[I. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:06]
WILL CALL THE JULY 15TH, 2020, MEETING OF THE STILLWATER HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION TO ORDER. TONIGHT WE HAVE HERE COMMISSIONERS LARSON. SUMMERS AND TUCSON AND COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE COLLINS. COMMISSIONER HOLMES IS ABSENT. WE'LL MOVE ON THEN TO THE
[III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
APPROVAL OF MINUTES, THE POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JUNE 17TH, 2026 REGULAR MEETING. WOULD ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR OFFER ANY CORRECTIONS TO THAT CORRECTION? I'M NOT HEARING ANY CORRECTIONS, SO IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, WE CAN. I DO HAVE A CHANGE. I'M SORRY. I SHOULD HAVE MARKED IT ON MY NOTES AND I DIDN'T. SO THIS IS ON PAGE FOUR WHERE I'M TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE 1960S BUILDING. SHE ADDED THAT IT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO BE ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER. WELL, IT ACTUALLY, BECAUSE DUE TO ITS AGE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE. THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE BUILDING ITSELF WOULD BE ELIGIBLE. THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS. SO DUE TO THE AGE 50 PLUS YEARS, IT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE. IF HE LOOKED AT FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER, THAT WAS THE THAT WAS THE POINT I WAS MAKING ON THAT. OKAY. ANY OTHER ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO OFFER A MOTION? I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CHANGES NOTED. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY MINO. DO WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND SUMMERS. OKAY. MOTION BY MINO, SECOND BY SUMMERS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY.THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY APPROVING THE MINUTES WITH THE CHANGE DISCUSSED. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE OPEN FORUM. THE OPEN FORUM ALLOWS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE MEETING. THE COMMISSION MAY REPLY, TAKE ACTION, REPLY OR GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF AND WE ASK THAT PEOPLE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO FIVE MINUTES OR LESS. IS ANYONE HERE FOR THE OPEN FORUM? SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE OPEN FORUM AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE REST OF THE AGENDA. THERE IS NOTHING UNDER CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT. NO PUBLIC HEARINGS TONIGHT, NO UNFINISHED BUSINESS. WELL, I PROBABLY BOTH
[1. Case No. CD2026-028: Design Review approval for new openings at 201 Main Street South – (Staff Reviewer: Jason Zimmerman, 651-430-8821, jzimmerman@stillwatermn.gov)]
UNFINISHED, BUT BUT WE'LL MOVE ON TO THEM HERE. SO WE'LL MOVE NEXT TO CASE NUMBER C, D2026-028. DESIGN APPROVAL FOR NEW OPENINGS AT 201 MAIN STREET SOUTH. AND WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO STAFF. THANK YOU CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. APOLOGIES FOR THE DIS OR REORGANIZE AGENDA THERE. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED. AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS THE REVISITING OF AN ITEM TABLED AT THE LAST MEETING TO ONE MAIN STREET SOUTH. JUST A QUICK RECAP, AS I WAS NOT THE STAFF MEMBER PRESENT AT THAT TIME, BUT JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE COVER ALL OUR BASES. THIS IS THE KIND OF SHOWS THE TWO MOST RECENT CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE SINCE IT WAS CONSTRUCTED, THE BIGGEST ADDITIONS BEING TO THE FRONT FACADE HERE ON MAIN STREET. AND THAT'S JUST A RECAP. THE FLOOR PLANS ARE STILL SIMILAR TO. THOSE ARE THE SAME AS THOSE THAT WERE PRESENTED TO YOU AT LAST MONTH'S MEETING. THE BIG CHANGES IS TO THE EXTERIOR. SO AT THE LAST MEETING THERE WERE A FEW COMMENTS REGARDING THE DESIGN PROPOSAL, HENCE WHY IT WAS TABLED. AND I JUST WANT TO GO OVER THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT ARE BEFORE YOU. IT'S THE INTRODUCTIONS OF THREE NEW WINDOW OPENINGS ON THE NORTH ELEVATION BACK HERE. EACH WINDOW, EACH OF THE THREE WINDOWS HAS AN ADDITIONAL PANE WIDER THAN THOSE OTHER ON THE FOURTH ON THE NORTH FACADE, AND THIS IS PRIMARILY DUE TO KEEPING THE DESIGN CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THAT NORTH FACADE. INTRODUCTION OF FOLDING GLASS WALLS ON THE EAST ELEVATION, AS WELL AS THE NORTH ELEVATION HERE AND HERE WITH A 42 INCH GLASS RAILING. TO DE-EMPHASIZE THAT CHANGE. THE CORRUGATED METAL THAT WAS LOCATED HERE HAS BEEN REMOVED. THERE'S AN INTRODUCTION OF NEW WINDOW SILLS AND LINTELS ON THE NORTH LEVEL. ON THE UPPER LEVEL OF THE NORTH FACADE HERE PAINTED BLUE TO MATCH THE EXISTING AWNINGS. AND IT'S A PROPOSED MUTED, A LITTLE BIT MORE DARKER BLUE THAN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. THERE IS ALSO THE ALTERATIONS TO THE WEST ELEVATION ENTRANCE. APOLOGIES PRIMARY ENTRANCE HERE THAT ARE REMAINING THE SAME. REFURBISHMENT OF THE EXISTING METAL CANOPIES PAINTING THEM BLUE. AND THAT IS ON THE FIRST LEVEL HERE THAT HAS REMAINED THE SAME. AND THERE'S UPDATED WALL SIGNAGE AS PART OF THIS PROPOSAL THAT I'LL GET TO. THAT WAS ALSO PART OF THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. THAT IS ALSO SINCE CHANGED FOLLOWING CONVERSATION.[00:05:02]
THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY CHANGES THAT YOU HAVE ALL SEEN. I THINK IT'LL BE EASIER FOR ME TO COMPARE FROM LAST MONTH'S TO THIS. SO THE BIGGEST CHANGES THAT WE SEE ON THESE FACADES ARE THE PAINTING OF THE CANOPIES, THE DEMENTIA LENTILS ON THE NEW WINDOWS, ALONG WITH BACK HERE, IT'LL BE EASIER HERE. THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS IS THE UPPER LEFT HAND SIDE IS THE NEW PROPOSAL. THIS WAS LAST MONTH'S PROPOSAL. INTRODUCTION OF THREE NEW WINDOWS, ALL THE SAME SIZE, ONE MORE PANE AND LARGER THAN THOSE EXISTING. SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOTHING HERE. THESE HAVE BEEN DONE TO ADDRESS THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT IN THIS DESIGN HERE, I BELIEVE IT WAS LESS CONSISTENT. SO YOU JUST HAD THIS INTRODUCTION OF A FOLDING WALL DOOR SYSTEM THAT DIDN'T REALLY FEEL CONSISTENT WITH THAT FACADE. SO NOW WE HAVE A STILL FOLDING WALL DOOR SYSTEM HERE, BUT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN THAT IS ON NOT PREDOMINANT ON THE NORTH FACADE, BUT IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT DESIGN HERE. SIMILARLY, THE CORRUGATED METAL HAS BEEN REMOVED ON THE EAST FACADE, ALONG WITH THE REINTRODUCTION OF A GLASS RAILING RATHER THAN THAT WROUGHT IRON OR BLACK, WHICH WAS ON BOTH OF THESE, ALONG WITH SOME PAINTING CHANGES. THE APPLICANT IS STILL WORKING WITH EXCEL ON WHERE THE CONDUITS WILL GO, BUT THE GOAL IS TO HAVE THEM INTERIOR NOT SHOWING ON THE EXTERIOR. THE PRIMARY CONCERN WAS FOCUSED ON ENSURING THAT THE PROPOSED RENOVATIONS REMAIN COMPATIBLE WITH THE BUILDING'S MID-CENTURY ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER. THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM THE MINUTES AND CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF. BY REDUCING VISUALLY COMPETING DESIGN ELEMENTS AND PRESERVING THAT EXCUSE ME, EXISTING FENESTRATION PATTERNS PRIMARILY ON THE NORTH FACADE AND SIMPLIFYING THE AWNINGS AND SIGNAGE DESIGNS, WHICH I'LL GET INTO DESIGN HERE FOR THE SIGNS SHORTLY, AND AVOIDING FEATURES THAT APPEARED INCONSISTENT. AND I THINK WHAT THE APPLICANTS ATTEMPTED HERE TO DO, AND FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, DONE WELL, IS REDUCE SOME OF THAT COMPETING DESIGN ELEMENTS. WHILE THESE MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TWO PANEL, IT'S MORE CONSISTENT THAN OF A DESIGN THAN WHAT WE HAD ON THE THE FIRST PLAN DOWN HERE, LOOKING AT THE SIGNAGE, THIS IS THE MAIN STREET WEST FACADE. PRIOR TO THIS, THERE WERE PROPOSED CANOPY SIGNS. AFTER THE MEETING AND DISCUSSING WITH COMMENTS FROM HPC AND THEN EVEN LOOKING AGAIN AT CITY CODE, THE SIGN CONSULTANTS DECIDED THAT THE. WHAT IS LITERALLY COMPLIANT IN CODE AND WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE EVEN WITHOUT HPC REVIEW WOULD BE A SIMPLE WALL SIGN ON THIS FACADE HERE, RATHER THAN ATTEMPTING TO DO A CANOPY SIGN OR A WALL SIGN ON THE UPPER LEVEL FOR ONE CANOPY SIGN, THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED JUST WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMPLIANT WITH CITY CODE. IT'S PRETTY SPECIFIC TO OUR MORE TRADITIONAL LOOKING CANOPIES, AND WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH SMALLER ON THE WEST FACADE. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS EAST FACADE. PARDON ME. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS HAS CHANGED. THIS IS STILL THE WALL SIGN. WHERE IT IS BEING PROPOSED IS COMPLIANT WITH CITY CODE. AND THEN THE OTHER LARGER CHANGES ON OUR NORTH FACADE, WHERE WHAT WAS A LOGO SPECIFICALLY HERE HAS NOW TURNED INTO A SIMPLE FIRST RESOURCE BANK. ALUMINUM CUT. NON ILLUMINATED LETTERING WILL BE ILLUMINATED EXTERNALLY BY THE GOOSENECK LIGHTS. AND THIS WAS DONE AND PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT, AGAIN COMPLIANT AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR CITY CODE. ULTIMATELY WITH THAT STAFF DOES STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS WE ARE RECOMMENDING. I DO HAVE THE OLD JUMPING AHEAD. I DO HAVE THE OLD PLANS HERE FOR THE SIGNAGE IF WE'D LIKE TO DISCUSS. BUT AT THE. ULTIMATELY, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE UPDATED DESIGN BEFORE YOU. FOR 201 MAIN STREET SOUTH, AND I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.THE APPLICANT'S ARCHITECT IS HERE AS WELL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF, AND THEN WE MAY ASK THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE TO COME UP IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. SO ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, MR. CHAIR, IN IN THAT REVIEW, I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THAT ON THE NORTH FACADE IT WOULD RETAIN THE FOLDING DOORS, BUT AS I READ THIS, THOSE ARE NOW WINDOWS. NOT FOLDING DOORS ON THAT NORTH FACADE IS THAT I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION THERE. I APOLOGIZE IF I HAD THAT INCONSISTENTLY INCORRECT. IT IS.
THE STAFF REPORT SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT THERE THIS WAS RETAINING FOLDING DOORS HERE I APOLOGIZE, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. CORRECT. ONE ONLY ONE OPENING, NOT ALL THREE I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU. AS THE APPLICANT JUST CLARIFIED, NOT THE THREE WINDOWS ARE DESIGNED TO BE CONSISTENT AND DESIGN. SO THEY'RE ALL GOING TO ALL GOING TO BE THREE PANELS WIDE. ONLY ONE WILL BE THE LASER POINTER GOES OUT AT THE PERFECT TIME. ONLY ONE, WHICH IS THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED ONE, WILL BE THE FOLDING DOORS. THE OTHER TWO WILL REMAIN JUST WINDOWS.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE AN APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE HERE. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD? YOU CAN COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE IF SO. AND JUST HIT THE BUTTON ON THE LEFT THERE. WE'LL TURN IT GREEN. THERE YOU GO. MINECRAFT. MINECRAFT ARCHITECTS. I AM HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A I HAVE A QUESTION. THANK YOU. FIRST OF
[00:10:02]
ALL THANK YOU. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU LISTENED AND RESPONDED TO A LOT OF THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMISSION AND AND MADE SOME CHANGES, WHICH I THINK IS AN IMPROVEMENT FROM THE PREVIOUS ONE. ONE QUESTION I HAD IS I HAVE ABOUT THREE. ONE IS ON THE NORTH SIDE. THE THE, THE WINDOWS THAT YOU HAVE INDICATED AS OPERABLE OR CASEMENT TYPE WINDOWS. NOW THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT THAT WOULD BE THE THIRD ONE IN FROM THE LEFT ON THE TOP. AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT IS MORE OR LESS REPLACING THE PREVIOUS GLASS WALL. THEY OPERATE THEN AS OVERSIZE CASEMENTS, THEY OPEN UP OR THEY CAN OPEN UP. SO THE INTENT THERE IS TO STILL DO A THREE FOLD DOOR, BUT THAT HAS THE MULLION PATTERN TO MATCH WHAT'S EXISTING. OKAY. NOW, AS YOU KNOW, THE MULLIONS WILL BE A LITTLE BIT LARGER ON ONE THAT OPERATES. THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. YEAH. SO THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S AVOIDABLE, BUT I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT WILL BE A, YOU KNOW, A DEVIATION. IF SO, THAT IS OPERATING IT WOULD BE THE INTENT IS TO BE A TRIFOLD.SO THAT FOLDS TO ONE SIDE. IT SAYS CASEMENT WERE SHOWN. THAT'S MY MY IN THE IN THE ELEVATION. AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE SORT OF HAVE A CASEMENT DESIGNATION. I'M LOOKING AT THAT CENTER ON THE TOP DETAIL AND THE NOTE UNDERNEATH THAT, THAT THAT IS NOT OUR INTENT.
OUR INTENT, OUR INTENT WOULD BE THAT THE THREE FOLD. AND IF THEY THREE FOLD, THEY THREE FOLD ON THE INSIDE. SO IS THERE A GUARDRAIL ON THE OUTSIDE GLASS RAIL THAT COMES UP TO THE HEIGHT OF THAT MULLION? SO AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE WINDOWS NOW, THERE'S A GLASS RAIL THAT SITS IN FRONT OF THEM SOMEWHERE. OKAY. DOES IT PROJECT OUT FROM THE FACE OF THE BUILDING, NOT FROM THE FACE OF THE BUILDING. SO THAT WOULD SIT BECAUSE WE'VE GOT SOME DEPTH TO THAT WALL. SO THAT WOULD SIT, YOU KNOW, JUST SIT WITHIN THE MASONRY OPENING. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AND THEN THE, THE TRI FOLDING DOORS WOULD OPEN INSIDE WOULD BE INSIDE OF THAT. RIGHT. SO JUST, I THINK FOR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT IDENTICAL WINDOW. THAT'S A WINDOW THAT WOULD LOOK DIFFERENT, MAYBE ON A COUPLE OF MULLION WIDTHS AND THIS ADDITIONAL GUARDRAIL. OKAY.
SO WOULD IT LOOK LIKE THE ONE ON THE EAST SIDE OR. NO. BECAUSE THE ONE ON THE EAST SIDE DEFINITELY SHOWS THAT GLASS BARRIER. SO THE GLASS RAILING WOULD LOOK SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE ON THE EAST SIDE. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHICH DRAWING YOU'RE LOOKING AT, BUT THE RAILING WOULD BE IDENTICAL. I'M LOOKING AT THE ONE IN THE PACKET TONIGHT. SURE. SO THE RAILING ON THE EAST SIDE AND THE RAILING ON THE NORTH SIDE WOULD MATCH EACH OTHER, BUT THEY ONLY OCCUR IN THOSE TWO PLACES. OKAY. AND IN BOTH CASES, ARE THEY FITTING WITHIN THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING OR ARE THEY. THEY'RE BOTH FITTING WITHIN THE WITHIN THE THICKNESS OF THE WALL. SO THEY'RE NOT PROJECTING. AND THEY WOULD COME UP TO A HEIGHT THAT MATCHES THAT MULLION TYPE. OKAY. SO YOU PROBABLY EXPLAINED THIS AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT I'M NOT REMEMBERING EXACTLY WHY DOES THAT ONE ON THE EAST SIDE JUST FLOAT OUT THERE AND IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING ON THE EAST SIDE.
RIGHT. SO THE BACK 30FT OR SOMETHING HAS THREE LEVELS WHERE THE REST OF THE BUILDING HAS ONLY TWO LEVELS. SO THERE IS AN INTERMEDIATE LEVEL, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT'S OCCUPIED. SO IT HAS A LOW FIRST FLOOR, THEN A MIDDLE FLOOR WHICH IS OCCUPIABLE AND THEN A THIRD FLOOR ALL WITHIN THAT HEIGHT. AND THAT THIRD FLOOR IS A MECHANICAL ROOM. SO FOR THAT REASON THAT FOR THE REAR PORTION OF THE BUILDING, THE FLOOR ELEVATION IS DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF THE BUILDING. AND THERE'S NO WAY TO PUT IT ON THE UPPER LEVEL. THE UPPER LEVEL, WELL, IT WOULD IF IT WERE ON THE UPPER LEVEL, I GUESS IT COULD MATCH THE HEAD HEIGHT, BUT THAT'S THE MECHANICAL ROOM. SO ALL OF THE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IS UP AGAINST THAT WALL. IT'S A AND IT'S ALL THE HVAC EQUIPMENT. IT'S NOT AN OCCUPIABLE SPACE.
OKAY. I THINK THE EAST SIDE IS A MESS. BUT BUT IT'S A MESS INSIDE THE BUILDING AS WELL.
AND I KNOW THAT THERE JUST THERE'S ALL KINDS OF ELECTRICAL PANELS AND, AND MECHANICAL
[00:15:01]
EQUIPMENT AND EVERYTHING ELSE. AND I STRUGGLED WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, I IS, IS THIS AN IMPROVEMENT TO WHAT WE SAW BEFORE? IN SOME WAYS, I THINK IT IT PROBABLY IS BECAUSE IT'S JUST LESS LESS OF THINGS, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN THE LARGER METAL PANEL AND EVERYTHING ELSE.THE EAST SIDE, I THINK, IS FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM THE APPLICANT AND FROM WHAT I KNOW OF THE BUILDING, IS NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE MADE LIKE THE REST OF IT DUE TO WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE OF IT AND WHAT THOSE ARE EXISTING CONDITIONS. SO I KIND OF ACCEPT THAT THAT WILL BE AND THAT WE JUST MAKE IT IS SORT OF CALM AND NOT DISTRACTING AS POSSIBLE. AND MAYBE THIS IS LESS SO THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE OR LESS DISTRACTING. AND MAYBE THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S. POSSIBLY ACCEPTABLE. WE'VE ALWAYS, I'M GOING TO SAY, IN PROJECTS THAT HAVE FRONTED WATER STREET WITH ONE OF THE THREE OR 4 OR 2 ELEVATIONS GIVEN A LITTLE MORE LATITUDE ON WATER STREET ON ACCOUNT OF IT NOT BEING A PRIMARY ELEVATION. AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE REALIZE THIS IS VERY VISIBLE FROM THE PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AND THE BRIDGE.
SO IT'S A TOUGH ONE, BUT TO ME, IT'S STILL GOING TO BE AN IMPROVEMENT, PROBABLY FROM WHAT'S THERE. IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE ELECTRICAL CONDUIT AND EQUIPMENT AND THINGS THERE, AND I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS I CAN I CAN FIND THAT ACCEPTABLE. THAT WAS JUST ONE COMMENT. AND AS LONG AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD FOR YOU IS ON THE EAST SIDE, AND YOUR RENDERING DOESN'T SHOW THE SIGNAGE. YOUR SIGNAGE DRAWING SHOWS THE SIGNAGE. AND I'M WONDERING IF MAYBE WE COULD SEE THE SIGNAGE DRAWING BRIEFLY SO WE COULD ASK THE QUESTION.
SO THAT SIGN WHICH IS THERE, WHICH WOULD HAVE THIS WINDOW DIRECTLY ABOVE IT, BUT SLIGHTLY OFF TO ONE SIDE, AND IT ALSO SLIGHTLY OVERLAPS AN EXISTING VENT THERE. AND I'M JUST WONDERING, SINCE YOUR DRAWINGS DON'T SHOW ALL OF THEM IN ONE PLACE, HOW THIS SIGN IS GOING TO GET RESOLVED BETWEEN THE, THE WINDOW PLACEMENT, WHICH IS SLIGHTLY TO THE RIGHT OF THE SIGN, AND DEALING WITH THAT LITTLE OVERLAP, WHETHER IT WILL BE ACTUALLY OVERLAPPING THE MECHANICAL DUCT AS IT'S SHOWN. YEAH. SO, COMMISSIONER LARSON, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, I TO YOUR FIRST POINT, LOOKING AT THIS EAST ELEVATION, AND I, I HAVE A HUNCH MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN IN THIS SITUATION IN THE PAST WHERE YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING AND YOU THINK, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO HERE. SO OFTEN REDUCTION IS IMPROVEMENT. AND THAT'S HOW I ENDED UP WITH THE ELEVATION THAT WE HAVE TODAY. SO WITH REGARD TO THE SIGN, IT IS OUR INTENT AND FOR THE SIGN TO ALIGN WITH THE OPENING ABOVE THE VENT SERVED. ITEMS IN THE KITCHEN, THAT MAY WELL NOT BE NECESSARY ANYMORE. BUT IT IS OUR INTENT THAT WHETHER THE SIGN GOES UP OR GOES TO THE LEFT, IT WILL MATCH THAT WINDOW. AND WE ALSO WILL EITHER MODIFY THE VENT OPENING OR MODIFY THE. THE COMPOSITION. WE, WE, WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW ACCURATE THIS PHOTO RENDERING BY THE SIGN PEOPLE IS, BUT IT IS NOT OUR INTENT TO OVERLAP THAT GRILLE.
THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT OUR HOPE. I THINK ALIGNING IT WITH THE BIG NEW OPENING IS PROBABLY THE RIGHT THING TO DO IN TERMS OF ALL THE PRINCIPLES WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT AND. I'LL ACCEPT THAT THAT THAT WILL BE DONE. FAIR. OKAY. SO IS THAT GLASS DOOR STAYING OR IS IT BEING FILLED IN? BECAUSE THE PLAN IN THE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR PACKET HAS IT ALMOST LOOKS BRICKED OVER. IF I MAY, THE ELEVATION VIEW. SO BECAUSE THE DOOR IS RECESSED, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS THE SIDE OF THE RECESS IN THIS RENDERING, SO THAT THAT DOOR AND FRAME REMAINS THE SAME.
OKAY. SO THE DOOR IS THE SAME. IT HAS NO CHANGE. OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR. ON THAT EAST ELEVATION, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THESE CHANGES. I THINK IT REALLY FOLLOWED OUR SUGGESTED DIRECTION. BUT ON THAT EAST ELEVATION, I WAS WONDERING IF YOU WERE GOING TO
[00:20:06]
PAINT THE TOP OF THE, I GUESS, HEADER OF THE OF THE NEW WINDOW THAT OPENS TO THE BLUE COLOR.OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO BRING THE HEADER IN BEHIND THE BRICK AND SAVE THE FACE BRICK, OR REASSEMBLE THE FACE BRICK IN THAT PLACE. THAT IS NOT AGAIN, BECAUSE THAT OPENING IS SO DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHERS. I THINK FOR IT TO BE IT'S FOR FOR IT TO DO ITS OWN THING, IN MY OPINION, MAKE SOME SENSE. SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO BE KIND OF SORT OF LIKE THE NORTH ONES, BUT WE COULDN'T QUITE DO IT. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT. SO WHAT I'M SEEING IS THE RECESS, NOT THE HEADER. OF THE EAST. ON THE EAST ONE THERE WOULD BE A BRICK HEADER IS OUR INTENT IS TO HAVE A BRICK HEADER THERE, DIFFERENT FROM WHAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE NOW. BUT THEN YOU HAVE THE BLUE HEADER ABOVE. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M. BECAUSE THAT'S ALREADY SAYING THESE WORDS. THE ONE BELOW IS ALREADY STEEL. OKAY. VERY GOOD. AND THEN THE STEEL SERVICE DOOR AND AREA ABOVE WHAT'S. SO THAT'S A TERRIFIC QUESTION. AS WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, WE LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, WHY ARE WE CALLING ATTENTION TO THIS DOOR? THAT IS NOT ADDING TO THE IMPRESSION OF THE BUILDING. AND SO AS WE LOOKED AT IT FOR THE REVISION, WE SAID, WHY DON'T WE JUST TAME THAT BACK A LITTLE BIT? WE HAVE TO PAINT IT BECAUSE IT IT'S PAINTABLE SURFACE NEEDS PAINTING, BUT IF WE CAN DO IT IN A WAY THAT DRAWS LESS ATTENTION TO ITSELF, WE THINK IT WOULD BE STRONGER THAN IF WE USED THAT SAME CONTRASTING COLOR. THAT WAS THE APPROACH THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT. OKAY, SO IT'S PAINTED DARK BROWN.
IT'S IT'S PAINTED AS REASONABLY CLOSE TO THE BRICK AS WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO IT. AND SORT OF IN A DULL CONDITION. THAT'S THE INTENT THAT WE'RE SHOWING TODAY, INCLUDING THE CANOPY, THE CANOPY, BECAUSE THAT DOES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REST. WE'RE SHOWING IT TODAY WITH THAT SAME DARK, DARK, DULL BLUE. OH, SORRY, I CAN'T SEE THAT. I GET IT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. AND AGAIN.
THESE ARE NOT. THESE ARE PIECES THAT WE ARE NOT THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS TO THE DESIGN. BUT THAT'S I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'LL CALL YOU UP IF WE HAVE MORE. SO NOW WE'LL SHIFT GEARS TOWARDS DISCUSSION IN THE COMMISSION. ANY THOUGHTS OR POTENTIAL MOTIONS? I BELIEVE IF WE WERE LOOKING TO APPROVE, THERE IS A DRAFT RESOLUTION IN THE PACKET. WELL, I STILL REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. EAST OPEN DOOR OPENING WITH THE BALCONY, JUST BECAUSE IT REALLY FEELS LIKE IT COMPETES WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING. IT'S UNFORTUNATE MAYBE ON THAT SIDE. AND I, YOU KNOW, I RESPECT COMMISSIONER LARSON'S COMMENTS ABOUT WATER STREET. BUT THE REST OF IT SEEMS PRETTY CONSISTENT, AT LEAST WITH THE, THE THE RHYTHM OF THE BUILDING. SO IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THAT IS WHERE IT IS BECAUSE IT FEELS JUST PLOPPED THERE. OTHERWISE, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY REAL CONCERNS WITH SOME OF THE OTHER. PROPOSALS FOR THE BUILDING. I. MR. COMMISSIONER, I THINK I WOULD ECHO THAT ON THE NORTH SIDE, IT FEELS AS THOUGH WE'VE MADE AN ATTEMPT. THE DESIGN HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO. AT LEAST HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY OF PATTERN. YOU KNOW, MULLION SIZES AREN'T GOING TO BE NOTICED BY MORE THAN THE PEOPLE SITTING HERE. SO I FEEL LIKE THAT ONE'S A REASONABLE. THE THAT EAST ELEVATION DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE A WINDOW. AND WHILE I RESPECT THAT THE BUILDING'S OCCUPANTS WANT A WINDOW, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR A CASE LATER TODAY WHERE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE REDESIGNING THAT BUILDING WANT A WINDOW WHERE
[00:25:04]
THERE ISN'T CURRENTLY ONE, AND IT DOES NOT MATCH THE INTEGRITY OF THAT BUILDING. AND SO I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT IF NOT HAVING A WINDOW IS AN OPTION, THAT WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF THIS BUILDING AND ITS CURRENT DESIGN. IF HAVING A WINDOW IS A REQUIREMENT, THEN I THINK THIS IS AT LEAST A MUCH STRONGER DIRECTION THAN THE ONE WE SAW LAST TIME. OTHER REACTIONS TO THAT FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS.I, AND THIS IS MY TAKE TOO, SO I, I THINK THAT THE BUILDING HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO TO AN EXTENT, YOU KNOW, THE ADDITION OF WINDOWS THAT HISTORICALLY WEREN'T THERE. I THINK IT'S BEEN MODIFIED TOO MUCH TO HAVE ANY CHARACTER OR INTEGRITY LEFT IN IT, IF YOU WILL. SO IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, I'M NOT AS STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE PLACEMENT OF THAT WINDOW IN THAT LOCATION SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE PURPOSE THAT THE BUILDING HAS ALREADY HAD MODIFICATIONS TO IT. IF IT WAS THERE AND IT WAS IN MORE OF AN ORIGINAL CONDITION THAN I WOULD FEEL MORE STRONGLY ABOUT IT. BUT I FEEL LIKE IT'S IT'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH A FEW MODIFICATIONS OVER THE YEARS. ADDITIONAL ADDITIONS OF WINDOWS THAT HISTORICALLY WEREN'T THERE.
SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM AS IT WAS BUILT IN THE 60S, BUT. I GUESS ONE WAY OF THINKING ABOUT THE EAST SIDE IS JUST WHAT OUR COMMISSIONER WAS SAYING IS, IS IT BETTER OR WORSE WITH THE WINDOW? I MEAN, RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, AND TO ME, IT'S I AGREE.
I THINK WHAT I WHAT I JUST HEARD WITH BOTH COMMISSIONERS IS THAT IT'S NOT SO COMPELLING THAT, THAT I'D FEEL THAT THE, THE ADDITION OF THAT WINDOW IS, IS ON THE WHOLE. DISQUALIFYING THIS FROM, FROM BEING ACCEPTED. IS IT BETTER IF IT WEREN'T THERE? I'M NOT SURE. IT'S NOT VERY GOOD. NOW. DOES IT MAKE A LOT OF SENSE IN THAT ELEVATION. NO, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT DETRACTS IN ANY MAJOR WAY FROM FROM WHAT'S GOING ON. SO. I WISH WE COULD HAVE A PATTERN OF WINDOWS OR GLAZING OR ENGAGING THE STREET ON THAT SIDE THAT WAS SIMILAR TO THE REST OF THE BUILDING. I UNDERSTAND WHY IT JUST DOESN'T WORK FROM THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND LOADING DOCKS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THEY'RE THERE. SO I GUESS I FIND IT ACCEPTABLE. IT'S I, I DON'T THINK IF IT WERE MISSING, I DON'T THINK IT'S, IT'S CHANGING THE OVERALL BUILDING THAT MUCH ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. OTHER THOUGHTS. I THINK THERE ARE KIND OF TWO TAKES ON THE EAST WINDOW HERE AND. OTHER THAN THAT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE PRETTY MUCH IN AGREEMENT WITH WITH THE PLAN WE'RE SEEING HERE. WE DO HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. WE HAVE A DRAFT RESOLUTION IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO THAT. I DID HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT REAL QUICK. OFTEN ON ON PROJECTS LIKE THIS IN THE IN THE IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, WE'VE HAD A CONDITION THAT LIGHTING BE 3500 KELVIN OR WARMER. ARE YOU OKAY WITH. ABSOLUTELY. YEAH, THAT WOULD BE OUR INTENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO SETTING ASIDE THE OVERALL QUESTION OF THE EAST WINDOW, WHICH NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED, DOES SEEM THAT WE HAVE THAT THAT CONDITION I JUST MENTIONED THAT I'LL BE OFFERING.
AND THEN WE ALSO, I THINK, WERE HEARING THAT IF THAT REAR WINDOW GOES IN THAT THE THE SIGN ON THE EAST WOULD ALIGN WITH THE THE WINDOW. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SORT OF ADDITIONS OR
[00:30:02]
ALTERATIONS TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL? WOULD ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED AND THE ADDITION ADDITIONS THAT THE SIGN ALIGNS AS THE APPLICANT INDICATED IT WOULD. I THINK THAT'S ALL. I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THE 3500 KELVIN OR WARMER. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND SUMMERS. OKAY. MOTION BY LARSON, SECOND BY SUMMERS. THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I WILL JUST NOTE THAT FOR ME. YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T PARTICULARLY. YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO BE IN A MOMENT SEEING A DIFFERENT CASE WHERE AN OPENING IS, IS MORE PROBLEMATIC ON A, ON A NATIONAL REGISTER PROPERTY. BUT. ON, ON THIS ONE, WE DO HAVE A DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, GUIDES US AGAINST ADDING NEW WINDOW OPENINGS. HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, THIS ONE.THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THOSE NEW OPENINGS THERE SO THAT. IF I WERE SEEING THE THE CHANGES TEN YEARS, YOU KNOW, 15 YEARS AGO, THE FIRST TIME THAT IT CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, I MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT TAKE ON IT. ALL RIGHT. WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED. NAY. OKAY. ANY ABSTENTIONS. OKAY. IT PASSES ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR FOUR VOTES IN FAVOR AND ONE VOTE. COMMISSIONER MINO AGAINST THE. AND THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK WITH THE PROJECT. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON THEN TO CASE NUMBER. I
[2. Case No. CD2026-033: Design Review approval for rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Bergstein Warehouse and Shoddy Mill Site at 1250 Main Street South – (Staff Reviewer: Ben Gutknecht, 651-430-8818, bgutknecht@stillwatermn.gov)]
SEE THE AGENDA HERE. CASE NUMBER CD2026-033. DESIGN REVIEW FOR REHABILITATION.ADAPTIVE REUSE OF THE BERGSTEIN WAREHOUSE AND SHODDY MILL SITE AT 1250 MAIN STREET SOUTH. AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO STAFF. THANK YOU, CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, AS YOU MENTIONED, YOU'VE SEEN THIS ONE BEFORE AND A FEW TIMES OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. I KIND OF WANT TO EVEN WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO GO BACK AND REFRESH US A LITTLE BIT ON THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND WHAT THE PROJECT IS HERE TODAY. SO A LITTLE BACKGROUND. THIS IS A HISTORIC REHABILITATION ADAPTIVE REUSE PROPOSAL FOR TWO STRUCTURES ALONG THE SAINT CROIX RIVER AND LOOP TRAIL. THE PROPOSED AUGMENTATION OF THE BUILDING SHOULD BE TO SUPPORT THE LOOP TRAIL AND ALSO INTRODUCE COURTESY DOCKS. THERE'S ALSO PROPOSED NEW PUBLIC GATHERING SPACES AND TRAIL AMENITIES ALONG THAT TRAIL FOR THE STRUCTURES THEMSELVES. THE HISTORIC CHARACTER REMAINS INTACT DESPITE DETERIORATION AND NON-HISTORIC ALTERATIONS, PRIMARILY TO THE BERGSTEIN WAREHOUSE. THE BUILDINGS REMAIN SUITABLE FOR REHABILITATION, WHICH IS PRIMARILY. THAT'S THE PRESERVATION STRATEGY THAT THE PROJECT TEAM HERE AT THE CITY OF STILLWATER HAS TAKEN RATHER THAN RESTORATION. THIS IS A REHABILITATION PROPOSAL. THERE'S THE PRESERVATION OF CHARACTER DEFINING HISTORIC FEATURES AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, WITH ADAPTIVE REUSE FOR LONG TERM VIABILITY PRESENTED BY THE OR PROPOSED BY THE CITY FOR. I'D SAY THERE'S MORE OF A RESTORATION FOR THE STRUCTURE HERE ON THE SCREEN, WHICH IS THE SHODDY MILL BUILDING AND BERGSTEIN WAREHOUSE WILL HAVE COMPATIBLE CONTEMPORARY ADDITIONS THAT REMAIN DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE HISTORIC FABRIC. JUST SOME EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR YOU ON THE SCREEN. LIKE I SAID, THIS IS THE SHODDY MILL BUILDING ITSELF IS PROBABLY PRIMARILY MADE OF, I THINK, LIKE RIVER STONE, RUBBLE AND MORTAR, WHICH IS FAILING. AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE EASTERN FACADE IS BEING PROPPED UP. SO THIS IS MOSTLY GOING TO BE A RESTORATION PROJECT. THIS IS THE BERGSTEIN WAREHOUSE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROPOSED ADAPTIVE REUSE. SO MANY OF THE EXISTING OPENINGS AND THEN ALSO LATER INSTALLED OPENINGS ARE BEING. PRESERVED WITH FAKE WINDOWS AT THE MOMENT AND BOARDED UP DOORS. AND THAT'S FOR ALL OF THE FACADES. THERE'S A FLAT PAN ROOF THAT IS NOT HISTORIC OR ORIGINAL TO THE THE BUILDING ITSELF AND THE I'D SAY
[00:35:05]
THE LARGER CHANGES TO DOOR OPENINGS IS ON THIS SIDE HERE WITH THE THE SOUTH FACADE, AGAIN WITH THE FAKE WINDOWS AND ONE WINDOW THAT IS NOT FAKE BUT IS BROKEN. GOING INTO A LITTLE BIT AND I APOLOGIZE. I WANTED TO TOUCH ON THE. I THOUGHT I HAD A DIFFERENT SLIDE IN HERE.I WANTED TO START HERE WITH JUST A LITTLE BIT OF THE INITIAL DESIGN AND PRESERVATION REVIEW, KIND OF GO OVER TIMELINE OF THE LAST TWO YEARS. I KNOW A LARGER VERSION OF THIS WAS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, BUT I THINK IT'S STILL PERTINENT TO GO OVER IN 2024. THE INITIAL REHABILITATION WAS BROUGHT UP WITH THE CONCEPT THAT I ACTUALLY JUST FLASHED THROUGH.
THAT IS THE CURRENT CONCEPT BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE EARLIER CONCERNS NOTED BY THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION WERE PRIMARILY ABOUT THE LOSS OF HISTORIC CHARACTER, DUE TO THE LARGE OPENINGS BEING PROPOSED IN THE WINDOWS AND THE REMOVAL OF WALLS AT THAT TIME. THE CITY ATTORNEY ALSO CONCLUDED VIA A 13 PAGE MEMO, THE NUMBER OF EXHIBITS THAT THE SHIPPER RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT LEGALLY BINDING A PART OF THIS STRUCTURE. DESPITE THAT, THE CITY STILL MOVED FORWARD WITH ENGAGING WITH THE SHIPPO, WITH SHIPPO ON DESIGNS. WE DID SEND SHIPPO A PROPOSED PLAN THAT WAS SIMILAR TO THE ONE BEFORE YOU, WHERE THEY DID RECOMMEND.
SIMILAR TO HPC, REDUCING WALL REMOVAL AND LARGE GLASS OPENINGS AT THE TIME, THERE'S A LARGE BREAK IN JUST PRIMARILY DUE TO STAFF MOVING AROUND, STAFF CHANGES, LOSING STAFF AND STAFF AVAILABILITY. IN 2025, WE REVAMPED AND STARTED WORKING WITH SHIPPO IN EARNEST, WITH CONSULTATIONS, WITH ONGOING MEETINGS AND WITH BETWEEN SHIPPO AND THE PROJECT TEAM, MULTIPLE DESIGN REVISIONS TO ADDRESS THE PRESERVATION CONCERNS NOTED BY SHIPPO AND SHIPPO ADVOCATING FOR A NO ADVERSE EFFECT BEING THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN. THE LAST DESIGN THAT THE CITY CAME UP WITH TO PRESENT A SHIPPO WAS DETERMINED BY THE CITY PROJECT TEAM TO BE THE BEST BALANCE IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION, PUBLIC FUNCTION, FUNCTIONALITY, AND THEN LONG TERM DURABILITY. SHIPPO WAS. RESPONSE TO THIS WAS NOTING THAT THE DESIGN WOULD STILL RESULT IN AN ADVERSE EFFECT AND STRONGLY SUGGESTED AND ADVOCATED FOR A NO ADVERSE EFFECT FINDING THEY DIDN'T DID NOT WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN ADVERSE EFFECT.
ALTHOUGH STAFF WAS PREPARING FOR THAT AND WAS THINKING OF MITIGATION TECHNIQUES, SHIPPO DIDN'T WANT TO MOVE THAT DIRECTION. INSTEAD, THEY SUGGESTED STAFF LOOK AT ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS, PRIMARILY WAYS TO CLOSE THOSE OPENINGS. SO THAT'S THE END OF 2025. WITH THAT PROPOSAL, HCM, THE ARCHITECTS THAT WERE PART OF THE PROJECT CITY TEAM, THE CITY PROJECT TEAM DID PRESENT TWO OPTIONS TO THE CITY OR TO CITY STAFF THAT WERE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL. SO I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THE PROPOSAL. THAT IS A FLASH ON THE SCREEN HERE.
THAT IS THE PROPOSAL THAT SHIPPO AND CITY STAFF CAME TOGETHER. WITH THAT, SHIPPO RESPONDED TO AND SAID, CAN YOU CLOSE THESE OPENINGS A LITTLE BIT MORE RATHER THAN DO AN ADVERSE EFFECT? SO HCM, THE ARCHITECTS CAME WITH TWO ALTERNATIVES. THIS WAS PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL, WHO THEN DIRECTED STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE ORIGINAL DESIGN FROM 2024 AND ACTUALLY IGNORE THE WORK THAT HAD BEEN DONE WITH SHIPPO UP TO THAT POINT OR THE ALTERNATIVES. THIS DESIGN WAS THEN MOVED BACK TO SHIPPO AS A COURTESY TO SEND TO THEM. BY THE WAY, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE HEADING NEXT. AND SHIPPO ISSUED A FINAL COMMENT LETTER MAINTAINING CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAREHOUSE DESIGN, SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS COMMENTED IN 2024.
STAFF BROUGHT THIS BEFORE THE HPC AS WELL, AND THE SAME FEEDBACK WAS PROVIDED TO STAFF THEN. SINCE THEN, THIS STILL REMAINS THE CURRENT REQUEST. THE FINAL DESIGN APPROVAL FOR THE APP FOR THE COMMISSION HERE TONIGHT. AS THERE HAS BEEN NO FURTHER DISCUSSION OR DESIGN REVIEW WITH SHIPPO. THE ALTERNATIVES THAT I WAS DISCUSSING JUST TO GO OVER THIS WAS SOMETHING YOU HAD ALL NOT SEEN IN APRIL WHEN WE LAST DISCUSSED THIS. ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IS WHAT THE PLAN WITH THE PROJECT'S TEAM STAFF CITY PROJECT TEAM HAD COME UP WITH WITH SHIPPO. SO THIS WAS THE END OF ABOUT A YEAR, A COUPLE MEETINGS AND MANY REVISIONS BACK AND FORTH. THAT WAS THIS DESIGN. IT REALLY CAPTURED THE I THINK THIS MIGHT ACTUALLY SHOW IT BETTER. IT CAPTURED THE INTENT OF HAVING AN OPEN AIR YET CLOSED THAT. KEEPING THE MASSING SYSTEM THAT THE CITY WANTED. BUT HAVING IT BE AGAIN, MORE OPEN. THE ALTERNATIVES WERE WHAT WERE CREATED BY THE ARCHITECTS TO TRY TO ADDRESS SHIPPERS CONCERN, RATHER THAN DO THE ADVERSE EFFECT, THEY SAID, CAN YOU FIND A WAY THAT WOULD WORK WITH WINDOW INTRODUCTIONS OR I SHOULD SAY SMALLER OPENINGS? SO THESE WERE TWO ALTERNATIVES. AND THE SAME ON THIS FACADE HERE AS WELL. IT'S A LITTLE HARDER TO SEE. I KNOW IN THE PACKET IT'S MUCH BETTER. SO I APOLOGIZE. THIS SCREEN IS DIFFICULT TO SEE, BUT THE GIST OF IT IS MUCH EASIER DOWN HERE WHERE THERE ARE JUST SMALLER WINDOW OPENINGS, A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A CLASSROOM SETTING THAN OPEN AIR. THESE WERE THE PLANS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL. WE THEN ULTIMATELY SAID WE WOULD PREFER TO SEE THAT 2024 PLAN, AND THAT IS THE PLAN THAT'S BEFORE US. I DO WANT TO GIVE A LITTLE QUICK RUNDOWN ON THIS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT. JUST IN GENERAL, THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT IS A PUBLIC GATHERING AND PLAZA AREA WITH
[00:40:02]
ACCESSIBLE WALKWAYS. THERE'S LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER AND INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING PROPOSED. AS PART OF THIS, THERE IS A PROPOSAL TO RESTORE THE HISTORIC MATERIALS WHERE POSSIBLE AND FEASIBLE. SO THE ROOF, THE SIDING, WINDOWS AND EVEN THE EXISTING GARAGE DOORS WILL ALL BE REPLACED WITH HISTORIC, APPROPRIATELY HISTORIC MATERIALS, REOPEN HISTORIC OPENINGS AND THEN STABILIZE THE SHODDY MILL BUILDING. THAT'S KIND OF THE BIG THING HAPPENING THERE FOR THE BERGSTEIN STRUCTURE. IT'S MORE OF AN OPEN AIR PATIO WITHIN THE WAREHOUSE STRUCTURE ITSELF. SO THERE'S MORE OF A CONTEMPORARY DESIGN. THERE'S NEW STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THAT MODERN STOREFRONT GLAZING AND NEW ELEMENTS INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED TO DIFFERENTIATE FROM THE HISTORIC BUILDING. GOING TO GO FORWARD. APOLOGIZE FOR THE JUMPING AROUND. THESE ARE THE PROPOSED MATERIAL PALLETS. WE HAVE CEDAR SHAKES, SHEET, CEDAR SHAKE, ROOFING TONGUE AND GROOVE LAP SIDING TO BE PAINTED, THE ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS, AND THEN THE WOOD GARAGE DOORS.THE FOUNDATION WILL STAY THE SAME. THAT'S NOT PROPOSED FOR ANY REPLACEMENT FOR THE SHODDY MILL BUILDING. IT'S THE SAME MATERIALS, JUST TUCKPOINTING RUST, RESTORING AND SHORING UP TO ENSURE THAT IT CAN STAND ON ITS OWN FOUR FEET. THAT WOULD. AND THEN I THOUGHT I HAD A SITE PLAN IN HERE. I APOLOGIZE THAT THAT IS NOT HERE, BUT THAT IS THE PRIMARY CHANGE. ALONG WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND COURTESY DOCKS. ULTIMATELY, WHILE THE PROJECT HAS FOLLOWED AN UNCONVENTIONAL REVIEW PROCESS DUE TO THE TIMING OF SHPO CONSULTATION, SUBSEQUENT CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION AND STAFF CHANGING THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY REFLECTS THE DESIGN ADVANCED TO US AND THE PROJECT TEAM, FOLLOWING DIRECTION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL STAFF'S ROLE HERE IS TO PROVIDE THE COMMISSION WITH THE BACKGROUND AND THE PROJECT HISTORY AS I'VE DONE AND THE PLANS. ULTIMATELY, STAFF IS ASKING THE COMMISSION TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSAL BASED ON THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT AND THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS, AND TAKE ACTION ON THE CASE TONIGHT. AND WITH THAT, I STAND FOR QUESTIONS. WE HAVE SEAN SANDERS HERE TO HELP ANSWER ANY OF THE MORE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OR PROJECT QUESTIONS AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. JUST A COMMENT FOR THE COMMISSION. IN THE YEAR AND A HALF THAT I'VE BEEN YOUR LIAISON, I'VE WATCHED YOU PAINSTAKINGLY LOOK AT CASES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE YOU. AND I JUST NEED YOU TO KNOW THAT I WILL SUPPORT YOU WITH YOUR DECISION ON THIS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO ADD TOO, I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS A HPC, WE AGREE WITH THE CITY'S GOAL, THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THIS PROJECT. WE WANT TO SEE THIS STRUCTURE AND THIS SITE REACTIVATED AND REUSED AND, AND, YOU KNOW, NOT STAND ABANDONED. SO I THINK WE SHOULD WE JUST NEED TO START THE CONVERSATION SAYING THAT UP FRONT. TO START OFF, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THE PROCESS WITH SHIPPO AND THEIR REVIEW. YOU KNOW, I THINK WE HAD THIS DESIGN COME TO US OVER TWO YEARS AGO. WE PROVIDED FEEDBACK. WE HAD TO COME TO US AGAIN A COUPLE MONTHS AGO. WE PROVIDED THE SAME FEEDBACK. AND IT'S COMING TO US AGAIN TONIGHT. AND I KNOW I'LL BE PROVIDING THE SAME BRIEF BACK THAT I'VE BEEN PROVIDING OVER THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS. BUT AS FAR AS.
THE ENGAGEMENT WITH SHIPPO, IF I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND AND WHERE IT SEEMS TO BE GOING, AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONTEXT HERE, THERE WAS ORIGINALLY APPARENTLY TO HAVE BEEN SOME SORT OF A DEED RESTRICTION OR OTHER LEGAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY TO REQUIRE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR TO BE. STANDARDS TO BE FOLLOWED AS A CONDITION OF THE CITY GETTING THIS BUILDING. AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S MEMO ARGUES THAT BECAUSE MNDOT DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH ON, ON, ON FILING THAT DOCUMENT, THAT THAT'S NOT IN PLAY. BUT I THINK THE OTHER POSITION ON IT OR THE OTHER WAY THAT IT NEEDS TO GET REVIEWED IS THE THE STATE I HISTORIC SITE ACT, WHICH CALLS FOR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE PHYSICAL FEATURES AND HISTORIC CHARACTER OF NATIONAL REGISTER PLACES, AND THEY SHALL CONSULT WITH THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE AND COME TO AN AGREEMENT.
AND IF THERE'S NO AGREEMENT, THEN THE STATE STATUTE LAYS OUT A PROCESS TO FOLLOW, TO MEDIATE WITH WITH THE STATE AND DIFFERENT REPRESENTATIVES APPOINTED BY DIFFERENT AGENCIES.
IT SEEMED, READING THE CITY ATTORNEY'S MEMO, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY TAKES A POSITION THAT IT IS NOT ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER AND SHOULD BE DELISTED, AND THAT IS WHY THE CITY IS NOT OBLIGATED TO CONSULT WITH SHIPPO UNDER THE THE STATE HISTORIC ACT CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. AND DESPITE THAT, I KNOW OUR PROJECT TEAM DID
[00:45:03]
WANT TO CONSULT WITH SHIPPO AND CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING AS TO THIS POINT, AND I THINK AS RECENTLY AS THE JANUARY 6TH COUNCIL MEETING, THE CITY ATTORNEY NOTED THAT THAT WAS NOT AN OBLIGATION THAT THE CITY HAD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH. WELL, I DON'T THINK IT'S AN ARGUMENT. IT IS ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. IT IS.PERIOD. YEAH. SO. AND LOOKING BACK AT THE WHOLE LONG PROCESS OF THE BRIDGE AND THE AND THE MITIGATING FACTORS THAT WE ALL DISCUSSED, WHICH ALSO ALMOST LOST THE BRIDGE, OUR LIFT BRIDGE, YOU KNOW, THE CITY OF STILLWATER, REGARDLESS OF THE LEGAL ANALYSIS, NOW, DID TAKE THESE BUILDINGS WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THAT AGREEMENT. IF IF THINGS WEREN'T FOLLOWED IN THAT THAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES. THIS WAS A VERY COMPLICATED PROCESS, BUT WE STILL SHOULD RESPECT CHIPPEWA'S INPUT INTO THE DESIGN PLANS, I WOULD SAY. AND I GUESS I WOULD WONDER, YOU KNOW, FROM THE CITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL, WHAT'S THE ROLE OF THE HPC? BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SEEN THIS SINCE THE BEGINNING, SINCE WE WERE FIRST PRESENTED WITH CONCEPT PLANS IN 2024. AND THEN IT NEVER CAME BACK TO US AND BACK AND FORTH AT THE SHIPPO OFFICE. AND THEN WE COME BACK WITH AND GET THIS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME, I THINK, DESIGN PLAN THAT WE SAW IN 2024. AND IN 2024, WE ACTUALLY HAD FOUR DESIGN OPTIONS THAT WE LOOKED AT, AND SOME OF THEM ARE MUCH BETTER THAN THE ONE THAT THIS ONE ON THE ON THE SCREEN. IF THIS IS THE GOING ONE THAT THE COUNCIL IS BEHIND. SO I GUESS I WOULD ASK CITY STAFF TO WHAT WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE HPC ARE WE ARE, IS, IS WHAT OUR COMMENTS ON THIS BUILDING AND HOW IT IS BUILT OUT BE BEING CONSIDERED, OR IS IT JUST A CITY COUNCIL DECISION? AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD SAVE US A LOT OF TIME AND AND WORDS IF IF THAT'S THE CASE, CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT SENTIMENT. AND I DO APOLOGIZE FOR THE TIMING THAT THIS HAD COME FORWARD FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE. THE INTENTION WAS THROUGH 2025 TO COME UP WITH A DESIGN AND PLAN, AS YOU SAW ON THE ALTERNATIVES OPTIONS THAT DID SHOW APPROVAL OR CONSISTENT APPROVAL WITH SHIPPO THAT WE COULD THEN PRESENT TO THE HPC.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT HAPPENED IN JANUARY WAS ALMOST A LEAPFROG OF WHERE THE HPC SHOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN THERE WAS A CHECK IN ON, HEY, WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH SHIPPO.
THIS IS THE DIRECTION THAT LIKE US TO GO. WE'D LIKE YOUR GUT CHECK AS CITY COUNCIL. IS THIS THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR THE OVERALL PROJECT? WHERE DID AN ABOUT FACE AND WE ENDED BACK WITH THE 2024 DESIGN. AND THAT IS WHERE HPC SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSULTED. AND UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T THINK STAFF ANTICIPATED THE CONVERSATION GOING THAT WAY. I THINK IT WAS GOING TO BE A DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVE DESIGN THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD OR CONTINUING THE DISCUSSIONS WITH SHIPPO, BUT DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL, NOT TO AND I NOT TO LIKE THROW ANYONE IN FRONT OF THAT BUS AT ALL. BUT I BELIEVE THAT THAT KIND OF DIRECTED WHERE THE DESIGN SHOULD GO. AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HPC FIRST. OKAY, COMMISSIONER, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND YOUR SENTIMENTS ON THAT ONE. I, I HEAR YOU, I DON'T WANT TO BURN ANY BRIDGES WITH SHIPPO. WE PRIDE OURSELVES AS BEING THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA. AND I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF A COMPROMISE WITH THEM. AND THAT'S MY HOPE THAT WITH THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT, THAT PERHAPS YOU HAVE SOME SUGGESTIONS THAT WILL GO TO STAFF. I KNOW STAFF IS GOING TO LISTEN. I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM IN HOPES THAT MAYBE WE CAN GET SOMETHING BETTER OUT OF THIS. THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. SO IS THERE A DESIGN OUTSIDE OF THIS ONE THAT SHIPPO IS MORE COMFORTABLE WITH? THAT'S NOT REALLY CLEAR TO ME EITHER. GREAT QUESTION. I THINK THE DESIGN THAT SHIPPO WAS MORE COMFORTABLE WITH, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WAS THE ONE ON THE FAR LEFT. THIS IS THE LAST DESIGN WHERE SHIPPO AND THE PROJECT TEAM HAD COME TOGETHER. IT WAS JUST AT THIS POINT WHERE, AND I LET SEAN SANDERS SPEAK TO THIS IF THERE'S ANYTHING I'M MISSING. BUT AT THIS POINT, THE CITY PROJECT TEAM WAS LOOKING AT, THIS IS THE DESIGN WHERE WE THINK IT'S GOING TO AUGMENT THE BUILDING TO THE NEEDS OF THE SITE ITSELF. IT'S STILL OPEN AIR, STILL IS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THIS OPEN FEELING, ALMOST MORE COURTYARD FEELING. WE UNDERSTAND THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE AND THEY WERE STARTING TO DESIGN AND PLAN OUT HOW CAN WE MITIGATE THIS? IF WE WERE TO GET AN ADVERSE EFFECT, SHIPPO WOULD NOT GIVE THE ADVERSE EFFECT AND INSTEAD REALLY PUSHED FOR WHAT ARE SOME ALTERNATIVES WHERE YOU CAN STILL HAVE THE WALLS WHERE. AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT IS WHAT WAS THEN PRESENTED TO COUNCIL. SO I WOULD SAY I DON'T KNOW IF THESE TWO DESIGNS, THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES WERE PROVIDED TO SHIPPO. THEY WOULD
[00:50:01]
PROBABLY POINT TOWARDS THESE IF I HAD TO GUESS BASED ON THEIR CONVERSATIONS. BUT I CAN CONFIRM THIS ONE ON THE LEFT HERE ON ALL THREE PANELS, WAS THE LAST PLAN THAT THEY HAD LOOKED AT AND HAD WORKED TOWARDS WHERE THEY HAD THEIR FINAL COMMENTS. SO ONE THAT POSSIBLY IS PALATABLE TO SHIPPO, BUT ALSO WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY AS WELL. IS THAT CORRECT? I'D SAY THAT WOULD BE THE CLOSEST ONE I'D LOOK TO. SEAN, IF YOU THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENTS THERE. I THINK THE LAST COMMISSIONER IS THE LAST PLAN THAT SHIPPO LOOKED AT WAS THE ONE ON THE LEFT AND OUR LAST FORMAL MEETING WITH THE FOLKS FROM SHIPPO. THEIR COMMENTS WERE, IF YOU COULD JUST MAKE THESE CHANGES, I THINK YOU WOULD LIKE IT. AND THAT'S WHERE WE KIND OF STOPPED AND SAID, WE'RE LOSING THE INTENT OF WHAT THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT DESIGN WAS TO THE COUNCIL. SO THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED TO BRING THIS AND THE AND COMPARED IT TO THE CONCEPT DESIGN BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND GET THEIR INPUT. THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE I SEE IN IN WE'LL SAY THIS. AND THE THE ONE THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE US IS THE OUTDOOR SPACE, RIGHT? I MEAN, THE, THE ONE THIS IS ALL INTERIOR SPACE, OR AT LEAST IT CAN BE. THE OTHER ONE HAS EXTERIOR SPACE. THAT'S A PROGRAMMATIC. THAT'S A HARD THING TO RESOLVE. AND ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. SO IF THE IF IT HAS TO HAVE EXTERIOR SPACE BY THE CITY'S PROGRAM, THAT IS THAT IS THAT A FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENT? BECAUSE IF IT IS, THEN THAT PUSHES US AWAY FROM THIS TOWARDS SOMETHING ELSE. I THINK WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE PLANS FOR THE BRIDGEVIEW PARK, AND I MEAN, THE BUILDING HAS SAT THERE FOR 15 YEARS WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF ANYONE APPROACHING THE CITY ON WHAT TO IMPROVE IT. AND THEN WHEN THE BRIDGEVIEW PARK AND WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WITH THIS DESIGN, WE WANTED TO INCORPORATE THE COMMENTS OF THE BRIDGEVIEW PARK PLAN THAT THAT SHOWED THE COURTESY DOCKS. AND THIS IS TYING INTO THE TRAIL AND HOW WE CAN MAKE THIS MORE OF A COMMUNITY SPACE FOR OUTDOOR USERS SUCH AS PEDESTRIANS, BIKERS AND BOATERS. AND THAT'S WHY THE OPEN AIR CONCEPT CAME INTO PLAY. JUST SO THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, A PLACE FOR THEM TO STOP AND RECREATE OR TAKE A BREAK ALONG THE RIVERFRONT. SO THAT TO ME, IF THAT'S A FUNCTIONAL, YOU KNOW, THE CITY I, I RESPECT THEY HAVE TO MAKE THIS THING WORK AND THERE'S FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT'S GOING TO MAKE IT WORK. AND YOU'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT IT FOR A LONG TIME. AND IF THAT'S WHAT THE REQUIREMENT IS, GOOD. SHIPPO I RESPECT AND WE WORK WITH THEM AND THEY WANT TO KEEP THE BUILDING INTACT. SO THOSE TWO THINGS ARE BUTTING HEADS. SO WHAT WE SEE ON THE LEFT IS ONE THAT OPENS IT UP AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BUT KEEPS THE BUILDING INTACT. WE'LL SEE.IT'S NOT SUBTRACTING VOLUME FROM THE BUILDING. IT'S PUTTING A LOT OF GLASS AROUND IT. WHAT THE THE ONE THAT WE'RE ASKED TO REVIEW TODAY SUBTRACTS THE VOLUME OUT OF THE BUILDING.
THERE'S AN OUTDOOR SPACE THAT'S CARVED INTO THE BUILDING. AND SO THOSE ARE LIKE WAY FAR APART AS FAR AS AGREEABLE OR NOT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. TO ME. AND I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THIS IS ONE EXTREME. AND THOSE PERFORATED WINDOWS IS ANOTHER EXTREME. AND I AGREE WITH OUR COUNCIL MEMBER THAT THAT IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THERE COULD BE SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN IF SHIPPO IS GOING STRICTLY BY BY THE REQUIREMENTS THEY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW. IF THIS WERE NATIONALLY REGISTERED. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU RESOLVE THAT. RIGHT. BECAUSE OKAY. BUT OTHERWISE JUST IGNORING THAT FOR THE MOMENT AND LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, A POSSIBILITY, IT WOULD BE BECAUSE I READ WHAT THOSE COMMENTS WERE AND THEY, THEY MAKE SENSE TO ME TOO, IS YOU WANT TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL VOLUME OF THE BUILDING AND NOT JUST TAKE A BIG BITE OUT OF IT.
AND SO IF YOU COULD MAINTAIN SOME CORNERS, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE WHAT WE SEE ON THE UPPER LEFT, BUT COULD THAT BE AN OPEN SPACE? AND MAYBE IT EVEN COULD. AND MAYBE WITH A COLUMN OR TWO IN OR SO THAT THE WALLS COME DOWN. SO IN THE END, THE BUILDING ITSELF IS MOSTLY INTACT, OR AT LEAST YOU CAN READ THE EDGES COMING DOWN. NOT THIS, THIS SORT OF LUNGING BUILDING OVER A COUPLE OF COLUMNS. AND THAT'S, I THINK WE'RE, I, I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS. IT'S WAY, WAY TOO COMPLICATED. AND IT'S REALLY NOT HELPING US HERE. BUT. THAT'S THE ONLY COMPROMISE I CAN SEE THAT COULD WORK, WHICH WOULD AND IT WOULD BE ON BOARD. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. BUT IT WOULD BE TO TO STILL PROVIDE THE SEE WHAT THEY
[00:55:01]
NEED PROGRAMMATICALLY AND OPEN SPACE AND YET TRY TO. THERE'S SO MUCH ROOM BETWEEN THE TWO EXTREMES RIGHT NOW OF TAKING THAT ENTIRE SPACE OUT AND LETTING SOME OF THE WALLS COME DOWN AROUND IT THAT I. I GOT TO BELIEVE THAT WE COULD HAVE AN OPEN SPACE THAT THAT BRINGS SOME OF THE WALLS DOWN AND STILL FUNCTIONS FOR BOTH. IT WOULD TAKE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY ON WHO'S NOT KNOWN FOR BEING FLEXIBLE AT ALL. SO I'M JUST SAYING THAT, CAN I JUST WHAT I, WHAT I HEAR YOU ARE SAYING, COMMISSIONER, IS THE OPEN AND I'M I MIGHT BE PARAPHRASING THE OPEN CONCEPT MAY WORK, BUT WHAT WE WANT TO TRY AND INCORPORATE IN THE CORNERS, WE WANT TO HAVE THAT MORE. INSTEAD OF SEEING THE WHITE SKINNY COLUMN TYPE DEAL, WE WANT TO MAKE IT. MAYBE IT'S A TWO FOOT. AND I JUST THROW THAT NUMBER OUT. THAT TIES IN WITH THE SIDING WITH THE REST OF THE BUILDING. IS THAT THE IDEA THAT IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THAT WHOLE VOLUME, WHICH WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, AND THAT'S THE HISTORIC VOLUME, YOU STILL SEE THE VOLUME WITH WITH OPENINGS TAKEN OUT, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ENTIRE CORNERS TAKEN OUT. YOU DON'T HAVE TEN FEET OF OR 20FT OF THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDING TAKEN OUT. THAT, AT LEAST TO ME, SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE COMPROMISE. WHETHER IT WOULD TO SHIP OVER THE CITY.I DON'T KNOW, MR. CHAIR, IF I MIGHT. JUST SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. JUST FOR THE RECORD, ARE THESE BUILDINGS CURRENTLY ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS? AND WITH THE CAVEAT THAT, YES, I READ THE MEMORANDUM. AND YES, THERE'S AN OPINION THAT THEY OUGHT NOT BE. THE QUESTION TO, FOR THE RECORD, IS ARE THEY CURRENTLY LISTED ON THE NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTER? CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, THEY ARE. YOU GO ON THE LIST TODAY.
THEY'RE ON THE RECORD. OKAY. SECOND QUESTION, WAS THERE AN EXPLICIT AGREEMENT AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST BY THE CITY OF STILLWATER, TO TAKE THESE BUILDINGS WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CITY LIMITS? WAS THAT PART OF WHAT WAS AGREED? THE CITY EXPLICITLY AGREED THAT THESE BUILDINGS WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN STILLWATER PROPER. CORRECT. OKAY. HAS THE MEMORANDUM BEEN THE LEGAL MEMORANDUM? HAS THAT BEEN SHARED WITH SHIPPO, OR WAS THAT FOR INTERNAL CONSUMPTION? I BELIEVE SHIPPO WAS PART OF THE CONVERSATION OF THE MITIGATION PACKAGE FOR THE SAINT CROIX RIVER CROSSING PROJECT. I THINK YOU MEAN COREY'S. WELL, COREY'S MEMO. YES, YES, YES. OKAY. AND SO THEN I HAVE SOME COMMENTS KIND OF FOLLOWING ON THAT. ONE OF THOSE IS THE TONE OF THAT MEMORANDUM. IF THAT WAS IN FACT SHARED WITH SHIPPO FEELS, AT A MINIMUM, UNPROFESSIONAL STATEMENTS LIKE THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO INTERACT WITH A PARTNER. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT GOOD BUSINESS PRACTICE. AND SO THE LAST QUESTION I GUESS I HAVE WITH REGARD TO THAT MEMORANDUM, HAS THIS BEEN TESTED IN FRONT OF A COURT? DO WE HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OTHER THAN THE OPINION OF OUR CITY ATTORNEY, AS TO THE WHETHER THIS WILL HOLD WATER? IT IS NOT, TO MY KNOWLEDGE. OKAY. THANK YOU. WITH THAT SET OF UNDERSTANDINGS, RULE NUMBER ONE IS IF IT'S ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER, WHETHER IT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE, THERE'S A SET OF RULES SHIPPO HAS TO FOLLOW. THEY ARE BOUND BY THEM. AND THEREFORE SO IS THE CITY OF STILLWATER. SO THAT'S I THINK THAT'S WITHOUT QUESTION, UNLESS YOU TAKE IT TO COURT AND SOMEHOW FIGURE OUT THAT THAT SHOULDN'T BE ON THE REGISTER AND WE'LL GET IT DELISTED, AND THEN THE RULES CHANGE. BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE. SO THAT'S THOUGHT NUMBER ONE. THOUGHT NUMBER TWO IS THESE TWO BUILDINGS, REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY GOT HERE, ARE NOW WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. AND OUR OWN DESIGN GUIDELINES WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR THE DESIGN IN FRONT OF US. THERE ARE OTHER NATIONAL REGISTER BUILDINGS IN THIS CITY. SOME OF THEM ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY. SOMEONE WHO OWNS ONE OF THOSE HOUSES MIGHT DECIDE THEY WANT AN OPEN AIR CONCEPT, AND THEY WANT TO TAKE OUT HALF OF THE FIRST FLOOR AND PUT UP POSTS. WE WOULD TELL THEM NO, AND THAT WOULD BE UPHELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WE WOULD HOPE. AND THE INTERESTING COROLLARY, I THINK IT WAS TWO ISH YEARS AGO, WE HAD A CASE COME BEFORE THE HPC. IT WAS A PRE 1940 STRUCTURE THAT HAD BEEN ANNEXED SUBSEQUENT TO ITS CONSTRUCTION INTO CITY BOUNDARIES. WHEN IT WAS BUILT, NOT PART OF
[01:00:01]
STILLWATER. AND WE MADE THE POINT AT THAT TIME, THE RULES SAY IF IT'S WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES, IT IS SUBJECT TO THE CITY'S GUIDELINES. SO WHETHER THESE BUILDINGS WERE LISTED PROPERLY OR NOT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER FOR POINT TWO, WHICH IS OUR GUIDELINES DON'T ALLOW FOR WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE. AND IF THIS WERE A PRIVATE RESIDENCE, WE WOULD TELL THAT PERSON NO, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A DESIRED SET OF USABILITY THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN HOW IT'S BEING USED TODAY. AND SO I THINK THE TEST I'VE BEEN RUNNING THROUGH MY HEAD ALL WEEK IS IF THIS WERE A PRIVATE PERSON AND NOT THE CITY OF STILLWATER, HOW WOULD THIS PROPOSAL FARE EITHER HERE OR WITH COUNCIL? AND I'VE ONLY BEEN ON THIS COMMISSION THREE AND A HALF, FOUR YEARS, BUT I SUSPECT NOT. WELL. AND SO WHILE I HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RESPECT FOR.WE WANT TO MAKE THIS A USABLE SPACE, WE SIGNED ON TO TAKE CARE OF THESE BUILDINGS AS THEY ARE, AND WE DID THAT BEFORE ANY OF US SITTING HERE. WE'RE SITTING HERE, BUT WE ARE SOMEWHAT BOUND BY THE RULES WE'VE ALL AGREED TO USE. AND IF WE AREN'T GOING TO BE, JUST BECAUSE THE CITY HAS A DESIRE FOR USABILITY THAT DIFFERS FROM SHIPPO AS OUR PARTNER AND THE RULES OF BOTH OUR OWN STATE AND THE NATIONAL REGISTER. IT FEELS LIKE THOSE RULES SHOULDN'T HAVE TO APPLY TO ANYONE, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO HAVE BE THE OUTCOME. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE FOR THE COUNCIL TO SET. MR. CHAIR, I WAS I FOUND IT HELPFUL TO WATCH THAT JANUARY 6TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO KIND OF GET A FEEL FOR WHAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE ABOUT THE SHIPPERS PROPOSAL. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I'M STILL UNCLEAR WHY. AT SOME POINT THEY JUST KIND OF THREW THEIR HANDS UP AND SAID, WELL, GO BACK WAY TO THE BEGINNING AND WHY THAT ONE PLAN DIDN'T WORK. COULD YOU, MR. SANDERS, EXPLAIN LIKE WHAT, WHAT WAS THE DETAIL IN THAT? I THINK IT WAS JUST COMMISSIONER. IT WAS JUST A THE THOUGHT WAS THAT WHEN WAY BACK WHEN WHEN WE HAD THE ORIGINAL DESIGN FOR CONCEPTS THAT WERE DONE.
COUNCIL AS THEY CHOSE ONE CONCEPT THAT WAS MORE CLOSELY RELATED TO THIS ONE. AND AS WE GOT FURTHER AND FURTHER ALONG WITH DISCUSSIONS WITH SHIPPO, WE ARE GETTING FURTHER AND FURTHER AWAY FROM THAT ORIGINAL CONCEPT. SO AT THAT TIME WE THOUGHT, WELL, LET'S BRING THIS BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WE'LL GIVE THEM AN UPDATE OF WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE SHOWED THEM THE TWO OPTIONS OF WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL AND WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED, AND WANTED TO GET THE COUNCIL'S INPUT. AND THEY SAID, LET'S GO AND LET'S GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT DESIGN AND FOLLOW THE OPEN AIR PORTION OF THE OF THE BUILDING.
I DIDN'T REALLY HEAR A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT ONE, WHERE IT HAS, YOU KNOW, THE GLASS ON THE CORNER THAT REALLY WASN'T DISCUSSED. SO I'M, I'M PERPLEXED AS TO WHY WE'LL JUST SCRAP EVERYTHING AND GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING. SO I WAS CONFUSED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE ALMOST HAD THE PROJECT THERE BECAUSE SHIPPO WAS HEADED THAT WAY. AND IF YOU WANT OUTDOOR EXPERIENCE, CAN'T YOU JUST PUT UP A PERGOLA NEXT TO IT? AND I'M SURE YOU'VE THOUGHT OF THAT, BUT LET'S SEE. THAT WAS ONE COMMENT I WANTED TO JUST KIND OF CLARIFY. AND THE OTHER WAS. I THINK WE'RE GETTING MIXED MESSAGES HERE. WE'RE HEARING THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO GO BACK TO THIS ORIGINAL ONE, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY CLAIMS THAT IT'S JUST A COURTESY TO WORK WITH SHIPPO. AND WE'RE HEARING FROM CITY STAFF HERE THAT PLEASE REVIEW THIS ACCORDING TO OUR DESIGN STANDARDS. SO WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE IN A ROCK BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE HERE, BUT CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITY OF ALL THIS. BUT I THINK MAYBE A LOT OF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLEVIATED IF OUR COMMISSION COULD HAVE BEEN MORE INVOLVED THROUGH THIS PROCESS. JUST A SUGGESTION, AND I WOULD AGREE WITH EVERYTHING OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE SAID. YOU KNOW, FOR FOR ME, IF WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS MEETS OUR DOWNTOWN DESIGN REVIEW DISTRICT STANDARDS AND OUR AND THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO IT AS A A NATIONAL REGISTER PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, THE THE
[01:05:03]
MEMO COVER MEMO FROM THE CITY'S CONSULTANTS SAY FLAT OUT THAT IT DOESN'T DOESN'T MEET THE STANDARDS OR THE GUIDELINES. SO TO ME, IT'S IT'S AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T NEED THEIR MEMO TO TELL ME THAT IT VERY MUCH DOES NOT. BUT IT I WILL AGREE WITH WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE SAID, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THAT THE, THE BIGGEST PROBLEM AS, AS SHIPPO CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED AND AS WE'VE IDENTIFIED FOR THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING A BIG CHUNK OUT OF THE BUILDING IS, IS, IS REALLY PRETTY PROBLEMATIC. IT DID SEEM THAT THAT THOSE DESIGNS THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU WERE LEANING TOWARDS AT ONE POINT AND THAT SHIPPO WAS TELLING YOU WAS HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, IT SEEMED LIKE YOU WERE ON THE ROAD TO A COMPROMISE THERE, YOU KNOW, AND YOU KNOW FROM ME LOOKING THAT IT SEEMS THAT MAYBE THE, THE, THE PERHAPS BY RAISING THE, THE SILL OF THE WINDOW A BIT OR SOME THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THEN AND GETTING THOSE CORNERS BETTER ESTABLISHED ARE PROBABLY THE BIGGEST ISSUES. BUT IT DID SEEM THAT IT WAS HEADING IN SOME DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS THAT COULD WORK OUT AND STILL MEET THE CITY'S NEEDS. AND SO I'LL REITERATE WHAT I SAID TWO MONTHS AGO WHEN WE SAW THIS, THAT IT DOES NOT SEEM THAT THIS IS REALLY AN ISSUE OF COST OR, OR FEASIBILITY TO, TO MAKE THIS WORK UNDER THE GUIDELINES WHILE STILL MAKING IT BE A VERY FUNCTIONAL AND USEFUL AND WONDERFUL PLACE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF STILLWATER. SO IT'S FOR THIS DECISION BEFORE US. IT SEEMS VERY CLEAR TO ME BASED ON THE ON, YOU KNOW, THE, THE COVER MEMO THAT THAT THE CITY'S CONSULTANTS PREPARED PRESENTING IT. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO TABLE THIS AND REQUEST SOME CHANGES? I THINK AT THIS POINT, IT'S JUST BETTER TO FLAT OUT DENY IT AND HOPE THE COUNCIL OR STAFF PRESENTS ONE OF THOSE THREE MORE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES. AND I MEAN, I THINK THOSE THREE ALTERNATIVES, THOSE ARE ONES THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN WORK WITH. WE THERE'S CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK THAT WE CAN OFFER. YOU KNOW, THERE MAYBE THERE'S SOME GIVE OR TAKE BETWEEN THE COUNCIL AND SHIPPO AND US. THERE'S WAYS TO MAKE IT WORK. BUT I DON'T I THINK THIS COMMISSION IS PROBABLY IN UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT THAT THE PROPOSAL BEFORE US IS DOES NOT CONFORM TO ANY OF THE STANDARDS BY SHIPPO, AND IT DOESN'T CONFORM TO THE CITY'S OWN GUIDELINES FOR FOR DESIGNING EITHER WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT OR THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE LISTED ON THE STATE OR NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. SO I THINK FOR, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE MORE DISCUSSION, BUT I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE DECISION IS GOING TO BE IN THE END. EXCUSE ME. I JUST THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, IF WE IF WE DENY THEN WE HAVE NO SAY AND IT MIGHT GET APPROVED. BUT IF WE CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR ONE OR ANOTHER, MAYBE. RIGHT. BUT WE'RE WE DON'T HAVE THOSE OPTIONS THAT WE'RE REVIEWING. THOSE AREN'T BEFORE US, UNFORTUNATELY. YEAH. THIS IS THIS IS THE ONE THAT'S IN FRONT OF US, THE ONLY ONE WE ARE BEING ASKED TONIGHT TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS ONE. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS THE OPTION BEFORE YOU. THIS IS THE PLAN BEING PRESENTED. I HAD INCLUDED THESE IN THE PACKET AS PART OF THE CONTEXT, AS PART OF THE OVERALL CHRONOLOGY OF THE OVERALL REVIEW. I GUESS LOOKING AT THIS, YOU KNOW, SINCE GIVING OUR FEEDBACK BACK TO THE COUNCIL, YOU KNOW THAT. IN A BIGGER PICTURE THAT THERE, YOU KNOW, A FEW THINGS GOING ON HERE. THERE'S FIRST OF ALL, THE CITY BY ACCEPTING THESE BUILDINGS IN THE COURSE OF TRYING TO GET THE BRIDGE BUILT, ALSO ACCEPTED SOME OBLIGATIONS FOR THEM. AND I HAVE A, YOU KNOW, A MNDOT DOCUMENT FROM 2005 REQUEST FOR LETTERS OF INTEREST. AND IT SAYS VERY CLEARLY WILL BE REQUIRED TO CONSULT WITH SHIPPO AND ENSURE THAT ANY FUTURE PLANS FOR THE REPAIR OR REHABILITATION OF THE BUILDINGS MEET THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. SO WHEN THE CITY REQUESTED TO RECEIVE THESE BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS THE IN THE DOCUMENT THAT THEY WERE RESPONDING TO, FROM MY VIEW, IT SEEMED THAT ALL THROUGH THE PROCESS, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT ON TECHNICALITIES THAT DIDN'T GET INTO THE DEED FROM A REAL MORAL STANDPOINT AS A COMMUNITY AND AS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO, WE, WE TOOK ON AS, AS A COMMUNITY THAT WE WERE GOING TO[01:10:04]
CARE FOR THOSE BUILDINGS ACCORDING TO, TO STANDARDS. SECONDLY, YOU KNOW, AS COMMISSIONER SUMMERS NOTED, SO WELL, WE WE HAVE A THE CITY SHOULD BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS ITS RESIDENTS. AND WE WE WOULD NOT ENTERTAIN THIS FROM RESIDENTS FOR A PROTECTED STRUCTURE. IT IS YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T HAVE DISCUSSED IT THIS LONG. AND THE CITY SHOULD BE HELD TO TO AT LEAST THAT STANDARD. BUT MY THIRD POINT IS THAT STILLWATER IS VERY RIGHTLY VIEWED AS A AS A LEADER IN, IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND HISTORIC CHARACTER WITHIN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. YOU GO ALL OVER THE STATE AND PEOPLE TALK ABOUT STILLWATER AND ITS HISTORY AND HOW WELL, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH OF IT WE'VE PRESERVED. AND IT IS IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US AS A CITY TO BE TRUE TO OUR COMMUNITY AND AND TO THE APPEAL OF OUR COMMUNITY TO DO THINGS THE RIGHT WAY. AND THAT FOR A PROPERTY LIKE THIS MEANS FOLLOWING ACCEPTED BEST PRACTICES FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION. AND I HOPE THAT COUNCIL WOULD TAKE ALL THAT INTO ACCOUNT. AND IF I MIGHT, AGAIN, I'VE BEEN A LITTLE LONG WINDED AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, MY NORM. BUT THE ANALOGY THAT'S BEEN RUNNING THROUGH MY HEAD, THERE ARE GOING TO BE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE AS IT STANDS THERE TODAY AND GO, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? IT'S JUST AN EMPTY BARN. AND IF THAT'S THE VIEW OF IT THAT PERSISTS, THEN THE HISTORIC NATURE OF IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER TO US AS A COMMUNITY. BUT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT THERE'S A SET OF RULES THAT ENSURE THAT EVEN IF WE DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND WHY IT MATTERS, THAT IT MATTERS TO US AS A COMMUNITY NONETHELESS. AND IF YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO MUCH FARTHER SOUTH FROM HERE, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO CHICHEN ITZA, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL TEMPLE IN MEXICO, AND THE FACE THAT YOU GET TO SEE AS TOURISTS IS STILL LARGELY INTACT. BUT IF YOU GO AROUND THE OTHER SIDE, MOST OF THE BRICKS THAT WERE THE SURFACE OF CHICHEN ITZA ARE MISSING. AND AT SOME POINT BACK IN THE 1800S, THEY DECIDED THOSE BRICKS WOULD BE BETTER PURPOSED TO BUILD NEW BUILDINGS. AND YOU CAN'T PUT THEM BACK.AND THIS CURRENTLY IS IN ITS SOMEWHAT ORIGINAL FORM. AND IF WE DO WHAT WE SEE IN THIS PICTURE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT IT BACK. AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT HAS THE SAME CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AS CHICHEN ITZA. HOWEVER, IT DOES TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER. THE HISTORY OF THAT WAREHOUSE, THAT BUILDING IS PART OF OUR HISTORY. AND IF YOU DO THIS, YOU CAN'T PUT IT BACK. AND LASTLY, WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT UPROAR WITHIN OUR CITY ABOUT THE CULTURAL HERITAGE AND NATURE OF DUTCHTOWN AND HOW WE SHOULD PRESERVE THAT, AND HOW WE SHOULDN'T ALLOW CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION AND CERTAIN PRACTICES SO THAT THAT COULD BE TRUE. AND WE COMMISSIONED A STUDY AS A CITY TO SAY, WELL, WHAT IS DUTCHTOWN? IS IT STILL, IN FACT, INTACT? AND THE STUDY REPORT SAID IT IS NOT, AND YOU CAN'T PUT IT BACK. AND SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT CITY COUNCIL LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THAT LAST SENTENCE. WHAT WE WOULD LOVE FOR DUTCHTOWN TO STILL BE. IT ISN'T BECAUSE OVER TIME WE ALLOWED PIECES TO GET TAKEN AWAY. IT'S NO LONGER INTACT ENOUGH TO BE RECOGNIZABLE, AND IT'S NO LONGER ABLE TO BE DESIGNATED A HISTORIC DISTRICT, BECAUSE THAT'S TRUE. YOU KNOW, IF IF WE ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN, WHAT'S TO STOP? YOU KNOW, ANY COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OWNER IN DOWNTOWN STILLWATER TO REQUEST SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND SAY, WELL, THE CITY ALLOWED IT AND THE CITY DID IT, SO WHY CAN'T WE? YEAH. SO I THINK IT'S ALSO MISSING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR EDUCATION, TALKED ABOUT MITIGATING FACTORS THAT YOU COULD ADD, LIKE EDUCATIONAL SIGNAGE. AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAD AN EDUCATIONAL SIGN THAT THIS WAS A JEWISH MILL EXPLAINING THAT AND THEY'D BE LIKE, OH, INTERESTING. THEY HAD A, THE WHOLE BOTTOM WAS CUT OUT OF THEIR MILL. HOW'D THAT HAPPEN? YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T REALLY TELL THE TRUE STORY ANYMORE. AND AS A HISTORY BUFF MYSELF HAVING TO STOP AT ALL THE HISTORY SIGNS AND READ THEM. WHILE MY DAUGHTERS ROLL THEIR
[01:15:04]
EYES BEHIND ME, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'D LOSE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO, YOU KNOW, THE STORY. I KNOW IT WASN'T HERE ORIGINALLY, BUT IT'S STILL A STORY TO TELL. WE HAVE TWO RESOLUTIONS IN THE PACKET. ONE DENYING OR APPROVING. I THINK GATHER, WHICH THOSE OF THE CONVERSATION HAS GONE TOWARDS. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD MAKE A RESOLUTION, BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO GO TO THE COUNCIL ABOUT THIS.SO THERE'S REALLY NO OPPORTUNITY TO TABLE. WELL, WHY DON'T I PUT THAT TO STAFF? I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD CHANGE IN A MONTH. WHAT I'M THINKING OF THAT. I JUST WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR ALL OF THE ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU PROVIDED. I'VE TAKEN A LOT OF NOTES. I KNOW THAT STAFF HAS DONE THAT AS WELL, AND MY HOPE IS THAT BECAUSE, SHAWN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE FUNDS DON'T HAVE TO BE SPENT UNTIL THE END OF 27, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO WE DO HAVE SOME TIME SO THAT THERE PERHAPS IS A POSSIBILITY TO TAKE THE COMMENTS FROM THIS COMMISSION AND GO BACK TO SCHIPHOL ONE LAST TIME, AND NOT HAVE TO PUSH THIS TO THE COUNCIL. HOPEFULLY NOT NEXT WEEK. I WILL NOT BE AT THAT MEETING, BUT IF WE COULD EVEN PUSH IT BACK A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN HOPES THAT MAYBE YOUR TEAM COULD GET TOGETHER WITH SCHIPHOL, HAVE ONE MORE CONVERSATION, BRINGING IN THE INFORMATION THAT HAS COME FROM THE COMMISSION. I WOULD SAY IN PART, KNOWING THAT OUR COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE THERE. IT MIGHT BE A GOOD REASON TO TABLE AS, AS WE HAD SUGGESTED BY COMMISSIONER FINN, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THE CONVERSATION PLAYS OUT WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE BACK. QUESTION. CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR STAFF. IF THE DECISION WERE TAKEN TO TABLE, IS THAT LIKE ANY OTHER DECISION OF THIS COMMISSION, THE COUNCIL COULD DECIDE TO TAKE IT UP ANYWAY? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK THE COMMISSION HAS AN AVAILABLE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY. SO SAY FOR WHATEVER REASON, YOU WERE TIED THE VOTE, THEN YOU COULD PUSH THE COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT FINAL DETERMINATION. I DO THINK THAT AND I WOULD DEFER TO SEAN SANDERS ON ON KIND OF CLARIFYING THIS. YOU COULD POSSIBLY TABLE AND ALSO PUSH YOUR PROPOSAL OR COMMENTS TO COUNCIL TO HEAR THEIR THOUGHTS, AND THAT MIGHT SOLIDIFY THE DIRECTION OF I DON'T WANT I APOLOGIZE FOR SPEAKING BLUNTLY, BUT YOU COULD SEEK YOU COULD TABLE AND SEEK FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK. AND THAT WOULD REALLY SOLIDIFY HOW MUCH THEY'RE WILLING TO BUDGE ON THIS. I GUESS FOR A VERY BLUNT WAY OF SAYING THAT.
OR YOU COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH ACTION TONIGHT AND STILL MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR COMMENTS. AND, AND OBVIOUSLY, THOSE COMMENTS WOULD BE SHARED, STILL SHARED WITH COUNCIL WHO WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REACT TO THAT. BUT I WOULD LOOK TO SEAN, AND I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU TABLE IT. THAT'S NOT WHAT I I'M NOT THAT'S NOT MY PURVIEW TO DO TO THAT. BUT MY, MY THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT IF YOU CHOOSE TO DENY IT, WE WOULD BRING YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COUNCIL AND SEE WHAT THEIR TAKE IS ON IT. MAYBE THEY WILL ACT ON IT, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION IS DENY IT. WE'LL TAKE THE COMMISSION'S COMMENTS TO THE COUNCIL AT THE NEXT MEETING OR NEXT. NOT THE NEXT ONE. BUT IN AUGUST, SECOND MEETING IN AUGUST, AND GATHER THEIR INPUT AND SEE HOW, IF THEY WANT TO PROCEED THAT WAY. YEAH. MY HEARING IS THE INTENT, YOU KNOW, BEHIND OUR DENIAL, IF IT WERE DENIAL IS THAT WE OUR CONCERN IS THAT WE LOSE PARTICIPATION OR ENGAGEMENT IN THIS. OUR INTENT WOULD BE THAT TO CONVEY THAT THIS IS NOT CLOSE TO WHAT WE THINK WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE, BUT WE OUR INTENT IS WE WANT TO BE ENGAGED IN WHAT THE STEPS BEYOND. SO WE DON'T WANT TO JUST THROW THIS OFF ON THE COUNCIL AND NEVER SEE IT BACK. WE WANT TO WE WANT TO BE ENGAGED AS WE HAVEN'T BEEN UP UNTIL NOW, IF THAT IF THAT'S FAIR TO SAY. I THINK THAT'S VERY FAIR TO SAY. YES, WE ARE. I MEAN, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK AROUND THAT KIND OF UNTENABLE. SO THAT'S THE. YEAH, THAT'S THE WHICH WAY GETS OUR
[01:20:01]
KEEPS OUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS OR GETS OUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THE MINUTES WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THAT KIND OF TIME FRAME, BUT HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, A VERY DETAILED. SENSE OF OUR FEEDBACK CAN MAKE IT TO THE COUNCIL. THE OTHER THING THAT IS STILL NOT RESOLVED IN MY MIND IS WHAT THE CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. WELL, ACTUALLY, IT'S CLEAR IN MY MIND, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S AN OPEN QUESTION OF WHAT THE CITY'S OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SITES ACT IS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, SAYS PRETTY CLEARLY IN THE STATUTE HERE THAT THE CITY AND SCHIPHOL HAVE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT BEFORE THE THE PROJECT PROCEEDS. AND POTENTIALLY THAT INVOLVES MEDIATION ARRANGED BY SEVERAL STATE OFFICES. BUT EVEN IF WE WERE TO APPROVE IT, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT EVEN IF WE WERE TO APPROVE IT, I THINK THAT SCHIPHOL PROCESS IS STILL REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AS LONG AS THAT SITE IS ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER AND IT IS ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER AND HAS RECEIVED FEDERAL FUNDING, THAT IS ACTUALLY A VERY IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF IT. YEAH. AND AND, YOU KNOW, AND SCHIPHOL CITED THAT STATUTE IN THEIR LETTER TO THE CITY. THE THE FUNDING POINT IS IMPORTANT.THEY'VE WE'VE WE'VE DONE VERY WE'VE A LOT OF WHAT WE TAKE FOR GRANTED AS A CITY HAS IS HERE AS A RESULT OF THE WORK WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO WITH WITH FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM. YES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THAT TIME FRAME. I KNOW IT WOULD BE. WELL, I GUESS I'M NOT REALLY IN FAVOR OF TABLING IT. I THERE'S NO WAY THAT I COULD VOTE FOR WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US. SO TABLING THIS DESIGN DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. YEAH. SO IF THAT'S THE BEST ALTERNATIVE, JUST TO JUST DENY THIS DESIGN, RIGHT, THEN I'M WILLING TO PUT THE RESOLUTION OUT THERE. IN MY MIND. IF THIS WAS A REGULAR APPLICATION APPLICATION FROM AN OUTSIDE ORGANIZATION, WE WOULD LOOK AT THIS AND GO, NO, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESE CHANGES. HERE'S OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. WE'D LIKE TO TABLE IT AND COME BACK WHEN YOU HAVE CHANGES. BUT IF WE DENY THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO DO THAT. YEAH, YEAH. AND I THINK I GUESS I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT I WOULD HAVE EXPECTED THAT TO HAVE HAPPENED AFTER MARCH 2024, TWO YEARS AGO, FOR US TO HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE DESIGNS THAT WE'VE SEEN TONIGHT, AND NONE OF IT CAME BACK TO US. IT WENT RIGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL OR IT WENT TO THE COUNCIL. YES. WE ONLY SAW A CONCEPT AND THEN THE PROCESS GOT ALL CONFUSED. BUT HERE WE ARE. SO I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND IF POSSIBLE, TO TABLE. OTHERWISE WE'RE OUT OF OUT OF THE MIX. YEAH. IT'S HARD. IT'S REALLY HARD. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS UNCLEAR TO ME WHAT TABLING DOES RIGHT TO ME. LIKE I'M WORKING AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL AND WHAT I HEAR FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE COUNCIL SAID THEY LIKE THIS DESIGN. SURE. IF I, IF I IF I CONSULT WITH YOU ON CHANGES AND THE COUNCIL STILL DOESN'T LIKE IT, WHERE ARE WE? I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I THAT'S WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH. AND WE, WE FULLY UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION AND I'M NOT DISAGREEING WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING EITHER. I, I HEAR YOU, BUT I'M I WILL TELL YOU THAT WHEN WE REDID OUR HOUSE, MY WIFE WANTED THREE GARAGES AND WE PITCHED THAT TO THIS COMMISSION AND WE WERE TOLD NO. WHERE DID THAT LEAVE ME? I'LL TELL YOU. I HAVE TWO GARAGES. YEP. AND AT SOME POINT, IS THE CITY GOING TO BE HELD TO THAT SAME STANDARD? SURE, I WOULD HOPE SO. AND IF IT'S NOT THE CASE, WELL, THEN I CAN PARK MY CAR UNDER THAT BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE AN OPEN GARAGE. I ALSO HAD A QUESTION AS TO WHY THE COUNCIL HASN'T SEEN ANYTHING SINCE JANUARY. SO YOU'RE JUST GOING OFF DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL IN JANUARY, WHICH IS SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.
CORRECT. SO AFTER JANUARY WE ARE WE WORKED WITH OUR ARCHITECT AND WE. THE DIRECTION WAS TO CONTINUE ON WITH THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND THERE. AND THERE HAVE. THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT EVER SINCE. THEY KIND OF STOPPED A LITTLE BIT TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WE DID WE WE DID CONVERSE WITH SCHIPPER UP UNTIL MARCH OR APRIL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO THE CONSULTANT STOPPED THEIR WORK UNTIL THEY GOT DIRECTION FROM THE CITY AFTER THAT. SO IS THIS
[01:25:01]
THE DESIGN THEY WERE WORKING ON THEN? UP UNTIL MARCH OR APRIL, YOU SAID THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, I DON'T I'M GETTING I GUESS THEY WERE WORKING ON THE CONCEPTS. AND ONCE THE COUNCIL SAID NO TO THE ON, I'LL CALL IT THE ENCLOSED CONCEPT, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. AND ONCE THE COUNCIL SEEN THAT THEY REVERTED BACK TO THE. THEY STARTED WORKING ON THE DESIGN BASED ON THE OPEN AIR CONCEPT. OKAY. WAS THE COUNCIL AWARE THAT HPC HADN'T REVIEWED IT YET? I BELIEVE SO, YES. I THINK YOU KNOW, WELL, I, I THINK IT WAS TAKEN TO THE HPC. THEY'RE AWARE OF HPC WAS AWARE OF THE PROJECT. THE COUNCIL IS AWARE THAT THE HPC HAD NOT SEEN THAT AND THAT WE WERE SEEKING SHPO APPROVAL FIRST, AND THEN THE. AND THAT'S WHEN SHPO OR APOLOGIES. THE STAFF BROUGHT THIS TO THE HPC AFTER THE COUNCIL HAD SIGNALED THAT THIS IS THE DIRECTION THEY WANTED TO GO. CORRECT. IN APRIL? YEAH, CORRECT. SO FROM JANUARY UNTIL NOW, THE ARCHITECTS WERE WORKING ON THIS PLAN, WHICH IS THE PLAN THAT WE SAW IN 2024. THE THE ARCHITECT WAS ON HOLD UNTIL, I WOULD SAY MARCH OR APRIL. THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL THEY GOT DIRECTION FROM CITY STAFF. SO THIS ISN'T A NEW PLAN. THIS IS THE PLAN WE SAW IN 2024. YEAH, THIS FOLLOWS THAT CONCEPT. YES, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THAT CONCEPT, BUT THIS IS FOLLOWING THE CONCEPT THAT WAS THAT WAS SHOWN TO THE COUNCIL IN 2020, 2024. YES. AND WE DID SEE THAT CONCEPT AND WE DID GIVE COMMENT ON THAT. AND I'M ASSUMING THE COUNCIL HEARD THE COMMENT. YEAH. IT SEEMS THAT THE COUNCIL IS INVOLVED IN A AT A TIME IN THE PROCESS THAT THEY USUALLY AREN'T. AND THAT IS CAUSING SOME PROBLEMS. PREMATURE I WOULD SAY, BUT THAT HERE WE ARE AND WE'RE AND WE'RE CIRCLING AROUND BECAUSE OF THAT. AND MAYBE THAT'S A LESSON GOING FORWARD IS TO TRY TO KEEP THINGS IN A CERTAIN ORDER THAT THAT. BECAUSE ONCE PEOPLE HAVE COMMITTED SOMETHING, IT'S HARD TO UNCOMMIT. AND AND. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. SO. I GUESS IT HAD BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING BACK AT THAT TIME THAT IT, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WAS STILL THE PLAN.AND AFTER JANUARY 6TH, I, I WAS CERTAINLY SURPRISED BY WHAT HAPPENED. YOU KNOW, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD BE COMING TO US AND THEN TO THE COUNCIL IN A CONVENTIONAL WAY.
YEAH. AND THAT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO WORK IT OUT AND, AND HAVE THE COUNCIL LOOK AT OPTIONS THAT THAT WERE AGREEABLE TO EVERYBODY. YEAH. WHAT, WHEN IN THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 20TH, 2024, WAS THAT THE WE WERE PRESENTED WITH THE CONCEPT RENDERINGS, EMPHASIZING IT'S VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS. AND PLANS WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE HPC AS DESIGN CONCEPTS DEVELOP EITHER. I GUESS WE COULD. CONSTRUCTIONS PROBABLY. THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH.
CERTAINLY MY UNDERSTANDING. WE ASSUMED WE'D SEE SOMETHING. YEAH. I MEAN, MY MY, MY SINCERE HOPE IS THAT THE COUNCIL, EVEN IF THEY CHOOSE TO DISREGARD STATE STATUTE, THAT THEY WILL STILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH US TO COME UP WITH A PROPOSAL THAT MEETS OUR CITY DESIGN GUIDELINES. CHAIR, COMMISSIONER APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. APOLOGIES, COMMISSIONER PRIMDAHL JUST CONSULTING WITH STAFF. WE I WE CAN TABLE TO THE 19TH AS THE COUNCIL DOES MEET ON THE 18TH. AND THAT WOULD BE THE TIME. THAT WOULD BE THE PREFERABLE COUNCIL MEETING.
THESE COMMENTS WOULD BE SHARED WITH THE COUNCIL ALONG WITH THE PROPOSED DESIGN DISCUSSION, AND THE COUNCIL WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE AGAIN INPUT ON WHAT THEIR PREFERENCE WOULD BE. AND THEN THIS COULD RETURN IMMEDIATELY ON THE 19TH THE FOLLOWING DAY. AND THAT WAY THE HPC WOULD STILL HAVE THEIR INPUT HEARD AT COUNCIL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AGAIN ON THE 19TH, AND STAFF COULD UPDATE THE COMMISSION WITH WHAT THE COUNCIL'S COMMENTS WERE. AND WHAT DAY WOULD THAT BE THEN? THAT WOULD BE AUGUST 18TH WOULD BE THE COUNCIL MEETING. AUGUST 19TH I APOLOGIZE. YEP, AUGUST 9TH. AUGUST. GOT IT. THANK YOU. FOUR DAYS FROM NOW? NO, A MONTH, A MONTH, A MONTH FROM NOW. GOT IT. VERY GOOD DISTINCTION. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT RECOMMENDATION. DO WE NEED TO FORMALLY TABLE? I WOULD SUGGEST FORMALLY TABLING IF THAT IS THE DIRECTION THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO GO. I DO WANT TO NOTE IF THAT IS THE CASE, WHAT I HAVE FOR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION, I HAVE A I WOULD OBVIOUSLY SUMMARIZE ALL OF YOUR GOOD DISCUSSION FOR THEM TONIGHT, BUT THE MAIN ONE I THINK THE CHAIR ALONG WITH.
AT THE END, FITZY, SEAN AND JOHN ALL SAID VERY WELL. ESSENTIALLY CITY ACCEPTING THESE BUILDINGS IS ACCEPTING THE OBLIGATION FOR A MORAL STANDPOINT. WE SHOULD BE
[01:30:02]
WORKING WITH SHPO AND WORKING TOWARDS APPROPRIATE DESIGN STANDARDS. CITY SHOULD BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS RESIDENTS THAT WE HOLD OURSELVES TO. STILLWATER, KEYSTONE IN MINNESOTA'S HISTORY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, MOVING, SETTING CONCERN ABOUT SETTING A PRECEDENT, AND THEN JUST SIMPLY NOT FOLLOWING STANDARDS OF OUR OWN DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES, AND THEN A RESOLUTION TO WORKING WITH SHIP OR NOT. THOSE ARE THE, I'D SAY, THE PILLARS THAT I GOT OUT OF TONIGHT. AND THERE'S A FEW MORE TOO. BUT THAT WAS, I THINK THAT LAST CLOSING COMMENTARY REALLY COVERED IT ALL. ALONG WITH THE PROPOSED FROM COMMISSIONER LARSEN, THE PROPOSED DESIGN OR SUGGESTION, I SHOULD SAY. SO. WITH THAT, EVERYBODY AMENABLE TO THAT COURSE OF ACTION? WELL, SOMEBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE. ON. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE. THERE'S NO MOTION YET. IT IS NO CASE NUMBER. BERGSTEIN SHODDY MILL AND WAREHOUSE REVIEW TO THE NEXT MEETING IN AUGUST WITH OUR COMMENTS TO BE RELAYED TO THE COUNCIL AS EXPLAINED TONIGHT AND BROUGHT BACK TO US IN AUGUST. WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? OH YEAH. OH, I WANT TO SECOND MY OWN MOTION. FOR EMPHASIS. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. HEIMDALL, WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE BY SECOND BY HEIMDALL. SO FURTHER DISCUSSION.AT THE RISK OF NOT DOING I DON'T WANT TO DRAG THIS ON, BUT COMMISSIONER SUMMERS MADE A POINT EARLY ON THAT RESONATED WITH ME ABOUT HIS DISAPPOINTMENT IN THE TONE OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY. AND I HAD EXACTLY THE SAME IMPRESSION THAT THERE'S A HUNDRED WAYS OF SAYING THIS MORE CIVILLY AND AND RATHER THAN USING WORDS LIKE BLATANT LIES AND, AND I FOUND THAT DISAPPOINTING AND NOT, NOT A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF OUR CITY.
MY CONCERN IS, AND I'VE SEEN IT BEFORE. IS THAT SOMETIMES IN THE NARROW PURSUIT OF WINNING A CASE, I THINK OUR CITY ATTORNEY MISSES THE BROADER PURPOSE AND AND SERVICE OF OUR CITY. AND WHAT'S BETTER FOR IT, AND IN THIS CASE, ALIENATING MNDOT. I'M SAYING ALIENATING. I WOULD BE ALIENATED BY THIS. AND OUR STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE. DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A CONSIDERATION. CONSIDERATION SEEMS TO BE TO WIN WIN THE POINT. AND I THINK WE WOULD BE BETTER SERVED AS SOMEONE WHO IS MORE OF A MEDIATOR THAN A, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE WHO'S SIMPLY TRYING TO. PROVE SOMEONE WRONG. I FOUND IT A VERY NARROW APPROACH TO SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT MORE BROADLY WHAT'S BEST FOR OUR CITY. AND IF I MAY FOLLOW ON THAT, I HAVE THE BLESSING OR MISFORTUNE OF USING ATTORNEYS REGULARLY. AND SO, IN FAIRNESS TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY, IF THE TASK IS WINNING AND THAT'S THE TASK YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN, THEN YOU PUT FORTH WHAT YOU DO. I, AS THE CONSUMER OF THOSE LEGAL SERVICES, GET TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO NEXT. NOW, TO YOUR POINT, I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT THAT WAS HOW WE COMMUNICATED WITH OUR PARTNERS. THAT BEING SAID, THE CITY COUNCIL STILL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK THE BROADER GOAL TO LOOK AT THE BROADER PICTURE, AND IT IS MY HOPE THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THAT MEMORANDUM SAYS, THAT THAT'S AN OUTCOME WE CAN PURSUE. I AGREE WITH THAT. I ALSO WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR EVEN AFTER THAT OPINION FOR FOR, YOU KNOW, DOING THE RIGHT THING AND ENGAGING WITH SHIPPO INITIALLY. AND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY IT NEEDS TO CONTINUE. BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOU GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS. I WILL AGREE THAT THE TONE OF THAT LETTER REALLY CAUGHT ME OFF GUARD AND WAS NOT NOT SOMETHING THAT I WOULD PUT IN FRONT OF AN IMPORTANT PARTNER. I WOULD ADD THAT AFTER WATCHING THE JANUARY MEETING, THAT
[01:35:04]
MEETING TOO WAS QUITE ADVERSARIAL. THE THINGS THAT WERE SAID THERE WERE QUITE ADVERSARIAL, I THOUGHT AS WELL. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TABLE THIS CASE UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING. I JUST HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE. THE RESOLUTION THAT IS IN OUR PACKET DENYING DESIGN APPROVAL FOR WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US, I THINK MAKES A LOT OF RELEVANT POINTS. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT. I WOULD HAVE BEEN PREPARED TO DO THAT TONIGHT IF THAT WAS NEEDED. I'M FINE WITH TABLING IT AS WELL, BUT I THINK THERE ARE SOME VERY GOOD POINTS MADE IN THAT RESOLUTION. SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING APPROVING THE DENIAL OR DISCUSSING IT OR. I'M JUST SAYING THAT AS A POINT OF RECORD, THIS WAS IN OUR MATERIALS. I THINK THAT ALL OF THE POINTS THAT ARE MADE IN THAT DENIAL ARE RELEVANT. I AGREE, EVEN THOUGH WE ARE TABLING IT. YEAH. AND SO IT WOULD BE GOOD TO INCORPORATE THOSE IN THE RECORD AS WELL OF THIS MEETING, EVEN THOUGH WE AREN'T ADOPTING THE RESOLUTION.ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY TO TABLE THE CASE UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO FYI STAFF UPDATES. AND I HAD 1 OR 2 OTHERS AS WELL.
[IX. FYI – STAFF UPDATES]
SO GO FOR STAFF FIRST. I APOLOGIZE. STAFF UPDATES IS THAT WE WE HAVE NONE. I GUESS THE BIGGEST UPDATE I HAVE, AS YOU'RE ALL AWARE, WE. JOHNNY AND OUR ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER LEFT US FOR ANOTHER COMMUNITY AND WE HAVE JUST POSTED FOR THE NEW POSITION. SO WE'RE WORKING ON FILLING THAT HERE SHORTLY. AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR THE LETTER OR THE CARD, I SHOULD SAY, FOR THE WELL WISHES, I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. YES. NEXT WEEK IS THE THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PRESERVATION COMMISSIONS NATIONAL CONVENTION BEING HELD IN MINNEAPOLIS. IT IS A FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY FOR US. SO I'D ENCOURAGE ANY OF YOU WHO AREN'T YET SIGNED UP FOR IT TO TRY TO GET THERE FOR AT LEAST PART OF IT. THERE ARE SOME GOOD WORKSHOPS AND CLASSES AND TOURS ON ON WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY. AND THEN I THINK THE CONFERENCE ITSELF IS FRIDAY THROUGH SUNDAY, AND TWO OF OUR COMMISSIONERS WILL BE PRESENTING AT THAT. AND ABOUT OUR CONSERVATION, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WHICH I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE GREAT TO SEE STILLWATER REPRESENTED THERE. FOLLOWING ON THAT, AS WELL AS OUR TRAINING WE HAD WITH THE AAPC TRAINERS LAST MONTH, YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT SURVEYS THAT THAT SOME OR ALL OF YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM EITHER CITY STAFF OR FROM NAPC DIRECTLY. AND I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO FILL THOSE OUT IF YOU HAVEN'T. ONE OF THEM IS FOLLOWING UP ON THE CAMP TRAINING, KIND OF A SWOT STRENGTH, WEAKNESS, OPPORTUNITY THREAT ANALYSIS OF OUR PRESERVATION PROGRAM IN STILLWATER. SO IT GOES BEYOND JUST GETTING FEEDBACK ABOUT THE ABOUT THE TRAINING SESSION, BUT ALSO KIND OF WHERE WE ARE AS A, AS A COMMISSION. AND THEN THE TRAINERS ARE GOING TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THAT INTO THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORT THEY GIVE TO THE CITY. SO THAT'S USEFUL. AND THEN FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE ALSO OR PLANNING TO ATTEND THE CONVENTION NEXT WEEK, THEY SENT A SEPARATE SET OF, OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THINGS FROM THOSE SESSIONS AT AT THAT CONFERENCE THAT WILL, IF WE HAVE ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE CONFERENCE BASED ON WHAT WE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE IDEAS WE COME ACROSS NEXT WEEK, THEY CAN ALSO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THEIR REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CITY. THE CONSULTANTS WILL RESPOND TO THAT. SO IF YOU HAVEN'T RESPONDED TO THOSE QUESTIONNAIRES, OBVIOUSLY THE ONE THAT CAME OUT ALREADY, PLEASE DO SO. AND FOR THE OTHER ONE AFTER THE CONFERENCE, PLEASE FILL THAT OUT, BECAUSE I THINK THEY WILL GIVE US A REPORT PRETTY SOON AFTER THAT.I DON'T THINK I HAD ANY OTHER FYI ITEMS, MR. CHAIR, JUST BECAUSE I REMEMBER TO DO IT THIS AFTERNOON. FOR ANY OF US INTERESTED IN THE BOARD PICNIC, THE RSVP IS COMING UP, THE DEADLINE IS THE SIXTH AND SO THANK YOU. HAVEN'T RSVP'D. THANK YOU FOR THAT REMINDER.
AUGUST 12TH. THE 12TH. ANYTHING ELSE? I HAD ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF. IS IT POSSIBLE TO MOVE OUR MEETINGS BACK THERE AGAIN? AND THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS I SAW THAT JANUARY 6TH CITY
[01:40:03]
COUNCIL MEETING AND THEY WERE MEETING BACK THERE. AND I'M A SHORTER, AVERAGE SIZED LADY. I CANNOT TOUCH THE GROUND IS SO VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. THIS LIGHT IS CONSTANTLY BLARING IN MY EYES AND I CAN'T EVEN. ALL I SEE IS FLOATING HEADS OVER THERE. AND IT'S NOT REALLY COLLABORATIVE, YOU KNOW? JUST A QUESTION. CAN'T WE MOVE BACK, PLEASE? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSION. WAS THAT WHEN WAS THAT COVID OR WHEN DID THE HPC MEET OVER THERE? OH, FIVE YEARS AGO. BACK AND FORTH. YEAH, I, IT USED TO MEET THERE AT THIS TABLE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.I'D SAY TEN YEARS, 15 YEARS. AND THEN MOVED THERE. AND THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN COVID ISH. YEAH, I THINK THAT WAS COVID. YEAH. I THINK IT WAS AFTER COVID, WE CAME BACK AND TOLD IT WAS BECAUSE THE A V SET UP COULDN'T ACCOMMODATE US OVER THERE, BUT IT SEEMS TO WORK FOR THE COUNCIL WORKSHOP. SO I CAN TELL YOU THE PARKING, THE PARK AND REC COMMISSION MEETS BACK THERE.
YEAH, YEAH. IT'S REALLY, IT'S VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. JUST FYI, IT'S VERY I CAN'T CONCENTRATE, I CAN'T SEE PEOPLE. YEAH, THERE'S PROS AND CONS. OKAY. ANYWAY, THERE'S A CERTAIN SEPARATION THAT SOME FOLKS LIKE, THERE'S NOT THAT THERE AND SOME FOLKS LIKE THAT. SO IT'S LATE.
I JUST SAW THAT MY EYES ARE BURNING. YEAH. SUNGLASSES. NEXT TIME. WE ALSO MAY HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER THE LIGHTS THAT ARE SHINING ON YOU, THAT WE CAN TRY TO ADJUST FOR FUTURE MEETINGS, BUT I THINK THAT IS WORTH HAVING A DISCUSSION. I WOULD SAY IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF A DEMOCRATIC DISCUSSION BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR COMMISSIONERS AND ALSO WHAT'S AVAILABLE, BUT YOU COULD ALWAYS JOIN US DOWN HERE, COMMISSIONER FINLAW, YOU COULD ALWAYS JOIN US DOWN HERE. I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE. THANK YOU. I HEAR YOU'RE HIRING A PLANNER. WE ARE TO BE HERE PERMANENTLY. ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. WOULD ANYONE CARE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I WOULD MOTION TO ADJOURN. MINA, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND SUMMERS MOTION BY MINA, SECOND BY SUMMERS TO ADJOURN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.