Apr 15, 2026 Heritage Preservation Commission

[I. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:08]

EVERYONE. I WILL CALL THE. THE FIND THE AGENDA HERE. WE'LL CALL IT THE APRIL 15TH, 2026 MEETING OF THE STUART HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. TO ORDER. TONIGHT WE HAVE COMMISSIONER SUMMERS HOLMES, MINA. TUCSON, HJEMDAHL, FINN AND LARSEN. AND ABSENT TONIGHT IS COUNCIL MEMBER COLLINS. SO MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES. THE POTENTIAL APPROVAL

[III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

ACTUALLY, WHAT I MEANT WAS TO INCREASE THE OFFSETS ON EITHER SIDE. THEY WERE ALREADY THERE, SO MINOR. BUT IF WE COULD ADD THAT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. SECOND SENTENCE. FIFTH PARAGRAPH. OKAY. ANY OTHER REVISIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL WITH THE CHANGE THAT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLMES. YOU KNOW. SECOND MOTION A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS. ABSTAIN AS WELL. OKAY, SO THE MOTION PASSES WITH FIVE VOTES IN FAVOR AND TWO ABSTENTIONS, THE ABSTENTIONS BEING VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER FENNELL. WE'LL MOVE ON THEN TO THE OPEN FORUM, WHICH IS TIME FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE MEETING AGENDA. THE COMMISSION MAY TAKE ACTION, REPLY OR GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF. WE ASK THAT ANYONE SPEAKING AT THE OPEN FORUM LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS. IS ANYONE HERE FOR THE OPEN FORUM TONIGHT? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NOBODY, I WILL CLOSE THE OPEN FORUM. WE HAVE NO ITEMS UNDER THE CONSENT

[2. Case No. CD2026-001: Design Review approval for a new single-family dwelling at 1824 1st St N – (Staff Reviewer: Johnny Menhennet, 651-430-8822, jmenhennet@stillwatermn.gov)]

[00:05:03]

THE BLANK PART OF THE FOUNDATION WALL HAS BEEN REPLACED BY THE STONE THAT IS INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN THE DOWNSTAIRS WALK OUT DOOR TO THE PATIO ON THE LOWER LEVEL HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH WINDOWS COMPATIBLE AND ALIGNED WITH THOSE ABOVE. THESE ARE THE RENDERINGS FROM THAT SAME PERSPECTIVE, LOOKING AT THE EAST SIDE, WHERE YOU AGAIN SEE MORE PRONUNCIATION OF THE ROOF FORM, YOU SEE THE STONE IN THE EXPOSED FOUNDATION WALL. YOU CAN ALSO HEAR. SEE THE WAY THAT THE SIDING HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN AROUND THE CORNER OF THE HOME SO THAT ALL SIDES OF THE HOME ARE TREATED EQUALLY, AND YOU DON'T HAVE A DIFFERENTIATION IN HEIGHT OF SIDING AT THE CORNERS. NOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE WEST ELEVATION, YOU SEE FEWER CHANGES FROM THIS ELEVATION OTHER THAN AGAIN, THE MORE THE GREATER PRONUNCIATION OF THAT CENTRAL ELEMENT OF THE HOME THROUGH THE INCREASE IN HEIGHT TO THE ROOF MASS THERE. BUT IN THE RENDERING, YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE MORE CLEARLY THE WAY IN WHICH THAT HIDDEN ADDITIONAL GARAGE DOOR WILL FUNCTION WITH THE SLIGHT ADDITION OF AN ACCESS DOOR TO THE SIDE OR REAR YARD SHOWN FOR ENTERING AND EXITING THE HOME GARAGE WITHOUT THE NEED TO OPEN THOSE DOORS, THOSE LARGER GARAGE DOORS. NOW FOR THE NORTH SIDE, THE MAIN PART OF THE HOME. AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE WAY THAT THE COMMISSIONER FEEDBACK HAS INCREASED THE HEIGHT OR HAS LED TO THE INCREASE OF HEIGHT IN THE ROOF LINE. BEFORE IT WAS NOT AS NOTICEABLE THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIATION. AND NOW YOU CAN TELL THE WAY THAT THIS CENTRAL MASS HAS BEEN LIFTED, AND YOU CAN SEE THE SIDING THAT COMES DOWN FROM RIGHT AT THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE WINDOWSILL TO THE GROUND, AND GREATER CHANGES IN GRADE BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR GREATER VISIBILITY OUT OF BOTH TO THIS LOWER LEVEL. AND THEN FROM THAT LOWER LEVEL. THESE ARE WHAT THOSE RENDERINGS LOOK LIKE FROM THE EARLIER ON TOP TO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL ON BOTTOM. AND FINALLY, OUR SOUTH ELEVATION, THE ONE ELEVATION THAT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE MUCH VISIBILITY FROM ANY STREET, BUT NONETHELESS, FOUR SIDED DESIGN PRINCIPLES HERE SHOW THE WAY THAT THE GRADE OF THE LOWER LEVEL THAT EXPOSED FOUNDATION WALL HAS BEEN LOWERED, AND THE SIDING TREATMENTS HAVE BEEN APPLIED MORE CONSISTENTLY ACROSS HERE. AND YOU CAN SEE THE ADDITION OF THE ENTRANCE DOOR TO THE SIDE OF THE GARAGE. NOW, HERE IS WHAT THE RENDERINGS OF THAT SOUTH SIDE LOOK LIKE. RATHER THAN THIS EXPOSED FOUNDATION WALL, YOU CAN SEE THE WAY THAT THE SIDING SLOPES WITH THE NATURAL GRADE ON THIS STEEP SLOPED LOT. ADDITIONALLY, WHEREAS THERE WAS AN INCONSISTENCY IN THE WAY THAT THE WINDOWS WERE PORTRAYED PRIOR, THEY'VE NOW BEEN MADE CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL RENDERINGS AND ELEVATIONS ON THAT UPPER EXIT FROM THE HOME'S LIVING SPACE TO THE DECK. THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN UPDATED TO SHOW THAT THE PORCH, OR THE STOOP AND THE CANTILEVERED PORTICO, WHICH ARE PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS PER THE ZONING CODE, HAVE BEEN REDUCED DOWN TO THREE FEET FROM BEING SET AT THE PROPERTY LINE IN THE PRIOR ITERATION OF THE SITE PLAN. WHAT HAS BEEN UPDATED FROM LAST MONTH? THE SITE PLAN IS NOW CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED VARIANCE WITH THE PORCH AND PORTICO REDESIGNED. THE HIDDEN GARAGE DOOR IS MORE ACCURATELY DEPICTED IN THE 3D RENDERING. THERE IS CONSISTENCY IN DOORS AND WINDOWS ON THE DECK DOOR. THE ADDITION OF EAST ELEVATION WINDOWS ADJACENT TO THE WALKOUT DOOR. ON THAT LOWER LEVEL, WE HAVE ONE FOOT OF HEIGHT INCREASE ON THE ROOF FORM IN THE CENTER OF THE STRUCTURE. WHEN VIEWED FROM WILLOW STREET, THE. THERE'S AN ADDITION OF AN ACCESS DOOR TO THE GARAGE ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION. THE SIDING ON BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH SOUTHERN ELEVATIONS HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN TO THE GROUND LEVEL AND IS NOW MATCHING AT THE CORNER WITH THAT WHICH IS PRESENTED ON THE EAST, AND WHERE ROCK AND STONE IS TO BE EXPOSED ON FOUNDATION. IT'S NOW DEPICTED RATHER THAN JUST DESCRIBED. SO OUR RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE DESIGN SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE ON FILE IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF

[00:10:01]

THEN WE'LL INVITE THE APPLICANTS TO COME UP AND SPEAK TO US AT THE PODIUM, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION AMONG THE COMMISSION AND AND TAKE ACTION FROM THERE. SO WITH THAT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? I DON'T SEE ANY. SO I GUESS I WILL INVITE THE APPLICANT TO COME UP TO THE TO THE MICROPHONE. AND THERE'S A BUTTON ON THE LEFT SIDE THERE. THERE YOU GO. OKAY. GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

YEP. I'M BILL VEZINA OR WILLIAM VEZINA. CURRENT ADDRESS IS 1008 EAGLE RIDGE COURT, STILLWATER.

AND MY MYSELF, MY WIFE SUE ARE THE APPLICANTS. AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TONIGHT.

WE JUST HOPE THAT YOU FIND THESE NEW RENDERINGS, THESE UPDATES, SUITABLE. WE DID FIND SOME OF YOUR INPUTS FROM LAST MONTH ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTIVE, IN PARTICULAR, RAISING THE MASS OF THE CENTER OF THE HOUSE ACTUALLY DOES LOOK BETTER THAT WAY. IT WAS A GOOD SUGGESTION, AND WE WERE ABLE TO PUT A LITTLE MORE DETAIL INTO THE DESIGN. SINCE THEN, AS YOU JUST SAW DEPICTED. AND THANK YOU. YEAH, WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR APPROVAL AND WE'LL BE OFF AND RUNNING. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? YEAH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NOT SEEING ANY. SO THANK YOU. WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP IF WE IF WE DO. SOUNDS GOOD.

THANKS. SO NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSION DISCUSSION. I JUST LIKE TO THANK STAFF FOR A GREAT PRESENTATION SHOWING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN. WHEN WE GET CHANGES LIKE THAT, SO OFTEN IT'S IT'S LEFT TO US TO EXTRAPOLATE INTERPOLATE WHAT'S CHANGED. BUT YOU MADE IT VERY CLEAR. SO THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR RESPONDING CONSTRUCTIVELY TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS HERE. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY DID A GOOD JOB. YEAH. I'LL SECOND THAT. YOU KNOW I THINK AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, YOU TOOK INTO ACCOUNT EVERYTHING THAT CAME UP LAST MONTH AND THAT SEEMS TO BE IN A GOOD SPOT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS FROM THE COMMISSION? MR. CHAIR, I WOULD JUST ADD THAT I WAS NOT HERE LAST MONTH, BUT I'M QUITE IMPRESSED WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED, VERY DETAIL ORIENTED AND REALLY MADE IT A MUCH BETTER PROJECT. AND I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANTS WORKING WITH THE COMMISSION HERE. SO THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION IN THE PACKET GRANTING APPROVAL WITH, I THINK, THE THREE BOILERPLATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. I CAN'T REMEMBER IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONS OR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WE WERE DISCUSSING IN THE PAST. NONE COME TO MIND, CHAIR. THERE PREVIOUSLY WAS ONE ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT'S BEEN REMOVED IN THE PAST MONTH.

THAT CONDITION WAS CALLING FOR A LANDSCAPING PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED TO COVER THAT BLANK, EXPOSED FOUNDATION WALL. BUT NOW THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE BROUGHT THE SIDING DOWN TO GRADE LEVEL AND DEPICTED WHERE THERE WILL BE STONE, THAT CONDITION TO REQUIRE LANDSCAPING AS SCREENING HAS BEEN REMOVED. SO I GUESS IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION, THIS RESOLUTION PROBABLY BE THE BASIS OF IT. I'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH THEIR AMENDMENTS. AND. YEAH. LARSEN. OKAY. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION FROM LARSEN, SECOND FROM MINO TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION. HB C2026-01 GRANTING DESIGN

[00:15:03]

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY TO GRANT DESIGN APPROVAL. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU. AND LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOUR PROJECT. SO I'LL

[3. Case No. CD2026-014: Design Review approval for a graphic design sign/mural and wall sign at 103 Main St North – (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818, bgutknecht@stillwatermn.gov)]

AND WE'LL HAVE THE SAME KIND OF PROCESS FOR THIS ONE. YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN THROUGH IT BEFORE, BUT YOU KNOW, WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF, WE'LL ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF, WILL INVITE YOU UP, ASK QUESTIONS OF YOU, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A CONVERSATION SO THAT I'LL TURN IT OVER TO STAFF.

THANK YOU. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS NOT YOUR FIRST TIME SEEING THIS APPLICANT. THEY'VE BEEN BEFORE US A COUPLE TIMES NOW WITH THIS PROJECT. AND ACTUALLY IN THAT SIMILAR VEIN, THEY'RE COMING BEFORE YOU BASED ON A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO ADD SOME ARCHITECTURAL OR ARTISTIC INTERESTS OR VISUAL INTERESTS ALONG A BLANK FACADE ON THE EAST FACADE OF THE NEW AMOCO STRUCTURE, SPECIFICALLY THE.

THIS WAS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FROM A SEPTEMBER 2026 COMMISSION APPROVAL. THE SPECIFIC CONDITION IS ADDING INTEREST TO THE BLANK WALL ON THE EAST FACADE, INCLUDING SOLUTIONS SUCH AS GLAZING, DECORATIVE BRICK, GRAPHIC DESIGN SIGN OR PUBLIC ART MURAL, OR SCULPTURAL SCULPTURAL ELEMENTS. THE APPLICANT HAS RETURNED WITH THIS PROPOSAL TO SATISFY THIS CONDITION. ITS IMPROVEMENT DOES INCLUDE DECORATIVE METAL ARTWORK, SO THE SCULPTURAL ELEMENT COMPONENT OF THAT PREVIOUS CONDITION, AND IT'S DEPICTING THE STILLWATER LIFT BRIDGE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDING SIGNAGE. SO THE THE CASE BEFORE YOU IS REALLY THERE'S A MORE ADMINISTRATIVE RELATED BUILDING SIGNAGE THAT IS KIND OF IT'S IN A SIMILAR STYLE TO WHAT THE PROPOSED ARTWORK IS OR THE GRAPHIC DESIGN SIGN. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE SITE LAYOUT OR BUILDING DESIGN BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS PROPOSAL. REGULATORY REVIEW HERE IS JUST THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, HEIGHT OVERLAY AND FEMA. WE'RE GOING TO BE FOCUSING MOSTLY IN DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHICH GUIDES THE SIGN STANDARDS WHILE SIGNAGE IS REVIEWED UNDER SECTION 28, WHICH IS THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS DESIGN STANDARDS. AND THEN THE ARTWORK ARTWORK IS EVALUATED BOTH UNDER SECTION 28 AS A GRAPHIC DESIGN SIGN, BUT ALSO WITH POINTING TO THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES FOR THE HPC STANDARDS. ONE THING I DO WANT TO NOTE, AND YOU'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE, WHEN YOU'VE LOOKED AT MURALS WE DO AT THE CITY LEVEL, WE CAN REGULATE TIME, SPACE AND MANNER, BUT NOT NECESSARILY CONTENT. SO IN THIS CASE, WHAT WE'LL BE LOOKING AT IS WHERE IT'S LOCATED AND HOW IT'S BEING LOCATED THERE AND INSTALLED, RATHER THAN WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS THE LASER CUT PRE-FINISHED METAL ARTWORK MOUNTED ON THE EASTERN MASONRY WALL. AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, THAT IS THE WALL IN QUESTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR SOME VISUAL ENHANCEMENT. IT DEPICTS A STYLIZED VERSION OF THE STILLWATER'S HISTORIC LIFT BRIDGE, ALONG WITH WELCOME TO STILLWATER. FOR THOSE THAT ARE ON WATER STREET OR LONG LOWELL PARK, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING INTEGRATING LED BACKLIGHTING TO ENHANCE VISIBILITY AT NIGHT AND THE INSTALLATION OF WALL SIGNAGE.

READING SNACKS TO GO NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER IS SIMILAR FONT STYLE AS THAT IN THE GRAPHIC DESIGN, SIGNAGE, SCULPTURAL ARTWORK, AND ALSO IS BEING PROPOSED TO HAVE BACKLIGHTING AND HAVE THE SAME ARTWORK AND FINISH MATERIAL. AND THEN I CAN BRING THIS BACK UP. BUT THIS IS JUST A LARGER VERSION OF THAT. SO WE CAN, IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER WHEN ANALYZING THIS. AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, ONE IS MORE OF THE WALL SIGN COMPONENT ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE. AND THEN ON THE NORTH SIDE IS THE ACTUAL ELEMENT THAT THE CONDITION WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE, LOOKING AT THE ANALYSIS, THE WALL SIGN ITSELF MEETS THE SIGN PLACE SIGN PLACEMENT AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED OF IT BY CITY CODE. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT CODE AND SPECIFIC TO DESIGN AND LOCATION. THE TWO KEY ISSUES THAT STAFF NOTED IN THEIR REPORT AND ALSO FORWARDED ALONG TO THE APPLICANT WAS THE BACKLIGHTING. ILLUMINATION IS NOT PERMITTED. THAT IS NOTED IN ZONING CODE THAT'S ON A DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINE THAT IS STRICTLY JUST CODE AND SHOULD BE REVISED WHEN THE SIGN PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR, AND THEN THE SNACKS TO GO IS DESCRIPTIVE.

BUT. AND WHY I'M CALLING THAT TO ATTENTION IS OUR CODE DOES MENTION THAT IT SHOULD BE A LOGO AND OR NAME OF THE BUSINESS IN OUR CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. IN THIS CASE, THE SNACKS TO GO WAS INITIALLY APPROVED BACK IN 2020, WITH THE THE ORIGINAL AMOCO REBRANDING, AND THAT WAS PART OF THEIR OVERALL. I BELIEVE THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE LEGAL NAME WAS AMOCO TO GO OR AMOCO SNACKS TO GO. SO IN THAT CASE, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PAST APPROVAL TO CONTINUE BRINGING THAT SNACKS TO GO FORWARD AND STAFF'S RESPECTIVE THE SITE SIGNAGE, AND IS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE TO BRING THAT SNACKS TO GO ON THAT SIDE. SO OTHER THAN THE BACK LIGHTING STAFF FINDS THAT THAT WALL SIGN, IF THAT WERE APPLIED FOR TODAY,

[00:20:03]

OTHERWISE, I THINK THERE IS A JUSTIFICATION TO ALSO BE MADE. THAT CODE WOULD LIKELY PROHIBIT THIS. GENERALLY, FROM THE FINDINGS PERSPECTIVE, THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH CITY CODE AND THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES. THE WALL SIGN MEETS REQUIREMENTS WITH THE ADJUSTMENT TO LIGHTING. THE ARTWORK IS APPROPRIATE IN SCALE, LOCATION, AND HISTORIC CONTEXT, SO IT MEETS THE STANDARDS REQUIRED OF IT BY OUR CITY CODE AND GUIDELINES, AND IT FULFILLS THE HPC CONDITION SET BACK IN SEPTEMBER WITH THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS BEFORE YOU.

I WON'T READ THEM OUT, BUT IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM SPECIFICALLY, THEY'RE MOSTLY BOILERPLATE. THE ONE THAT I WOULD NOTE IS NUMBER FOUR. IF THERE IS APPROVAL FOR BACKLIGHTING OF THE GRAPHIC DESIGN SIGN, WE CAN REMOVE THAT IF THERE IS NOT APPROVAL. BUT IF THERE IS, I MENTIONED THAT IT SHOULD BE WARM TONE, NOT COOL. ULTIMATELY, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE GRAPHIC DESIGN SIGN AND SIGN PLAN BEFORE YOU. WITH THAT, I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE AS WELL.

OKAY. OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF. I HAVE ONE ABOUT. IN THE PAST, SOMETIMES WHEN WE'VE HAD SOMETHING THAT'S ATTACHED TO BRICKS LIKE THIS, WE'VE ADDED A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE ATTACHMENT HAPPENED THROUGH THE THROUGH THE MORTAR BETWEEN THE BRICKS INSTEAD OF THE FACE OF THE BRICKS THEMSELVES. OBVIOUSLY, THIS ISN'T HISTORIC MASONRY IN THIS CASE, BUT IT DOES LEAD TO A BETTER OUTCOME OVER TIME. IF INEVITABLY THERE ARE CHANGES IN FUTURE YEARS. WITH THAT CONDITION BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS SITUATION, DO YOU THINK, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS? I THINK THAT THAT'S THAT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND CONSISTENT WITH. THANK YOU. TO YOUR POINT, THAT IS USUALLY RESERVED OR USED BECAUSE WE SEE A LOT OF WORK OR ADDITIONS TO OUR HISTORIC BRICK, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AS IT'S A STANDARD THROUGHOUT THIS DISTRICT THAT WHEN WORKING WITH BRICK, THE, THE, THE HARDWARE SHOULD BE THROUGH THE MORTAR RATHER THAN THE BRICK ITSELF. THANK YOU.

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I'M JUST A LITTLE CURIOUS ABOUT THE THE SNACKS TO GO. TO ME THAT SEEMS LIKE ADVERTISING. I'M NOT COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDING THAT AS A PART OF THE BUILDING'S SIGNAGE ITSELF. SO IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN HOW THAT IS DIFFERENT, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. OF COURSE. SO WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE PLAN FROM 2020 AND THE EXISTING BUILDING SIGN TODAY, LOOKING IF, SAY, THE APPLICANT WANTED TO UPDATE THEIR SIGNAGE AND THEY WERE SIMPLY LOOKING AT CHANGING IT FROM A PAINTED SIGN BAND BANNER TO METAL OR CHANGING THE REVEAL. THE MESSAGING IS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. SO THIS IS JUST SIMPLY CHANGING THE MATERIAL, I WOULD SAY. SO THAT IS BUILDING SIGNAGE AND NOT NECESSARILY ASSOCIATED WITH THE GRAPHIC DESIGN SIGN. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE REASON WHY THIS IS PART OF YOUR PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU IS THE APPLICANT WAS, AS YOU CAN SEE, TRYING TO HAVE THE TWO SPEAK TO ONE ANOTHER.

SO THEY'RE BOTH GOING TO BE PROPOSED AS BACKLIT. THEY'RE BOTH PROPOSING A SIMILAR FONT, SAME METAL DESIGNING AND DETAIL, BUT IN THE SENSE OF IF THAT WERE TO COME BEFORE STAFF SNACKS TO GO BY ITSELF WITHOUT THE GRAPHIC DESIGN SIGN AND IT WAS A SIGN UPDATE, A STAFF WOULD LIKELY APPROVE THAT AS PART OF A APPROVED SIGN PERMIT. DOES THAT HELP ANSWER QUESTIONS? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME, BUT I THINK FOR FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, THE APPROVAL FOR THE BUILDING AND THAT SPECIFIC SIGNAGE HAD ALREADY HAPPENED. SO THIS IS BRINGING THAT FORWARD. SO I THINK IT'S I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT'S IT'D BE LAWFUL CONFORMING, NOT NECESSARILY UNLAWFUL CONFORMING OF REPLACING THAT EXISTING SIGN. AND THAT WAS FROM THE MAY 2020 HPC MEETING. YES. YEAH. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. IS IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT SIGN, PREVIOUS SIGN THAT SAID SNACKS TO GO WAS IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION? I WOULD SAY THAT'S FAIR THAT IN THE SENSE

[00:25:06]

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. OKAY, I WOULD INVITE THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM. IT'S THE BOTTOM LEFT. OKAY. AND IF YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. STEPHEN KRAUSE, ARCHITECT FOR THE OWNER. I LIVE IN PLYMOUTH. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE STAFF REPORT? NO. AGAIN, PURSUANT TO HPC REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION FROM LAST YEAR IN JULY AND SEPTEMBER, COMING BACK WITH THE ARTWORK THAT IS TRYING TO ENHANCE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF. I BELIEVE THE REFERENCE WAS PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE ALONG WATER STREET, AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S SOME CONNECTION MADE FROM THE BUILDING TO THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT OF STILLWATER ITSELF. AND THEN THE NEXT GOAL IS MERELY AN EXTENSION OF THAT AS WELL, AND FELT THAT IT WAS A CONTINUATION OF WHAT WAS ALREADY THERE, ALBEIT IN A DIFFERENT MANNER, IN A DIFFERENT SIZE, BUT STILL CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS EXISTING BEFORE. STAFF LET US KNOW ABOUT THE THE ILLUMINATION ASPECT OF THINGS, AND IF COMMISSION DECIDES THAT IT'S AN ALTERNATIVE WAY, BUT IT STILL COULD BE LIT APPLICANT OR I GUESS I'M THE APPLICANT. THE OWNER HAS SAID THAT HE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE BOTH OF THEM ILLUMINATED CONSISTENTLY, AS OPPOSED ONE VERSUS THE OTHER OR ONE. NOT AT ALL. MY QUESTION BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD BE, AT WHAT POINT DO WE SINCE THERE ISN'T ANY SUBMISSION HERE FOR THE TYPE OF LIGHTING THERE, THERE HAS BEEN EXISTING SURFACE MOUNTED, WALL MOUNTED SIGNING LIGHTING, RATHER THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED WITH PRIOR SUBMITTALS. IS IT THAT SAME TYPE OF LIGHTING FIXTURE, WHICH IS KIND OF A GOOSENECK INDUSTRIAL KIND OF LOOKING FIXTURE? IS IT SOMETHING THAT COMMISSION WOULD GRANT STAFF SOME LIBERTY AS TO WHAT EXACTLY THAT WOULD BE? OR WHERE DO WE GO IF WE ARE GOING OFF OF THE BACK LIT ILLUMINATION CONCEPT? WHERE, WHERE, AND HOW DO WE GET TO THE POINT OF, OF THAT ILLUMINATION OF, OF THIS SIGNAGE AND ARTWORK? THANK YOU. ANYONE HAVE A I HAVE A REACTION TO THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF, IF OTHERS WANT TO GO FIRST CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, SORRY TO INTERRUPT CHAIRS. COMMISSIONERS. I DO WANT TO NOTE IN YOUR PACKET APOLOGIES FOR NOT HAVING IT ON THE SCREEN, BUT THE LIGHTING THAT THE APPLICANT IS REFERRING TO FOR THE EXISTING PROPOSED LIGHTING IS WITHIN YOUR PACKET. THERE'S THE EXAMPLE OF THE ELEVATIONS. IT DOES SHOW THE PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTH TO THE SOUTH FACADE OF THE STRUCTURE, SHOWING THE GOOSE LIT LIGHTING THAT I BELIEVE THEY'RE REFERRING TO. JUST IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IN REAL TIME EXAMPLE. AND I SHOULD NOTE STAFF, IF THE DIRECTION WAS TO DO FROM COMMISSION WAS TO NOT HAVE BACKLIT OR INTERNALLY LIT SIGNAGE AND WAS TO BE DOWNCAST AND SIMILAR, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS THERE TODAY, THAT IS SOMETHING STAFF WOULD DEFINITELY BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, THAT IT MATCH WHAT IS APPROVED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PLAN FOR LIGHTING FOR THE BUILDING, AS APPROVED IN 2025, WHICH WOULD BE WHAT WE SEE IN THE PACKET. YES. YEAH.

THE YEAH. THE GOOSENECK. SORRY. YOU KNOW, I GUESS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE'VE SEEN OTHER PROJECTS DOWNTOWN USE THAT STYLE OF LIGHTING AS FAR AS I'M AWARE. SO IF THERE WERE TO BE OUTSIDE LIGHTING, DOES THAT SEEM REASONABLE? I'M SORRY. DOES THAT STYLE OF LIGHTING SEEM REASONABLE? IF THE GOOSENECK. YEAH. YES. YEAH. AND TO THE QUESTION, ARE WE OKAY WITH STAFF REVIEWING IT? I ACTUALLY I DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT IT REALLY NEEDS REVIEW IF IT'S ALREADY BEEN WAS APPROVED IN LAW WITH THAT STYLE IN THE FALL. YEAH, I CAN SEE A

[00:30:07]

YOU'VE BEEN RESPONSIVE TO US AS YOU'VE GONE AROUND. IT'S JUST GOTTEN BETTER. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. AND SO I THINK TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT HISTORIC SORT OF APPROACH AND THE CONSISTENT WITH THE LIGHTING THAT WE SEE ELSEWHERE, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WOULD BE THE CORRECT WAY TO GO. AND I DO KNOW THERE ARE SOME HEADS THAT, YOU KNOW, DON'T HAVE TO BE A GOOSENECK, MORE FOCUSED, BUT COULD BE MAYBE RECTANGULAR, DO A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF SPREADING THAT LIGHT OUT. AND WE COULD PROBABLY GET WITH HOWEVER MANY FIXTURES, THREE OR 4 OR 5, I DON'T KNOW, BUT YOU COULD GET I THINK WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS A CONSISTENT LIGHT THAT ISN'T. YOU KNOW, IT. IT WILL WANT TO BE. AS OUR GUIDELINES ASK FOR. I THINK UNDER LIGHTING THAT IT'S DOESN'T DRAW TOO MUCH ATTENTION TO ITSELF, BUT JUST LIGHTS THE SIGN, WHICH IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO. SO YEAH, I THINK IT'D BE GOOD FOR US TO DISCUSS THE, THE CONTENT OF, OF THE GRAPHICS THAT ARE PROPOSED AND, AND AS WELL, BESIDES THE LIGHTING.

IT'S HARD TO ARGUE WITH THE LIFT BRIDGE. THERE'S ONE REALLY CLOSE TO HERE, BUT, AND, AND I THINK THAT SEEMS TO FIT OUR GRAPHIC DESIGN SIGNS. REQUIREMENT THAT IT'S NOT ADVERTISING, BUT IT HAS A HISTORIC THEME. THE ONE THING THAT I GUESS I WAS STRUCK WHEN I FIRST SAW THIS THAT I DIDN'T FEEL FELT LIKE IT FIT A HISTORIC THEME AND ALL THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT AND ALL THE WORK YOU'VE DONE IN THIS BUILDING IS JUST THE FONT OF THE, OF THE SIGNAGE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING HAS THIS, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S OBVIOUSLY A NEW BUILDING, BUT IT'S RESPECTFUL OF ALL THE HISTORY AND ALL THE HISTORIC THINGS.

AND YET THE, THE SORT OF CURSIVE FONT THAT IS THERE TO ME FELT LIKE IT WAS OUT OF PLACE. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE, WE DON'T SEEM TO HAVE A FONT REGULATION IN THIS CITY YET, BUT IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT, I'M WONDERING, IF NOT,

[00:35:02]

MORE COMPLIMENTARY TO THE ALL THE GOOD WORK YOU'VE DONE ON THIS BUILDING ALREADY. THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? YEAH, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER LARSEN. WHEN I FIRST SAW THIS, I, I WAS SORT OF UNDERWHELMED AND I, I TOOK A MOMENT TO, TO ASK MYSELF WHY THAT WAS. AND I THINK ON REFLECTION, IT WAS PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LETTER AND THE FONT THAT SEEMED TO DETRACT FROM THE REST OF THE BUILDING WHERE SUCH A GOOD JOB HAS BEEN DONE. AND I, I WAS ALSO LOOKING AT THE THE HEIGHT OF THE LIFT BRIDGE. IT JUST FEELS HIGH ON THE BUILDING AND I KNOW YOUR TIMING OUT THE THE WATER LEVEL WITH THE WINDOWSILL, BUT THAT'S A SORT OF A MINOR POINT. BUT IT FELT A LITTLE HIGH, BUT THE, THE FONT IN PARTICULAR, I, I HAD SOME TROUBLE WITH. AND IF THAT WERE CHANGED, I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPROVED. AND SO JUST AS A SUGGESTION. YEAH, I HAVE THE SAME REACTION AS COMMISSIONER LARSEN. YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THE LIGHTING ON THE. ON THE THE NORTH END THERE IS I GUESS I'M, I'M ALSO STRUGGLING WITH, YOU KNOW, WE CERTAINLY HAVE LONG STANDING ESTABLISHED THAT WE, WE, WE DON'T DO BACKLIT AND IN DOWNTOWN AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S TALKING ABOUT WANTING TO. I DON'T SEE ANY APPETITE TO APPROVE THAT. SO I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO BE EXTERNALLY LIT, IF ANYTHING. AND I GUESS BACK TO WHAT COMMISSIONER LARSEN WAS SAYING IS. THE. HOW DO YOU DO THAT ON THAT BIG OF A SURFACE WITHOUT IT LOOKING LIKE THIS KIND OF BIG, GLOWING, OVERWHELMING BILLBOARD LOOK? AND I'M NOT ENOUGH OF A LIGHTING EXPERT TO KNOW THAT. I HOPE THERE'S A WAY BECAUSE I I'M THEORETICALLY OPEN TO IT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I GUESS I WOULD. BACK TO THE STAFF REPORT THAT SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S A QUESTION TO THE COMMISSION OF WHETHER LIGHTING IS APPROPRIATE THERE. I THINK I'M OPEN TO SUBTLE LIGHTING THAT ENHANCES AND LETS PEOPLE SEE THE THE ART THERE, BUT ALSO SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY GLOWING IN THE NIGHT ACROSS INTO THE RIVER. AND LOWELL PARK WOULD BE MORE DISTRACTING AND, AND OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE, WITH THE, THE REASONS WHY WE ESTABLISHED THAT DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT. SO THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH ON THE LIGHTING FIXTURES.

AND I DON'T HAVE A GREAT ANSWER. MR. MISTER CHAIR QUESTION FOR STAFF, MAYBE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

THE SNACKS TO GO BEING OFFICIAL SIGNAGE OF THE BUSINESS THAT SIGNAGE IS ENTITLED TO BE LIT PER OUR DESIGN REVIEW AND CODE CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. AS COMMISSIONER LARSEN MENTIONED, THERE IS LIGHTING. WE DON'T, AS A CITY CODE, DON'T HAVE A LOT OF LIGHTING STANDARDS BEYOND JUST MAKING ENSURING THAT IT DOESN'T SPILL INTO OTHER PROPERTY, MAKE SURE IT STAYS ON YOUR PROPERTY FROM A DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINE, AS COMMISSIONER LARSEN NOTED. SO THIS WOULD BE EVEN IF IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW FOR A SPECIFIC SIGN LIKE SNACKS TO GO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THE LIGHTING DOESN'T DRAW ATTENTION TO ITSELF. IT IS. IT WOULD BE LONG, SHORT AND LONG. ANSWER SHORT. YES, IT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO HAVE LIGHTING ON THAT PROPERTY, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO ENSURE THAT IT IT DOESN'T DRAW ATTENTION TO ITSELF. IT DOES FOLLOW WITHIN THE GUIDELINES AND WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT. OTHER LIGHTING IS LIKELY WHAT STAFF WOULD SUGGEST. SURE. AND SO I SENSE THE QUESTION FROM THE APPLICANT THAT YOU'RE IN THE CONUNDRUM OF LIGHTING US DESIGN, BUT NOT BOTH LIGHTING BOTH SIGNS OR LIGHTING NONE. AND I, I UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S A CONUNDRUM HERE. IF IN FACT, THE BUSINESS HAS AN INTENT TO IN SOME WAY LIGHT THE BUSINESS PART OF THE SIGN. AND TO ADD TO THAT, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, I SHOULD ALSO NOTE CITY CODE DOES EXPLICITLY STATE THE INTERNAL LIGHTING AND BACKLIT LIGHTING IS NOT ALLOWED. SO THAT THAT REALLY IS WHAT PUSHES US OR POINTS TO HAVING SOME SORT OF DOWNCAST EXTERNAL LIGHTING THAT IN THIS SPECIFIC DISTRICT CHANNEL LETTERS, INTERNAL AND BACKLIT LIGHTING ARE NOT ALLOWED. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY THAT SNACKS TO GO BEING THE SIGNAGE FOR THE BUILDING WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE IT, AND LIKELY WHY WE'D BE LEANING TOWARDS NOT HAVING IT WITH THE GRAPHIC DESIGN SIGN AS WELL. AND SO MY, MY OTHER QUESTION, I GUESS, TO STAFF IS THINGS LIKE FONTS, GIVEN THAT THERE ISN'T A GUIDELINE, AT LEAST NONE THAT I'M AWARE OF EITHER FOR HISTORIC FONT VERSUS

[00:40:05]

IS IT WITHIN THIS COUNCIL'S OR THIS COMMISSION'S PURVIEW? CHAIR COMMISSIONERS YOU'RE ASKING I WAS LOOKING AT THAT EARLIER TODAY AND DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY. I'D SAY GENERALLY THEIR ANSWER WOULD BE A MORE BLANKET TIME, SPACE AND MANNER. WHEN IT COMES TO ARTWORK, THERE ARE COMMISSIONS. IF WE HAD LIKE AN ART COMMISSION OR IF WE DID HAVE A FONT STANDARD WHERE FOR PRIVATE PROJECTS, WE MAY BE ABLE TO HAVE A VOICE. BUT WITH THE ABSENCE OF THAT, I THINK IN THIS, IN THIS INSTANCE, IT WOULD BE A SUGGESTION, AS COMMISSIONER HOLMES AND LARSON'S HAVE SUGGESTED, AND I THINK THE COMMISSION SUGGESTING AND IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THAT UP, THEY COULD.

BUT IN ABSENCE OF HAVING STRICT GUIDELINES, UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK THE FONT ITSELF WOULD BE SOMETHING UP TO THE APPLICANT. AND SO THE FOLLOW ON QUESTION WOULD BE IF THIS WERE NOT A PIECE OF ART, IF WE WERE JUST CONSIDERING SNACKS TO GO, WHICH IS SIGNAGE FOR THE BUSINESS ITSELF, IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE THERE IN TERMS OF FONT STYLE? THOSE THINGS, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS SINGLE LINE LETTERING IS PREFERRED PER GUIDELINES AND CITY CODE. SO IF IT WAS SNACKS THEN ENTER DOWN TO GO. WE WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO MAKE IT ONE FIRM LINE OF SNACKS TO GO. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'LL TURN TO YOU IN A SECOND. YEP. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER STAFF. I MEAN, SORRY, COMMISSION QUESTIONS. JUST ONE ONE MORE COMMENT ON THE FONTS IS IS THAT. YES, I, YOU KNOW, A LITERAL READING OF THIS. WE DON'T HAVE WORDS ABOUT FONTS, BUT WE ALSO DO HAVE SOME BROAD STROKES THAT WE TALK ABOUT. AND WE, I THINK WE COULD ALL IMAGINE A SIGN THAT HAD A FONT THAT WAS BIG ENOUGH TO BE DISTRACTING AND WE COULD ALL AGREE WAS NOT APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF ITS IMPACT. IT HAD ON THE APPEARANCE OF A BUILDING DOWNTOWN. I THINK WE COULD PICTURE THAT, AND WE KNOW THIS IS SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN THAT EXTREME AND WHATEVER, I GUESS I THINK WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE. SO I DO THINK WE HAVE WE CAN FALL BACK ON AT LEAST THE IDEA THAT WE THINK IT SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE, AS EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN IN THIS PROJECT TO THE OVERALL DOWNTOWN WITHOUT HOPEFULLY NITPICKING THE FONT TO DEATH AND, AND GIVING THE APPLICANT SOME CERTAINLY SOME LATITUDE TO MAYBE SELECT ONE THAT MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE IF THEY WERE SO WILLING. ANYTHING ELSE? I GUESS ONLY ONE LAST THING AND AGAIN, DETAIL, BUT EVERY OTHER BIT OF LETTERING ON THE BUILDING IS SINGLE LINE. AND WELCOME TO STILLWATER IS DOUBLED IN A WAY THAT WE WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR OTHER SIGNAGE. IF I UNDERSTOOD STAFF CORRECTLY. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, THAT WOULD BE STRICTLY BUILDING SIGNAGE. SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT WALL SIGNS, IN THIS CASE, THIS IS, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, A DIFFERENT CATEGORY OF GRAPHIC DESIGN SIGN. SO LIKE ANY OTHER MURAL OR SCULPTURAL SIGN ON A BUILDING FACADE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A DESIGN ELEMENT UP TO THE APPLICANT OR SOMETHING THEY COULD INCORPORATE. BUT I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. THANK YOU. I WILL INVITE THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE TO BUTTON ON THE LEFT. AND DO YOU HAVE. I CERTAINLY DID NOT INTEND FOR THAT FONT TO CREATE THIS LEVEL OF CONSTERNATION.

BUT IF IT IF IT MOVES THE COMMISSION TO DEVELOP SOME. SET A SET OF FONT POLICY WITHIN.

WELL, THEN THERE'S SOMETHING GOOD THAT CAME OF THIS. WE CERTAINLY ARE OPEN TO REVIEW SOME OTHER FONTS. AND MY QUESTION BACK TO THE COMMISSION WOULD BE, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WORK THROUGH STAFF? IS IT SOMETHING THAT COMMISSION NEEDS TO SEE? AGAIN, MY HOPE IS THAT WE CAN WORK THROUGH STAFF AND AND THERE COULD BE THAT KIND OF WORKING THROUGH THAT WITH SOME AMBIGUITY AS TO WHAT IS OR IS NOT ALLOWED OR THE CLARITY OF THAT. WE'RE NOT MARRIED TO THIS EXACT KIND OF FORMAT. IT'S, IT'S MORE OF THE CONTENT OF, OF SIGNAGE AND ARTWORK THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SHARE WITH THE COMMISSION AND SEEK DIRECTION APPROVAL TO CONTINUE. YOU KNOW, I CAN SAY SOMETHING. OH, GO AHEAD. OKAY. OH, GO AHEAD. WELL, THANKS. AND I IT'S HARD HERE TO, TO SAY WHAT THAT IS. PERSONALLY, I THINK WE COULD SEE SOMETHING THAT IS LESS CONTEMPORARY, MORE CLASSIC. WE COULD LOOK AT SOME OF THE SIGNAGE FONTS, THAT OF THE NEW SIGNS THAT HAVE JUST BEEN INSTALLED IN THE LAST YEAR OR TWO, IT'S STILLWATER. I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO BECOME THAT PRESCRIPTIVE THAT WE'RE TELLING YOU WHAT KIND OF FONTS, BUT I THINK EXPLORING SOME THAT WOULD FEEL LIKE IT ARE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR OUR HISTORIC

[00:45:04]

GO AHEAD. I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT I THINK WHEN WE WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS FIRST AND APPROVED THE PROJECT, WE SAID THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY THERE FOR PUBLIC ART. AND IN MY MIND AT THAT POINT, I WASN'T THINKING ABOUT A SIGN THAT WOULD SAY ANYTHING LITERALLY LIKE, WELCOME TO STILLWATER. IS IS NICE A THOUGHT AS THAT IS. BUT THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC ART, AND I WOULD CERTAINLY PERSONALLY BE OPEN TO HAVING YOU DO AWAY COMPLETELY WITH THE WRITING AND JUST HAVE THE LIFT BRIDGE ON THE BUILDING AS A, AS A PUBLIC ART OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO. AND YOUR APPLICANT, THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING WHO'S MAKING THIS INVESTMENT, WANTS TO DO THIS ISN'T OUR ARTWORK, IT'S IT'S YOURS. BUT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR PUBLIC ART, AND IT CAN BE MORE THAN A SIGN IF YOU CHOOSE TO. OKAY, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION TO MAYBE STAFF AND THE COMMISSION IS THAT IF IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO REVISE THIS, TO EITHER CHANGE THAT FONT TO SOMETHING, SOMETHING ELSE, PRESUMABLY MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE THE DESIGN, THE HISTORIC FEEL OF THE BUILDING, OR TO OMIT THE WELCOME TO STILLWATER AND JUST HAVE THE BRIDGE THERE. IS THAT A. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT STAFF IS COMFORTABLE APPROVING? IF. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS WITH A NOTE FROM COMMISSIONER LARSON. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT DID SHARE WITH ME A MOMENT AGO, SHOWING A FONT SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE RECENT WELCOME TO STILLWATER SIGN THAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION JUST THIS PAST YEAR. WITH THAT DIRECTION, STAFF WOULD BE CONFIDENT IF THE FONT WERE TO CHANGE, AND ALSO SHOULD THE TEXT BE REMOVED ALTOGETHER AND IT SIMPLY BE THE LIFT BRIDGE. I THINK THE ARCHITECT HAS DONE A VERY NICE JOB SHOWING THE ARTISTIC DETAIL AND MAKING SURE THAT THINGS ARE. I WOULD TRUST THE ARCHITECT TO PROPOSE SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT LOOK OUT OF PLACE, AND STAFF WOULD FEEL CONFIDENT WITH THE REMOVAL OF TEXTS AND APPROVING SIMPLY JUST THE LIFT BRIDGE AS WELL. THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH THAT. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HOLMES SUGGESTION. IF WHAT I WAS GOING TO SEGUE INTO IS THE DIFFICULT PROBLEM OF LIGHTING THIS VERY LARGE AREA. IF THE WORDS. IF THOSE THE SIGNAGE OF THE WORDS WERE TO BE REMOVED, THAT PROBLEM GETS A LOT SOLVED. MORE SOLVABLE WITH JUST ILLUMINATING THE BRIDGE WHEREVER AND HOWEVER YOU PUT IT. SO IF THAT WERE SOMETHING THAT YOU THOUGHT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO, I COULD SEE WHERE THAT WOULD HELP. A COUPLE OF PROBLEMS. ONE, YOU KNOW, THE SORT OF OVERWHELMING SIGN WORDS AND, AND THEN THE LIGHTING COULD BE RELATIVELY SIMPLE, HOPEFULLY TO JUST DO THE BRIDGE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. I THINK WE SEEMED LIKE WE COVERED THAT ONE THEN THAT THAT KIND OF A THANK YOU. THAT KIND OF A CHANGE COULD BE DONE THEN AT THE AT THE STAFF LEVEL. AND I GUESS IF STAFF SAW SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY THOUGHT FOR SOME REASON NEEDED TO COME BACK, THEY WOULD. BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT WOULD BE THE LIGHTING. THEN I GUESS IS THE OTHER ISSUE THEN AND, AND SHOULD IT BE LIT AND IF SO, HOW? AND KIND OF LIKE COMMISSIONER LARSSON WAS JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE TO LIGHT THAT HUGE AREA, THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE VERY FOCUSED AND IT WILL BE A LOT OF LIGHT IF IT'S JUST THE BRIDGE, THAT MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO HAVE MORE CONTROLLED AND FOCUSED LIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE THOUGHTS ON LIGHTING FOR THE FOR THE FOR THE BRIDGE, THE NORTH SIDE. MR. CHAIR, I'LL JUST ADD A FEW COMMENTS. I AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER HOLMES, THAT I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED BY THIS SIGN. I THOUGHT, WELL, THAT'S NOT A MURAL. YOU KNOW, I JUST WASN'T EXPECTING. WELCOME TO STILLWATER. BUT IT IT'S INTERESTING AND I LIKE HOW, YOU KNOW, IT'S RAISED A BIT AND IT'S ALMOST LIKE IT WOULD LOOK BETTER IF IT HAD ILLUMINATED SIGNING SIGNAGE IN THE BACK. JUST A REAL HINT. I DON'T KNOW, IT CAN'T BE CAN'T BE DONE. BUT RATHER THAN JUST DOWNLIGHTING IT BECAUSE. BUT THAT'S NOT ALLOWED BY CODE. AND ALSO IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN THIS CONTEXT TO SEE A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN, YOU KNOW, TO SEE WHAT IS PROPOSED AROUND THE WHOLE SIGN TO KIND OF GET AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU'RE APPROVING

[00:50:05]

YOU KNOW, I'M THINKING OF THE WELCOME TO STILLWATER SIGNS AND THE LIGHTING THAT WAS USED FOR THAT. IS THAT AT ALL APPLICABLE TO THIS, OR IS THAT A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPE OF SIGN OR MONUMENT WITH SAID LIGHTING CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, I BELIEVE. ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE ONE FURTHEST SOUTH ALONG 95 OR THE MOST RECENT, THE ONE THAT WE REVIEWED AND APPROVED, I BELIEVE MORE RECENT ONE, I SUPPOSE, ACROSS FROM AURORA HOTEL. YEAH. LET ME REFAMILIARIZE MYSELF. SURE. THANK YOU. AND SO I GUESS. THE LIGHTING OF ARTWORK IS AN INTERESTING CONUNDRUM BECAUSE SOME ARTWORK IS LIGHTING, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE A NEON ARTWORK. AND HOW WOULD THIS COMMISSION REVIEW THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AVAILABLE TO US? SO I THINK THERE'S AN INTERESTING MOMENT WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE LIGHTING OF ARTWORK COULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE GOALS WE HAVE FOR LIGHTING AND THE REST OF THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. AND I DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM. HOW DO WE RESOLVE THIS THIS EVENING? YEAH, I THINK WE'RE WAITING FOR STAFF TO LOOK UP THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE SIGN BY THE HOTEL, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO ME THINKING ABOUT THIS, I KNOW YOU'RE LOOKING TO HAVE AN ANSWER THAT'S GIVES YOU THE SAME TREATMENT OF BOTH. IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE EXTERNALLY LIT DOWN LIGHTING ON THE ON THE SNACKS TO GO SIGN. I THINK THAT WOULD BE, FROM WHAT I'M SEEING, FAIRLY EASY TO GET APPROVED TONIGHT. I THINK WE'RE STRUGGLING A BIT WITH LIGHTING ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND PERHAPS TO LET YOU KEEP MOVING ALONG. I COULD SEE MAYBE APPROVING IT WITHOUT THE LIGHTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE, BUT BEING OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, HEARING OR SEEING, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER MORE DETAILED PROPOSAL FOR HOW IT COULD BE LIT EXTERNALLY. DOES ANYONE ELSE THINK THAT THAT'S MAYBE A PATH FORWARD HERE TRYING TO GET SOME APPROVAL? YEAH, I GUESS I'M, I'M FINE WITH GIVING STAFF THE DISCRETION TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

I'M JUST COGNIZANT OF THE PACE OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE NEED TO ROUGH IN LIGHTING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THAT BUILDING, RATHER THAN WAIT A MONTH TO COME BACK WITH ANOTHER CONCEPT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE REVISED, I'D LIKE TO KEEP THEM GOING IF WE CAN. SO THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT ON THAT. I THINK THAT'S OKAY. MY DEFAULT ANSWER IS IS, IS, IS NOT TO LIGHT THE THE ART, WHICH LOOK FINE DURING THE DAY, BUT I DON'T THINK NECESSARILY NEEDS TO BE LIT AT NIGHT. BUT I

[00:55:05]

YEAH. MR. CHAIR, I'LL JUST NOTE THAT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO A BACKLIT ON THE ON THE MURAL, BUT I SEE I'M IN THE MINORITY. IT SEEMS LIKE WE MAY HAVE THE BASIS OF A MOTION. I THINK SO TOO. IS IS IT HELPFUL TO ADD THAT THE WELCOME TO STILLWATER COULD BE REMOVED BY THE APPLICANT? THIS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE WITH THAT REMOVED. SO THEY HAVE THAT OPTION GOING FORWARD, WHICH WOULD SIMPLIFY THE LIGHTING. FOR ONE THING, THAT THE CONCEPT IS ACCEPTABLE WITH OR WITHOUT THE MESSAGE. SURE, THE LETTERING ON THE SIGN, ON THE GRAPHIC, ON THE ART PANEL, ON THE GRAPHICS. YES. WITH OR WITHOUT. OKAY. I THINK YEAH. AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE WE, THE CITY NEEDS TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE PHRASE THAT. IF IT IN TERMS OF NOT BEING TOO PRESCRIPTIVE, IF IT'S A, IF IT'S A. HOWEVER, WE DEFINE IT AS PUBLIC ART OR ART INSTEAD OF A SIGN. HOW WE. HOW WE DEFINE THAT LANGUAGE, I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL SO WE DON'T RUN INTO ANY ISSUES ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THAT PART OF IT SPECIFICALLY. SO I THINK WE'RE NOT PRESCRIBING DESIGN HERE. WE'RE JUST GIVING. YEAH, WE'RE JUST CLARIFYING IF THEY WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE, THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GREENLIGHTING FOR STAFF TO JUST WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE. YEP, I LIKE THAT. AND SIMILARLY WITH THE FONT, I ASSUME YOU. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU CHAIR HOUSTON. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS GOING TO NOTE.

WHAT I HAVE DOWN RIGHT NOW IS POSSIBLE CONDITIONS AND SOME MAYBE MORE CLARIFICATIONS OR

[01:00:05]

SECOND SUMMERS. OKAY. MOTION BY HOLMES, SECOND BY SUMMERS. CAN I ASK THAT THE MOTION, THE ACTUAL MOTION THAT IS BE PRESENTING TO US WHAT THE STAFF HAS FOR THAT MOTION? WHAT STAFF HAS FOR THE MOTION? CAN YOU READ THE MOTION? YES, WE HAVE A MOTION BY HOLMES TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH CITY STAFF TO FURTHER, FURTHER DEVELOP AND FINALIZE THE THE DESIGN CONCEPT MURAL. AND THAT'S REGARDING NOTES FOR THE FONT. AND THAT IS MALLEABLE THAT THAT APPROVAL IS WITH OR WITHOUT THE MESSAGING ITSELF. WELCOME TO STILLWATER THAT THE SIGN BE LIT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY CODE AND ENSURING THAT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AS WELL, AND THAT THE GRAPHIC DESIGN SIGN SHALL NOT BE BACKLIT. AND THAT IS A STRIKING OF OR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITION NUMBER FOUR. SO THERE'S NO REFERENCE TO ART IN THERE, IS THAT CORRECT? AM I READING THAT CORRECTLY? HEARING THAT CORRECTLY? GRAPHIC DESIGN SIGNER ART. I CAN I CAN ADD THAT IN THERE. I DO NOT THINK IT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE. GRAPHIC DESIGN SIGN. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. I GUESS I WOULD MAYBE OFFER A JUST VERY SLIGHT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT THAT RATHER THAN SAYING THE LIGHTING IS, IS APPROVED ON THIS SIGN THAT WE ARE ALLOWING STAFF TO APPROVE POTENTIAL LIGHTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE. IS THAT YOU? YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO ME TOO. THANK YOU. ALSO ACCEPTABLE TO ME. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

I GUESS THE LAST THING I JUST WANTED TO SAY WHILE WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THIS IS THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE ON THIS PROJECT TO DATE. IT'S BEEN GREAT TO SEE IT GOING UP. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S REALLY I THINK IT TURNED OUT VERY WELL. SO WITH THAT, I GUESS I WILL ASK ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY TO GRANT THE DESIGN APPROVAL WITH SEVERAL CONDITIONS. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. YEP, YEP. WE'LL MOVE ON THEN TO. A FEW MORE ITEMS. NEXT UP IS THE 2025

[4. 2025 HPC Awards Nomination Discussion]

[01:05:06]

SOME WERE ACTUALLY AWARDED OUT. AND THE GOAL THERE WAS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER, I THINK THE YEAR PRIOR WE WERE CLOSER TO TEN. AND SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES HERE BEFORE YOU WITH SOME UPDATED PHOTOS. I'D LIKE YOU ALL TO. I HOPE YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS. AND I'M LOOKING ANYWHERE FROM 5 TO 6 FOR YOU ALL TO PRESENT TO AWARDS IN IN MAY FOR OUR CITY COUNCIL, SO I CAN GO THROUGH THEM QUICKLY. AND IF YOU ALL HAVE THOUGHTS OR DISCUSSIONS, ONES THAT YOU THINK MAYBE DON'T EXEMPLIFY THE GOALS AND STANDARDS THAT WE WOULD SEE FOR HERITAGE PRESERVATION, THAT I THINK THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT YOU CAN CALL OUT AND SAY, MAYBE NOT THIS YEAR. THE. THIS DOES INCLUDE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BOTH BEEN REVIEWED AND NOT REVIEWED BY THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. SO SOME FROM STAFF, LIKE OUR BUILDING STAFF THAT HAVE POINTED OUT. SO SOME YOU MIGHT NOT RECOGNIZE IMMEDIATELY.

FIRST ONE IS 3026 MAIN STREET. AGAIN I MENTIONED THIS IS A REMODEL AND DEMOLITION AVOIDANCE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING WORKED WITH. THE APPLICANT INITIALLY BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY AND SIMPLY WANTED TO REMOVE THE THE HOUSE TO MAKE A GARAGE. AND SO THAT WAS A VERY QUICK NO. AND LET'S WORK TOGETHER AND FINDING A SOLUTION.

AND WE THINK THEY DID A NICE JOB ON THAT. THE NEXT IS 119 CHERRY STREET EAST, RETAINING WALL REPAIR AND RECONSTRUCTION. THIS WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A RETENTION PROJECT. THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT DOESN'T DO A GREAT JOB. I THINK THAT PACKET ACTUALLY HAD A BETTER PHOTO WHERE THE WALL WAS. THERE WERE CHUNKS OF THE WALL THAT WERE COMING DOWN AND LAYING ON THE SIDEWALK.

THEY HAD CONES UP FOR ABOUT A MONTH OR TWO DURING THE DURATION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW.

WE THINK THEY DID A NICE JOB ON THAT FINAL REPAIR. QUICK QUESTION ON THAT ONE. DID THE FENCE GET REINSTALLED ABOVE IT? I CAN'T TELL FROM THE AFTER PHOTO. I WILL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT FOR YOU. COMMISSIONERS. YEAH THIS ONE. THIS ONE WAS A PHOTO. ACTUALLY THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEMBER, DAVE JUNKER, TOOK THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT AND SUBMITTED IT. HE WAS PRETTY PLEASED WITH IT AND WANTED TO BRING FORWARD. I WILL DOUBLE CHECK THAT. OKAY. 1919 MYRTLE STREET WEST. THIS WAS KIND OF A PASSION PROJECT BY THE PROPERTY OWNER TO JUST BREATHE A LITTLE BIT MORE LIFE WITH RESIDING IN A GENERAL REMODEL INTO THIS PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF MYRTLE OLIVE, 521 WILLARD STREET. THIS WAS ONE THAT FLEW UNDER THE RADAR FOR US. JUST ANOTHER PASSION PROJECT BY THAT HOMEOWNER. THIS IS AN OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTY WHO IS JUST DOING SOME UPDATING, PRIMARILY PAINT COLOR, BUT ALSO ADDING SOME DECORATIVE DETAIL.

DOWNTOWN STILLWATER LIGHTING PROJECT. THIS WAS ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS MENTIONED THIS.

ON THE LEFT IS WHAT WE USED TO HAVE. ON THE RIGHT IS OUR NEWER LIGHTING. AND THAT DID WRAP UP LAST YEAR. ONE THAT WAS MENTIONED AT OUR LAST MEETING WAS 112 HARRIET STREET. AND THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOLMES, FOR PROVIDING SOME PHOTOS HERE. REALLY SHOWS THIS ONE WAS AN EMERGENCY DEMOLITION OF THE REAR, THE REAR PORTION OF THIS HOME, WHICH WAS CAVING IN FROM THE ROOF AND WALLS. SO THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY DEMOLITION THAT WAS STATE MANDATED, BUT WENT THROUGH THE REVIEW WITH HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THEN JUST GENERAL REPAIR AND REMODEL BY THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT AND OWNER AT THE TIME. MR. RUSTAD REALLY NICE JOB. AND THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY SOLD. AND THEN DONNELL EPSON CONTRIBUTING TO THE PRESERVATION DOCUMENTATION OF HISTORY AND CULTURE IN THE CITY OF STILLWATER. THIS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE SAW LAST YEAR WITH. IT'S JUST MORE OF A PERSONAL NOMINATION OR RECOGNITION. AND THEN WE DO HAVE SOME WATCH LISTS THAT WE COULD LOOK AT AND DISCUSS. BUT AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE FOR TONIGHT IS TO GO OVER AND NARROW DOWN THIS LIST TO FIVE. SO I'D BE OPEN TO ANYONE'S THOUGHTS ON ONE.

WHAT'S EASIER FOR YOU ALL? EASIER TO REMOVE SOME OR EASIER TO SAY. THESE SHOULD DEFINITELY BE BROUGHT FORWARD. I THINK IN IN SELECTING. I'VE BEEN ON A FEW DESIGN JOURNEYS AND THAT IT.

SOMETIMES IT'S BEST TO START WITH WHICH ONES CAN WE ALL AGREE WE DON'T WANT ON. SURE, SO MANY. IT. THEN IT GETS A LITTLE HARDER. AFTER THAT I'LL THROW OUT ONE NOMINATION AND THAT'S. AND. AND I SHOULD SAY FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE, THIS IS NOT A CRITICISM OF ANYTHING. WE JUST HAVE TO WINNOW DOWN. IT'S. WE'RE NOT SAYING THESE AREN'T WORTHY AND MAYBE THEY'LL BE WORTHY IN THE FUTURE, BUT THE THE MYRTLE STREET, THE RIGHT NUMBER. I'LL, I THINK I COULD, I COULD FOREGO FOR NOW. YES. SO THAT WOULD BE ONE OF MY NOMINATIONS. WE HAVE TO NOMINATE SEVERAL BY THE WAY IT LOOKS. AND SO MAYBE I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT AND LET SOMEONE ELSE THROW A FEW OUT. I. THE CITY STREET LIGHTS IS ONE I COULD CROSS OUT ONLY BECAUSE IT SEEMS SELF-CONGRATULATORY THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S NOT. NOT TO SAY THAT THE CITY CAN'T DOES SOMETHING GOOD. WE SHOULDN'T RECOGNIZE IT, BUT THAT MIGHT BE ONE WE COULD PULL OUT. FOR NOW,

[01:10:05]

6 OR 7. YEAH. WE WE SHOULD KEEP IT NO MORE THAN SEVEN. WE HAD FIVE LAST YEAR WITH THE RECOGNITION. I THINK OUR CHAIR DID A REALLY NICE JOB DURING THAT. AND I THINK IT WAS WELL RECEIVED BY OUR COMMISSION. SO REALLY POINTING OUT THOSE THAT EXEMPLIFY THAT I THINK WORKED WELL. I'LL JUST MAKE A COUPLE MORE COMMENTS AND SHUT UP. AND TWO THAT I DO LIKE BREAKING ALL THOSE RULES IS DONE, I THINK, AND THE RETAINING WALL, I THINK BECAUSE I LIKE, I THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT AND I LIKE HAVING A VARIETY OF SORT OF WAYS OF LOOKING AT WHAT'S IMPORTANT IN OUR TIME. I AGREE WITH BOTH OF THOSE TWO. I THINK THAT THE RETAINING WALL IS IS WORTH BEING NOMINATED FOR ONE. AND I'M DEFINITELY. I THINK THE 302 SIXTH STREET PROJECT IS WORTHY OF AN AWARD THAT THAT WAS REALLY A, A BIG REACH. AND THEY DID THEY DID WELL LIFTING THE BUILDING OFF THE FOUNDATION, REPLACING THE FOUNDATION, JUST RENEWING, RECYCLING AND, AND POSITIONING THAT BUILDING FOR ANOTHER COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS OF LIFE. THEY'VE REALLY INVESTED BEAUTIFULLY IN IT. AND I, IN MY MIND, THAT'S WORTHY OF RECOGNITION. YEAH. AND I WOULD ADD THAT THE WALL I PUT IN PLACE IS BREATHTAKING IN PERSON. YEAH, I WOULD I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER LARSON'S SUGGESTION ABOUT THE MYRTLE STREET PROJECT AND MAYBE THIS WAS ALREADY TAKEN OUT. I'M NOT SEEING IT ON THIS SLIDE, BUT 1014 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ONE WHERE I THINK IT'S IT'S LIKE IT'S MAYBE TOO MUCH OF A CHANGE TO HAVE IN THE AWARD CEREMONY. YOU KNOW, PURELY IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR ONES TO CUT. AND MAYBE THAT ONE WAS ALREADY CUT FROM THIS SLIDE AS WELL. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 1014 FOURTH AVENUE, RIGHT? YEAH.

AND WE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW HIGH THAT ONE WAS GOING. RIGHT. SO THAT WOULD BE MY THAT WOULD BE A CHOICE FOR ME AS WELL. YEAH. COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU. SORRY TO INTERRUPT, COMMISSIONER. YOU KNOW, THAT WAS WHEN I WENT OUT TO TAKE A PHOTO OF THAT ONE. I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THAT. THAT ONE. WAS A BIT. OH, OKAY, I AGREE. APOLOGIES, COMMISSIONER. MIA.

OKAY, SO I THINK WE HAVE THREE THAT HAVE BEEN NOMINATED FOR INCLUSION AND SOME EXCLUSIONS.

SO I THINK WE'VE GOT. ONE. ONE MORE I WOULD CONSIDER FOR INCLUSION. 521 WILLARD I THINK A LOT OF WHAT WE TEND TO NOTICE IS THE BIG DRAMATIC STRUCTURES AND THE BIG DRAMATIC CHANGES OR, YOU KNOW, THE SHOWIER PIECES. AND THIS TOOK A SMALL KIND OF ARCHETYPAL STILLWATER HOME AND MADE IT STUNNING WITH JUST A VERY FEW MODIFICATIONS. I YEAH. AND I WOULD THINK I WOULD ADD 112 PERIOD AS A STRONG CONTENDER TOO. I THINK THAT WAS A PROBABLY A PRETTY STRONG CANDIDATE FOR DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT. AND THAT'S A, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A REAL SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE OF ONE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE INSTEAD OF ONES WE HAVE SEEN AND HAVE SEEN DEMOLISHED. SO YEAH, I THINK WE SHOULD DEFINITELY HIGHLIGHT THAT. YEAH. QUESTION FOR STAFF.

WE HONORED THAT OWNER A YEAR OR TWO AGO THAT WASN'T FOR THIS PROJECT WAS FOR A DIFFERENT PROJECT CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. THAT WAS FOR I THINK THAT OWNER AND CONTRACTOR HAS BEEN ON MAYBE TWICE NOW AND JUST DOUBLE CHECKING. YEAH. NO CREDIT WHERE CREDIT'S DUE. AND IT WAS FOR A DIFFERENT PROPERTY. YEAH. ON FIFTH STREET NORTH. OKAY. IT'S VERY SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE I THINK THEY DO THAT VERY WELL WHERE THEY'LL FIND PROPERTIES. THIS ONE, PARTICULARLY THAT, AS COMMISSIONER HEIMDAHL NOTED, REALLY GOOD CANDIDATE FOR DEMOLITION BY NEGLECT AND SAW LITERALLY THE INSIDE AND SOMETHING IN IT AND WAS ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. YEAH, GREAT, GREAT STORY TO TELL. AND THAT'S A STORY THAT WE NEED TO GET BEFORE THE COUNCIL. YOU KNOW, OVER AND OVER EVERY YEAR, LOOK AT THE SUCCESS OF OUR DIFFICULT TO DEMOLISH POLICY.

[01:15:07]

SO RECYCLING AND REUSING THAT SITE RATHER THAN JUST STARTING OVER. OKAY, SO THOSE I'VE GOT FOUR OF THEM, BUT I THINK THERE'S A FIFTH THAT I FORGOT TO WRITE DOWN HERE. SO I'VE GOT DON EMPSON, THE STONEWALL, THE 3026 AND 1120. I GUESS WILLARD WAS THE OTHER ONE THAT WAS PUT OUT. 521 WILLARD CORRECT. THOSE ARE THE FIVE THAT I HAVE AS WELL. OKAY. AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE OTHERS, WE CAN, BUT WE COULD ALSO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE FIVE. THE, THE OTHER ONE, I DON'T KNOW WHY I DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT IN THERE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOTED.

IS 233 SECOND STREET SOUTH AR WORKSHOP. I DID TAKE A PHOTO OF THAT. I KNOW THIS MUST BE AN OLD PRESENTATION, BUT THAT THAT WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT COMMISSIONER LARSSON HAD BROUGHT UP WHERE THERE WAS JUST NOT ONLY THE STRUCTURAL CHANGES, BUT THEY CHANGED THE UPDATED THE SIGN. THERE WAS AN ODD WOOD SCULPTURAL SIGN ON THE FRONT THAT THEY UPDATED AND REMOVED AND MADE SITE CHANGES AS WELL. I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T HAVE THOSE PHOTOS IN HERE. YEAH, I I'M, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY WE CAN DO. I'M LOOKING AT WE SHOULD HAVE A COUPLE COMMERCIAL, I GUESS ONES.

AND THAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THEM. THE OTHER ONE I'M LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW ON 312 MAIN STREET IS PROBABLY ALSO WORTHY, BUT WE COULD WHICHEVER ONE OR IF WE DON'T DO BOTH OF THEM, WE COULD BRING THEM UP NEXT YEAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT I WOULD THINK THAT BOTH ARE ARE WORTHY. 312 MAIN YOU KNOW, THE BUILDINGS, THE BEFORE AND AFTER LOOK SIMILAR UNTIL YOU LOOK CLOSELY AND, AND LOOK AT THE WINDOW REPLACEMENTS, THE TIME THAT WAS TAKEN THERE. AND THEN WE KNOW ABOUT THE ADDITIONS AS WELL. AND YOU KNOW YEAH. LIKEWISE WITH 233 SOUTH. IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY, YOU SEE ALL THIS AMAZING DETAIL THAT THEY RECREATED AND, AND YEAH, SOME BEAUTIFUL CARPENTRY DONE. SO IF WE CAN DO THEM BOTH. GREAT. I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS. I HAVEN'T LOOKED CLOSELY AT OUR WORKSHOP, BUT WHAT EXACTLY DID THEY DO TO THE BUILDING THEN? WELL, IT'S HARD TO SEE IN THESE PHOTOS, BUT IF YOU ZOOM IN ON THE UPPER LEFT ONE, YOU GET A SENSE OF HOW BAD KIND OF BAD SHAPE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO THAT, BUT I KNOW THE BUILDING. SO THEY, AS NEAR AS I CAN TELL, THEY SORT OF COMPLETELY REDID ALL OF THIS EXTERIOR WOODWORK.

BACK TO HOW HOW IT ORIGINALLY WAS. AND IT DOESN'T SHOW UP QUITE SO WELL IN THE NEW PICTURES BECAUSE THE LIGHTING ISN'T QUITE RIGHT, BUT AND THE WINDOWS AND THE WINDOWS, I DON'T KNOW EVEN WHAT ALL THEY DID BESIDES THAT, BUT THE ENTIRE SITE AND, AND FENCES AND YARD AND DECKS AND EVERYTHING HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, IT WAS KIND OF JUST A BIG OVERGROWN SITE BEFORE THEY WENT AFTER IT. SO, AND MY SENSE IS THAT WOODEN PORTION ON THE FRONT THAT THEY REPLACED, THAT WAS NOT HISTORIC TO THE BUILDING, BUT IT WAS PART OF ACQUIRES OWNERSHIP.

YEAH. IT HAS A IT HAS A STRONG STILLWATER MAGUIRE CONNECTION. YOU CAN SEE ELSEWHERE IN THE TOWN. AND AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASIER TO JUST STRIP IT OFF. AND, AND BUT THEY KIND OF DID IT THE RIGHT WAY. IT LOOKED LIKE TO ME. SO, SO IT MAY BE THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE AN AWARD FOR THE RESTORATION OF A, OF AN ADD ON OF, OF AN ALTERATION FROM THE, YOU KNOW, THE LAST

[01:20:07]

SO IT COULD BE AN INTERESTING STORY. SO. WELL, I THINK WE NOW ARE UP TO ABOUT EIGHT OF THEM.

AS. WHICH SOUNDS FINE TO ME IN THAT SENSE. IF YOU THINK THE COUNCIL'S GAME TO SIT THERE AND AND HEAR THEM ALL. BUT I THINK THEY'RE ALL GOOD STORIES. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, WOULD YOU MIND? I HAVE DON EPSON, THE CHERRY STREET RETAINING WALL, 302 SIXTH STREET. 521. WILLARD 112.

HARRIET. THEN 312 MAIN AND THE AR WORKSHOP AS I'M MAKING SURE THAT THOSE ARE. ONE IS. 233 SECOND 7 A.M. I MISSING? DO YOU HAVE SEVEN OR. AND THEN. DON I HAVE SEVEN. SEVEN YES I HAVE YEAH. SORRY, TOTAL. SEVEN. I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. OKAY.

IS THAT GOOD TO EVERYBODY THERE. THAT SHOULD NOT DO OR ANYONE HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT. OKAY, DO WE NEED A MOTION? YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT. THANK YOU. I WILL I'LL MOVE THAT. WE GRANT AWARDS TO DON EPSON TO THE RETAINING WALL PROJECT, 1199 CHERRY STREET. THE PROJECT AT 302 SIXTH STREET SOUTH. THE PROJECT AT 112. HARRIET. THE PROJECT AT 521. WILLARD PROJECT AT 312 MAIN AND THE PROJECT AT 233 SECOND STREET SOUTH. I'LL SECOND THAT FINAL MOTION.

TUCSON SECOND FROM FINAL. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. SO

[5. Annual Board and Commission Training Reminder - No Packet Materials]

BEFORE WE MOVE ON, JUST BEFORE WE MOVE ON, THERE WAS THE 2026 WATCH LIST IN THERE. AND I JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE STAFF IS, IS THAT FOR AWARDS, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE THINKING. MIGHT YES, QUALIFY FOR NEXT YEAR. IS THAT. THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU. OKAY, COMMISSIONER, THOSE ARE WORDS THAT THERE WERE PROJECTS THAT WERE EITHER APPROVED AND HAVE NOT BEEN YET COMPLETED IN 2025, OR WERE APPROVED IN 2026, THAT WE WOULD ANTICIPATE COMPLETION OF. AND SO IF THERE'S. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP, COMMISSIONER. IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU ALL CAN THINK OF THAT MIGHT BE WORTH PUTTING ON THAT WATCH LIST, WE DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE THAT TONIGHT. BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS, THAT'D BE GREAT BECAUSE WE CAN ADD IT TO THAT LIST. OR AS THE YEAR GOES ON, IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, ALWAYS LET US KNOW. LET'S KEEP AN EYE ON THE DUTCHTOWN WHEN WE DID TONIGHT, BECAUSE MAKING IT WORK ON THAT LOT WAS NO SMALL FEAT.

YEAH. WE WILL ADD THAT. THANK YOU. AND YES. SORRY. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER? PERFECT. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUST A REMINDER, AND I THINK YOU'VE ALL BEEN GETTING THE EMAILS FROM OUR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT THAT WE DO HAVE THAT TRAINING. SO IF YOU HAVE NOT YET GONE IN THE LAST YEAR, PLEASE GO. THIS YEAR, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ENJOY ANOTHER TWO HOUR LONG TRAINING, WHICH WE ALL LOVE. WITH THAT, I CAN MOVE ON

[6. Bergstein Shoddy Mill Review and Comment]

THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR WHAT THE DESIGN IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS AN OPEN AIR GATHERING SPACE AND PATIO TRAIL SUPPORT SPACE, PUBLIC RESTROOMS WITHIN THE WAREHOUSE AND STORAGE, REUSE OF SHODDY MILL. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE SITE IMPROVEMENTS. I SHOULD SAY THAT THE DESIGN TEAM IS PROPOSING. IN JANUARY 2026, THE ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR KIND OF LEAD THE DESIGN TEAM CONFIRMED DESIGN DIRECTION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS WAS UPON RECEIVING SOME REVIEW FEEDBACK FROM SHIPPO, WHICH THEY HAD BEEN WORKING WITH SINCE ABOUT A YEAR AGO, TRYING TO COME TO A DESIGN THAT MET SHIPPO STANDARDS. THERE WAS SOME, FOR

[01:25:02]

[01:30:07]

THEY ALSO NOTE THERE'S A FORMAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND SHIPPO THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN REACHED. AGAIN, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT PLANNING STAFF WAS HOPING TO HAVE REACHED BEFORE PRESENTING THOSE PLANS TO YOU ALL, AND THEN THEY'RE CONTINUING TO ENCOURAGE CONTINUED CONSULTATION AND REFINE THE DESIGN. THE UPDATE I WANT TO GIVE YOU ALL RIGHT, NOW IS THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR STILLWATER DISAGREES WITH A FEW POINTS IN THE LETTER, NOTABLY THAT THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CITY TO RECEIVE APPROVAL WITH SHIPPO AND INSTEAD MOVE FORWARD WITH LOCAL REVIEW. SO OUR CITY ATTORNEY DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT IT DOESN'T REQUIRE DESIGN REVIEW. IT DOES. THEIR POSITION IS THAT IT REQUIRES DESIGN REVIEW AT THE LOCAL LEVEL RATHER THAN STATE. AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY. AND BECAUSE OF OUR PROJECT TIMELINE, WE WOULD LIKE TO GET THE DESIGN BEFORE YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENT AND FEEDBACK BEFORE MOVING FORWARD WITH FORMAL ACTION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY ON THAT, BUT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR TODAY IS SIMPLY FEEDBACK ON THE DESIGN BEFORE YOU, AND SO WE CAN BRING IT BACK TO THE REVIEW TEAM. MY HOPE IS THAT IT WILL BOLSTER AND RESULT IN CHANGES THAT ARE GOING TO BE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH WHAT SHIPPO, AND I'M ASSUMING THE HPC WOULD BE WOULD LIKE TO SEE FOR THE STRUCTURE. I DO HAVE THE RENDERINGS AND PLANS I CAN BRING FORWARD. WHO IS THE REVIEW TEAM, IF I MIGHT ASK? NOT THAT I NEED TO KNOW, BUT IT. I THINK IT SEEMS THAT PART OF THE PROBLEM MAYBE IS THAT THERE ISN'T ANYONE FROM THE HPC ON THAT. AND AND WE'RE NOT I UNDERSTAND MAYBE THE IDEA OF, OF GETTING IT DONE IN A CERTAIN ORDER, BUT. BUT THAT WAS MY FIRST QUESTION IS I WASN'T SURE WHO'S DOING THAT.

THANK YOU. YEP. IT IS OUR IT IS SEAN SANDERS, OUR, OUR ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR, HCM ARCHITECTS, AND THEN THEIR DESIGN REVIEW CONSULTANTS AND HISTORIC CONSULTANTS. AND I'M PULLING THEIR NAME UP AS WELL. OKAY. WELL, WHO WANTS TO GO AHEAD? WHAT ARE WE BEING ASKED TO DO TONIGHT? BECAUSE. IT'S NOT WE JUST GOT THIS THIS AFTERNOON AND WE HAVE LOOKED AT THAT ORIGINAL DESIGN BEFORE. AND I KNOW WE MADE COMMENTS ABOUT THAT AND BEING CONCERNED ABOUT TYPOS, RECOMMENDATIONS ON THAT THEN. SO I'M NOT REALLY CLEAR WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO TONIGHT. AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD TIME TO REALLY LOOK AT THIS. AND I WOULD WANT TO LOOK BACK AT THE MINUTES AND THE DISCUSSION FROM THAT LAST MEETING BEFORE I MADE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS. WHAT STAFF IS ASKING FOR? AND I 100% AGREE. THIS IS THE SAME PLAN THAT YOU SAW A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. THE PLANS THAT YOU DID NOT SEE FROM THE LAST RENDITION, MOST RECENTLY JUNE. AGAIN, I WAS NOT IN TENSION FROM STAFF TO WITHHOLD THOSE. IT WAS YOU ARE THE FINAL REVIEW AUTHORITY, AND IT DIDN'T FEEL PRUDENT TO BRING PLANS THAT WEREN'T COMPLETED OR REVIEWED BY SHIPPO TO YOU ALL. SO THAT'S WHY THOSE AREN'T BEFORE YOU. AND WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS THE DESIGN REVIEW TEAM'S THAT THIS IS THEIR PROPOSAL IS COMING BACK WITH THIS. SO WHILE YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY COMMENTED ON IT, WE CAN DEFINITELY TABLE AND BRING IT BACK AGAIN WITH THOSE THOSE COMMENTS, BUT I WAS HOPING FOR THOSE ADDITIONAL OR IF ANY OTHER COMMENTS WERE TO BE HAD. I MEAN, IT STRIKES ME THAT WHAT WHAT SHIPPO SEEMS TO BE SAYING IN THEIR LETTER IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE SAID A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. CORRECT. AND SO I, I, I GUESS I WOULD SAY WHAT WE SAID THEN ONLY, YOU KNOW, WITH MAYBE A LITTLE MORE EMPHASIS, BUT MY, MY CONCERN WHEN I READ THIS IS I SAID, WELL, WHOEVER'S ON THIS TEAM PROBABLY DOESN'T WORK WITH SHIPPO VERY MUCH, BUT WE DO, RIGHT. AND WE HAVE THIS REALLY GREAT RELATIONSHIP THAT'S BUILT OVER DECADES WITH THIS VERY IMPORTANT STATE AGENCY. AND JUST READING BETWEEN THE LINES HERE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S POTENTIAL FOR THAT RELATIONSHIP TO BE DAMAGED. AND THAT'S VERY CONCERNING. IF A CITY ATTORNEY, YOU KNOW, BELIEVES THERE'S A LEGAL OR TECHNICAL LOOPHOLE

[01:35:06]

YEAH. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I HAVE CONCERNS, I HAVE QUESTIONS, I HAVE COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WELL, LET ME START LET ME GO BACK FROM A PURELY DESIGN REVIEW STANDPOINT AND WHAT OUR COMMISSION IS TASKED TO DO AND THE FACT THAT THIS BUILDING IS CURRENTLY ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO VARIOUS PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNERS AND ENTITIES, THAT THAT'S LIKE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF REVIEW THAT WE HAVE. AND IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE'RE APPLYING THAT FAIRLY BETWEEN OUR PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNERS AND THIS PROJECT. LIKE I FEEL IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS IN THAT SHAPE, IT WOULD CLEARLY BE DELISTED FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE CITY.

I GUESS I ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF IF THINGS DON'T GO THE CITY'S WAY, WHAT THEY MIGHT DO NEXT. LIKE I KNOW, YOU KNOW, DEMOLITION WAS ALWAYS AN OPTION FROM THE START. AND I, AND I DO HAVE CONCERNS THAT THE COUNCIL MIGHT JUST DECIDE, THE HELL WITH IT. WE'RE, WE'RE JUST GOING TO DEMOLISH IT AND BUILD A PICNIC SHELTER. AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT IS. I DON'T KNOW, I FEEL LIKE WE DON'T WANT IT TO COME TO THAT. BUT THERE'S THAT POSSIBILITY OF COUNCIL PUSHING THROUGH THE DIRECTION THEY WANT IT TO GO, OR CERTAIN STAFF MEMBERS PUSHING THE DIRECTION THEY WANT IT TO GO. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN APPROVE THIS IN ITS CURRENT FORM WITH THE FEEDBACK AND, YOU KNOW, AND THE COMMENTS WE'VE BEEN SAYING TO THE CITY THESE THIS PAST YEAR AND A HALF, LIKE, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW WE DO THAT AS A COMMISSION AND JUST KIND OF SAY, WELL, I MEAN, I GUESS IT'S A CITY PROPERTY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPLY OUR STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS EVENLY ACROSS ANY OTHER BOARDS BECAUSE IT'S A CITY PROPERTY.

SO IT JUST SEEMS KIND OF IT PUTS US AND MAYBE IT PUTS YOU IN A DIFFICULT SPOT. LET'S JUST SAY I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THIS AT THE STARTING FROM THE LEVEL OF THE DESIGN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHAT WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR AND, AND WHAT. SEEMS TO ALSO BE ASKING FOR DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A MATERIAL ISSUE OF COST, OF FEASIBILITY OR OF FUNCTIONALITY, THAT YOU CAN CREATE A VERY FUNCTIONAL PARK AND TRAIL BUILDING THAT MEETS THE STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION. SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE ISSUE IS COMING FROM. IT, IT AND IT, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT IT OUGHT TO BE A DIFFICULT THING TO, TO ACHIEVE. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE, IN FACT, THAT THE CITY FAIRLY CLOSE TO IT FROM WHAT I'M SEEING IN THIS LETTER, LOOKING AT THE BIGGER PICTURES, YOU KNOW, I'M, I GUESS I'M NOT GOING TO PARSE THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF IT EXCEPT TO SAY THAT I READ THE STATUTE THAT WAS CITED IN THE LETTER. AND IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED. AND IF THE TWO PARTIES, NAMELY THE CITY AND CANNOT AGREE, THEN THERE'S THE GOVERNOR AND THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY APPOINT A A, A MEDIATION PANEL TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE. I HOPE IT WOULDN'T COME TO THAT BECAUSE I GUESS FROM A A BROADER STANDPOINT, TOO, JUST FROM THE VALUES OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT I THINK ARE PRETTY WIDELY HELD BY STILLWATER RESIDENTS. YOU KNOW, WE, I DON'T THINK WE WANT OUR CITY TO BE TRYING TO FIND LOOPHOLES TO GET OUT OF ITS OBLIGATIONS AROUND PROTECTING

[01:40:02]

YOU KNOW, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF POTS FROM THE STATE, BUT FROM THIS COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, SHIPPO, AND HOW THAT COULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT SAID FUNDING FROM SHIPPO IF RELATIONSHIPS ARE BRUISED OR BROKEN. YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT IS, I THINK PERHAPS THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THIS AREN'T AWARE OF THE LARGER CONTEXT THAT KEEPING THIS RELATIONSHIP WITH SHIPPO A POSITIVE ONE IS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A SMALL WIN ON THIS BUILDING FOR THE CITY. IF THEY WOULD CONSIDER GOING AGAINST THEM A SMALL WIN, RIGHT? AND IT'S HARD FOR US TO NOT KNOWING WHAT THAT PROPOSAL WAS THAT WAS SUBMITTED BACK IN JUNE.

THAT WAS CLOSE. AND SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE YOU KNOW, FROM WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THIS LOOKS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME FROM THE ONE WE FIRST SAW WITH WITH THE UNKNOWN POTENTIAL COMPROMISE. SO YEAH, THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING HAS BEEN IGNORED IN THIS DESIGN AND A PROGRAM HAS BEEN FORCED INTO IT USING MODERN MATERIALS AND STOREFRONT AND SUPPORTING A VERY VISUALLY HEAVY THIRD OF THE BUILDING ON LITTLE SPINDLY COLUMNS. I MEAN, IT'S JUST IT'S BAD. AND HCM IS A GOOD FIRM, BUT THIS IS NOT GOOD WORK. AND I JUST WANT THE COUNCIL TO HEAR THAT LOUD AND CLEAR. IT WOULD BE A TRAVESTY IF THIS HAPPENED. AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, I YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK SHIPPO IS BEING UNREASONABLE EITHER. THERE ARE SOME EASY DESIGN FIXES THAT WOULD GET THIS TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE. IT'S REALLY NOT WORTH A FIGHT ABOUT IT. AT MR. CHAIR, SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO TONIGHT IS, NUMBER ONE, AS AN UPDATE AS TO WHERE THIS PROJECT STANDS. AND WE APPRECIATE THAT. NUMBER TWO, WE'RE REVIEWING THE EXACT SAME THING WE REVIEWED. WE ALREADY COMMENTED ON THIS. WE HAD SOME GREAT FEEDBACK ON HOW YOU COULD CREATE SOME, YOU KNOW, USABLE SPACE OUTDOORS TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT MORE RECREATIONAL. SO I THINK THOSE, THOSE COMMENTS SHOULD REALLY STAND. AND NUMBER THREE, TO COMMISSIONER LARSON'S POINT, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA TO RECOMMEND THAT WE APPOINT A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION TO, YOU KNOW, SERVE ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TEAM AS A LIAISON OF SORTS TO TO WORK WITH SHIPPO ALSO. YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT WOULD HELP.

BREAK THE BLOCKADE. MR. COMMISSIONER CHAIR. I WOULD ADD A FOURTH ITEM THAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS COMMISSION AS PART OF BEING PRESENTED THIS A SECOND TIME, AND THAT IS WHAT WAS SAID EARLIER. THE BUSINESS OF THIS COMMISSION WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. IT SHOULD NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. IT'S EXPLICITLY DISALLOWED IN MULTIPLE WAYS.

AND I THINK WHAT SHIPPO WROTE IS WELL WORDED, WELL PRESENTED. AND IF YOU READ THE STATUTE, PRETTY BULLETPROOF. BUT TO THE POINT COMMISSIONER HOLMES MADE EARLIER, JUST BECAUSE WE THINK WE FOUND A LOOPHOLE THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN, WOULD COMPLETELY DISREGARD THE REASON THIS COMMISSION EXISTS IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THAT IS CERTAINLY AN OPTION THE CITY COUNCIL CAN CHOOSE, BUT I THINK THERE IS UNANIMOUS CONCERN THAT THAT OPENS A DOOR THAT THIS CITY WOULD REGRET HAVING OPENED. YEAH. AND ONE OTHER POINT TO ADD, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE SHODDY MILL BUILDING ITSELF, THE STONE BUILDING, THE DESIGN FOR WHICH COMPLIES WITH SHIPPO GUIDELINES, IS IS ISN'T BEING USED FOR ANYTHING. THE PUBLIC WILL NEVER GET IN THAT BUILDING.

AND SO WE'VE GONE TO A LOT OF TROUBLE TO MOVE IT, TO SUPPORT IT, TO STABILIZE IT, AND THEN TO LOCK IT UP AND MAKE IT STORAGE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S BEING STORED THERE. THERE IS STORAGE IN THE ENTIRE UPSTAIRS OF THE WAREHOUSE BUILDING AS WELL, BUT IT JUST SEEMS THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMMATICALLY TO DO SOMETHING MORE WITH THAT BUILDING WITHIN THE CONFINES OF

[01:45:03]

[01:50:02]

THERE WAS STILL PROPOSED GARAGE DOORS ON THE EAST FACADE, BUT I JUST BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSION SURROUNDING WHAT WAS THAT DESIGN, I'D SAY THIS IS WHAT WAS MUCH MORE IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT WAS PROPOSED. AND ULTIMATELY THIS IS WHAT THE DIRECTION IS TURNED TO. MR. CHAIR, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF STAFF COULD COMMENT. IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A COMMISSIONER TO BE INVOLVED IN THE TEAM? I'M CHAIR COMMISSIONER. I MADE THAT NOTE TO ASK OUR OUR TEAM ON THAT. I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW THAT TEAM WAS CREATED OR WHAT THEIR PLAN IS NEXT, BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION AND ONE THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK. AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, BRINGING THAT BACK IN MAY OR EVEN BEFORE IF WE COULD, A QUESTION I HAVE TOO, IS JUST THE OVERALL TIMELINE OF WHAT THE CITY ENVISIONS FOR THIS SITE. AND IF, YOU KNOW, IF WE SEE A PROPOSAL IN MAY, ARE THEY HOPING TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OVER THE SUMMER? YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION AS WELL. AND I CAN KNOW COMMISSIONERS THAT LIKELY ANY FORMAL REQUEST OR APPROVAL WOULD BE COMING TO YOU IN JUNE. SO THERE IS A MEETING BETWEEN NOW AND AND WHAT I WOULD ASSUME TO BE MORE OF A FORMAL REQUEST FOR US TO PROVIDE THESE COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE TONIGHT, AND ALSO DISCUSS WHAT DOES THAT DESIGN TEAM LOOK LIKE? COULD A COMMISSIONER BE INCLUDED? I JUST HOPE YOU KNOW, CITY STAFF COMMUNICATES, YOU KNOW, MOST OF YOU GUYS COMMUNICATE WITH COUNCIL ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE NEED TO INCORPORATE US AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE FIND A COMPROMISE BETWEEN WHAT SHIPPO ASKS AND WHAT THE CITY WANTS INITIALLY. AND MAYBE THERE IS A WAY TO BRIDGE THOSE TOGETHER. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT THE OVERALL RELATIONSHIP WITH SHIPPO, OR WHETHER WE THINK THAT APPROVAL IS STILL NECESSARY, OR IF WE JUST SAID. OR IF WE SAY, YOU KNOW, WE DID OUR. I'D SAY WE THE CITY, THE CITY DID ITS DILIGENCE IN IN COORDINATING WITH SHIPPO. AND THEN THEY FEEL LIKE THEY CHECK THAT MARK OFF AND MOVE ON. I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I'M CONCERNED OR STILL QUESTIONING THE THE PROCESS AND WHAT THAT MEANS. BUT I'LL SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT WHAT CHIPPEWA IS ASKING FOR IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR. SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT A MIDDLE GROUND IS. RIGHT? ONE OR THE OTHER ONE OF US HAS TO APPROVE IT. SO YEAH, I SUSPECT THAT THE ANSWER WILL BE THE SAME FROM BOTH WHEN WE GET. YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK YOU CAN TELL THAT THERE'S CLEAR CONSENSUS THAT THIS CURRENT RENDERING WOULD NOT BE APPROVED BY THE HPC. AND SO I HOPE YOU CAN WORK WITH YOUR TEAM TO, YOU KNOW, TO LISTEN TO WHAT WE'VE SAID AND, AND, AND WHAT SHIPPO HAS SAID AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE BETTER SUITED OR MORE LIKELY TO BE APPROVED. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE. I'VE COVERED THAT IS THERE. ANYTHING ELSE? I'LL MAYBE JUST MENTION? WE HAD

[01:55:12]

THE THE DATES ARE JULY 22ND THROUGH THE 25TH, I BELIEVE MIGHT BE THE 26TH. AND I'M GOING TO SEND REGISTRATION INFORMATION TO THE STAFF SO THAT THEY CAN SHARE THAT. BUT MARK YOUR CALENDARS. IT SHOULD BE. IT'S GREAT. IT'S IN MINNEAPOLIS. WE WE CAN ALL GO.

SO. THANK YOU. ELSE ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I WOULD MOTION TO ADJOURN. MINA SECOND. HOLMES MOTION SECOND BY HOLMES. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY,

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.