian Orientated Design 14 Design Permit Standard: 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. HPC 2020-32 November 18, 2020 Page 4 of 5 HPC has alternatives related to this request. A. Approve. If the proposed application meets requirements for the issuance of a Design Permit, the HPC should move to approve Case No. 2020-31. At a minimum, staff recommends the following conditions for approval: 1. Plans shall be consistent with those submitted to the Community Development Department and are on file with HPC Case No. 2020-31 unless modified by the conditions herein. 2. The Union Alley concrete planter shall be reduced in size to enhance the pedestrian experience along this street frontage. The use of fencing or other solid barrier in this location shall not be permitted. 3. Reflective, mirrored or heavily tinted glass is prohibited. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the application will submit to the HPC a lighting plan detailing all exterior lighting fixtures proposed for the structure. 5. If any additional rooftop mechanical equipment is proposed, they must be reviewed and approved by the HPC prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. Prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy, the property owner shall submit for review and approval any building signage not shown on the plans submitted for review and approval as part of the HPC's December 16, 2020 meeting. 7. All minor modifications to the plans shall be approved in advance by the City Planner. All major modifications shall be approved in advance by the HPC. Determination of the distinction between "major" and "minor" is defined in the Zoning Ordinance. B. Approve in part. C. Deny. If the HPC finds that the proposal is not consistent with the findings set forth for the granting of a Design Permit, then the Commission may deny the request. With a denial, the basis of action is required to be given. Furthermore, a denial with prejudice would prohibit the applicant from resubmittal of a similar application for one year. D. Table. If the HPC needs additional information to make a decision, the request may be tabled to the following hearing. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION The Commission must find that the design of the structure, including its appurtenances, is compatible with, and will ensure continued significance and integrity of, properties with the historic district. The proposed development aims to meet the City' standards and guidelines within the Downtown Design Review District and the building's setback, form, openings, detailing, and most of the materials succeed in doing just that. However, the building's height — though a stepped design — is not compatible. While it sits one block behind one of the tallest buildings on Main Street, there are not buildings of this size anywhere in the SCHD. The mass jeopardizes the integrity of historic buildings within the vicinity and impairs the SCHD and the downtown `bowl'. HPC 2020-32 November 18, 2020 Page 5 of 5 While not as strong of an element as the height, the use of horizontal lap siding on such a large portion of the building detracts from the commercial nature of the area — an area not historically known for its residential apartment buildings. Using secondary material in the mid -block of the building is appropriate but using materials that were historically used for commercial buildings would be more appropriate. While the National Register of Historic Places listing for the SCHD indicates the predominant material types were brick and stone, introduction of newer materials — such as metal, stucco, or other flat panels with a wider revel, may not be out of character. These materials have been approved as accent materials though there is no precedence this close to the SCHD of their widespread use, as is proposed on this building. Lastly, the City has been conducting efforts in the recent past to clean up its alleys. While this development will certainly help streamline this side of the alley, the pedestrian experience will be enhanced by reducing the concrete planter height and utilizing a variety of landscaping materials for year-round enjoyment. The use of fencing or other solid barrier in this location should not be added to the wall. This condition of approval has been added for Commission consideration. Staff finds that, with design alterations and relevant and applicable conditions, the development might be able to conform to the design standards and guidelines in place. However, in its current form the building does not enhance the adjacent SCHD and dominates over the historic buildings within it. Staff recommends the Commission review the application submission and discuss the project with the applicant. If the Commission and the applicant are favorable to additional conditions to reduce the building's overall mass (i.e. height), improve pedestrian orientation along Union Alley, and a material substitution for the lap siding, then staff could make the findings the design generally conforms to the spirt and intent of the City's Design Permit standards and would recommend approval. Attachments: Narrative Request Applicant Submission Project Summary Site Context Height & Mass Analysis Birds Eye Views Design Perspectives Floor Plans Building Elevations Context Perspective Site Survey Civil Plans Landscape Plan Public Comment: Kristina Marshall Cc: Joel Hauck LAND USE APPLICATION 11 /2 5/2 0 2 0"4 200 CHESTNUT ST S STILLWATER,MN 3 PROJECT SUMMARY 4-5 PRECEDENT IMAGES 6-8 SITE CONTEXT 9-13 HEIGHT & MASS ANALYSIS 15-16 BIRDS EYE VIEWS 17-29 DESIGN PERSPECTIVES 30-34 FLOOR PLANS 35-38 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 39-53 CONTEXT PERSPECTIVES 54 SITE SURVEY 55-56 CIVIL PLANS 57-58 LANDSCAPE PLAN PROJECT VISION The proposed project will redevelop a 1960's-era two-story commercial building and parking structure into a 73-unit residential apartment com- munity with 73 below -grade parking stalls. The residential unit mix will be composed of one -bedroom, two -bedroom and penthouse units which will accommodate a wide variety of households including young workers in the local tourist -based economy, families, and empty nesters. The building amenities will include an inviting ground floor lobby oriented toward Chestnut Street, and a main level club room with access to a large outdoor patio facing Union Alley. The fourth floor, stepped significantly back from the street on all sides, will house several penthouse residences as well as a small club room and outdoor terrace for use by residents and their guests, featuring views of downtown Stillwater's rooftops and the bluff beyond. The design of the building draws heavily from the 19th-century character of downtown Stillwater. The simple building volumes will be clad in warm masonry and punctuated with vertically proportioned windows. The invit- ing pedestrian scale of the building will especially improve the character of Myrtle Avenue, helping to link the downtown core to the bluff top dis- trict. The 100 or so new residents will become regular patrons of the bars, restaurants and shops that make Stillwater such a unique community. PROJECT METRICS Level Total Construction GSF Plaza GSF Total Enclosed GSF Parking/ Mech GSF Residential Stalls Public Parallel Stalls Total Residential GSF Amenity GSF RSF Circulation GSF Units Efficiency (RSF/GSF) Minus 1 27,958 27,958 27,958 73 0 Level 1 26,334 3886 22,448 1,716 26 20,732 3,003 15,013 2,716 17 Level 2 22,025 22,025 22,025 19,567 2,458 24 88.8% Level 3 22,025 22,025 22,025 19,567 2,458 24 88.8% Level 4 14,565 14,565 14,565 576 11,795 2,194 8 81.0% Total 112,907 3,886 109,021 29,674 73 26 79,347 3,579 65,942 9,826 73 Unit Metrics Studio Alcove 1 Bed 1 Bed + D 2 Bed Total Levell 4 7 2 4 17 Level2 8 8 4 4 24 Level3 8 8 4 4 24 Level 4 1 7 8 Total PROJECT ANALYSIS 0 20 24 10 19 Zoning Analysis Lot Size (gsf) 29,035 Lot Size (acres) 0.67 Proposed FAR 2.73 Proposed DU/acre 110 Zoning District CBD: Central Business District Downtown Height Overlay Historic Building Adjacency no adjacent buildings Max height 3 Stories / 37' Proposed height 4 Stories / 46' Required Parking 110 Residential, 24 Guest Proposed Parking 73 Residential, 26 Parallel Stalls 73 Building Area Analysis Site = 29,035 SF Level GSF % Site Minus 1 27,958 96% Level 1 26,334 91% Level 2-3 22,025 76% Level 4 14,565 50% esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PROJECT SUMMARY 3 4500 FRANCE AVE (Architect: ESG) THE ELYSIAN (Architect: ESG, Developer: Reuter Walton) LORA HOTEL (Architect: ESG) esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PRECEDENT PROJECTS 4 436 CHESTNUT ST E 321 MAIN ST S 123 2ND ST N A_ 102 2ND ST S 1111. IIIPI J AIL ii i 1�1. t. ,! esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN STILLWATER DESIGN CONTEXT 5 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT PLAN 6 DOWNTOWN HEIGHT OVERLAY MAP .' Road centerlines CBD Height Overlay District Riverside -1.5 stories/20' Parkside - 2.5 stories130' Historic - 3 stories/37' Bluffside - 4 stories/45' Bluff Top - 3 stories/35' ZONING MAP (DETAIL) 71 920 00 1141 I 900� Sid 602 q� 410 402 I 410 400 SpT � 413 303 43 4217 ` 43.' CBD: Central Business District SITE i 4 3' 4' i esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN ZONING & HEIGHT DISTRICT MAPS 7 VIEW FROM CHESTNUT ST VIEW FROM 2ND ST VIEW FROM UNION ALLEY VIEW FROM MYRTLE ST esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN EXISTING SITE IMAGES 8 5TH STREET S 845' +28 4TH STREET S 817' +79 3RD STREET S 738' +30 2ND STREET S SITE UNION ALLEY 708' 700' +8 +5 ST CROIX TRAIL N WATER STREET S cc w 2 0 0 J 2 695' 691' 677' +4 +14 RIVER esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SITE SECTION 9 10'-0" SETBAGK\ 2ND STREET S ELEVATOR OVERRUN UNION ALLEY • Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SOUTH ELEVATION - HEIGHT 10 2ND STREETS UNION ALLEY Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN EW SECTION - HEIGHT 11 0 CHESTNUT ST Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN WEST ELEVATION - HEIGHT 12 STILLWATER, MN 1 321 S Main (Alfresco): 50' on Main; 116' on Nelson Alley 2 312 S Main (Nacho Mama's): 22' on Main, 100' on Nelson Alley 3 302 S Main (Whitey's Saloon) 25' on Main, 95' on Olive St 4 236 S Main (American Gothic Antiques): 36' on Main, 100' on Olive 5 201 S Main (Mara-Mi): 50' on Main, 116' on Chestnut 6 102 Main St S (Black Letter Books) 50' on Main, 100' on Myrtle St 7 102 2nd St (Gazette): 22 on 2nd, 108' on Myrtle 8 123 2nd (JX Venue): 70' on 2nd, 200' on Commercial esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT BUILDING MASS ANALYSIS 13 • • • • • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 54' 10 • <CAA 1* API r • • • • • • • • i-1417 \law \ \ • \ \ 39' F Yr • • • HISTORIC HEIGHT • _ - 1 OVERLAY 2 STORY BUILDING ■ 3 STORY BUILDING ■ 4+STORY BUILDING 1 ' - • HISTORIC HEIGHT 1_ _ OVERLAY 2+ STORY BUILDINGS + 37 FT BUILDINGS esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT BUILDING HEIGHT ANALYSIS 14 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN BIRDS EYE VIEW - SOUTHEAST 15 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN BIRDS EYE VIEW - NORTHWEST 16 r'w,�r irerrr�i .yL� �::fon"' r V. r Ci esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT yr�ys o �i/'i!��S�F/y ASV ° �1ji 'patrar iv V. 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SE CORNER VIEW 17 • —L _ ••.a _w— � _ —� �� a_ Ma IBM a _ • i - -- MI EU NOM .WM MEN t Ealaw • noon Warm • Pat pm a EN :a r� -- — ��"_` :ii a Y` iL wa __ .TC,.- lumna .r�—� L..! 'ss� sa 2� Mal =WEMEMMMI Z --_—i-r—fir isa _ ��y� wwia araal ri�a aL — MIN • asi. moms =nr_-% — ii-. �—_-- ''_ _ .—.R. Z'. WM MO Z— In -mo• w - r Mal OMR �_ — --= ME NA �=� _- 'fir.. zMI a ==- .,YM.1IINN NIEINNENE Mr:MN ___ .+i MIMI .T. E. . ,..,••••11a..; �. a w i�al MI=1 { �:�• iLi wrr-r�'�iw _.--. r��' eassrsos we �r�-.i W 1111 -w-. =an _ ��. L�+r..si _—r.r.n � ---- w --_ L i�r �w '-+ter... Z"LL �Z�L�rt ... ��r �=�TL _ L��L0.1 ZLL� -MN Man �L ��LZ:ala MI __ �lll....... w _a..nwiw.w..�wl MI NM _ ri..�__ ____ __ram ___��r� _ __ Iffl __•• _ri===i11=11-iili IEM Ma _�yMIIo.=�w-Uio NM Mal Te_o 1 Ma Ma i EOM � ��eMO MIN f_— wi MEW w—y..,MOM f,M—T IIME ��_ M. MEM MI f__� ME MEM= �ji_ ;__•—NM ■Ti——w�--a-EMMENI �.l-0-iii��s al w �L—ITn.Mi OM NM ww—... 3. Lam Z`�Z —Z �i'"1L MI MIR Ela =_— -- —Yii� •T am am Ma _ —w — i��-RO-e-i! =; --w=! --� _w_ _'Y.�[ 1-wl!•' Ma �' mow_-SrY-- — —w a Ma —_w—�ww��.�—_ n iMLL�ai�i._ Z w— L S. ___—_— L'�_Lsr �—� Troy —wm NM Man =NW row — .R a NE Ma. Oar • MIME la MM al, NEN iMI =MIME AM Mr I=E MN MEN a � 1- IN NM M. —i.l _- w .. —tea- ea r - mm ■-.ilw�i_wi��w__! �._�i wow-��_wi�s.�L �_a. =—a_m al Am _i a�-+=MN4 .-_w--am am..__o-1._.O.-am Ea a ma am MN IMM ama -m a ma am NM �.—_O-I._—laq_-Ii�..Y-N_.1111�.4�1- __��i��—i..—_ ---..SFr! 'rw�w.w— OM NNIM ---. r-- M. --�: ii..—inr—.R.. ���I—iwr--. ......E.MN 3111=NN....= ---- ------fir-z.�z-- ...re �-=. — .�x.--s—��w-,-.=L--T1_�y. --! ...... r r _ _wwrs_ __ _�__ r am am a -T•-Y—way - —___—Li_— _- — E wYMa �w — -- -."-t�.r-r _ w # w_ i wad �_ _ i. la INEM IMMO w INIMl— -- .1� --- ----iw NMI MO Imp.re ma am mi alarjaa Tim-..�-•Trwma Ma T.` T.ma a r -Ziargi �MOO PIM a/ NM OEM r_— - rnr.-r_w--T�r�r�—i MEE ��� - s�e��� ���TM• ws��wal'i-mow MINIM .!a! ant a _____- _ an - LUz — i=�iaalma an man Wan an. ama i� iftm MUNN --e MMI —1 Lrwr- MNat Ma OF MO JI- Boa alt,}1 r al �! w-w _r—w rm _Y mom EMS.= OM MN 1.... _ w:r_ -�-t —. — — Man rl 1-- w _ 200 Chestnut Marx all Si a am sa. lummo va =MEN w_ _ • �'� a• _1—�—! !—_IMM— -w —i--'ii wa w l w'_ - . MN aLm••• Mama ---_ME MI - -r - _i-_i__ii-____EMI _i-_i__a♦i-_■ —_S__w_we_ --__i__wiw i. EMI min Imp .�— wf—_+-n --i _— l+_zai_ NNIM��IMMEMEIMME Nan MIKl v .. r�MIEM011allM eSG REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN ELEVATION ON CHESTNUT 18 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SW CORNER VIEW 19 N! MM— -�Z- r r'- - - -- _ r. M Na. MN liNm NoR -_-NEM bmam NM " - MN NM -=''= =?= =-=,��s�7FS --�-s' _MN -_ s �� �.=s��--rA =�-air m.imm Gam ma am em rmc it am OMNI MN NM an mna. Ma MO NM �NNW IM nill NNW, x ` s� — — - — ter,-ss:•�-- _lifi .: NM _== = s: -..:. aMM - ME NM= al MN NM. m12 ma Mm MNMos ma MEN IMMINM m 1mm NMI NM ira NM MINIM MN NM ma am ma MEN NNIMNM Vms `.ME --a- NINMIrl NMI Ma �s ��=s ems= MM. Mohr NMI NiMmimaa 111=1m. _�= - ems = =E1:1" Me =s r' ismmi ���' wr -- — !MI fF NNW mom amMINAM INSIN voam NM MN MNIM MIN w _ _ imm.M NM NM MEL 1 MI -MMIMMEM_- O am am M. MIMMI NM a NY OM MMIEN n..:�.Ma -- — — �A -- --- --- ....-- 1011.1 s.MN � am Mai =-== Wm' Wm Mi. MIN MEN MO ma NMMM MPMe a�OM. NMMI NaN. MN lammmalmali esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW ON 2ND ST 20 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN NW CORNER VIEW 21 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LOOKING WEST ON MYRTLE ST 22 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN NE CORNER VIEW 23 may= rrr EMU u+i.�wr r+ .r r esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN UNION ALLEY VIEW 24 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LOOKING NORTH ON UNION ALLEY 25 1114 • 11141114, 1044 MEWL RIM WIN SIM MIN MMUS NI UM _ NM=NMI MUM=MOM g11�MO ii MINIM OM In In MI In IMUM Min MOM MINI MINEMINIL01. WW1 NI MIMI. NI 1161110100111 111.110 1111111.111 11111110701 01111.1116 MR esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SE CORNER PEDESTRIAN VIEW 26 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SW CORNER ALONG CHESTNUT 27 esc UTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN PEDESTRIAN VIEW ON 2ND ST 28 esc REUTERWALTQN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SITE PLAN 29 MYRTLE STREET SOUTHEAST 2'-5" TO P.L. 26 25 24 23 3' - 0 3/8" TO P.L. 1,211 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 1,362 SF GARAGE ACCESS 21 RAM P DOWN PARKING 1,716 SF 1 BED + DEN 930 SF — SCREENED TRANSFORMER 1 BED 895 SF 1 BED 887 SF 19 UNION ALLEY 1 BED 720 SF 1 BED 887 SF i8 4 TERRACE 2ND STREET SOUTH 1 BED 720 SF 1 BED 887 SF 1 A6 lb 1,185 SF 1 BED 887 SF 6 7 CLUB ROOM 1,127 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF 13 8 -1' - 4 1/4" TO P.L. 9 LOBBY/LEASING 1,876 SF 10 ALCOVE 583 SF 11 ALCOVE 497 SF 1,249 SF 1' - 0" TO P.L. Scale: 1" = 20'-0" TO DOWNTOWN w o2S CHESTNUT STREET SOUTHEAST PLAN NORTH esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 1 I Al 30 1,209 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 66'-0" 1 BED + DEN 849 SF 1,357 SF 66' - 0" ALCOVE 619 SF ALCOVE 644 SF 1 BED + DEN 920 SF 1 BED 720 SF 1 BED 887 SF 115' - 0" 1 BED 720 SF 1 BED 887 SF 01 115' - 0" 1 BED 720 SF 1 BED 887 SF 1 BED 720 SF 1 BED 887 SF 66' - 0" 1 BED + DEN 859 SF ALCOVE 609 SF ALCOVE 469 SF DI 0 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF 66' - 0" 1,167 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 1,249 SF Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esc REUTERWALTQN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 2-3 I A2 31 O O 14'-0" GREEN ROOF TRAYS 2 BED 1,616 SF GREEN ROOF TRAYS 2 BED 1,561 SF 2 BED 1,629 SF U 2 BED 1,440 SF 1 BED 887 SF 2 BED 1,774 SF 2 BED 1,322 SF 1 ID 0 Tr GREEN ROOF TRAYS 0 TERRACE 854 SF AMENITY 576 SF 1,566 SF GREEN ROOF TRAYS GLASS GUARDRAIL, TYPICAL AT ALL OCCUPIABLE SPACE AT LEVEL 4 14'-0" Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esc REUTERWALTQN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL 4 I A3 32 1A7 2'-5" TO P.L. GARAGE EXHAUST LOUVER 0 N_! _ 0_ • O ,.„ VP u� r STORMWATE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BELOW SLAB, SEE CIVIL RAMP UP 24'7' - O" 1' - 4 1/4" TO P.L. PARKING 27,958 SF 3.90% 0 n TRASH NYA 0 0 r, r, Scale: 1" = 20'-0" PLAN NORTH esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN LEVEL MINUS 1 I A4 33 EXTERIOR MATERIALS FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOORS FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING METAL INFILL PANEL FIBER CEMENT PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN MECHANICAL LOUVER CAST STONE SILLS BUILDING SIGNAGE ON CANOPY Milli 11.1111 m%1T71 1.1Z i milwav '• BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING PREFINISHED METAL COPING PRIMARY BUILDIJNG ENTRANCE ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM PREFINISHED METAL COPING CAST STONE WINDOW SILL MASONRY VENEER FIBER CEMENT PANEL FIBERGLASS WINDOWS Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SOUTH ELEVATION I A5 ( CHESTNUT ST) 34 EXTERIOR MATERIALS METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL FIBERGLASS WINDOW METAL PANEL NINON lin 1111111 WWI 1.1111 MEM i Awrivv BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING MECHANICAL LOUVER FIBER CEMENT PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING ■ ■• ■ ■ ■ I. ■I, ■�a■ ■■ ■■ II ■ _ ■■ ■■ ■ ■lelnil�l■i. ■ ■ ■ice ■ ■ - - ■■■I �L ■ t■■ ■■ ■1■ ■i■ ■ ■ Mel ■ ■ 1111 ■■ ■ ■ ii ■■■■im imi Er • • _ ■ ■ ■ 1`1 MASONRY VENEER FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING AT BALCONY RECESS FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOOR MASONRY VENEER BASE FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING MASONRY VENEER CAST STONE WINDOW SILL Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN WEST ELEVATION I A6 (2NDST) 35 EXTERIOR MATERIALS METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING MASONRY VENEER METAL PANEL PARAPET COPING METAL PANEL INFILL CAST STONE SILL MEIN OM m%1T:.°111.11111.51 Imv '• BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING ELEVATOR OVERRUN BEYOND MECHANICAL LOUVER FIBERGLASS SLIDING PATIO DOORS FIBERGLASS WINDOWS FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL RAILING FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN NORTH ELEVATION I A7 ( MYRTLE ST) 36 EXTERIOR MATERIALS AMENITY DECK GLASS GUARDRAIL E FIBER CEMENT PANEL AT ELEVATOR OVERRUN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM ALUMINUM BALCONY WITH GLASS GUARDRAIL PLANTINGS, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PLANTER WALLS Milli 11.1111 m%1117:1. 1.51 i milwav '• BRICK VENEER CAST STONE SILLS FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING METAL PANEL & PARAPET COPING MECHANICAL LOUVER SCREENED TRANSFORMER AREA METAL PARAPET COPING OVERHEAD DOOR - PARKING GARAGE ACCESS MASONRY VENEER METAL PARAPET COPING CAST STONE SILL Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN EAST ELEVATION I A8 ( UNION ALLEY) 37 esc RLUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN CONTEXT VIEW KEY 38 esc REUTERWALTQN DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #1 - EXISTING 39 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #1 - PROPOSED 40 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #2 - EXISTING 41 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #2 - PROPOSED 42 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #3 - EXISTING 43 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #3 - PROPOSED 44 esc R EUTER WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #4 - EXISTING 45 s - 1.1":174.k .1k. •": ; IL";'.---' • 'v.' '. .‘"-".... *� ' ~ ~r ►4406., *' 6'1� a 0 l esc R EUTER WA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #4 - EXISTING 46 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #4 - PROPOSED 47 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #5 - EXISTING 48 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #5 - EXISTING 49 esc REUTERWA LTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #5 - PROPOSED 50 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #6 - EXISTING 51 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #6 - EXISTING 52 esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN VIEW #6 - PROPOSED 53 r 06.6 ° ,oa Avs186 \ Sfi A\V-I03 / 67 � .> .R 70 L706.42 \/ NR- 706.78 63 0 =70328 \ \ 707.30 \ \707.06 \ 707.16 \ \7. \07.29 IuIV sa 679 709.08 °/° •7GP / Ge.90 5.68 p6P/» E I"moo99.s�% \ / o 02 2.5 DI c F_ 11 703.15 iNVca.of 1.7_01X7oe.z5 g= 069t Nn0G0o �\ 0_4 7a 5 705.77 705.74 01,38-0 06 706. 7GZ.40 707 29- 707 25 706 70 N 1NV.701.53 6 / 70 .sa� • 899.94 700 98 699.45 99.78 700 42 X70107 X oo.e. 50 r \ NV-sta.0 v0\24 700.02 t., 701.66 r lPl 701.01 e6 X770.e 700 82 .81MS4 158 k s-av1.4 700.60 700.00 699. 4 698.9 40 site G 70 I,H'v sso s-g I ° 8 0 5-, .52 \ 696.66 - LEGEND A SET NAIL 18425 Q FOUND MONUMENT • FOUND IRON ® SET BRASS NAIL 18425 O SET IRON 18425 • FOUND MAG NAIL - SIGN 4 HYDRANT $ WATER VALVE QS SANITARY MANHOLE ❑ CATCH BASIN B ELECTRIC BOX LIGHT Q STORM MANHOLE if WATER SHUT OFF i,'0 LIGHT ® GAS METER Q TELEPHONE MANHOLE U WELL O BOLLARD O GAS VALUE 141. TREE -0- POWER POLE • HANDICAP PARKING ▪ HAND HOLE IQ' PARKING COUNT ® AIR CONDITIONER GASMAIN SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER WATERMAIN UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE OVERHEAD UTILITIES FENCE CONCRETE STAMPED CONCRETE WALL BRICK ZONING The following zoning information is based on... Classification: Setbacks: Front: Side: Rear: Max. Height: Floor Space Area: 0 10 20 40 IN FEET PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lots 1, 2, the North 47.14 feet of Lot 3 and the South 84 feet of Lot 3, all in Block 25, City of Stillwater, according to the recorded plat thereof, Washington County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) CERTIFICATION A To Reuter Walton Development LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; Chestnut, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company; and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company: This is to Certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1-5, 7(a), 8, 9, 11 and 16 of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on January 24, 2020. Date of Plat or Map: January 27, 2020 Dennis B. Olmstead, Professional Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 18425 Email: dolmslead@alliant-inc.com NOTES A 1. This survey and the property description shown here on are based upon information 'found in the commitment for tide insurance prepared by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, file no. 64985, dated June 14, 2019. 2. The locations of underground utilities are depicted based on Gopher State One Call, available city maps, records and field locations and may not be exact. Verify critical utilities prior to construction or design. 3. The basis of bearings is assumed. 4. All distances are in feet. 5. The area of the above described property is 29,035 square feet or 0.667 acres. 6. There are 36 regular striped above ground parking stalls, 2 above ground handicap parking stalls, 19 regular underground parking stalls and 0 underground handicap parking stalls. 7. The property lies within Zone X (unshaded - areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplaln) of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Community Panel No. 27163CO266E, effective February 3, 2010. 8. There was no observed evidence of earth moving work or building construction at the time of our field work. 9. Names of adjoining owners are depicted based on Hennepin County GIS tax information. 10. Survey related exceptions set forth in Schedule B, Section Two of the Title Commitment: Item no. 6 references a Possible gap between the two parts of Lot 3 contained in the legal descrption, if the lot is more than 131.14 feet long, when measured north to south. Overlap observed in lot 3 as noted on the survey. 0.22 feet on the east and 0.08 feet on the west. Benchmark 1: MnDOT benchmark PBM 12 is a benchmark disk in concrete foundation located in Stillwater 0.05 mile E along Chestnut Street from the junction of Chestnut Stree and Trunk Highway 95 In Stillwater, 0.04 mile W of the west end of a bridge of over the Saint Croix River, 94.0 feet E of Water Street, 30.6 feet N of Chestnut Street, 25.9 feet W of the west rail of old railroad, 2.1 feet W of the southwest comer of building 408 Chestnut Street, in the south wall of a building 2.8 feet above sidewalk and has an elevation of 691.987 ft (NGVD29). Benchmark 2: Local benchmark is a TNH located at the northerly point of 200 Chestnut Street on the south corner of the Intersection of Mydle Street E and Union Alley and has an elevation of 704.36 ft (NGVD29). ALLIANT ENGINEERING 733 Marquette Ave, Ste 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612.758.3080 MAIN 612.758.3099 FAX www.alliant-inc.com AL TA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY 200 CHESTNUT STREET E STILLWATER, MINNESOTA DRAWN BY JDT,PG CHECKED BY DBO DATE ISSUED 01/27/2020 SCALE 1"=20' JOB NO. 19-0115 FIELD CREW PG Drawing name: X:\2019\190115\survey\alta\190115alta.dwg Jan 27, 2020 — 9:55am esc REUTERWALTON DEVELOPMENT 200 CHESTNUT STREET Stillwater, MN SITE SURVEY 54 ^ � 1 A I- tir G G IGH F OW BYPASS U` — CO — vJ J~ CCF I g TT -� I / I A / I-1 TI I I G ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 0 b i 1,362 SF c T —G— PR MARY r ROUG OF STORMW—PO ER TREATMENT DANK H FOOTPRINT PAR ING ROUC, H FOQTjF�t4T ORMWATER CONTROL OF S I RATE TAN K 1 BED + OEN 930 Sr T T G G G I Jr 200 CHESTNUT STREET E, STILLWATER, MN ciyijSJ P 4931 W. 35TH ST.,#200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 952.250.2003 / 763.213.394 www.CivilSiteGroup.com 1 G UNIONlALLEY (PUBuc) 1 BED 895 SF 1 BED 887 SF T c c c _LL J_ 1 BED 720 SF 1 BED 887 SF c c 2ND ST S (PUBLIC) G 1 BED 720 SF 1 BED 887 SF G 1 1,18i SF BED 887 SF T IT T T T T T G G G 44 G CLUB ROOM 1,127 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF G G 1 c G G G LOBBY/LEASING 1,876 SF 0. ALCOVE 583 SF ALCOVE 497 SF 1,249 SF TT T I G c c c «-« /44 c G 6 w 1- w w A CC (1)U� z• 60) U -0 SITE PLAN Project Number: 20347 Issue Date: 1 1 /25/20 Revision Number: Revision Date: GU 7101 30 IVf E -GU 70 ME GU 711.79 ME -CU 702151 ME GU 6 "703,9 ME Gl_ 0 705.7 ME I 70 1'8 ME G.J ME G 701.14 ME GU 701.09- - -°M E -f � E GU ' 702.06 2 BED 1,211 SF 703.18 ALCOVE 540 SF 704.58 ALCOVE 540 SF 701.07 ME GU UNION ALLEY (P BLOC) 701.17 0. DOOR 11 708.00 DOOR 7072 70P TE 70t6FOT TE 708.00 DOOR <M< U 701.05 ME GU 7 PARKING 1,716 SF 1 BED + + EN 930 S1 701.0 ME G 701.33 708.00 )OOR BED 895 SF 1 BED 887 SF 708.00 DOOR 700.97 ME GU (708.00 DOica 720 SF FFE=703.50 RAISED FEE 7nR 'nn 708.00 DOOR ?0 SF 707.91 - T T T T T d TTTTTTT6.91 �� 7QZ.23 A07'9 «1dG<IJ « ICEMECU ME GU ME GU T700.85 HE GU G 200 CHESTNUT STREET E, STILLWATER, MN CiyilSite G R O U P 4931 W. 35TH ST.,#200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 952.250.2003 / 763.213.394 www.CivilSiteGroup.com 2ND ST S (PUBLIC) 708.00 DOOR 2 BtD 1,18$ SF BED 487 708.00 DOOR DOOR 707.89 0.54 ME GU 700.73 0_ M ET GZU0_ 701_3 701.18 CLUB i'OR 1,127 SF 704.00 DOOR 704.0 DOOR �704.00 1 700.35 MET GU 7e3.50 = 703.42 �703.37 7?3.91 II ALCOVE 497 SF 705.46 1 BED + DEN707.89 TOP -zLE' 1,028 SF 701.35 B011,21/ESF ,-708.00 DOOR 708.00 DOOR 017.21 T /06.40r T T. ME GU ME GU 706.28 19 _in' -no ft_ - 700.124 ME §U 700.321 ME GUI �700.�9 ME GIJ 701.71,4 ME GJ 703.2-17 70,4. 81) M ENGI1 705.64 ME GU 706.24 ME G,c MEG" A A A L L 60 ,0 u 3 C GRADING PLAN Project Number: 20347 Issue Date: 1 1 /25/20 Revision Number: Revision Date: « « 1,211 SF ALCOVE 540 SF ALCOVE 540 SF 1,362 SF T T —G T T PARKING 1,716 SF 1 BED + OEN 930 Sr G 0 UNIONlALLEY (PLeuc) T —G TG- -13 8-SH ■ — 20 - HA2 ° 1 G-24-CR — 14-EM .•T- :4-r-f:::„If �r-�rirga.5a7a7a7a:77PAIrarar7TBraWs--ac-vaS--Rv�{` '-,E,TE'Fr ;1.76.a 4F1E4,041x404 f44: �E��313_4313 :f_1 CrartilfaiL•�1���, -milli 9�Clr�tlaTtftl:C�.9,"OXE--NeAla-5,Ft-kt. ��uE G:6 — 4 - HA3 4-AM 1 BED 895 SF 1 BED 887 SF 32-PH « << « 200 CHESTNUT STREET E, STILLWATER, MN CivilSit G R O U P 4931 W. 35TH ST.,#200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 952.250.2003 / 763.213.394 www.CivilSiteGroup.com 1 BED 720 SF 1 BED 887 SF 8-BBT T-8-SH 0 0 G G 4-HA3 1 BED 720 SF —T « « « « « « « C 2ND ST S (PUBLIC) 1 BED 887 SF BED 487 SF T 18 - HA2 —G CLUB ROOM 1,127 SF 1 BED + DEN 1,028 SF 65 - CR T T T T 30 - PH —T G G-1—G G G8 - BB G G « « <20-PH « « « « 1 ALCOVE 583 SF ALCOVE 497 SF 1,249 SF T T G G G LANDSCAPE PLAN Project Number: 20347 Issue Date: 1 1 /25/20 Revision Number: Revision Date: PLANT SCHEDULE GRASSES QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME SIZE BB 24 Blonde Ambition Blue Grama / Bouteloua gracilis 'Blonde Ambition' #1 CONT CR 102 Reed Grass / Calamagrostis brachytricha #1 CONT HA3 16 All Gold Japanese Forest Grass / Hakonechloa macra 'All Gold' #1 CONT PH 102 Heavy Metal Switch Grass / Panicum virgatum 'Heavy Metal' #1 CONT SH 32 Prairie Dropseed / Sporobolus heterolepis #1 CONT PERENNIALS QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME SIZE AM 8 Montgomery False Spiraea / Astilbe japonica 'Montgomery' #1 CONT EM 28 Magnus Purple Coneflower / Echinacea purpurea 'Magnus' #1 CONT HA2 38 Daylily / Hemerocallis x 'Chicago Apache' #1 CONT HD 8 Delta Dawn Coral Bells / Heuchera x 'Delta dawn' #1 CONT 1 " = 20'-0" 10'-0" 0 20'-0" 200 CHESTNUT STREET E, STILLWATER, MN ANDSCAPE SCHEDULE ST. LOUIS 952 250 2003 PARK,6 763.213.394 G R O U P www.CivilSiteGroup.com Project Number: 20347 Issue Date: 11/25/20 Revision Number: Revision Date: Abbi Wittman From: Kristina Marshall <> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 1:58 PM To: Abbi Wittman Subject: Re: FW: Concerns regarding the Chestnut Building project Attachments: 20201014_142930.jpg; 20201022_112618jpg; 20201014_142916jpg [CAUTION] *** This email originated from outside the organization. *** Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Abby! I had a chance to look over the proposed plans and would like to officially submit the following concerns as a downtown business owner: My first concern is the height of the project they are proposing. I know they are asking for a height variance to be able to build a 4th story onto the project, making it about 13 ft higher than what the current height restriction allows. My studio is located right up the road on Chestnut (118 Chestnut Street East), I'm on the 2nd story and have windows that look out to the East. According to the builders, the current Chestnut Building height is estimated to be around the current height restriction, and I'm really worried that building a 4th story onto that is going to be a monster of a building, and will definitely be impacting surrounding buildings. I'm including some photos taken looking out my windows, and you can see where the current Chestnut building height is. I cannot imagine having another 13 ft of building on top of that. While the 4th story would be set back, I think it will really tower over the surrounding buildings. Especially the 1 story buildings on the corner. Having a 3 story building alone built on that full lot will really change the landscape of the block as it will be a big tower on a space that has mostly been open parking or courtyard space. I understand it's their right to build up to the 37' height, but I am concerned about them getting the 4th story variance and setting a precedent for future developments. A lot of their renderings they showed during the presentation were from higher vantage points, looking down on the building. As a photographer I know that perspective is everything, and from a downward viewpoint size is minimized and can be deceiving. My second concern is their request for the parking variance. I know they are requesting to do only 1 parking spot per unit, not the 1.3 spots the city currently requires. If they only did 1 space per unit (73), instead of the 95 they would need at the 1.3 multiplier. That's 22 spaces they are shorting per current city requirements. I'm also concerned about the parking variance because it is quite possible for 2 adults to live in even the 1 bedroom apartments which could equal 2 cars for just those units alone (not to mention more for the 2 bedroom units). If only one car can fit in the underground parking, where will the other car(s) be parked? I'm worried that these cars will take up valuable parking spaces elsewhere in downtown. We're already losing quite a few open parking spots (about 14 if my math is correct) with this project with the loss of the small parking lot on the property (not including the lower and upper parking garage space that's currently designated for Chestnut Building business). It appears from their parking study they are saying the peak parking demand will be from lOpm - 5am. However, in their other document they noted that "The emerging trend toward more frequent telecommuting among the workforce is likely to create increased demand for housing in places like Stillwater" which if that's the case and more people are working from home means those cars will likely be in Stillwater throughout the day and not just in that 1 Opm-5am timeslot. Something to take into consideration. i Again, mainly wanted to voice my concerns as a way to spark conversation and make sure the city is looking at all aspects of how this project might impact the downtown area. If anyone would like to see my space to really get a feel for how this building could change the viewpoint from this perspective I'd be happy to arrange that. Thanks so much! KRISTINA MARSHALL Kristina Lynn Photography & Design I Owner & Photographer www.kristinalynnphoto kristina@kristinalynnphoto.com • (651) 968-1635 Minnesota Studio • 118 Chestnut Street East, Stillwater, MN 55082 Iowa Studio • 106 1st Ave SE, Clarion, IA 50525 o On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 12:00 PM Kristina Marshall<kristina@kristinalynnphoto.com> wrote: Hi Abbi! Thanks so much for sending those over. I glanced through them and they are definitely more in depth than what was presented back in October. Very helpful! I'll take a peek at them and then resubmit my concerns :) THANK YOU! 2 ✓s. 1r_ CURRENT CHESTNUT BUILDING ROOFLINE as>1Q c .1 4t7. rt Cn .1L V•4 r CURRENT CHESTNUT BUILD NG ROOFLINE A _-1'A•� r, C''`45i s 1£.; -r�� "' '.?r.,�' . .,�. 7,A k,.1,, I d C,r, CI �. CURRENT CHESTNUT BUILDING ROOFLINE • Constance J. Paiement, Attorney Joseph M. Paiement, Attorney December 12, 2020 vpJE LAW OFFICE -- Licensed Attorneys in Minnesota and Wisconsin Stillwater City Council Members; Stillwater Planning Commission Members; & Stillwater Heritage Preservation Commission 216 4th St N Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: 200 Chestnut St East Property 221 East Myrtle Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 T 651.967.5050 F 651.967.5055 www.paiementIaw.com Dear Stillwater City Council; Planning Commission; & Heritage Preservation Members: This letter is regarding the proposed apartment building on the city block at 200 Chestnut St East, Stillwater, MN. The undersigned own the property at 221 East Myrtle Street (Paiement Law Office) and as neighboring property owners we strongly object to the proposed apartment structure at 200 Chestnut Street East for the following reasons. Parking Issues — Based on the Pioneer Press article on the project dated December 11, 2020, the apartment complex will be a 73-unit building, with 44 one -bedroom, 10 one -bedroom plus, and 19 two - bedroom apartments, with only 73 on -site parking spots. For the size of the project the parking ordinances require 134 parking spaces, almost double what the proposed plans have. As for on -street parking, there are currently 22 parking spaces around the property: 10 spaces on 2nd Street, 3 on Chestnut, and 8 on Union Alley. The spaces on Union Alley and Chestnut are always at least 90% occupied 24/7. With the Chestnut building now empty, even during COVID with many businesses in the area shut down and people working remotely, people are routinely using the Chestnut building parking lot as overflow parking, and there is generally half a dozen or more cars in the lot during the business week. When businesses are not shut down for COVID and in nice weather the parking is even more in demand. In the last two years we have already seen the parking in our area shrink. First, the City decided to make the east side of Union Alley all no parking for 5 months of the year and now there appears to be a semi- permanent loss of several more parking spaces on Chestnut Street between Main Street and Union Alley. There are businesses and apartments on Main Street between Myrtle and Chestnut that the closest parking is the Union Alley and Chestnut Street on -street parking spots and there are already too few spots to accommodate current needs. The surrounding streets can no accommodate the additional demands of a 73-unit apartment building with not enough parking for all their tenants and guests. City of Stillwater Page 2 We also own a unit in Terra Springs, and the units in Terra Springs all have one underground parking spot and many have two, yet the outdoor parking on the property is generally full all the time. The proposed apartment complex for the Chestnut building needs to have on -site parking to accommodate, at a minimum, all their residents. Variance for Height — The Heritage Preservation Commission has developed over the years very specific strict rules for the downtown area to attempt to preserve a historic downtown look. We recall the two hour meeting/debate we had with the Commission simply to convert the non -working torn roll -out awning on Union Alley side of our building with new aluminum fixed awnings before it was finally agreed that we could replace the awnings so long as we kept all the mechanics of the roll -outs. The proposed apartment complex is looking for a major variance of 9 feet on half the site size, or one-half of a full city block. They claim it doesn't block any views. We disagree, for the most part our windows look to the west and will be directly looking at the new structure. The new structure will block all our views of the beautiful historic buildings we see that are on Chestnut Street, 2nd Street, and 3rd Street, in addition to some beautiful large homes sitting up on the hill. The additional height will cause even further loss of natural lighting into our building. For the reasons stated above, we are asking the City to deny the variances to the parking and the height on the proposed apartment complex at 200 East Chestnut Street. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please feel free to contact us at 651-967-5050 or ioe{a�.paiementlaw.com and connie(c2paiementlaw.com. Sincerely, Jo ph Paieme Co stance Paie �1� ilwater ' H E BIRTH P L A C E OF M I N N F S p I A HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December 16, 2020 REGARDING: Downtown Lighting Study PREPARED BY: Abbi Jo Wittman, City Planner The City retained the services of Short Elliot Henderickson Inc. (SHE) to assess the condition of the existing lighting system within downtown Stillwater and to provide data and strategies for ongoing lighting system improvements. A significant amount of that study's content has been embedded, word for word, into this staff memo. The study was conducted because the aging City and Xcel Energy owned street lighting systems are nearing their end of life. The study allows for the city to develop lighting management strategies and evaluate construction costs associated with replacement lighting systems. Approximately 204, 15' decorative and 35' overhead light poles were included in the study. A map of the study area is attached for Commission review. Decorative Poles Historically the downtown area consisted of fluted poles equipped with incandescent glass post acorn tops. While similar to what is currently along Main Street, similar ones are only found on the historic Lift Bridge and Concourse, Lowell Park Plaza and along Sam Bloomer way. Along Main Street hexagonal lantern luminaires have been installed as part of a contract with Xcel Energy. Xcel Energy no longer is offering this design to the City. Examples of the three different types of existing downtown acorn lights as well as the existing Main Street pedestrian lights are attached for Commission review. Overhead Poles Shoebox style overhead luminaires are located throughout the downtown along streets and in parking lots. While these have been able to blend with the existing architecture, these are a part of an Xcel system that are no longer under contract for maintenance. Cobrahead luminaires and their round poles are minimally scattered through the downtown. They have been utilized as a replacement to the for the shoebox poles. However, these are not typically installed in areas where aesthetics are a concern. Recommendations The study recommends the City remove all underground conductors, existing poles and luminaries, and all but one of the lighting controllers and replace them with completely new lighting equipment utilizing LED technology. The study explored existing lighting levels and made recommendation for pole replacement to minimize undesirable lighting effects in and adjacent to the Stillwater Commercial Historic District. The study proposes removing certainly lighting fixtures and adding others in different locations. The intent of this is to balance the amount of lighting there is on Main Street, an area that already exceeds industry requirements, and the side streets. Options for decorative pole replacement included finding a design similar to what is located on Main Street or acorn -style lights consistent with those in place between the 1930s and 1950s. Staff recommended the latter option would be the most acceptable to the HPC and, at their last regularly -scheduled meeting, the City Council concurred. These lights would not exceed 3500K Additionally, all overhead lighting would be replaced with a square post and LED with full cut off. While these luminaires may exceed 3500K the intention is for vehicular safety. An example of the replacement poles and luminaires is attached for Commission review. Commission Discussion Staff worked with the City's Public Works and Engineering Department on this project, advocating for the use of historic street lamp designs. Viewing this as a maintenance project, one that will not be initiated for several years, it was not the intention to bring this for HPC Design Permit consideration. Staff is bringing this to the HPC for discussion purposes. HPC comments and concerns will be shared with the City. HPC: March 21, 2018 Page 2 of 2 Downtown Street Lights Wattage - HPS Current or Expired Xcel Contract • 70 Hexagonal Lantem ® 100 Hexagonal Lantem • 200 Shoebox • 250 Shoebox 0 125 250 500 Feet Brepee likvren. Sin I. I572S9 J/ Prim Dal.: 6l162020 GIS Data Furnished By .� City of Stillwater SEH Downtown Street Lights Stillwater, Minnesota FIGURE 1 Existing Pole Location Map 2.7 Downtown Roadway Lighting Units — Tapered Fluted Fiberglass Pole with Hexagonal Lantern STILL 152259 Page 8 Description: • 15' fiberglass fluted pole • 70W & 100WHPS lantern style post top luminaire • Mounted on existing concrete base • Installed in 1999 Findings: • Bell bases are scuffed and dinged due to snow removal activities • Majority of poles have numerous years of usable life remaining • Concrete bases are in acceptable condition • Some luminaires are loose on pole top tenons Recommendation: • Replace HPS luminaire with new post top LED luminaire • Touch up pole paint finish • Poles can be commercially pressure washed and painted in place Downtown Lighting System Study City of Stillwater, Minnesota Catalog Number Notes LEADER IN t [GI rm.:G SO1.L I IOVS Type AWDE3 Acrylic Washington Postlite Utility LED3 SPECIFICATIONS General Desuiption The Acrylic Washington Postlite Utility LED3 is designed for ease of maintenance with the plug-in electrical module common to each of the luminaires in Holophane's Utility Luminaire Series. The large acorn -shaped luminaire, while reminiscent of the 1920's, contains a powerful, stalk -mounted Chip -On -Board, LED platform with a precision optical system that maximizes post spacings while maintaining uniform illumination MedianitaI It ecif rati oni The luminaire housing shall: • Be heavy grade A360 cast aluminum (aluminum with <1%copper) • IP55 rated housing provides tool -less access with a spring -loaded latch • Incorporate a hidden hinge door allowing the door to swing open and remain open • Offer units with an EEI- NEMA twist lock photocontrol receptacle, the housing contains a tempered glass window to allow light to reach the cell • Mount to slip -fitter that will accept 3"high by2-7/8"to3-1/8"O.D.pole tenon • Provide four uniquely designed stainless steel spring clips, enclosed in a dear polyvinyl chloride sleeve and adjusted by 1/4-20 hex -head bolts that securely cradle the prismatic acrylic refractor. The same 1/4-20 bolts also support the decorative rib and banding assembly The finish shall: • Utilize a polyester power coat paint to ensure maximum durability • Meet 5000-hour salt spray • Offer Tiger Drylac finishes that are applied by a Tiger Drylac certified facility. Electrical Specifications The driver shall meet the following requirements: • Certified by UL or CSA for wet locations • A factory programmable electronic driver with 0-10V dimming control leads • LEDs shall have a minimum of 70 CRI and available in 2700K, 3000K, 4000K, and 5000K CCT • The electrical system shall be designed to meet ANSI/IEEE C62.41.2 and shall offera 10kV/5kA surge protection, fail off, as standard with an upgradable 20kV/10kA surge protection, fail off with indicator light, option • Lumen output can be customized prior to manufacturing by way of FPDxx Options • The electrical components are mounted on an aluminum plate that is removeable with minimum use of tools. A matching five conductor plug connectsto the receptacle in the luminaire housing to complete the wiring. For photoelectric operation, the electrical module is provided with an EEI-NEMA twist -lock photocell receptacle. V.51/9•--- LOWELL PARK 3' 7" Maximum weight - 37 Ibs Maximum effective projected area - 2.19 sq. ft. Optical 5pecificati ons The optical system is IP66 rated and consists of a precisely molded thermal resistant acrylic refractor and top reflector mounted within the decorative acrylic optic. The top reflector redirects over 50% of the upward light into the controlling refractor while allowing a soft up - light component to define the traditional acorn shape of the luminaire. The lower refractor uses precisely molded prisms to maximize the pole spacings while maintaining uniform illuminance. Two refractors are available, designed for IES type III and V distributions. Lunar Optics shielding Is available for asymmetric and symmetric distributions. Control Options The control options shall include, but not limited to, the following: • Field adjustable output to adjust output to luminaire - AO • Long life photocontrol, 20 years — PCLL, P34 and P48 with DTL • 3 and 7 pin receptacles internally in housing (PR3, PR7) or inside acrylic lens mounted (PR7E) • nLight Air rSBOR6 outdoor fixture -mounted motion and photo -sensor, features a dual radio to communicate wirelessly to other nLight Air devices for group response to motion, on/off control in response to daylight and by switch — RSBOR6 • Fixture embedded nLight Air network interface for individual fixture control and dimming - NLTAIR2. Certification and Standards • Luminaire shall be UL or CSA listed. • Suitable for operation in an ambienttemperatureupto40°C/105°Fper ULorCSAcertification • LM79 compliant • DesignLights Consortium® (DLC) Premium qualified product and DLC qualified product. Not all versions of this product may be DLC Premium qualified or DLC qualified. Please check with the DLC Qualified Products List at www.designlights.org/OPL to confirm which versions are qualified. Warranty — S Years Limited Complete warranty terms located at: www,a(ut tybrands.com/suouort/cU5tom er•sUngortherms-a nd-cttndittan.5 Note: Actual performance may differ as a result of end -user environment and application. All values are design or typical values, measured under laboratory conditions at 25 °C. '��c9.If�� Ilid�:{�i•aa• • .:•:1 r rhr+rlprl+Nd . hr°r'rtI 1)$$ it r . "'IrI .i`w rf�;[:1I.[1.[;r • ad IP • .. 11 �rFi!'�l5 LIFT BRIDG CONCOURSE State Street LED 2 Special: Modified optical system, Custom spike finial, Internally treated for frosted look 017 1/4" O O ORDERING INFORMATION State Street LED Series - LED Performance Package 30 - 3000 Series CCT - Auto -Sensing Voltage (120-277) - Custom Matched Color, Federal Green #34097 - Symmetric Type V optics - SPECIAL: Internally Frosted Optics - SPECIAL: Custom cross finial, Custom Matched Color - 20ft Prewired Leads - House Side Shield, Perforated 180 CONCEPTUAL MODIFICATION TO FINIAL COULD VARY SLIGHTLY Catalog I; Fixture: STLE2P3030KASCMC45(MOD)(FROST)(R)CMCL2OWLED HSS18PERF RFD267607 Customer SlaReture Date HOLOPHANE LEADER IN LIGHTING SOLUTIONS An ricuityBrandsCompany St. Croix River Bridge Concourse ORDER #: 2043-17-13802-2 TYPE: Special REVISION: 3 DRAWN: MAB REVISION DATE: ORIGIN DATE: DRAWING it TSG01035 PAGE: 1 TMB DRAWING, WFEN APPROVED, WW1 BECOME THE COMPLETE SPECIFICATION FOR THE MATERIAL TO BE FURNISHED BY HOLOPHANE ON THE ORDER NOTED ABOVE, AUNT OF SIMILAR DESIGN MAY BE SUPPLIED, BUT ONLY AFTER APPROVAL BYTFE CUSTOMER IN WRITING ON POLE ORDERS AN ANCHOR BOLT TEMPLATE PRINT WILL BE SUPPLIED WITH EACH ANCHOR BOLT ORDER TO MATCH THE POLE PROVIDED THIS PRINT IS THE PROPERTY OF HOLOPHANE AND IS LOANED SUBJECT TO RETURN UPON DEMAND ANO UPON EMPRESS CONDITION TTMT IT WILL NOT BE USE0 DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN ANY WAY DETRIMENTAL TO OUR INTERESTS, AND ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH MATERIAL FURNISHED BY HOLOPHAIE REV. ALTERATION DATE BY 48 1/4' #1 FINIAL CAST ALUM. PAINT! GOLD TO FIT OVER 3' O.D. TENON x 3 1/2' LONG SAM BLOOMER TRAIL CHECK PAINT N SMOOTH ** CODE XBLACK (RAL 9017) BK DARK BRONZE (RAL 8019) DB ❑ FEDERAL GREEN (RAL 6012) FG ❑ DARK GREEN (RAL 6005) DG ACRYLIC GLOBE ASSEMBLY EXTERNAL REFRACTOR CAST ALUM. RDTD-LOCK GLOBE RING ASSEMBLY (SEE COLOR CHART) STAINLESS STEEL CORD K18 CAPITAL CAST ALUMINUM (SEE COLOR CHART) PHOTO -EYE DOOR ASSEMBLY 3/8-16 STAINLESS STEEL HEX HEAD BOLTS CUSTOMER ORDER No: 4504562216 KING U.S. UItUtR No: S-KUS-2006219 BSE ITEM# 2669238 KiNU U.S b1UlK I:uDG: A REVISED SCREW SIZE 051001 TB B WIRE SUSPENSION LOOP REPLACED BY TAB. 05/18/04 M.M. C HANGER TAB REPLACED BY SUSPENSION LOOP. 08/24/04 D PAINT WAS TEXT. BZ RAL 8019 04/10/18 A.A. E ADDED COLOR CHART, SCREWS WERE SETSCREWS 05/08/20 G.2. SPECIFICATIONS CATALOGUE NO.: QUANTITY: GLOBE MAT'L: IES CLASSIFIC.: WATTAGE: LIGHT SOURCE: LINE VOLTAGE: POLE ADAPTOR: LAMP BY OTHERS K118R-EAR-II-100(MOG) -HPS-120(MT)-K18 2 ACRYLIC TYPE II 100W HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM 120V (MULTI -TAP) K18 BALLAST INFORMATION: BALLAST TYPE: HX-HPF BALLAST MANU.: MAGNETEK / ADVANCE CATALOG NUMBER: S100MLTLC3M / 71A8091 OPTIONS: QUICK DISCONNECT TERMINAL BLOCK OTHER: NDTE1 LUMINAIRE SHALL BE PREWIRED WITH ONE BLACK, ONE WHITE AND ONE GREEN, #12 GAUGE, STRANDED COPPER, 600 VOLT, INSULATED CONDUCTOR TYPE THHN OR THWN, EACH CONDUCTOR 20 FOOT LONG. HARNESS TO BE COMPLETE WITH QUICK DIS-CONNECT, NOTE: FIXTURE TO BE PACKED IN ONE CARTON, HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 48 INCHES. CUSTOMER APPROVAL: I Itt 1� KING LUMINAIRE CANT INC. 11140 WALKER'S LIFE, P.O. BOX 7, P.O. BOX 266 JEFFERSDN. 0HI0 BU2LINGT134, ONTARIO, CANABA L7R 3X9 1153 STATE ROUTE 46N USA. 44047 bRAWING NAME: APPROVAL DWG PROJECT/CUSTOMER: XCEL - K118-EAR \S P E CI FI CA 11 ON SVC E L/XCEL— K 118— H I D DWG NUMBER XCEL-K118-HID-2 DATE; 04/24/01 DWG BY: A.A. REV. E HK.SY Sidwalk _ 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 9.7 0.7 9.6 1.0 .2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0,4 6.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 9.4 0.4 'OA .0.4 d-5 0-5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 ty 7.2 .1.3 1.4 1.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 OS 0.5 0-6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 .............. s s _.. Y ,� .7 � .7 4 r 1.4 1.1 7A 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.T 0.b 8.B 0,6 0.,5 � C.5 O.S.-.-P.S 0.5 4�5 0.5 0,5 9S fl_4 0.6 0-5 9.7 _Q 7Qai 9.9 1.0 13 1.4 1.6 1.7 1. 0▪ .63 0▪ .67 0.72 1▪ .0 1.39 1.89 1.89 1.39 1▪ .01 0.72 0.67 0.63 0.63 0▪ .67 0▪ .72 1.0 1• .39 • ■ • • ■ • • • • • ■.. ■ • ■ • • --- 0.84 0.83 - -0.82- 1.86 - 1.86 1.12 0.82 - �•83-0.�84- _ 0.84 0.8 3 0.82 • • -• • • • 1.08 1.01 \ 0.99 1.1 ' 1.60 1.79 1.79 1▪ .6. 1.13 0.90 1.01 1.08 1.08 1.01 0.9 0 1.1 .. \ 3 • .. • 9 v • / •• _ .� •_ . a ,-... • • • �.33- ' -i .2'1--�0� S 1.f� = .. 1.58 1.113 -0.85 4 1-.33- •1.3 0.95 -1.0 ,� 1.58 1.4 1.03 0.95 1.21 1.33 1.33 1.21 0.95 1.0 1.44 1.58 1.58 1 1 1.03 10.95 1.21 •• 1.79 1.60 1-.13 0.5ia-. 1.91 1.08 . .08 1 0.960 - -1.79 1.79 1.60 1.13 -0.9fi- 1.01 • • 1.86 1.60 1.12 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.82 1.1 ' 1.60 1.86 1.86 1.60 r 1.12 • 0.82 0.83 - 1.89 1 1.07 0.72 0.47 0.63n...63 00.97 0.72-----CO-1 61.39--4.89- • -4 1.01-D.72 0.67 4 i- 190ft ......_ --I Contemporary Shoebox LED Full -cutoff Proposed Lighting Levels 35' Leotek Arieata AR-13 72W LED 1 Calculation Summary I Label I CaleType Units Roadway_ lllum Illuminance Fc Sidewalk Illuminance Fc Avg 1.18 0.83 Proposed For Side Streets Max 1.89 1.7 FIGURE 4 Min 0.63 0.4 Avg/Min Max/Min 1.87 3.00 2.08 ] 4.25 1.79< .58 1.33 1.08 0.84 0.63 • 2.85ft -. -- • . Sidwalk "7-- -\\,.. 1_,.. 04, OA 0.8 0.6 • 1.3 1.7 •1 .0.7 .0.7 .0.6 .0.7 64 1.6 1.7 -.1 0.2 2.4 0.4 CS Ca 4.1 1.6 1.7 0.3 0.7 0.6''.1.....\aIA- -- • . • • -...-..•*---• ‘ • . ' • . • :( • ..... • •Ii 41 'ill fiAl .1.1 .3 X 11.9 is ..--._u 1.1 1.2 •?..1 2.3 1.7 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1...e 1.8 ".3-,x_2 1_2 '1.1 'CO .1.1 .1.8 .2:1 ./.9 .1.3 .1.1 .1.0 .1.11 .1.i 7.5 .2.,1 . 4 *1.4 4-3-lit-----. 1,52 .1.11 . .1.67 • .1.76 1• .27 k .1.54 1.65/ .2.09 .249.17 1.26 ...I .1.52 _ .1.40_ -la 1.42 .1 99..1..55 1.41 ' .2.01 .1.39 1.I9_. .1.68 1.41 . .- . -.1-_,2-5 -.4-.33 .1 1.44 .45 1.7.3 .4.37 .1.24 .1.47 ......."04,- 1. 22 1.40 .1.22 .1.50 . . • -- .1.23 A32 ,. 1.04 . . _!1.26_ ..1.15_ A.44 .-1 a 1 .1.49 ----- .4.34 1 06 1.47 • .1 .oa .1ctia • 1.34 1'-7'AS . . N.....___ 1.47 .. • --- 1.01 1.45 145 • 5 1.5 1.49 ",.1.0c 1.39 .1.23- 104 1.54 N....N.1.09 .1.31 • . 1.24 1• .37 _LAI__ 21.45_ .1.33 1 .2a .1.30 1 66 1.39 117 2 32 %Be 3,47 fLIP e 2• .00 1• .41 C=> • .1.99 .1.42 is .1.40 .1.28 47 .1.48 2 . 1▪ .78 1.40 • .1.53 .1.7g \ 1.34 .1.36 • --- • Proposed Lighting Levels - 8 Poles 15Holophane Washington 66W LED Calculation Summary Label 1 CalcType Units Avg Max Min i Avg/Min Max/Min RoadOpt_1_111um Illuminance Fc 1.58 3.49 1.01 1.56 3.46 Sidewalk Illuminance Fc 1.23 2.4 0.6 2.05 4.00 Proposed For Downtown Main Street And Key Areas FIGURE 5