Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-14-20
CITY OF Meeting Location: FARMI NGTON Farmington City Hall 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 14, 2020 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (a) Approve Planning Commission Minutes 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS (a) Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit allowing a Church in the B-2 Zoning District 4. DISCUSSION (a) Sapphire Lake 2nd Addition Final Plat (b) Certificate of Appropriateness Request for Exterior Work-345 3rd Street(Fletcher Building)-continued from October 22, 2019 (c) 2020 Meeting Calendar 5. ADJOURN CITY OF O Q430 Third St., Farmington, MN 55024 FARM I N GTO N © 651-280-6800 FarmingtonMN.gov TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Approve Planning Commission Minutes DATE: January 14, 2020 INTRODUCTION Attached, are the minutes from the December 10, 2019 regular meeting. DISCUSSION NA ACTION REQUESTED Approve the minutes from the December 10, 2019 regular meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description 0 Backup Material December 10, 2019 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting December 10,2019 1. Call to Order Chair Rotty called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Rotty, Franceschelli, Lehto, Tesky Members Absent: Windschitl Also Present: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a. MOTON by Lehto second by Rotty to approve the minutes of November 12, 2019. Voting for: Rotty, Lehto. Abstain: Franceschelli, Tesky. MOTION CARRIED. 3. Public Hearings—Chair Rotty opened the public hearings a. Variance Request from Section 10-6-3(B)5(e) of the City Code to Allow an Internally Lit Projecting Box Sign—344 Third Street Homestead Community Church, 344 Third Street,has applied for a variance to allow an internally lit cabinet projecting sign on the Exchange Bank building. There are nine requirements in the city code for projecting/blade signs. The proposed sign would project out 4.33 feet. If the variance is approved,the applicant would reduce it to the required 4 feet. According to the city code,projecting signs may have external lighting only. The applicant is requesting an internally lit sign. The proposed sign is a cabinet or box sign, which are prohibited. The variance is needed due to the proposed sign being internally lit and being a box sign. There are nine criteria for a variance to be approved, one being practical difficulty. Staff was unable to determine a practical difficulty as a sign meeting the current code requirements could be installed. Staff recommended denying the variance application. Member Franceschelli asked what would be used to illuminate the sign. Mr. Kerr stated it would be LED. Member Franceschelli noted the height would be 11 feet above the walkway. That height is sufficient. Staff noted we have not had a projecting sign within the last ten years. Member Franceschelli did not see any difficulty with a cabinet sign and suggested changing the ordinance to allow it. He felt it would complement the building and did not see a reason not to approve it. Member Tesky agreed with those comments. The sign is progressive from what we have experienced in the past. Lighting has changed over the last ten years and LED is a great source of light. The longevity of it makes sense. The box style is the nature of how signs are being built today. She felt it would be nice to see some light on the streetscape and would like to consider changing the ordinance. Chair Rotty noted this was discussed at the last meeting. Sometimes the type and location of a sign is important. He did not see a reason to deny it. He would agree with a Planning Commission Minutes December 10,2019 Page 2 future step to revise the ordinance after seeing this sign installed. Mr. Kerr stated the sign would be installed in late February. Staff asked that some conditions be placed on the variance as follows: 1. Submittal and approval of a sign permit. 2. Sign can only be anchored into brick mortar. 3. All other requirements of section 10-6-3(B)5(e) shall be met with the exception of the cabinet style and internally lit. Mr. Kerr agreed with the above conditions. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Tesky to close the public hearing. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Tesky to approve the variance application to allow an internally lit projecting box sign at 344 Third Street with the three conditions. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Member Franceschelli asked that the city code be revised at a later date to allow this type of sign. 4. Discussion a. Prairie Waterway First Addition Final Plat The final plat consists of right-of-way to be dedicated for 213th Street W and Spruce Street as well as two outlots. Earlier this year, Sapphire Lake First Addition was approved. This development is bordered by 213th Street W to the north and Spruce Street to the south. In the initial phase, 213th Street W was extended across the Prairie Waterway. Also, Spruce Street will need to be extended through the Prairie Waterway in a later phase. Staff felt it was appropriate to separate out the right-of-way from the open space. MOTION by Franceschelli, second by Lehto to recommend approval of the Prairie Waterway First Addition final plat and forward the recommendation to the City Council. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. 5. Adjourn MOTION by Tesky second by Franceschelli to adjourn at 7:18 p.m. APIF,MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Cowtlita Muiier Cynthia Muller Administrative Assistant CITY OF 0430 Third St., Farmington, MN 55024 FARM I N GTO N © 651-280-6800 FarmingtonMN.gov TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit allowing a Church in the B-2 Zoning District DATE: January 14, 2020 INTRODUCTION The Christian Family Church has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit (Exhibit A) to re- establish a church in the B-2 (Downtown Business) Zoning District. Planning Division Review Applicant: Christian Family Church 15117 Oakland Avenue Burnsville, MN 55306 Property Owner: Paul Otten 12400 Portland Avenue, Suite 175 Burnsville, MN 55337 Location of Property: 400 3rd Street, Farmington, MN 55024 Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 19 and East 1 foot of North 90 feet of Lot 2, Block 19 Town of Farmington Surrounding Land Uses: Commercial and/or public uses completely surround this property. Existing Zoning: B-2 (Downtown Business) Comprehensive Plan: Commercial Current& Proposed Land Use: The building consists of approximately 10,000 square feet of leasable space. Current tenants of the building include: American Family Insurance, Swedin Chiropractic Clinic, Chill Ice Cream, Beltone, Ability I.T., SnowSet Studio and several hair and nail studios. DISCUSSION According to the City Code, Churches are conditionally allowed in the B-2 (Downtown Business) Zoning District. A Conditional Use Permit for a church was granted for this property by the Planning Commission on June 10, 2008. The church at that time, The River Church, occupied the rear portion of the building and has not been a tenant of the 400 3rd Street building for several years. The current applicant, Christian Family Church, is proposing to occupy the northern most portion of the building. Being so much time has elapsed since a church use has been at this property and being the use will be located within a different portion of the building staff feels it is appropriate to amend the 2008 CUP to reflect what is being proposed with this application. The Code provides the following criteria that must be met in order for the Planning Commission to approve a conditional use permit: 1. The proposed use conforms to the district permitted and conditional use provisions and all general regulations of this title. A church is a conditional use in the 8-2 Zoning District. 2. The proposed use shall not involve any element or cause any conditions that may be dangerous, injurious or noxious to any other property or persons and shall comply with the applicable performance standards. The proposed use will not involve any elements that may be dangerous, injurious or noxious to any other person or property and it does comply with all applicable performance standards. 3. The proposed use shall be constructed, designed, sited, oriented and landscaped to produce a harmonious relationship of buildings and grounds to adjacent buildings and properties. The proposed use will occupy a portion of an existing building. Therefore, this requirement is non applicable in this instance. 4. The proposed use shall produce a total visual impression and environment which is consistent with the environment of the neighborhood. Again, the proposed use is to occupy a portion of an existing building in the downtown. The use will not affect the visual impression and environment of the downtown neighborhood. 5. The proposed use shall organize vehicular access and parking to minimize traffic congestion in the neighborhood. The 8-2 zoning district does not have requirements for off-street parking. Existing on-street parking as well as nearby public parking facilities will be utilized. 6. The proposed use shall preserve the objectives of this title and shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed use is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. Staff believes that the proposed church use meets all of the aforementioned criteria. Proposed Use—Church The Christian Family Church has requested an amendment to a previoulsy approved conditional use permit in order to operate a church in the B-2 Zoning District. The church has a congregation of approximately 40 people and would like to hold service on Sunday mornings from 10 am— 11 am out of the northern most portion of the building formerly known as Dueber's. The address of the building where the church is proposed to be located is 400 3rd Street. The church would like to occupy approximately 2,700 square feet of vacant space in the building. The space would largely remain open but would also have office and storage space along with two bathrooms. The office space would be for daily church operations. Per Section 10-6-4 of the City Code, the B-2 (Downtown Business) Zoning District does not require off- street parking stalls/lots be provided. There is on-street parking adjacent to the building both on 3rd and Oak Streets. I n addition, the second street parking lot is located one block west. All of these parking areas/spaces could potentially be utilized as parking for the church. ACTION REQUESTED Approve the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit contingent upon the following: 1. The applicant obtain all necessary building permits for conversion of space to a church. 2. A sign permit shall be required for any signage to be placed on site. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Backup Material Conditional Use Permit Application D Backup Material Site Aerial CITY OF © 430Third St,Farmington.MN 55024 FARMINGTON t, s5isl-z8o-saoD rp1�I�uuur4Nrry� 0 FarmingtonMN_gov CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION OR Applicant: Christian Family Church Telephone: 952-228-0168 -Fax: 952-769-3669 Address: 15117 Oakland Ave Burnsville MN 55306 Street City State Zip Code Owner: W. Paul Often Sloknr Telephone:952-736-3300 Fax: 952-736-3400 Address: WIDQ pi/"f'Ian A �Vf' 1/4/0/4 1.? / MA/ .c3j7 Street City State Zip Code Premises Involved: 400 3rd Street, Farmington, MN 55024 Address/Legal Description(lot,block,plat name,section,township,range) Current Zoning District Ba Current Land Use (qidi e/(a) Specific Nature of Request: Church meeting space and office use SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Proof of Ownership 6 Copies of Site Plan X Application Fee Abstract/Residential List(required 350' from subject property) Be u dary/Lot Survey Torrens(Owner's plicate Certificate of Title Required) V2-7 JI f/ l✓ZZG� /624? Signature nature of Owner Date Si natur of A licant Date g g PP Request Submitted to Planning staff on For office use only Public Hearing Set for: Advertised in Local Newspaper: Planning Commission Action: Approved Denied Fee Paid City Council Action(if necessary): Approved Denied $250—City of Farmington Comments: Conditions Set: DRAFTED BY: Planning division: Date: City ofF430 aminv�p 9/10/2019 Farmington,MN 55024 Dakota County, MN :I r a a ,.3 x — ....._ — .s. 31 : F I .w x c ;;$ aP,} i t iI k - -r rt �` ,:r v. 'ifsgt #$ g t 'eMOM L I .. { x. 5 n t ny .. fi .. .. c III y frilly ''S.e,Nti4: -''''',.;•;',:'-‘,.t '7 r �� I d+u r�tar t� it b # yr.emIEMi' 3I f a � °'.7. - - # illt i . '• :ill' , ''''f yrs- �., n. ib gir r ! i 310E ._ #:. .",. 4164.' ',:p.:, . ,..:,-.. ,_. .,, f .vS h r` r MH, _ � zrs .. al iii "itr ;p �Y. ax¢: ' �. Y' *_^...,,. ! e. 4 :+ a r' - a P �) t 5 t a, I :d, ..:1;:-' 'Xa 1 r _, * ' j-1.7 4- ;'. :'!il'—'14 F.r m �: b� , January 10, 2020 1:2,400 0 112.5 225 450 ft ' I ' 11 e i I I 0 30 60 120 m Property Information Disclaimer:Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate,but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal,survey,or for zoning verification. CITY OF O 430 Third St., Farmington, MN 55024 FARM I N GTO N © 651-280-6800 FarmingtonMN.gov TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Sapphire Lake 2nd Addition Final Plat DATE: January 14, 2020 INTRODUCTION Sapphire Lake Development Company, LLC is proposing to plat 33 single-family lots within the Sapphire Lake 2nd Addition. The 33 single-family lots are located to the east and south of the previous 36 lots platted as part of the Sapphire Lake 1st Addition. DISCUSSION The 33 single-family lots are part of the 131 overall single-family lots proposed for the project. The Sapphire Lake 2nd Addition Final Plat corresponds with the preliminary plat that was approved by the Planning Commission on August 15, 2018 and the City Council on August 20, 2018. The plat is comprised of the following area summary: Block 1 Area: 1.3148 acres Block 2 Area: 1.4653 acres Block 3 Area: 0.7095 acres Block 4 Area: 1.5372 acres Block 5 Area: 1.2945 acres Total Lot Area: 6.3265 acres Total Outlot Area: 36.1413 acres Total Right-of-Way: 2.3585 acres Total Area: 44.8211 acres As previously mentioned the Sapphire Lake 2nd Addition Final Plat will consist of 33 single-family lots. The average lot size is 8,331 square feet with the smallest lot being 6,820 square feet in size and the largest being 11,874 square feet in size. Additionally,the attached final plat shows two outlots (A and B). Outlot A is 0.7837 acres and will be a storm water basin. Outlot B is a combination of future development and storm water basin. As part of the approval of this final plat the city will be requiring that the entire storm water basin (identified as Storm Basin 100 in the grading and erosion control plan) be separated out from Outlot B into its own outlot and then deeded to the city. Transportation The final plat shows the extension of 213th Street W east from where it currently terminates within the 1st Addition. Spruce Street on the south end of the development will also be extended across the Prairie Waterway and into the 2nd Addition with the plat. Both 213th Street W and Spruce Street will have temporary cul-de-sacs constructed at the eastern boundaries of the 2nd Addition. The Spruce Street extension will start as a divided roadway at 14th Street, mirroring what is existing in East Farmington, and will then neck down into a more typical non-divided residential collector street section that will consist of a 70 foot right-of-way and 38 foot wide roadway measured from face of curb to face or curb. The 213th Street will be comprised of a 60 foot right-of-way and a 32 foot roadway measured face of curb to face of curb. Five foot wide sidewalks will be provided on the north sides of both 213th Street W and Spruce Street. Five foot wide sidewalk will be provided on the west side of 15th Street. An eight foot wide bituminous trail will be provided along the south side of Spruce Street from 14th Street in the East Farmington development to where Spruce Street will intersect 15th Street in this final plat. A future trail will then connect from this location and go behind the lots within Block 5 and continue northeast to Biscayne Avenue. This portion of trail will be constructed in future phases. Landscape Plan Review A landscaping plan was approved as apart of the overall development plan. Lot frontage trees will be provided in accordance with the city's landscaping requirements. Engineering Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the Sapphire Lake 2nd Addition Final Plat and recommend approval contingent on satisfaction of all engineering comments as outlined in the attached memorandum from Assistant City Engineer Matt Decur. ACTION REQUESTED Recommend approval of the Sapphire Lake 2nd Addition Final Plat contingent upon the following, and forward that recommendation on to the City Council: 1. Satisfaction of all engineering comments as outlined in the staff memorandum dated December 30, 2019. Including revising the Sapphire Lake 2nd Addition final plat to have all of Storm Basin 100 in a separate outlot to be deeded to the city. 2. Execution of a Development Contract. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Backup Material Final Plat D Backup Material Engineering comment letter J F F; ' m 4s0 0 0 $ P— af -o 0 'CI', ro 0 0 - i'' ry <or 3 Ep Em m m s3 3 EE v G Z z o _ = E 0 m z of 3�- oct=al Q 0 z N W Q J E SE a_ E = a 0_ V l E F Y 1 1 1''''';'::1::;1' i zfi 3 3E n , 13 E'333,'3 . - a E a E L' ti h a z E - _ 7 s a z E - ry E a 8 o - E o E s lgti ill a -- O o'2 2f 7, ;'3 'i O o a 1. m _ 40 E N !L6 l' r o o x a _ 2' �U r N _ 1 u a f~il�V F .V I •.,-- i; '''' 4111111M .1 \ 0000 F 0'., -r-- 00 ‘,/ .-......7,:"1 r';''' '''' iz "."''''''':•''':‘'"-- 1'-, :toL‘t.90,20.00S I/ ' LO 1, ,,,,,,:e-"Qpv \ •,' 9 ,1N r f „ ,N "'jo '-------- „*"..-: i9 Tr) \t,\‘‘, \''f, I '''' 4 \,5),, ,..9• ,,, ,,:' < .-..- I P ___5.,,:zz•; ,, •;;N ii. 000000 F00000000 I I— Z 0 F— CD ,1 di ,-----/---- '*'6- \s,. -0>Q-... ,/ ' 0 C) Z 1 c- 4 \(•\--1 11: 2 $ • % C\I V- ;-,...! -,..1, % c,,?...:s.y. ,,,, ,,,,, „.., 1_,LI ,,,',;.;4vt, • _ •-;„W1059. ;•‘,\'•t`0%. I 25 5-9 9 , L1_1 '‘ Y , $ ,gt, m^ <r \ . z Lr,„ - , 7q..7 H .. r:,;8 CC E.— I ii: ' , , '4,,,,,,, ,. alf,Ed 2,,00 J_ ...,_— F3 '`" .., ' 4°';'''''° -1 \ = ,,,,,,,,,,0000 . ,,,,,, . f i - 36n,91,,4,,4,0N I ,,-1 . °N z '06 --- '-'4 ;.--- ---1 < coozi 0 4'00 Rh°2 (r) 1 ,-- ot.14:44"s651°°a7gE:' 't e," e 6)' .-L>?SelfL3273L'3'L.493g"SE , 0 ,6 4," h 3„LS,60.00N `,e00 0 „, , 5 (5. ‘'' ,"/,5‘,... 1 0 ) .,- '1'§4 i -22 22-- --1-'---' — 7 — '..-,r, -' ,.. -17 - ,:- ----. .- 1::or!i‘, H20, .8 z, k 0 (3(2i / - 4\41' 05- EIIR N •;•-ii3). 6\2 2,' .ii"•51 (,') g'311 '; • 5,,, i ,L3I 3.gg.goi.o 5 ,5 g,-,, .5 i z7,(2', ,ei(' •1\ 9, '',-2,5 ” '9'3 3 :9, F,•°,3, '---- ,,,':`41 s'°-,4 `A; * • 14,4 e ,v, �sovm arc ro 3 -ii1V 00 „1- 4 %� ---- 1 me a "�, n r' s\ o\m �^ &a \ N \ \ tyVmd 0- \q s \o \4 r VA / /A '+ (- [O a J ¢ Qpm ..p�rrr //\ 25 v ''‘'),>N'''';'' ��.�, i/ �i \''\1-0 '''.1,1/4 d ''o M .ao/r \,,,,-°' �' vn „g<),,,, `J\'',',',`,6 wi/ / i/ \,. - fid' /// N r"j/, i • ,e1--- r' rr 'g�o O'� V< /�a • / ��,± - Doi • g 00 w z 0 U Oa Q r 0m 8 0 z N = L, W W `' ' s Y a ` 31 r i! J w ®3 2$N CZ 0_ alt®N �Q� 0®aff . 1W 8V .44 0 1-11p -/,,ikes, 4 ...„ J,76 ,.........____ 4Pipp, ,„,,,,„ M "3 1 CITY OF FARMINGTON Date: December 30, 2019 To: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager From: Matt Decur, P.E.,Assistant City Engineer CC: Katy Gehler, P.E., City Engineer Subject: Sapphire Lake 2nd Addition We have completed a cursory review of the plan submittal for Sapphire Lake 2nd Addition and have the following comments or concerns: Plat 1. Outlot all of Basin 100 to be constructed with the plat and convey the Outlot to the City. 2. Additional Right of Way will be required at the intersection of 15th Street and Spruce Street based on sidewalk and curb ramp design (see Street Plan comments) Grading/Drainage 1. Provide a minimum 4-ft wide bottom ditch from the culvert outlet on the south side of Lots 5/6, Block 2 to the pond with a minimum slope of 0.5%. 2. Low openings for Lots 6-8, Block 4 do not have 1' of freeboard to the EOF Utility Plan 3. Move HYD at STA 13+25 to the other side of Lot 6. 4. Add gate valve to the west of the hydrant located at 4+92 5. Add temporary hydrant at 14+89 at end of temporary cul de sac 6. Several sanitary sewer service inverts are less than 10 feet below grade at the right of way; Developer and Builder are responsible for building model or setback changes necessary at the time of building permit due to shallow services. Storm Sewer Plan 7. Increase pipe grade between CBMH 454 to CBMH 455 to 0.5% Street Plan 8. Change the arrow location on the note in the street section details that says 'al. = cl- 0.XX'to point to the gutter line. 430 Third Street I Farmington, Minnesota 1651-280-6800 ( FarmingtonMN.gov CITY OF FARMINGTON 9. Provide a detail for the pedestrian ramp at the north west quadrant of 15th St and Spruce St showing ADA compliant geometry, landing areas and ramps. 10.Add wings and domes to all pedestrian ramps Erosion Control Plan 11.Add silt fence, silt curtain, erosion control blanket and other BMPs where applicable to the erosion control plan 12. If inlet protection on the first addition has been removed it needs to be shown being installed again during the second addition construction Permits 13.A NPDES general construction permit will be required, due to the project disturbing more than 1 acre. Please submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) meeting the current general construction permit requirements. Provide a SWPPP that meets the permit requirements of Section 5.1. 430 Third Street I Farmington, Minnesota 1651-280-6800 I FarmingtonMN.gov CITY OF 0430 Third St., Farmington, MN 55024 FARM I N GTO N © 651-280-6800 ® O FarmingtonMN.gov TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Certificate of Appropriateness Request for Exterior Work-345 3rd Street(Fletcher Building)-continued from October 22, 2019 DATE: January 14, 2020 INTRODUCTION This is a continued item from the October 8, 2019 regular Planning Commission meeting and the October 22, 2019 special Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission at the October 22, 2019 special meeting directed staff to consult with Robert Vogel of Pathfinder CRM, LLC to produce a "Condition of Historic Property Report" and to provide findings and recommendations for rehabilitating the exterior walls of the Fletcher Building Located at 345 3rd Street. Attached, please find all the background materials that were provided at the previous meetings regarding this issue. Also attached, is the building condition report by Mr. Vogel that is dated December 30, 2019. DISCUSSION In the attached building condition report, Mr. Vogel states that it is his opinion that"the brick walls are a distinguishing design feature and contribute significantly to the Fletcher Building's historical and architectural values" and that coating historic brick walls with stucco is not an appropriate preservation treatment. The recommendations that are provided in the report by Mr. Vogel are: 1. Clean the exterior walls. 2. Repoint(tuckpoint)the deteriorated mortar joints. 3. Repair/replace damaged or missing bricks. 4. Remove the old paint. 5. Repaint exterior walls. 6. Conduct routine inspection and maintenance of the building exterior. Based on the report provided by Mr. Vogel staff recommends denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Additional resources in the form of a Preservation Specialists Directory can be found on the Minnesota Historical Society's website: www.mnhs.org/preservation/directory This directory provides lists of products and services of companies and individuals that have experience in preserving, rehabilitating, or evaluating historic properties. ACTION REQUESTED Deny the requested Certificate of Appropriateness to cover the north and east walls of the Fletcher Building located at 345 3rd Street with stucco. If the the Planning Commission elects to deny the request,they should make the applicant aware of their right to appeal this decision via Section G of 2-11-5 (Design Review). ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Backup Material Condition of Historic Property Report- Robert Vogel ® Backup Material October 8th staff memorandum D Backup Material Vogel Memorandum on COA o Backup Material Heikkila EDA Grant Application o Backup Material 345 Third Street Landmark Report o Backup Material Secretary of the Interior Standards Pathfinder CRM, LLC Cultural Resource Management & Heritage Preservation Consultants at"PO Box 503 Spring Grove, Minnesota 55974-0503 n. 507-498-3810 www.pathfindercrm.com S 0 Transmitted via email December 30, 2019 Adam Kienberger Community Development Director City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington, MN 55024 RE: Condition of Historic Property Report Fletcher Building, 345 Third Street, Farmington, MN Dear Mr. Kienberger: On November 7, 2019, I had the opportunity to visit and assess the condition of the historic Fletcher Building. At the same time I met on site with the city planner, building official, and Pam Heikkla, the property's owner. The purpose of my investigation was to examine the exterior masonry and recommend an appropriate treatment for the deteriorated brickwork. After the initial site visit, I conferred with my associate Christian Hendrie, an experienced historic architect, who provided his professional opinion on the best practices relating to preservation, rehabilitation, and maintenance of historic brick masonry walls. Several other colleagues in the historic preservation field provided helpful comments on the best practices for rehabilitating old buildings with walls made of Chaska brick. No attempt was made to conduct any in-depth structural system analysis or materials testing. I did not consider it necessary to retain the services of a structural engineer. Observations My inspection of the subject property focused on the condition of the exterior wall surfaces that were visible on the north and east elevations, which the owner has proposed to cover with stucco. The vertical brick wall on the north side of the building was completely visible; however the lower portion of the rear wall was covered by the one- story building (311 Oak Street), which abuts the east side of the historic structure. The brick walls are original and the masonry is typical of late-nineteenth century commercial construction. The brick itself is readily identifiable as "Chaska brick" (the generic term applied to soft mud bricks produced in the Chaska area between 1857 and 1950) and Page 1 of 4 represents one of the building's distinguishing architectural features. All of the building's exterior walls are load-bearing walls and appear to be structurally sound. I did not observe any visible signs of movement, settling, or deflection that would indicate structural system failure. Paint problems were observed on all of the historic brick surfaces. At some point in time, all of the exposed masonry was coated with multiple layers of paint. At the present time these surfaces display abundant evidence of paint failure in the form of blistering, cracking, flaking, and peeling; in a few places the paint has nearly disintegrated, exposing bare brick. The rate of paint deterioration appears to have accelerated in recent years and detracts from the property's architectural character. More importantly, the unsightly painted surfaces indicate that liquid water and water vapor have penetrated the wall, causing deterioration of the underlying bricks and mortar. The Fletcher Building exhibits masonry problems typical of Chaska brick walls exposed to weathering. Chaska brick, owing to the nature of the clay and the details of its manufacture, is considered a soft mud brick and is therefore more porous and susceptible to moisture damage than other types of brick commonly found in historic buildings. During my inspection visit I observed scattered evidence of spalling, chipping, and cracking, which I interpreted as having been caused by wind, rain, and freezing-thawing cycles. Most of the damage was minor, except for the detachment of a few of the bricks in the parapet walls. This is a common problem with old brick parapet walls and is usually caused by the failure of the mortar joints rather than any inherent structural problem with the wall. In this case, the masonry deterioration in the parapet walls may have been exacerbated by improper roof drainage (water running off the roof and splashing against the inner surfaces of the walls), or by moisture entering the tops of the walls through cracks in the coping. The major problem with the brickwork is deterioration of the mortar joints, which is undoubtedly the result of deferred maintenance. Much of the old mortar has eroded and there are areas where the mortar has broken up, crumbled, and dissolved. The conditions were particularly noticeable on the east and north elevations, where some of the joints have been reduced to sandy, granular rubble, allowing moisture to penetrate the corners and edges of the adjacent bricks. Moisture damage has caused some bricks to crack or spall, exposing the interiors of individual bricks to weathering. Where the mortar joints have failed, moisture has been drawn into the wall through capillary action, damaging the porous bricks. As noted above, the problem is worse in the parapet walls, where freezing water and wind forces have forced the mortar joints apart, breaking the bond and causing some of the bricks to shift. No other critical preservation issues were identified. Paint and mortar problems notwithstanding, the load-bearing wall system appeared to be functioning properly and there were no indications of imminent structural failure. Overall, the historic building was in a good state of preservation at the time of my visit. Findings and Recommendations Page 2 of 4 In my professional opinion, the brick walls are a distinguishing design feature and contribute significantly to the Fletcher Building's historical and architectural values. Every reasonable effort should be made to rehabilitate the property by repairing the damaged paint, bricks and mortar, and by correcting drainage problems at the roof and foundation. Deteriorated bricks and mortar should be repaired rather than replaced; where replacement is necessary, the new material should match the old. Coating historic brick walls with stucco is not an appropriate preservation treatment. My recommendations for rehabilitating the exterior walls are as follows: 1. Clean the exterior walls. The first step in the rehabilitation process should be to remove as much of the peeling paint, grime, and stains as possible. Cleaning brick masonry surfaces should be carried out using the gentlest means possible. The preferred method is hand-scrubbing with natural bristle brushes, followed by low-pressure water spraying. The brick surfaces should be allowed to dry completely before any additional work is done. 2. Repoint (tuckpoint) the deteriorated mortar joints. All of the accessible mortar joints should be carefully inspected and replaced only where the mortar is deteriorated or missing. Use hand tools (hammers, chisels, rakes) to remove the deteriorated mortar; even in the hands of"experts," the using electric saws and grinders can damage soft brick. The new mortar should duplicate the original material in composition, color, and hardness. It must not contain Portland cement (this can seriously damage the old brick) and the new joints should be tooled to match the historic joint profile. The best practice for matching historic mortar is to have a sample of the old mortar analyzed by a professional lab. If done properly,the repointed mortar joints should last upwards of 50 years. 3. Repair/replace damaged or missing bricks. The goal is to stabilize the exterior walls and protect the historic building from deterioration by reestablishing a weather resistant enclosure (while maintaining its essential historic character). Cracked or broken bricks may be repaired with soft lime mortar. Missing and badly deteriorated bricks, on the other hand, should be replaced in-kind, or with new bricks that match the old (both physically and visually). If salvaged Chaska brick is not available, the Secretary of the Interior's standards require that replacement bricks match the old in size, color, shape, and texture. 4. Remove the old paint. Paint removal should be done in the gentlest manner possible and removal down to the bare brick may not be feasible. Total paint removal from soft brick masonry can usually be accomplished only with the application of a chemical paint remover which would dissolve the paint so that it could be rinsed using a low pressure water wash. None of the commercially available paint removers are without problems; therefore, special care should be taken to avoid using a chemical paint remover that could damage the outer protective skin of the brick, making it more porous (and more susceptible to Page 3 of 4 moisture damage). If a chemical paint remover is used, a test application should be done on a small section of brickwork (approximately 2 by 2 feet) to determine the effect on the brick. Low pressure water washing (200 psi) using a mild biodegradable detergent, soft bristle brushes and hand scrapers is probably the safest, most effective method of removing all of the old paint that is cracked, flaked, or powdered. Sandblasting should never be used to remove paint from Chaska brick. 5. Repaint the exterior walls. As a general rule of thumb, historic preservation professionals prefer that historic brick-faced buildings which have been painted should remain painted. It goes without saying that paint removal should be done in the gentlest manner possible in order to avoid damaging the skin of the bricks. Historically, buildings with Chaska brick walls were sometimes whitewashed or coated with milk paint, which provided a breathable (as well as environmentally safe) coating. Oil or latex paints tend to trap moisture inside the brick, leading to deterioration of the masonry. In this case, the appropriate treatment would be to repaint the exterior surfaces with a high quality, vapor-permeable paint, preferably in a color that would complement the natural "cream" color of the Chaska brick. Products advertised as "water-proof" or "water-resistant" would likely make the moisture problem worse and could cause unrecoverable damage. 6. Conduct routine inspection and maintenance of the building exterior. Because water (either in liquid or vaporous form) is the most deadly enemy of any brick wall, routine inspection and regular maintenance should be an essential part of any historic building rehabilitation strategy. Proper roof and site drainage should be the highest priority, followed by repointing and repainting the walls as needed. For technical information relating to the rehabilitation of historic brick and mortar, see the National Park Service publications, Cleaning and Water-Repellent Treatments for Historic Masonry Properties (Preservation Brief 1), and Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings (Preservation Brief 2), which may be downloaded from the Technical Preservation Services website (nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs.htm). If you have any questions regarding this report,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Pathfinder CRM, LLC Robert G. vogea Robert C. Vogel,Principal cc: Tony Wippler,Planning Manager Page 4 of 4 CITY OF 0430 Third St., Farmington, MN 55024 FARM I N GTO N © 651-280-6800 FarmingtonMN.gov TO: Planning Commission/Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Adam Kienberger, Community Development Director Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Certificate of Appropriateness Request for Exterior Work- 345 3rd Street(Fletcher Building) DATE: October 8, 2019 INTRODUCTION/DISCUSSION Building owner Pam Heikkila of Heikkila Studios is requesting a "certificate of appropriateness"to conduct exterior renovations to her building located at 345 3rd Street. Per City Code 2-11-5(C), No permit will be issued by the city unless a certificate of appropriateness has been granted by the HPC.A copy of the certificate of appropriateness shall be attached to the permit when issued, and a copy filed with the city building official. This building, known as the Fletcher Building built in 1877,was designated a Heritage Landmark by the City Council in 2001 via the Heritage Preservation Commission.A copy of the original supporting documentation from then HPC preservation planning consultant Robert Vogel is attached. City Code 2-11-4 outlines the process for Heritage Landmark designation: 2-114:DESIGNATION OF FARMINGTON HERITAGE LANDMARKS: (A)Eligibility Criteria: The following criteria shall guide the HPC and the City Council in evaluating properties for designation as Farmington heritage landmarks: 1. The quality of significance in history,architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in buildings,sites,structures, objects and districts that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling,and association,and: (a) That are associated with specific events or a pattern of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;or (b) That are associated with the lives of persons or groups significant in our past;or (c) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master builder, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity those components may lack individual distinction;or (d) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 2. The singular physical appearance, historic character or aesthetic value of an established or familiar feature of a neighborhood or community within the city. (B)Findings Of Significance:The HPC shall determine if a historic property is eligible for designation as a Farmington heritage landmark and issue a written finding of significance. (C) Council Designation, Hearings: The city council, upon recommendation of the HPC, may by resolution designate a Farmington heritage landmark. Prior to such designation, the city council shall hold a public hearing, notice of which shall have been published in the official newspaper at least ten(10) days prior to the date of the hearing and mailed notice sent to the owner(s)of the property which is proposed to be designated a heritage landmark and to all owners of property lying adjacent to the historic property. (D)Communication With The Minnesota Historical Society:Prior to designating a Farmington heritage landmark, the city shall forward information concerning the proposed designation to the Minnesota Historical Society for review and comment in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Annotated section 471.193. (E) Designation Of Heritage Landmarks On The Zoning Map: The city shall place designated Farmington heritage landmark properties on the official city zoning map. (Ord. 099-422,2- 16-1999) Ms. Heikkila is seeking approval from the HPC to proceed with improvements being planned for the building.These proposed improvements include: • Replacing missing bricks, brick repair and tuckpointing with restorative work on various deteriorated areas on both the Oak Street and Third Street sides of the building base • Put new stucco on two brick walls - the north wall along the walkway between the buildings and the upper back side which faces the parking lot • Install sheet metal flashing at the roof base Please see the attached contractor bids for additional detail on the project scope. Any work done on Heritage Landmark properties is required to follow city code 2-11-5 and 6: 2-11-5:DESIGN REVIEW: (A)Review Of Permits: The HPC shall review and make recommendations to the city council concerning the issuance of city permits to do any of the following in relation to a property designated as a Farmington heritage landmark: 1. Demolition of a historic building or structure. 2. Moving a historic building,structure, or object. 3. New construction of a principal building or accessory structure. (B)Alterations: The HPC shall determine whether the proposed activity will alter, disturb, deface or materially change the appearance or use of a heritage landmark. The HPC may recommend to the city council conditions for permit approval that it deems reasonable and appropriate. (C)Certificate Of Appropriateness:No permit will be issued by the city unless a certificate of appropriateness has been granted by the HPC.A copy of the certificate of appropriateness shall be attached to the permit when issued,and a copy filed with the city building official.A certificate of appropriateness shall become void twenty four(24)months after issuance unless a city permit has been issued. (D)Development Projects:Every application for a preliminary or final plat, variance or conditional use permit in relation to a significant historic property in the city shall be reviewed by the HPC and their recommendation shall be forwarded to the planning commission for consideration in making their recommendation to the city council. In determining whether or not a project will have an adverse effect upon a significant historic property, the HPC shall consider the following factors: 1. Whether the development will substantially alter the appearance of a historic building, site,structure, object or district so as to remove the features which distinguish the historic property as a heritage landmark;and 2. Whether the use of the property will destroy, disturb or endanger a known or suspected archaeological feature. (E) Design Review Standards And Guidelines: The secretary of the interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties shall be the required basis for permit review decisions. The city may adopt design review guidelines;in the absence of such guidelines, design review decisions will be based upon the current secretary of the interior guidelines for preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction. (F) Outside Technical Advice:The HPC may seek technical advice from outside its members on any design review. (G)Appeals:Any party aggrieved by a decision of the HPC shall, within ten (10)days of the HPC's action approving or denying a certificate of appropriateness, have a right to appeal such decision to the city council. When denying a certificate of appropriateness, the HPC shall advise the permit applicant of their right to file a written notice with the city administrator requesting city council review of the action taken by the HPC. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the city administrator shall transmit one copy to the HPC. (Ord. 099- 422,2-16-1999) 2-11-6:VIOLATIONS AND PENALTY: It shall be a misdemeanor to alter, disturb, deface or materially change the appearance or use of a designated Farmington heritage landmark without a certificate of appropriateness. (Ord. 099-422,2-26-1999) Per city code, the current secretary of the interior guidelines shall serve as the basis for design review decisions.These guidelines are attached for your review. If the work does not meet these standards, it is not recommended that the HPC grant a certificate of appropriateness for that portion of the work,which is required to obtain a building permit. Per the original building evaluation, please note the following: "The Fletcher Building is eligible for Heritage Landmark designation because it embodies the distinctive characteristics of the Italianate-influenced vernacular commercial block property type. It is Farmington's oldest extant commercial building and is notable for its well preserved Chaska brick facade. The property is also historically significant for its association with the broad pattern of commercial development in downtown Farmington." The proposed stucco application to the north and east walls of the building does not comply with the recommendations provided by the secretary of the interior's standards for the treatment of historic properties.Staff recommends an alternative scope of work that preserves the original Chaska brick or conveys the same visual appearance. Staff was made aware of this planned scope of work on September 12th via a grant request to the Economic Development Authority.Staff provided guidance that the applicant petition the HPC for a certificate of appropriateness with a scope of work that complies with the recommended standards of the secretary of the interior. The applicant met with the EDA on September 19th to request a facade grant and was further directed to work with the HPC on obtaining a certificate of appropriateness that complies with city code. Supplemental information provided by the applicant is attached for consideration with this request. ACTION REQUESTED Staff recommends denial of the requested certificate of appropriateness as the proposed scope of work including the application of stucco does not adhere to the secretary of the interior guidelines for masonry work on historic properties. Staff recommends approval of a limited certificate of appropriateness for the work outlined to make repairs to the base of the building.This is required prior to issuing a building permit. If the Planning Commission elects to deny the request,they should make the applicant aware of their right to an appeal via Section G of 2-11-5(Design Review) noted above. Pathfinder CRM, LLC A Cultural Resource Management & Heritage Preservation Consultants 319 South Division Avenue c PO Box 503 014 Spring Grove, Minnesota 55974-0503 507-498-3810 www.pathfindercrm.com S 0 Transmitted via email October 14, 2019 Adam Kienberger Community Development Director City of Farmington 430 Third Street Farmington,MN 55024 RE: Exterior Work at Historic Fletcher Building, 345 Third Street Dear Mr. Kienberger: As per your request made during our telephone conversation on October 11, I have reviewed the staff report and backup material provided in relation to the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) submitted by the owner of the Fletcher Block, a designated Heritage Landmark. It is my understanding that the owner of the historic property has applied for a facade improvement grant from the city's economic development authority to apply stucco over the exterior walls on the building's north and east elevations; that the proposed project cannot proceed without a COA approved by the city's heritage preservation commission; and that the matter has been tabled by the city planning commission. I am familiar with the subject property and was the city's preservation planning consultant when the Fletcher Building was surveyed in 1997 and designated a heritage landmark in 2000. My last inspection of the building exterior was made in 2016. At that time, the building exhibited some masonry problems but appeared to be structurally sound and in a good overall state of preservation. While it is possible that the rate of deterioration has accelerated since then, the masonry issues discussed by the property owner in her grant application are typical of those found on nineteenth century brick commercial buildings. As built in 1877,the walls of the Fletcher Building were constructed of"Chaska brick," a popular type of fired clay, dry-pressed brick produced at commercial brickyards located in the vicinity of Chaska, Minnesota. The sold brick walls are the principal elements of the 1 building's structural system and one of its most historically important design features. The most common problems associated with Chaska brick result from deterioration of individual bricks and mortar joints caused by weathering (rain, wind, ice, seasonal temperature changes, and pollution) and are usually the result of failure to keep the brick work in good repair. Some of the bricks on the Fletcher Building are spalled or cracked and much of the exposed lime mortar has eroded—some of the bricks are probably being held in place by gravity. The weather resistant qualities of the original brickwork have also been compromised by painting the exterior walls; Chaska brick does not hold paint well and the paint actually traps moisture in the bricks and mortar joints. Based upon my experience with similar historic buildings, the uneven settling of the lower parts of the walls is most likely the result of poor site drainage; and while I do not see any inherent structural problems or visible evidence of wall cracking, deflection, or failure, a more in- depth analysis of existing conditions would require professional evaluation by a qualified architect or engineer. With respect to the COA request, the City of Farmington has adopted the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as the authoritative guide for design review and compliance decisions. The general standards for rehabilitation(defined as the process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while retaining those features which are significant to its historical and architectural values) provide the underpinnings for denial of the COA. I wholly concur with the staff's recommendation. The best practices for the management of significant heritage preservation resources can best be summarized as follows: • Don't remove or alter any feature that makes a building worth preserving; and • Repair rather than replace,whenever possible; if replacement is necessary,the new material should match the old. In my professional opinion, the proposed replacement of the brick exterior walls with stucco would compromise the Fletcher Building's historic integrity (i.e. its historic authenticity) by substantially altering one of its critical architectural character defining features. Furthermore, because the stucco would have to be applied over metal lath fastened directly onto the brick,the treatment would probably result in the irreversible loss of significant historic materials. The original brick walls are in need of stabilization and proper maintenance and should not be replaced with stucco or any other historically inappropriate material. The recommended treatment strategy for dealing with the exterior masonry issues would be: 1) Repoint the mortar joints only in those areas where the old mortar is deteriorated or missing. Do not use electric saws or hammers to remove the old mortar. The new mortar must not contain Portland cement (this cam seriously damage the old 2 brick) and should duplicate the original in composition, color, and hardness. The mortar joints should be tooled to match the historic joint profile. 2) Replace deteriorated or missing bricks with new brick that matches the old in color, shape, texture, and other visual characteristics. 3) Explore the feasibility of repairing the exterior walls by removing the existing paint and applying an appropriate clear water repellent coating (i.e., a "breathable" or "vapor permeable" coating). Paint removal should be done in the gentlest manner possible—abrasive surface treatments such as sandblasting and power washing generally are not regarded as appropriate for removing paint from historic brick walls. Weatherproofing the brick and mortar joints may also be problematic and most of the waterproof coatings on the market actually trap moisture inside masonry walls,making the problem worse. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments and recommendations. I would be pleased to meet with you, other representatives of the city, and the building owner to answer questions regarding the preservation of the Fletcher Building and to further discuss treatment options. Very truly yours, Robert a. vogeL Principal/Senior Historian cc: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager 3 Downtown Facade Improvement Program FARM I NGTCJN Grant Application --_-r3aty =. . APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT(S) Pc„, fit.,&11.Jc BUILDING OWNER TENANT A/e; kk Ae# ADDRESS ADDRESS 395 +li; CITY,STATE,ZIP p� J�� t.f CITY, STATE,ZIP N lY SSVi PHONE PHONE EMAIL EMAIL BUSINESS INFORMATION LEGAL NAME OF BUSINESS H10,4;6 ADDRESS .2' CITY,STATE,ZIP f,r...:yoi M N, S-5-Q? ` BUSINESS PHONE FEDERAL TAX ID# DATE ESTABLISHED MAI 2 f 2 o°`1 OWNERSHIP INTEREST OF ALL PARTIES NAMED ON TITLE: NAME eqw, tIe.144"I" INTEREST 416.'"" NAME INTEREST NAME INTEREST 5 • PROPERTY INFORMATION ESTIMATED DATE OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 14'l 2Q11 HAS THIS BUILDING BEEN HISTORICALLY REGISTERED? AP PROJECT INFORMATION BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: M ,ry w0,'I ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS EXTERIOR/FAcADE ESTIMATED COST �Y( VV-.? ELECTRICAL ESTIMATED COST NI 04 t TOTAL ESTIMATED COST '6'9.VY.s` 6 FUNDING INFORMATION A 1:1 match is required by the applicant. For every dollar contributed to funding eligible project costs by the Downtown Facade Improvement Program,the applicant must contribute at least one dollar.The amount of grant to be awarded shall be$1,500 up to$10,000 according to the scale. . TOTAL GRANT AMOUNT REQUESTED$ d 2 ''' ($1,500 up to$10,000 according to the scale) APPLICANT FUNDS I 40, "a 3 . (11-CA, t� ... (43-1')T . � � (4'v,. . -e r,i ' ` UWe declare that the information provided on this application and the accompanying attachments is true and complete to the best of my/our knowledge. I/We understand that any intentional misstatements will be grounds for disqualification and that the city of Farmington/EDA has the right to verify this information. I/We agree to provide the project coordinator reasonable access to information and reasonable access to the construction project site so that they may monitor project implementation. APPLIC T(S)/ 41611111111111 DATE / 2 DATE DATE 7 • MINNESOTA DATA PRACTICES ACT—TENNESSEN WARNING In accordance with the State of Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, the city of Farmington is required to inform you of your rights as they pertain to the confidential information collected from you. Confidential data is that information which is not available to you or the public. The personal information we collect about you is private. The information collected from you and from other agencies or individuals is used to determine the disposition of your application with the city. The dissemination and use of the data collected is limited to that necessary for the administration and management of the Downtown Façade Improvement Program. Persons or agencies with whom this information may be shared, include: 1. City of Farmington personnel administering the grant program 2. City Council members,Economic Development Authority members 3. Contracted private auditors 4. Law enforcement personnel 5. Those individuals or agencies to whom you give your express written permission NOTICE PURSUANT TO MS.60A.955 „Y..: ` ..-.` ` 1 .1111111 Ixt, ...0,-----,,:-. 11/4,,,.. ,..„., , , o , 1 . 0 BID 2019: 1 CONSTRUCTION II 952-201-8594 IV ASONRY AND EXTERIOR FACADE WORK PROJECT: Fletcher Building 349 Third Street, Farmington, MN 55024 651-460-8350 QUOTE: $8,000 Masonry work replacing missing bricks,brick repair,and tuckpointing. Resorative work on various deteriorated areas both on the Oak street and Third street sides of the building base. All work to create a similar look to existing facility. Available for completion prior to November 15,2019. 15831 HIGHLAND POINT COURT ' APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 mrgdu4@aol.com SMITH COLE MN LIC#BC-693563 STUCCO &STONE CONTRACT Proposal Submitted to: Phone: Date: Pam Heikkila 651.460.8359 09.06.2019 Address: Job Name: 349 3rd St. New Stucco on 2 Brick Walls of Building&Chimney City,State And Zip Code: Job Location: Farmington,MN,55024 Same Estimated Project Start: Estimated Project Completion: ASAP ASAP We propose to perform the following: New Stucco on 2 Brick Walls on Building&Chimney: a Mobilize, Erect Scaffolding as required,Protect adjacent materials, Pull required Permits o NOTE:Owner will have Roof Flashing Adjusted &All Electrical Piping&Gutter/Downspouts Removed and Reinstalled by Others o Prep&Remove all Loose Debris of Brick Walls o Install Casing Bead at Outside Corners on Left&Upper Back Walls of Building for Stucco Termination o Install Casing Bead at Existing Stair Case&Around Existing AC Unit o Install Weep Screed at Foundation&Existing Roof Flashing Per Code o Apply Galvanized Metal Lath to Left&Upper Back Brick Walls Only o Apply New Portland Cement Base Coat to all Lathed areas Only o Apply New Acrylic Trowel Texture Finish Coat to all New Stucco Surfaces Only o Color and Texture Approved by Owner o Conduct thorough cleanup,close out Permits and exit site For the Sum of: $31,725.00 Payment Terms: $10,575.00 at Contact Signing-Progress Billings-Balance at Completion Work Excluded: Any Painting/Staining Interior or Exterior,Any Landscaping,Any Interior Work,Any Windows or Door Work,Any Framing,Any Roof Work,Any Structural Work,Any Caulking,Any Heat&Cover,Any Decorative Stucco Trim Work,Any Brick Repairs,Any Gutter/Downspout Work,Any Electrical Lines/Piping Work,Any Stair Case Work NOTICE OF LIEN IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA (SEE REVERSE SIDE) For: Smith Cole Stucco&Stone: For: Owner: Check No: "Building The Future—Restoring The Past" 4443 Hiawatha Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55406 612.709.4980 Rosenquist Construction Inc. 2514 24th Avenue South — Minneapolis, Mn. 55406 Phone: 612-724-1356 N Fax: 612-724-0511 August 29,2019 Project: Fletcher Building,345 3rd Street,Farmington,MN 55024 Heikkila Properties LLC 345 3rd St. Farmington,MN 55024 RE; Quote ATTN: Pam Heikkila PROJECT: Fletcher Building 1. Furnish and install Sheet Metal flashing at roof base flashing at alley and adjacent roof, 2. Furnish and install Sheet Metal flashing at the top of coping flashing. For the sum of--------- -----------------____--_ —__$ 1720.00 Exclude: permits PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME WITH ANY QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. Respectfully Greg Reiser • i • . : •• Fletcher Building . t ,,,,,,.:,..,:,, . , .4 "4, .„." 1 i x h <. � M I ' *.Er is' 6 w:-. . *. �t �� [ � qt i 1` '+� 4a. �r j,-,*,,, +. I' . w .. ,fit ;t V,. } _'frill :. l l ,. �, ' � , r sem. .i ,',r-,.. - • `• , 1 1. titt Y w ' 7 i� fi * ur +. w r.:' `' ,, ti , �} '� s ' �„ , r" . 1 s a .... i • a � s'; ' r+': s � -" �. _ a �i 1 tr ji �.,... *.. • " Farmington's Oldest Commercial Building Purpose: To help the economic development of Farmington's historic district via a grant towards the restoration oh Fletcher Building of Farmington. r The downtown is scattered with seemingly empty buildings waiting for e i occupancy. But,the Fletcher building has been attacting clients from other cities for 15 years. The studio was once selected as one of the ,i • ,r' . t`` top 20"go-to"photographers in the state by"The Knot', a nation-wide wedding = . ,.= - it . . ...„,aa„:„..,,,ttttw't , , evitsw— , , _ - ,,„;, , pi. .,, , ,� ,, ....mss m ,... _ , „„ ,,,, . . t ,1 . , . f A It needs helpto look like this! 10 years ago,it was in good condition. However,we did not realize just how soft the bricks were. The paint started peeling a few years ago. It was unnoticed at first. But,the problem avalanced. 2014 W 7r T?`^ tt !v 43f! °''. - .*�,, a y°C':'„'c`n. `s v. $ 'fir S � � " $ _„ .,, `.� ` *1 S .�' ft x ... :' k 'T'4 'z r '+ A+,, ,..,,, ¢ ;� a C+'G ^}rt rc3 a"- sS�` ,,- ,�,Rr 5'�' ', 4 .' ," d+ +� f. i. S{ t,',tis�Y- 4 �e o kt4 t 4 , � . } ',Ill* �.¢ 4^�"? , a a :`-44,,,,,, �,a u,Ph - t ,) • �' m' ` T ~�'� l ': . i _ . 55 ; ' ,,i i ..............s. t i i ilk i 1 p , ,iiiii 77/ --- , N 11IIRP r ?», { ii"" ., r' 4 + t Ow' The structural integrity weakened, seemingly overnight. Brick chips started crumbling onto the ground and caught our attention. Soon,larger pieces of brick began falling on the building behind. Large portions of the base of the building separated from the existing brick located on the Oak street side leaving gaping holes. A partial masonry job was started,but was unable to be completed. This also left open holes in the side of the building. This past spring,realizing that the bleeding needed to stop,I contacted approximately 8 different masonry companies. The bids ranged from $129,000 for minimal repair and over$300,000 for more extensive repair. Obviously,to any owner,these prices are not a good investment. Even if money was flush,you would never get a return on that kind of price tag....even at 1/2 that price. The building itself was recently appraised at$305,000. That is if you could find a buyer. If you look at all the buildings in town for sale, well,it is not an easy great market from a business perspective. Where does that leave us as a town? : 1 iiiiii' ' '1... --__,:,.*111Liii--..,,,„.4-1, im, .. . - 1-Qv "r1 li'l ' ' ' - -"....... *� t � --.---ie... • `.ii, . • ,s, Imo • R #b, •, l 4 •.. , . ,4 Z 1, .e• . e . ^iw; . r „,, r,„, { `" ! 1 . -ti * I., ‘ i $ : ,. . ! , ; , ' fi ' -''''' ' ''' - . ''' -* --.- ' ' 3 ► 7 .4, :1.,"‘ . . ... r Stopping the Bleeding n a . Masonry Prep Work $8,000 Stucco $31,725 Roofing (to be lifted to accomodate for stucco) $1, 720 Total : $41,445 • MASONRY: 24 inch gaps separate from the base of the building where rain runs down the side of the structure and deteriorates the stone/brick walls below. Knowing the rapid damage last winter caused, the structural integrity will likely be compromised over the course of this winter. • ROOFING: They need to pull the roof up to put the stucco up to the top. Recreate a metal flashing system that will go out and over the stucco. • STUCCO: PLEASE SEE BID ATTACHED FOR BRICKWORK BY A LOCAL FARMINGTON COMPANY. THIS WILL SHOW YOU JUST HOW AFFORDABLE STUCCO IS TO HAVE INSTALLED. Stucco is the most cost effective way to preserve the building. This company is able to get it done this year (however it may go well in November and need heat added). EIGHT MASONRY AND OTHER STUCCO COMPANYS HAVE COME, BUT FLATLY TURNED ME DOWN TO COMPLETE THE WORK THIS YEAR. WITH THE FREEZE/THAWS THAT HAPPEN OVER THE WINTER IT IS EXTREMELY TIME SENSITIVE. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation&Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 1 of 7 Technical Preserv. r - - - Bridc, Stone, Terra Cotta, Concrete, Adobe, Stucco and Mortar Building Exterior Mason - Identify I Protect I Repair I Replace I Missing Feature I Alterations/Additions Standards _._ net 'dellnes ' ti. , The longevity and "' t� t��j , '"' "i i t 1 Masonryg y itai�ri �srrk �f ii Wood appearance of a masonry �� -�- : -- .: •,� .— ' Metals wall is dependent upon the t ;_ size of the individual units Roofs and the mortar. -4krr ®, r Windows / 4`, ._ EntrenceslPorches Stone is one of the more Storefronts lasting of masonry building '141 Structural Systems materials and has been used SpacesIFeatureslFlntshes throughout the history of Mechanical Systems American building 1880s brick building with terra-cotta trim. construction. The kinds of stone most commonly encountered on historic Site buildings in the U.S. include various types of sandstone, limestone, marble, Setting granite, slate and fieldstone. Brick varied considerably in size and quality. Energy Before 1870, brick clays were pressed into molds and were often unevenly NewAdditlons fired.The quality of brick depended on the type of clay available and the brick- Accessibility making techniques; by the 1870s--with the perfection of an extrusion process-- Heatth/Safety bricks became more uniform and durable. Terra cotta is also a kiln-dried clay product popular from the late 19th century until the 1930s. The development of the steel-frame office buildings in the early 20th century contributed to the widespread use of architectural terra cotta.Adobe, which consists of sun-dried earthen bricks,was one of the earliest permanent building materials used in the U.S., primarily in the Southwest where it is still popular. Mortar is used to bond together masonry units. Historic mortar was generally quite soft, consisting primarily of lime and sand with other additives. After 1880, portland cement was usually added resulting in a more rigid and non-absorbing mortar. Like historic mortar, early stucco coatings were also heavily lime- based, increasing in hardness with the addition of portland cement in the late 19th century. Concrete has a long history, being variously made of tabby, volcanic ash and, later, of natural hydraulic cements, before the introduction of portland cement in the 1870s. Since then, concrete has also been used in its precast form. While masonry is among the most durable of historic building materials, it is also very susceptible to damage by improper maintenance or repair techniques and harsh or abrasive cleaning methods. Masonry ....Identify, retain, and preserve recommended Identifying, retaining,and preserving masonry features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building such as walls, brackets, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/masonry01.htm 9/12/2019 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation&Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 2 of 7 _= railings,cornices,window architraves, _ ��� • door pediments,steps,and columns; �_ � .„ ! a and details such as tooling and -- ,—' ' bonding patterns,coatings,and color. • I -'re i ' (i r r Materials and craftsmanship illustrated in stone wall. not recommended Removing or radically changing masonry features which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. Replacing or rebuilding a major portion of exterior masonry walls that could be repaired so that, as a result, the building is no longer historic and is essentially new construction. Applying paint or other coatings such as stucco to masonry that has been historically unpainted or uncoated to create a new appearance. Removing paint from historically painted masonry. Radically changing the type of paint or coating or its color. Masonry ....Protect and Maintain recommended Protecting and maintaining masonry by providing proper drainage so that water does not stand on flat, horizontal _ surfaces or accumulate in curved decorative features. r i Cleaning masonry only when necessary ----- to halt deterioration or remove heavy soiling. Carrying out masonry surface cleaning ' tests after it has been determined that ). � such cleaning is appropriate.Tests 1 ; _ should be observed over a sufficient period of time so that both the immediate and the long range effects are known to 1 4•, enable selection of the gentlest method possible. Chemical cleaning to remove dirt from granite. https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/masonry01.htm 9/12/2019 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation&Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 3 of 7 ,r; Cleaning masonry surfaces with the gentlest . method possible,such as low pressure water and 4;: ,',. detergents, using natural bristle brushes. ;• ,,' Inspecting painted masonry surfaces to 4 ;+ , '1 determine whether repainting is necessary. '' I' • Removing damaged or deteriorated paint only to r the next sound layer using the gentlest method ;'± '\.. ,,; ;` possible(e.g., handscraping) prior to repainting. • '. ., : ' . s, . Applying compatible paint coating systems following proper surface preparation. r yr• Repainting with colors that are historically l. ^, ., appropriate to the building and district. ,-- Evaluating the overall condition of the masonry to por determine whether more than protection and „_ '" maintenance are required,that is, if repairs to the -' .- ' masonry features will be necessary. Removing felt-tipped marker graffiti with poultice. not recommended -- Failing to evaluate and treat the various causes of mortar joint deterioration such as leaking roofs or gutters, differential settlement of the building, capillary action, or extreme weather exposure. Cleaning masonry surfaces when they are not heavily soiled to create a new appearance, thus needlessly introducing chemicals or moisture into historic materials. Cleaning masonry surfaces without testing or without sufficient time for the testing results to be of value. Sandblasting brick or stone surfaces using dry or wet grit or other - , abrasives. These methods of cleaning fit• permanently erode the surface of the material and accelerate deterioration. �, Using a cleaning method that involves - __ - - -- water or liquid chemical solutions i .,,,54" when there is any possibility of •. - A . -• freezing temperatures. Historic brick damaged by sandblasting. Cleaning with chemical products that will damage masonry, such as using acid on limestone or marble, or leaving chemicals on masonry surfaces. Applying high pressure water cleaning methods that will damage historic masonry and the mortar joints. https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/masonry01.htm 9/12/2019 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation&Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 4 of 7 Removing paint that is firmly adhering to, and thus protecting, masonry surfaces. Using methods of removing paint which are destructive to masonry, such as sandblasting, application of caustic solutions, or high pressure waterbiasting. Failing to follow manufacturers' product and application instructions when repainting masonry. Using new paint colors that are inappropriate to the historic building and district. Failing to undertake adequate measures to assure the protection of masonry features. Masonry ....Repair recommended Repairing masonry walls and other masonry features by repointing the mortar joints where there is evidence of deterioration such as disintegrating mortar,cracks in mortar joints,loose bricks,damp walls, or damaged plasterwork. Removing deteriorated mortar by - carefully hand-raking the joints to avoid damaging the masonry. Duplicating old mortar in strength, composition,color, and texture. k v =, Duplicating old mortar joints in width r and in joint profile. Repairing stucco by removing the damaged material and patching with 5 +- new stucco that duplicates the old in strength, composition,color,and texture. Using mud plaster as a surface coating over unfired, unstabilized adobe because the mud plaster will �. bond to the adobe. Cutting damaged concrete back to preparation for stucco repair. remove the source of deterioration (often corrosion on metal reinforcement bars).The new patch must be applied carefully so it will bond satisfactorily with,and match,the historic concrete. Repairing masonry features by patching, piecing-in, or consolidating the masonry using recognized preservation methods. Repair may also include the limited replacement in kind—or with compatible substitute material--of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of masonry features when there are surviving https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/masonry01.htm 9/12/2019 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation&Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 5 of 7 7� # prototypes such as terra-cotta brackets or stone Losiiiel balusters. ,_ ,. Applying new or non-historic surface treatments _' 0 such as water-repellent coatings to masonry ^# ;;, only after repointing and only if masonry repairs ~ .- t ', have failed to arrest water penetration problems. 1 fi. Replacement stones tooled to match original. not -- recommended -• Removing nondeteriorated mortar from sound joints, then repointing the entire building to achieve a uniform appearance. Using electric saws and hammers rather than hand tools to remove deteriorated mortar from joints prior to -"- repointing. - Repointing with mortar of high portland i cement content(unless it is the content ,y .1.,_.,1 ' of the historic mortar). This can often _ - - _: create a bond that is stronger than the • ...= , - is 711; - historic material and can cause damage 4,- - -- as a result of the differing coefficient of i �� : ; expansion and the differing porosity of '., .. I ; ... the material and the mortar. I � ih' d � r:�r�ky et. �*i= The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation&Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 6 of 7 Using a substitute material for the replacement part that does not convey the visual appearance of the surviving parts of the masonry feature or that is physically or chemically incompatible. Applying waterproof, water repellent, or non-historic coatings such as stucco to masonry as a substitute for repointing and masonry repairs. Coatings are frequently unnecessary, expensive, and may change the appearance of historic masonry as well as accelerate its deterioration. Masonry ....Replace recommended Replacing in kind an entire masonry feature that is too deteriorated to repair--if the overall form and detailing are still evident--using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. Examples can include large sections of a wall,a cornice, balustrade,column, or stairway. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible,then a compatible substitute material may be considered. not recommended Removing a masonry feature that is unrepairable and not replacing it; or replacing it with a new feature that does not convey the same visual appearance. Design for Missing Historic Features The following work is highlighted to indicate that it represents the particularly complex technical or design aspects of rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns listed above have been addressed. recommended Designing and installing a new masonry feature such as steps or a door pediment when the historic feature is completely missing.It may be an accurate restoration using historical, pictorial, and physical documentation;or be a new design that is compatible with the size,scale, material, and color of the historic building. not recommended Creating a false historical appearance because the replaced masonry feature is based on insufficient historical, pictorial, and physical documentation. Introducing a new masonry feature that is incompatible in size, scale, material and color. Home I Next I Previous https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/masonry01.htm 9/12/2019 DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTING HERITAGE LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE FLETCHER BUILDING 345 THIRD STREET By Robert C. Vogel Preservation Planning Consultant July 31,2000 INTRODUCTION This report documents the historical and architectural significance of the Fletcher Building, 345 Third Street. The report makes the case for the property's eligibility for designation as a Farmington Heritage Landmark pursuant to §2-11-4 of the Farmington City Code. Farmington Heritage Landmarks are the buildings, sites, and districts so designated by the City Council in recognition of their historical, architectural, archeological, and cultural significance. Properties are nominated by Heritage Landmark designation by the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) following a public hearing. Under state law, the Minnesota Historical Society must also review each nomination. Once a property has been designated a Farmington Heritage Landmark, this report becomes part of the official designation and is used to guide planning for the preservation,protection,and use of the historic property. The Heritage Landmark Planning Report is based on the National Register of Historic Places Registration Farm. For more information about registration standards and guidelines for preparing the report, please refer to the National Park Service publication, How to Complete the National Register Registration Form; and the Historic Preservation chapter of the City of Farmington Comprehensive Plan. ADMINISTRATIVE DATA Name of Property: The historic name of the property nominated for Heritage Landmark designation is the Fletcher Building; it was also commonly known as the Fletcher Block and Fletcher's Hall. It has been assigned number DK-FMC-010 in the state historic property inventory. Location: 345 Third Street. 1 HPC Determination of Eligibility: The Farmington HPC evaluated the Fletcher Building and found that it meets the Heritage Landmark eligibility criteria. A finding of significance was issued by the Commission on April 20, 2000, and this finding was approved by the City Council on May 15,2000. State Historic Preservation Office Review: In accordance with Minn. Stat. §471.193, the Minnesota Historical Society will be sent a copy of this report for review and comment before the nomination is heard by the Farmington City Council. Classification: For preservation planning purposes, the Fletcher Building is considered a historic building. Historic and Current Function/Use: Historically, the building was used for retail space, with apartment dwellings, business, and social space on the second floor. It currently functions as retail space. DESCRIPTION Architectural Classification: In its form and details, the Fletcher Building reflects the mid-nineteenth-century Italianate-influenced vernacular mode in commercial architecture. Boundaries: The boundaries of the heritage landmark are those of the parcel historically associated with the building. Narrative Description: The Fletcher Building is a two-story brick commercial building located on the northeast corner of Third and Oak, in the heart of downtown Farmington's central business district. The building is a vernacular construction with Italianate Style- influenced ornamentation. It measures 43 deep wide by 83 feet deep and has a flat roof. The exterior walls are veneered with cream-colored Chaska brick (now painted buff- yellow) and the Third Street façade features a narrow cornice, hooded second-floor windows, and a metal storefront. It has a flat roof with a low parapet and a simple cornice with a sign panel bearing "Fletcher Building 1877." The ground-floor storefront facing Third Street features large plate glass display windows, metal wall cladding, and a recessed entrance. The influence of the Italianate Style is seen in the window treatment and classical entablature with brackets. The second-story windows are tall and narrow and have segmental arches, and the basement windows along Oak Street are also round- headed. Presently owned by Tom Quam, the building is in good condition and is comparatively little altered from its historic appearance. EVALUATION Applicable Heritage Landmark Criteria: The Fletcher Building is eligible for Heritage Landmark designation because it embodies the distinctive characteristics of the 2 Italianate-influenced vernacular commercial block property type. It is Farmington's oldest extant commercial building and is notable for its well preserved Chaska brick façade. The property is also historically significant for its association with the broad pattern of commercial development in downtown Farmington. Local Historic Context: The property was evaluated within the local historic context, "Downtown Farmington,"as delineated in the 1995 historic context study. Area of Significance: The significance of the property is primarily architectural but it also possesses historical value. Period of Significance: The Fletcher Block attained the significance qualifying it for Heritage Landmark designation when it was constructed in 1877. Narrative Statement of Significance: The Fletcher Building, built in 1877, is a notable example of a late-nineteenth century vernacular commercial block. Although it is fundamentally a vernacular construction, rather than an architect-designed specimen of period architecture, the ornamental aspects of its facade reflect the influence of the Italianate style. Dominating one corner of the downtown's most important business intersection, it is an imposing edifice with a strong overall shape and firm lines. It is the oldest standing brick commercial building in downtown Farmington and was also the first "fire-proof' building built in the town. Contextually, the Fletcher Building also relates to the growth of downtown Farmington as a center of commerce between 1870 and 1945. The building meets the heritage landmark eligibility criteria for its distinctive design and materials and for its association with the development of downtown Farmington. With the Exchange Bank Building, the Fletcher Building anchors the historic Third and Oak commercial intersection and is of pivotal importance to preserving the historic character of the area. Third and Oak emerged as the core of Farmington's commercial district during the 1870's. The downtown streetscape was characterized by a concentration of brick commercial and civic buildings that were designed to conform to the narrow, deep configuration of the platted lots. Commercial buildings constructed between 1877 and 1929 were uniformly rectangular in plan, one or two stories in height, with architectural ornamentation limited to the facades that faced the street, which were built flush with the sidewalk. Fired brick was the most common facing material, usually applied as a veneer, with timber frame or masonry walls providing structural support for the roof and upper floors. The cream-colored Chaska finished brick seen on the Fletcher Building was quite commonly used on Farmington buildings constructed before 1900. This brick was manufactured in brickyards located in the Chaska-Shakopee area, where brick-making was an important industry from the 1860's through the 1890's. The Fletcher Building was built for and owned by Asa Fletcher, a grocer and one of Farmington's pioneer businessmen. Its construction helped signal the end of the economic slump caused by the Panic of 1873. One of the first multi-story buildings in 3 town, it was one of the visual and financial anchor for downtown development and soon became a community landmark. (As shown on the 1910 Sanborn fire insurance map, one of the town's public wells was located in front of the Fletcher Building.)Functionally, the Fletcher Building featured a combination of retail shops, common rooms, offices, and apartments. Throughout most of its history, the ground-floor business space in the building was used for retailing, first as a general store and later for specialty shops. Use of the second floor space was more eclectic. When the Ringling Bros. circus came to town, the property was the venue for the first trapeze performance. The second floor commons room was rented out for many years by the Canby Post No. 47 of the Grand Army of the Republic, the national organization of Civil War veterans who served in the Union army or navy. A characteristically American institution, the G.A.R. was a vital community civic organization. Organized on October 4, 1883, and named in honor of Major General Edward Richard Spring Canby (1817-1873), the Canby Post continued to occupy the second floor of the Fletcher block down through the early twentieth-century, as indicated by the 1917 Sanborn fire insurance map. Later this second-floor space was converted to small offices and apartments. BIBLIOGRAPHY Curtiss-Wedge, Franklyn, editor. History of Dakota and Goodhue Counties, Minnesota, Illustrated. 2 vols. Chicago: H. C. Cooper, Jr. &Co., 1910. Dakota County Tribune. Golden Anniversary Edition 1884-1934. March 9, 1934. Pinkney, B. F. Plat Book of Dakota County, Minnesota. Philadelphia: Union Publishing Co., 1896. Sanborn Map Company. Farmington, Dakota Co., Minnesota. September, 1885, July, 1891, July, 1899, April, 1905, November, 1910, June, 1917, March, 1928, March, 1936. Vogel, Robert C. Farmington Historic Context Document: Final Report of the Historic Context Study 1994-1995. City of Farmington, Heritage Preservation Commission, July, 1995. . Historic Resources Survey of the Downtown Historic Preservation Planning Area, Farmington, Minnesota. June, 1997. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION 1. Map showing the location of the Fletcher Building. 2. Excerpts from Sanborn fire insurance maps (1899, 1905, 1910) showing the Fletcher Building in relation to other downtown properties. 4 3. Façade of the Fletcher Building(camera facing southeast). 4. South elevation of the Fletcher Building(camera facing northwest). 5 g 1 z+ 1 - g .4_ .s ‘4 Cli • 4 4.h ae t 1 c En h. ;.1., eJC:1 1.., ! E NMI .15 0 8 : iai. 1 1 I CC1 41 2 .1 ii °se ... t o t x u• Z ..„,..s,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,-„x-r•,,' , 7-,-',,,,,. (, • , R, '4,:('!-I`V.,":",;„4:-•',;,', , '1 ki'401?,'.'.r.e,''',',•!'` ' ,. 1',"'-:•141'1°A(,:;•'' .1( Cin ttir.) r:11r.,P';.;,,,V.4.cv-,-, ',-,,• ;,"A ,1. ,c„,„%if lJw4ffr:-1,-A' •pal N.ir ,,,,s,.•:,^f,,,... ' it PIC , ;;P-:, ',7,xY'.,,,:'...',,,,•..,;r, •,,,,,,, -',0..-46frA,.': ,4.>.•:: ' .„;;;/. = '4"° .3,•,c-r,._4s..5,. , :;'.?,4.!:.,1i4.,',''',... , , °''4, C = (4 1:-'3'-'''','..; ,A,-,, • ' = Pit:21 ,,,` ,% , •mai , 1-4"-,,,*;' , • ,, • ', ,4,4 al* xi cp E.0 1.= ,,-,-,„;4,-„,... .i,-, ,-:,;,..,,,•,,,--- ...: '', ,, CJ ;ft? • • — ,,, • •); :• cu eel. ,e..., • ..„......,,.—. .4 '' ' '' pm* PT* '•*-, ,,,4 IS " . . l rt .,, . - . -1111;11 . .Air r- Ai .1-;10111M1 T f or' . klit 1 . ...... 1 1 a . 71 , ,, . • , t • 3• 1899 I- „.-7,,,.....1 m 7 frbl. t%iffsar.t ,t r ii..... - . ... - I 444.41,, . 1 " V T . , - R.1114si It: ... at.,... 1905 . it 4:11111111 2Shl : . ‘.:, , _..........._ • ' I: !"01.tilitli • a r '. it gliZt.ti . ...ff...., ' 1 MEM/I.El !g t:. .-VigiS 14 imam..."...111111, •444.w. • 1 04.1.4 WAL1111110. ° .... ......• ;0..7.1., 1/9 .: • l . .. CS... • 4••••••... . °X. . O." .... 1 righ * it .. . **; . riv-fie 44.4 - 1910 2.Excerpts from Sanborn fire insurance maps(1899,1905.1910)showing the Fletcher Building in relation to other downtown properties. , � ,f L '4S.•.1 x 3.Facade of the Fletcher Building(camera facing south). • y .. . , sem , +L r' F h+ tit&'� i. �' *¢¢wry&}1^, k` • • .mow.. • • 4. South elevation of the Fletcher Building(camera facing northwest). The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation&Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 1 of 7 Technical Preserv.. '• i - - - Brick, Stone, Terra Cotta, Concrete, Adobe, Stucco and Mortar Building Exterior Mason j _ . Identity I Protect I Repair I Replace I Missing Feature I Alterations/Additions Standards Masonry The longevity and M appearance ofamasonry — -_ ., ,-' I wall is dependent upon the = -"` ; Metals size of the individual units * E :s,Porches fs and the mortar. do3.4.; -‘ .: Stone is one of the more Storefronts lasting of masonry building ( E• Structural Systems materials and has been used Spat IFeaftiresjPlnishes throughout the history of Mechanical Systems American building 1880s brick building with terra-cotta trim. construction. The kinds of stone most commonly encountered on historic Site buildings in the U.S. include various types of sandstone, limestone, marble, Setting granite, slate and fieldstone. Brick varied considerably in size and quality. Energy Before 1870, brick clays were pressed into molds and were often unevenly HewAddltlons fired. The quality of brick depended on the type of clay available and the brick- Accessibility making techniques; by the 1870s--with the perfection of an extrusion process-- HeatthtSafety bricks became more uniform and durable. Terra cotta is also a kiln-dried clay product popular from the late 19th century until the 1930s. The development of the steel-frame office buildings in the early 20th century contributed to the widespread use of architectural terra cotta. Adobe,which consists of sun-dried earthen bricks, was one of the earliest permanent building materials used in the U.S., primarily in the Southwest where it is still popular. Mortar is used to bond together masonry units. Historic mortar was generally quite soft, consisting primarily of lime and sand with other additives. After 1880, portland cement was usually added resulting in a more rigid and non-absorbing mortar. Like historic mortar, early stucco coatings were also heavily lime- based, increasing in hardness with the addition of portland cement in the late 19th century. Concrete has a long history, being variously made of tabby, volcanic ash and, later, of natural hydraulic cements, before the introduction of portland cement in the 1870s. Since then, concrete has also been used in its precast form. While masonry is among the most durable of historic building materials, it is also very susceptible to damage by improper maintenance or repair techniques and harsh or abrasive cleaning methods. Masonry ....Identify, retain,and preserve recommended Identifying, retaining,and preserving masonry features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building such as walls, brackets, https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/ ehabilitation/rehab/masonry01.htm 9/12/2019 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation &Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 2 of 7 -,- ""-- 7,','____'_- railings, cornices,window architraves, • ''Cdoor pediments, steps, and columns; }` '' alr . 1 and details such as tooling and -. a--- k, ' .. i bonding patterns,coatings, and color. - t, i ' Materials and craftsmanship illustrated in stone wall. not recommended Removing or radically changing masonry features which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. Replacing or rebuilding a major portion of exterior masonry walls that could be repaired so that, as a result, the building is no longer historic and is essentially new construction. Applying paint or other coatings such as stucco to masonry that has been historically unpainted or uncoated to create a new appearance. Removing paint from historically painted masonry. Radically changing the type of paint or coating or its color. Masonry ....Protect and Maintain Mk recommended Protecting and maintaining masonry by il _ providing proper drainage so that water {4 does not stand on flat, horizontal ref L surfaces or accumulate in curved .� decorative features. I r Cleaning masonry only when necessary y to halt deterioration or remove heavy , soiling. , __ Carrying out masonry surface cleaning 1 l tests after it has been determined that 7 rt 1` 4. such cleaning is appropriate.Tests ' s' � " k' ' '' ` should be observed over a sufficient '. ,, period of time so that both the immediate 1 x:,r and the long range effects are known to '" -- - .1f-- enable selection of the gentlest method • possible. Chemical cleaning to remove dirt from granite. https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/masomy01.htm 9/12/2019 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation&Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 3 of 7 Cleaning masonry surfaces with the gentlest .7: _ k�"' y' y • method possible, such as low pressure water and '4 ' • ,, ' `t detergents, using natural bristle brushes. ti • ., yy� Inspecting painted masonry surfaces to d# > 5 determine whether repainting is necessary. ',. • Removing damaged or deteriorated paint only to ,.,i, ,„' 11,. the next sound layer using the gentlest method ;' ''� possible(e.g., handscraping) prior to repainting. °•`;'i? Applying compatible paint coating systems following proper surface preparation. i_.r. ,- 1 Repainting with colors that are historically . ; , appropriate to the building and district. ' Evaluating the overall condition of the masonry to • determine whether more than protection and maintenance are required,that is, if repairs to the ,''-, ' masonry features will be necessary. Removing felt-tipped marker graffiti with poultice. not recommended .---Failing to evaluate and treat the various causes of mortar joint deterioration such as leaking roofs or gutters, differential settlement of the building, capillary action, or extreme weather exposure. Cleaning masonry surfaces when they are not heavily soiled to create a new appearance, thus needlessly introducing chemicals or moisture into historic materials. Cleaning masonry surfaces without testing or without sufficient time for the testing results to be of value. Sandblasting brick or stone surfaces using dry or wet grit or other _ • _ - abrasives. These methods of cleaning permanently erode the surface of the • - r material and accelerate deterioration. Using a cleaning method that involves T r. — water or liquid chemical solutions ,;¢ when there is any possibility of -= freezing temperatures. Historic brick damaged by sandblasting. Cleaning with chemical products that will damage masonry, such as using acid on limestone or marble, or leaving chemicals on masonry surfaces. Applying high pressure water cleaning methods that will damage historic masonry and the mortar joints. haps://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/,:rehabilitation!rehab/masonry01.httn 9/12/2019 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation&Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 4 of 7 Removing paint that is firmly adhering to, and thus protecting, masonry surfaces. Using methods of removing paint which are destructive to masonry, such as sandblasting, application of caustic solutions, or high pressure waterblasting. Failing to follow manufacturers' product and application instructions when repainting masonry. Using new paint colors that are inappropriate to the historic building and district. Failing to undertake adequate measures to assure the protection of masonry features. Masonry ....Repair --? recommended Repairing masonry walls and other masonry features by repointing the mortar joints where there is evidence of deterioration such as disintegrating mortar,cracks in mortar joints, loose bricks, damp walls, or damaged plasterwork. Removing deteriorated mortar by carefully hand-raking the joints to avoid damaging the masonry. _Lk. Duplicating old mortar in strength, composition, color,and texture. 44-1, imell111 Duplicating old mortar joints in width NS and in joint profile. , ismR Repairing stucco by removing they damaged material and patching with new stucco that duplicates the old in strength, composition, color, and ,` texture. t' Using mud plaster as a surface � coating over unfired, unstabilized a t adobe because the mud plaster will bond to the adobe. Cutting damaged concrete back to preparation for stucco repair. remove the source of deterioration (often corrosion on metal reinforcement bars).The new patch must be applied carefully so it will bond satisfactorily with,and match,the historic concrete. Repairing masonry features by patching, piecing-in, or consolidating the masonry using recognized preservation methods. Repair may also include the limited replacement in kind--or with compatible substitute material--of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of masonry features when there are surviving https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/masoruy0l.htm 9/12/2019 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation& Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 5 of 7 prototypes such as terra-cotta brackets or stone balusters. Appy g I in new or non-historic surface treatments • -` p such as water-repellent coatings to masonry /X -s , only after repointing and only if masonry repairs have failed to arrest water penetration problems. Replacement stones tooled to match original. not --� recommended Removing nondeteriorated mortar from sound joints, then repointing the entire building to achieve a uniform appearance. Using electric saws and hammers rather than hand tools to remove deteriorated mortar from joints prior to repointing. Repointing with mortar of high portland -- cement content(unless it is the content of the historic mortar). This can often create a bond that is stronger than the historic material and can cause damage '^`` £ .. as a result of the differing coefficient of i , i expansion and the differing porosity of `- the material and the mortar. Repointing with a synthetic caulking '' compound. L'C't - �. ; Using a"scrub"coating technique to '' = t repaint instead of traditional repointing t. methods. -� .=: -� ..;, az1 Changing the width or joint profile when r r repointing. A, • Loss of the historic character due to insensitive repointing. Removing sound stucco; or repairing with new stucco that is stronger than the historic material or does not convey the same visual appearance. Applying cement stucco to unfired, unstabilized adobe. Because the cement �--- stucco will not bond properly, moisture can become entrapped between materials, resulting in accelerated deterioration of the adobe. Patching concrete without removing the source of deterioration. Replacing an entire masonry feature such as a cornice or balustrade when repair of the masonry and limited replacement of deteriorated of missing parts are appropriate. https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/masonry01.htm 9/12/2019 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation &Illustrated Guidelines for R... Page 6 of 7 Using a substitute material for the replacement part that does not convey the visual appearance of the surviving parts of the masonry feature or that is physically or chemically incompatible. Applying waterproof, water repellent, or non-historic coatings such as stucco to masonry as a substitute for repointing and masonry repairs. Coatings are frequently unnecessary, expensive, and may change the appearance of historic masonry as well as accelerate its deterioration. Masonry ....Replace recommended Replacing in kind an entire masonry feature that is too deteriorated to repair--if the overall form and detailing are still evident--using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. Examples can include large sections of a wall,a cornice, balustrade,column, or stairway. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible,then a compatible substitute material may be considered. not recommended Removing a masonry feature that is unrepairable and not replacing it; or replacing it with a new feature that does not convey the same visual appearance. Design for Missing Historic Features The following work is highlighted to indicate that it represents the particularly complex technical or design aspects of rehabilitation projects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns listed above have been addressed. recommended Designing and installing a new masonry feature such as steps or a door pediment when the historic feature is completely missing. It may be an accurate restoration using historical, pictorial, and physical documentation; or be a new design that is compatible with the size,scale, material,and color of the historic building. not recommended Creating a false historical appearance because the replaced masonry feature is based on insufficient historical, pictorial, and physical documentation. Introducing a new masonry feature that is incompatible in size, scale, material and color. • Home I Next I Previous https://www.nps.gov/tps/standardshehabilitation!rehab/masonry01.htm 9/12/2019 CITY OF 0 430 Third St., Farmington, MN 55024 FARM I N GTO N © 651-280-6800 FarmingtonMN.gov TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tony Wippler, Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2020 Meeting Calendar DATE: January 14, 2020 INTRODUCTION Attached,for the Commissions information is the 2020 calendar for meeting dates. Please note there are two changes to the Commission's regular meeting schedule in 2020,these changes are: 1. The regular meeting in August will be Wednesday,August 12th in order to accommodate the Primary Election. 2. The regular meeting in September will be Wednesday, September 9th due to the Labor Day holiday falling on September 7th. City Council will be meeting on Tuesday,September 8th. DISCUSSION NA ACTION REQUESTED None,this is provided for informational purposes only. ATTACHMENTS: Type Description D Backup Material 2020 Meeting Calendar City of Farmington 2020 Meetings, Holidays, Pay Days, Election Days January 2020 July 2020 S M TWT F S S M TWT F S 2 - 4 1 3 4 FARMINGTON 5Dial 9 10 11 5 7 9 10 11 1215 16 18 12 13 15 16 18 1922 24 25 19 21 22 24 25 268 29 30 26 28 29 30 February 2020 August 2020 S M TWT F S S M TWT F S 1 1 21145 6 7 8 2 . 4 5 6 7 8 City Holidays 9 13 III 15 9 10' 11 12 13 . 15 16 20 21 22 16 II 18 19 20 21 22 City Council 23 M 25 26_ 29 23 25 26 29 30 31 .EDA March 2020 September 2020 ®Parks and Rec Commission S M TWT F S S M TWT F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 Parks and Rec Commission 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 . 9 10 . 12 Planning Commission 1517 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 (Separate Meetings-Same Night) 22 24 25 26 27 28 20 22 23 y 26 29 30 31 27 29 30 .Planning Commission April 2020 October 2020 RRC Advisory Board S M TWT F S S M TWT F S 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 .Water Board 5 7 9 . 11 4 6 7 8 . 10 12 15 16 17 18 11 1' 15 16 17 Mil Pay Days 19 21 22 _ 25 18 20 21 24 26 28 29 30 25 27 28 29 30 31 Election Days May 2020 November 2020 S M TWT F S S M TWT F S 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 7 3 5 6 7 9 8 9 11 13 14 10 11 .y 14 1516 15 17 18 21 17 19 20 21 23 22 24 25 26 27 28 24 25 ® 27 29 30 29 30 31 June 2020 December 2020 S MTWT F S SMTWT F S 21611 4 . 6 1 2 3 . 5 711 12 13 6 10 11 12 14 17 18 20 13 14 15 16 19 21 24 26 27 20 II 22 23 26 28 29 30 27 29 30