The URL can be used to link to this page

87-1347 WMI7E - CITY CLERK PINK - FINANC-E GITY OF SAINT PAUL Council ///7771 �� CANARV -�DEPARTMENT � ,� � BLUE� - MAV�oR . File NO• � � Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee.: Date Out of Committee By Date parties, on July 23 , 1987 , does hereby RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby affirm the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission in this matter and does hereby concur in the findings made and determined by said Commission; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Selby-Summit Place Limited Partnership be and is hereby denied; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Selby-Summit Place Limited Partnership, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Administrator and the Heritage Preservation Commission. 2. COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas DreW Nays �eM� _� In Favor Rettman Scheibel By Sonnen Against Weida WllSOri Form A rov d Cit Att ne Adopted by Council: Date SEP 15 �987 pP Y y Y Certified Pas d by Council Secretary BY By �� App ed by Ylavor: e � ��r � 7 �7V/.± APPr ved y Mayor for Submission to Council By P�IS�p �E P 2 6 1987 � . �,�-��i�� Motion: To approve alternate proposal presented at the hearing. Moved by: Angell Seconded by: Miller Motion passed unanimously. 2. 126 Kent Street G. Vimr Contracting Co. , Inc. Porch Reconstruction Torstenson presented staff report and slides. Angell reported that DRC voted unanimously to recommend approval with conditions listed in the draft resolution. Motion: To approve with conditions. Moved by: Committee Motion passed unanimously. 3. 197 Kent Street Z. Niwinski ' Garage Torstenson presented slides and staff report. Angell reported that DRC voted to recommend approval with conditions that the garage is reoriented so that the garage doors do not face the street and that the surface parking spaces are adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping. He also noted that the applicant had no� been present at the DRC Committee meeting. Mr. Niwinski said that he did not agree with the conditions in the staff report for several reasons. He felt his design was preferable because conforming with the staff report conditions would require him to change stone curb cuts, cut down a boulevard tree, make the garage visible from Selby Avenue, and obscure the most attractive facade of the house. Furthermore, the new garage would face in the same direction as the original garage on the site, and the original site plan was approved by the HPC in 1985. Angell noted that the guidelines state that, where alleys do not exist, garages facing the street or driveway curb cuts may be acceptable. Motion: To approve with DRC recommended conditions. Moved by: Committee . Motion failed unanimously. Motion: To approve sub�ect to conditions that the materials of the proposed garage doors be approved by staff and that the surface parking spaces are adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping. Moved by: Tuna Seconded by: Farnan Motion passed unanimously. 2 � � ��-�� 4. 302 Summit R. Igo Garage, Skylights, Fence Torstenson presented slides and staff report. Angell reported that DRC voted unanimously to recommend approval with conditions. Mr. Igo told the commission he would submit plans for tuckpointing and repair and cleaning of masonry to staff for approval. He also informed the Commission that he had discovered a portion of the original fence which was three feet high; he intends to duplicate the design but change the height of the new fence to four feet. Motion: To approve with conditions. Moved by: Committee Motion passed unanimously. 5. 433 Ashland W. Groetsch Garage Angell reported that DRC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application with conditions. Torstenson reported that the applicant had submitted a site plan, as requested by the DRC, but that it is not accurate. He recommended adding conditions to the resolution of approval that an accurate site plan be submitted and approved by staff, that the garage be se*_ back at least 23 1/2 feet from the west property line, and that the details and materials of the garage doors be appro�ed by staff. Motion: To amend resolution as recommended by staff. Moved by: Angell Seconded by: Bailey Motion passed unanimously Motion: To approve amended resolution. Moved by: Committee Motion passed unanimously 6. N.W. Corner of Laurel and Virginia Hotzler Renovation Two Single Family Houses Torstenson presented slides and staff report. Angell reported that DRC voted unanimously to recommend approval with a condition. Ms. Hotzler presented more detailed elevations of the sides of the proposed buildings and revised site plans which indicated setbacks of adjacent buildings. She indicated that a thick hedge will be planted along the property line, and that she hopes to retain as much of an existing fence as possible. She informed the Commission that she was applying for a permit for two structures. 3 . �� y� Angell commented that reduced setbacks at corners such as those proposed are not unusual in the area. He also stated that he felt the fence was an important part of the property. Motion: To amend the resolution to allow for staff approval of alterations to existing fence. Moved by: Angell Seconded by: Bailey Motion passed unanimously Motion: To approve with conditions as amended. Moved by: Committee Motion passed unanimously 7. 482 Holly � Tess Galati New Rear Windows Torstenson presented slides and staff report. Angell regorted that the DRC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application. Motion: To approve Moved by: Gommittee Motion passed unanimously. 8. 252 Selby Selby-Summit Partnership Ltd. 32 Unit Apartment Building Torstenson presented slides and a staff report with a recommendation to approve with a condition for screening the parking lot. He revised his recommendation to approve to add a condition that air conditioner sleeves on walls without balconies not extend more than six inches from the exterior wall and be painted to match siding material. Angell noted that the Design Review Committee didn`t have a quorum when this project was discussed, so there is no DRC recommendation. He moved the staff recommendation as amended by staff at the hearing. Bailey seconded the motion. Lori Forsberg pointed out that the proposed building had been approved originally with a design which called for the entire exterior to be covered by brick. She stated that she is not satisfied with the current design which has both vinyl siding and brick covering the exterior. She also feels that the balconies on the building are suburban in character and are not compatible with , the surrounding area. She emphasized that the site is in a very important location, near the St. Paul Cathedral and at the head of Summit Avenue, and expressed her sentiment that an optimal design was necessary rather than the compromise between economics and design which she felt is inherent in the present proposed building. Angell asked what had been on the site previously. Alma Joseph replied that it had been a one story commercial structure having no significant characteristics. 4 _ ' , C��1 /`3y y Tom Miranda, President of Summit Place Master Association Number One, listed the features of the proposed design which dissatisfied them. These include the air conditioner sleeves, which he felt should have as little exterior exposure as possible, the striped effect of the exterior materials, which he felt was , inappropriate, and the parking arrangement of the building and resulting increase in traffic flow on Maiden Lane. He suggested a sign at the Maiden Lane exit directing cars towards Selby Avenue. Dan Blackstad of the Ramsey Hill Association stated that there is no historic precedent in the area for a mixed use of material such as that of the proposed building. He commented that the building was too large to be covered completely with clapboard, and that the best solution was an all-brick or stucco exterior. Bob Engstrom of Selby-Summit Partnership presented slides to summarize the � organization's past projects in the area. He stated that they had been involved in historic preservation projects in the neighborhood since before local designation of the Hill District and before there was so much the general public interest in preserving the area. He stated that the current design of the proposed building is compatible with other buildings in the area even if no example of exactly the same exterior treatment. He pointed out that they are re-introducing, with three changes, a plan the HPC has already approved. Jack Buxell, project architect, presented a model of the building. Angell declared for public record that he had bought property from the applicant but has no financial or social connections to the applicant, and that he has served on the Summit Place Master Association Number One but no longer does so. Buxell stated that the building was to be completely covered with brick, but that the Partnership had discovered that it is not economically feasible according to their financial program. He stated that they are trying to build at the same level of quality of existing structures in the area, and commented that if they used an all brick exterior with their adopted budget the resulting building would be of a much lower quality. He stated that an understanding of the the color combination of the siding and brick is crucial to a well informed assessment of the design merits of the building, and showed samples of the iron spot red brick and "Restoration" (TM) vinyl siding. He drew attention to the flat finish of the vinyl siding. He commented that this building being built a century later than the surrounding buildings. He indicated the partnership's willingness to meet the conditions in the staff report, specifying that the sir conditioner sleeves would extend four inches beyond the exterior wall and that the Maiden Lane side of the parking lot would be landscaped and screened. The architect stated that their 1985 plan called for 1/2 inch facing brick to be used because of the cost and extent of supports that would be necessary to use full sized brick over the underground parking. Angell noted that in his opinion facing brick over plywood is not known to be a � durable exterior construction technique. He asked how many bids had been made for the construction of the originally proposed building. Engstrom replied that there had been five bids. Buxell added that the decision to modify the design had been based on the bids they had received. He stated that the design changes were made to allow for bids which were within the project budget. 5 � ' C�y"�3�7 Tuna stated that while the multi-material exterior of 454 Dayton had been suggested as a precedent for the type of exterior treatment of the proposed building, the proximity of the Cathedral and the site's location as a gateway to the Hill District made this treatment inappropriate for this project. Angell said the original design had come before the HPC about two years ago, and at that.time the site plan, parking and structure design had been approved. The applicant had come before the Design Review Committee at the May, 1987, meeting and presented the revised design. He observed that the project was first conceived in 1976 and that a previous developer failed to complete the project. Frank said she has no quarrel with the massing and scale of the project and that it is not appropriate to debate that now. She is concerned about the newly proposed siding materials. She quoted part C. , Section VI, of the Hill Districts Guidelines which states that the use of materials in new construction should relate to materials of existing adjacent buildings. She also noted that vinyl siding has a tendency to buckle, and has noticed severe buckling of the siding at 454 Dayton. She observed that some buildings of similar scale in the area have stucco exteriors. Angell inquired whether the applicant had considered stucco on the parts of the proposal which currently called for vinyl siding. Bu�cell replied that stucco cost about the same as full sized brick to install. He said that the current proposed use of materials was a frank statement of what the building was: a frame building. He stated that he thinks vinyl is a durable material and that the buckling at 454 Dayton is a result of the long uninterrupted spans of vinyl siding on that project, and that no such spans would occur on the proposed building. He said there would be no buckling problem with vinyl siding on the new building if the siding is properly installed. Angell quoted sections of the Hill District Guidelines which state that the guidelines are not hard and fast regulations but rather are flexible criteria, and that consideration will be given to the unavailability or expense of historical materials. The guidelines for new construction focus on general rather than specific design elements in order to encourage quality contemporary design. He noted that the applicant had received bids on the pro�ect and had found the use of historic materials economically unfeasible. In his opinion the developer had considered the use of historic materials, found it financially impossible, and presented a clear case of economic hardship to the Commission. Farnan noted that had he been present when the DRC considered this project he would have voted to recommend denial of the application. In addition to his reservations about the use of materials, he has reservations about the pedestal of the building and the horizontal element of the windows. Angell noted that the pedestal of the proposed building is reflected in the , limestone base of the apartment building adjacent to the site, and that the house on the opposite side of the site has clapboard siding, making the exterior of the proposed building an interplay of surrounding features. Farnan noted that he is sensitive to the economic feasibility of the project. He feels that the limestone base of the adjacent apartment building is an exception to the general character of the area, and noted that the siding on the house is wood rather than vinyl. 6 � � ��y-/3y'7 Tuna noted that the typical material for apartment buildings in the area is brick. While the nearby clapboard house currently has apartments� it was originally used as a single family dwelling (with quarters for live-in domestic workers) and has a single-family design. She stated that in her opinion the proposed use of materials is inappropriate and concurred with Farnan's reservation about the base of the building. She observed that the base of the building had previously been approved liy the HPC. Angell repeated that the guidelines are flexible and encourage contemporary design in new construction in the Hill District. Tom Miranda stated that the Summit Place Master Association Number One is supportive of development of the site and of the proposed structure, but the Association has reservations about the appropriateness of the exterior design of � the building. Rick Igo asked what the difference in cost between an all-brick exterior and the proposed mixed-material design was. Engstrom replied that an all brick exterior would add about 10� to the total cost of $1,350,000.00. Motion: To approve with conditions. Moved by: Angell � Seconded by: Bailey In Favor: 2 Against: 5 Motion: To deny. Moved by: Tuna Seconded by: Farnan In favor: 6 Against: 1 Tuna requested that the HPC and concerned members of the public be notified in the event of an appeal. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Summit Avenue Sidewalks Angell moved to direct staff to draft a resolution based on the staff report with the added conditions that sidewalks be specified as those on public property and to include the public sidewalks on streets which intersect Summit to the mid block line to on either side of Summit Avenue. Motion: To direct Staff to draft a resolution. Moved by: Angell Seconded by: Bailey � Motion passed unanimously. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Candidates Committee Torstenson reminded the Commission of the June 18, 1987, HPC public hearing on 7 . � ��,�1/3�� the proposed Hill District expansion along Summit and Portland. He reported on the status of the proposed Hill District Expansion at Marshall and Western. He also reported that Historical Research, Inc. , has been hired to conduct necessary research and to prepare national register and local registration forms for the proposed West Summit Avenue Heritage Preservation District. Education Committee Frame reported that we have received about half of the first chapter of the architectural history publication from Jeff Hess. Some of the money not being used for writing the third chapter this summer is being used to update and _ reprint the illustrated Hill District guidelines. We are currently talking about two grant projects for 1987: 1) continuation of writing the book; and 2) a Lowertown project. Executive Committee � Torstenson has drafted a number of revisions to Chapter 73. Heritage Preservation Commission of the Legislative Code, but the Executive Committee had not yet met to discuss them. Angell noted that the Commission had discussed the revisions in the past and moved to accept the staff recommendations. Tuna seconded. Mannillo said he has a problem with the proposed fee for HPC permit reviews. Miller moved to table the matter to the July HPC meeting. The motion was passed. Mannillo commented on the conflict of interest procedures in the letter to commissioners from Jane McPeak. The difference from the procedures we use now is the requirement for a written report. When there is clear financial gain involved, put it in writing and don't vote on the matter. Segal said Commissioners also must refrain from discussion when there is a cenflict of interest. Staff Torstenson reported that John McQuillan had talked to him about a new door for handicapped access in the side elevation of the building at 452 Selby. The building is being rehabilitated for a restaurant; it is a .tax act project. Torstenson asked the HPC to authorize staff to approve the proposed door as a minor after approval of the door by the State Historic Preservation Office for tax credits. , Angell so moved. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. 8 � �,��-�3`/7 The meeting was adjourned. SUBMITTED BY: -__-� Allan L. Torstenson, Preservation Planner APPROVED BY: John E. Mannillo, Chair 9 � � . ��7 CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION FILE NUMBER �s6 DATE 7une 1�, �98� N'HEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to review building permit appiications for exterior alterations, new construction or demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and - VI'HEREAS, Selby-Summit Partnership, Limited has applied far a building permit to construct a 32 unit, four story apartment building with an underground garage, a drivew�ay between Selby and Maiden Lane, and a 13 space surface parking lot at 252 Selby Avenue; and V1'HEREAS, the vacant lot at 252 Selby Avenue is within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District; and H'HEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing on said permit application on June il, 1987, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and V1'HEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, made the following findings of fact: , 1. The proposed building conforms to the massing, setback, volume, height, and scale of ' existing ad jacent structures; 2. Most of the proposed air conditioner sleeves will be screened from view by balconies; air conditioner sleeves not so screened should have as little exposure as possible and be painted to match the siding material; 3. The proposed garage doors do not face the street; — 4. The proposed parking lot is adequately screened from Selby but not adequately screened from Maiden Lane; 5. The strong vertical facade elements are compatible with the overall rhythm of the street; 6. The flat roof with varying parapets provides a roof profile that relates to the pred�minant roof shape of existing adjacent buildings; 7. The proposed combination of brick and narrow restoration vinyl siding material does ' not relate to existing adjacent buildings; 8. The proposed windows have a vertical orientation and relate to existing adjacent buildings; (continued) � .� ��7-��7 � File #756 . Page Two NO��', 'THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL�'ED, that based on findings 4 and 7 above the Heritage ' Preservation Commission denies the application for a building permit to construct a 32 � unit, four story apartment building with underground garage, driveway, and 13 space surface parking lot at 252 Selby Avenue. , MO�'ED BY Tuna SECONDED BY Farnan IN FAVOR 6 AGAINST 1 ABSTAIN 1 Decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commission are final, subject to appeal to the City Council withjn 10 days by anyone affected by the decision. 'This resolution does not constitute approval !or tax credits. . �-1`"��/3�� HPC FILE #756 CITY OF ST. PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: Summit Place Apartments DATE OF APPLICATION: 5/20/87 APPLICANT: Selby-Summit Partnership, Ltd. DATE OF HEARING: 6/11/87 LOCATION:. 252 Selby Avenue LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 3,4,and 5, Auditors Subdivision No. 52. HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Hill District CLASSIFICATION: Major Permit Review STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 5/28/87 BY: Al1an L. Torstenson A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is vacant and fronts on Selby Avenue to the north. Maiden Lane is to the south, the Cathedral parking lot is to the east, and a 3 story apartment building is to the west. B. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant proposes to build a 32 unit, four story apartment building with an underground garage, a driveway between Selby and Maiden Lane, and a 13 space surface parking lot. C. GUIDELINE CITATIONS: l. Section C. New Construction of the Hill District Design Guidelines for Design Review states, "Generally all structures should provide height, massing, setback, materials, and rhythm compatible to surrounding structures. . . .What is essential is for new construction in the Historic Hill area is the maintenance of the scale and quality of design." 2. Section C.I. Setback - Siting states, "New buildings should be sited at a distance not more than 5� out-of-l�ne from the setback of existing ad�acent , buildings. 3. Section C.II. Garages and Parking states, "Garage doors should not face the street. . . .Parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping." 4. Section C.III. Massing, Volume, and Height states, "New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height, and scale of existing adjacent structures. Typical residential structures in the Historic Hill are 25 to 40 feet high. The height of new construction should be no lower than the average height of all buildings on both block faces. . . ." 5. Section C.IV. Rhythm and Directional Emphasis states, "Historically any structure built on more than one lot used vertical facade elements to maintain and vary the overall rhythm of the street rather than interrupting the rhythm with a long monotonous facade. The directional expression of new � ��"l-/3�7 construction should relate to that of existing adjacent structures." 6. Section C.V. Roofs states, "The skyline or profile of new construction should relate to the predominant roof shape of existing adjacent buildings." � 7. Section C.VI. Materials and Detail states, "Variety in the use of architectural materials and details adds to the intimacy and visual delight of the district. . . .The materials and details of new construction should relate to the materials and details of existing ad�acent buildings. . .Four-inch metal siding, when well installed and carefully detailed� may be acceptable in some cases. Materials will be reviewed to determine their appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure." 8. Section C.VII. Windows and Doors states, "The proportion, size, and detailing of windows and doors in new construction should relate to that of existing adjacent buildings. Most windows on the Hill have a vertical .orientation, with a proportion of between 2:1 and 3:1 (height to width) common. . . .Paired casement windows, although not historically common, will often prove acceptable because of their vertical orientation." D. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed building conforms to the massing, setback, volume, height, and scale of existing adjacent structures. 2. The proposed air conditioner sleeves will be screened from view by railings and location. 3. The proposed garage doors do not face the street. 4. Ths proposed parking lot is adequately screened from Selby but not adequately screened from Maiden Lane. 5. The strong, vertical facade elements are compatible with the overall rhythm of the street. 6. The flat roof with varying parapets provides a roof profile that relates to the predominant roof shape of existing adjacent buildings. 7. The brick facades with narrow restoration vinyl siding in recessed areas are appropriate in relation to the overall design of the building and relate to existing adjacent buildings. 8. The proposed windows have a vertical orientation and relate to existing adjacent buildings. E. STAFF RECOP4IENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends approval of � a building permit to construct a 32 unit, four story apartment building with underground garage, driveway, and 13 space surface parking lot at 252 Selby Ave. , subject to the condition that the parking lot be adequately screened from Maiden Lane. • ��,� � ��>/�y7 .��..:._-:. . . �a-� ro ert engstrom assocjates �nc. 4601 west 81st st�eet•suite �O't •minneapolis�minnesote 56437•6'12•893-1001 •'t."..s:.•s, . May 6, 1987 Mr. Allan Torstenson Historic Preservation Conmission City of St. Paul 25 West 4th St. St. Paul, I�I 55102 � Dear Allan: This is to inform the Commission of our intent to seek final approval for the proposed 32 unit building to be built on Selby Avenue between Nina and Sunmit. You will recall that this building was previously approved on August 8, 1985. During the interium we have worked with a succession of general contractors, but only recently have we found one who is prepared to build within a feas- ible budget. In order to reach feasibility, some el�nents of the previously approved plan have been modified: •The pitched roof, a somewhat controversial detail, has been replaced by a parapet. •'I11e sloped transition from building base to the upper walls has been changed from brick to standing seam metal due to the contractor's . concern about durability of brick on a sloped surface, and cost. •There is reduced brick surface area on the exterior. Narrow restor- ation vinyl siding will replace brick in recessed areas of the primary and secondary faces, and over substantial portions of the tertiary (west) face. •We have now clearly delineated the air conditioner sleeve locations. It is on the basis of these modifications that we wish to appear before the . coRmission at this time for final approval. Yours truly, Selby�it Place Limited Partnership � � eil T. Carter Project Manager � NTC/ja real estate development • land end lot ssl�s • land planning market analvsis • historic restoration • recreational develnoment . �� .; Q.��`'� �� . � . � ��•1� • � �, .. . �I . � . �I . � ___ � �i - � t � � � � . �� '1/ • .,. �ti� �5� �o,��ga � � _�._.. _ � • ��S` —.-��--- �� ' � . . . � �� . . . � -, ---- - � �" --�� $ �- .. �. i � � : _� � � . �l' � � � - - -�- --- , :, .:� . .a.� I , _ � . j _ ' ... ' • �— �,a. "-. ; -t --+ I '_ `�J ` `� 1 �� f -'---' � ------� . `,�1 -i � � ' I - w� '� . ' , ' 1 1 ' s s. . �'�» ♦ � --- L "-� , " . �• • � � i i, Y I {. et � . � � � __. W � � I y�t � � � .�.� -- e,« ... E N __T__'_' � / ��:� �.. 6� j• ; � - - t N CO 1 � ✓�` � e+f 1 1 J 1 � I `J � N � N .\ , � 1 � �\ � o w * i • _' ' 1 �� -- � i - � \ i � -� t; , , \ 1 _ I� i ' � _ � • � I: . ' \, . � ; I ` , \ -� i � � �� I �r �,� z ' . Q . - - .�-� r` , � \ �� / � !' �' \ ' ' / i .-�-.�+ j i .. � M � \\ � � ',` ' i O ^ V 1 ' ' I • I � E � � '.�� I ` � ~ � // +++''---�� i �I / � ~ � � � � .1 � � � ' i,Z , � • � �_. d I i � � � 5� I � `. / I ��r J i �'� � �- ---� � \� _ ';t�� , . , \ `� � ' � 1 • � � �� .; __ ! ;• � i +v_ _. -°*----- ' � � � • !. � i � . , � {' ' II �� ' .. . ; � \ � d ' � --- �°- � r- - ---i ,I —! j --- -;f , � � . � i � , .. � � � , i •� ' � ' . 1 � I j ' • m � 1 � 1 _ •a• , .». I ' -.,O _ "" "' "' ,`_ _ �� x ' � � ' � � ut_ � - � -- .� G- _ I -- �-------- - - ---- -------- . _----- , • f"'�."�` �seawi.60"I£l `.; j'----- - �\ - -... -- - --�L 1��..._------- ,_ _ . � , •. � '� 3.ri.9► 61ttN"--- — ---- , ,,, . . l ._ .d�� _ �3n�nd ��as - _ �. a - �,�. . � a, oG . v � E �? � � Z � � � � � � l . � � � � � � c -�-, ,,-�' 4 , o� � - - � ' J ' � � � � I � - ,� ,l �� I �'� � i �i I -- — � I �_ �� ,I �II; Q� � � � �5 �� } �:,; � , ��: �;�. � Z �� i j-- �J - r -- r � � � , _�� s � � ,:� � � � , N ,,, L _ � � .p _� . � � �— ° � _ - j �,_ _; � I � -J r� r t �J; r-+ t I. R', I ��I - I �. .�j� � � _ . - - is r- . � - � � � •f .�f'�t,F+h'i�_n�:�,. .�.i�.. •�c�. . . . � . ... .— . ,. - � _. . . � . .:J • . .--� �, � O . \� 1 . � _ ' . � i � ' � � I � � � - � 1 � � ` I � � � • � �� i � ❑ ��ii ❑ I_ � ! i� + M � I' ` _y ' �I ' ' Z ' i � �I i ' ' 11 �i � i _ i I � � ; � � ' i . � � I s s � �� ; ; I i � � �I _� � , - � J "r-, � � � - � � : i E y � I � 1 � �❑ -- � i � �s __� i C � „ --� i � li � j; �� i � --7� ,� i I F __�� • � =__� i i ; � � • I :-�� • . � `r i `t I `1 i I I r ' I �. � i ` . I _.. F - i , ' i � - ' _ ' � - � � �� }`` .-... . .�. _ ' � �� • . _ .. .:.1 t ��... ... ._ _ �:1._._ .__.---- -- i1__--�__ . . . .._ .."'_}-`�fC;e..�1��- i�3�e''��}'fitY',�°TiT�_ ._i5�_�...,..`._ . � .. � . . � .� �� . ��- - . � � , ; , - .- , , _ -� � � � . n i ,. � � � � s �. � . . � � � � . � � � ? /1❑ - � �� ' --,,.,, .,! . � � - - - � � ,.� ' __'- � ;i,,i • � � ❑ `�� i � � ' 'i`I � ' 9 N �� i . � 'I � �� i� 1.I '.I;j � � u 1�'� � �o;� 6 � � i � �:. i ! � � 4 s � '-- ' r- ` E . . r` � r--- r (-i J �i:l�� . � � �I - v �- � r—_ ;_ ' �L� �� j„1 . ❑ I ! � a -- (-----a� --- I' I �� I L �j � N 0Z � � �� s � � ' d j . I � � ; . ; 1. ,: .� �' ! � �• • • p� n �,, ��'4� � ` � � ��...4�.. , �� X w .t- �� ,!i) .� � � � 'r�,•�^� w. ��. • ��`r�' •� t � �' • � ��Kw.. r ��..�. ,�'' . yt . . � • �� s f �'�,�,+0'ti,r��J?��,� t w. } - .�vn..�� 'i a �c't.� �r,,,'T7w` / � ��II�I�I�I� , �= �■_ �= i - -- �= t�= �= �� ., - - -_ -_ -� , . . , . . . �i— �I �i I=� '�a 1 �= ��I I�=' �� , ' !_ �!� '��i !9 , � i��i �� -� ., �� i �� ., �.■� �� ,. ��ii� �■ �,i ■ �� li , �� ►�� -- �■i ' �� f�il n Q� �i� i�� i� I - -- - �i� �I f�� I� �l ,�u . — _ � �� `il� . �i�_ I I�I� �� I , ,�i�i ��I.I ��I�� - --I �I I�i�� ■ ', 1 I��_- �I�! '��!�� t�� ; � 1► ■ - - -_ -= -_ -� I�� = I�� I�I �' �► �_ �' �_ �� - �� i ` , 1�1=1 1�1=1 I�i==_! I��I �. �� -�= 7-i�y7 city of saint paul . . . . heritage �pr�servation commission resolution f ile number 543 �ate . August 8, 1985 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Saint Paul Ordinance �16006 to review building permit applications for exterior alteration, new construction or demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and WHEREAS, Neill Carter, on behalf on Engstrom Carley Partners, requested a permit on July 23, 1985, to construct 32 unit apartment building on .Selby Avenue and Maiden•Lane; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing on said permit application on August 8, 1985, pursuant to the requirements of Saint Paul Ordinance #16006; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon evidence presented by the public hearing, made the following findings of fact: '. The pra�osed 5ui 1 d�ry' s ��2i yht an� ra;; arz u�pr;,pri ate to the a4j a�e�.� buildings and its location on Selby as a gateway to the Hill district conforming to New Construction Guideline III (Massiny, Volume and Height) . 2. The brick facades are appropriate and complementary to adjacent buildings conforming to New Construction Guideline VI (Materials and Details) . 3. The windows are vertically orientated conforming to New Construction Guideline VII (Windows and Doors) . 4. The proposed parking is buffered from Selby Avenue, conforming to New Construction Guideline II (Garages and Parking) . 5. The landscaping plan conforms to New Construction Guideline IX (Landscaping) . 6. The applicant has made a complete application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the above findings , the Heritage Preservation Commission approves a permit to construct a 32 unit apartment building at Selby Avenue and Maiden Lane. m�Ved b Reetz seconde �j/ Frank in fav�or �. against o , .. . : , .. � ' � CITY OF SAINT PAUL _ � �'_ � /�3�17 ' DEPARTMENT � � � . C� .iSiON OF HOUSING ANO BUILDING � C�DE ENFORCEMENT � � . .�s cirr Ha�� . � . . ST.PAUL,MN 55102 iPermit No. 2 1� � • �� • PLAN NO. DESCRIPTION O PROJECT DATE � '�"�� OWNER X ��VI Q�^!�� i�I. _. _ __ . -- --- OWNERS AO�RESS�C /�2" �'�`� T��-, �[• �, S�I 0 L _ OLD �. � _ . TYPE OF NEW TYPE CONST. OCCUPANCY GRADING STUCCO OR �BllILD ❑AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑DRYWALL ❑ FENCE ❑ ADDITION 0 ALTER ❑REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑WRECK NUMBER STREET SIDE CROSSSTREETS ��f b ' WAR� LOT BLOC ADDITION OR TRACT ' . ' � • t.: ;_ . . WIDTH DEPTH SIDE LOT CLEARANCE BUILnING IINE FRONT REAii � LOT j �CSTRUC- WIDTH LENGTH HEIGHT STORIES TURE FSTj+�4=EO v-e�� B?SEtv7FNT TOTAL FLOOa .4REA • ❑ V ES ❑ NO SQ. FT. I INClUOE BASEMENT : D L m EM'CG � �� '/ u�J V 1 � � ` 1 w _ __..�_.._�-----— TEL NO. � - ARCHITECT ;` _ . . _. . - _ :__ , - - CONTRACTOR ADORESS&21P MASONRY PERMIT FEE STATE VALUATION PIAN CHECK . . STATE ' . SURCHARGE . . • • � ' TOTAL FEE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT ALL IN- FORMATION IS CORRECT AN� THAT ALL PERTINENT STATE REGULATIONS CASHIER USE ONLY AN�CITY OROINANCES WILL BE COM- WHEN VALIDATED THIS IS YOUR PERM�T PLIEDWITHINPERFORMINGTH WORK FOR WH CH THIS PERMIT� ED � St.Code . � / • ADDRESS � OF JOB AUTHORIZEDSIGNATUfiE T- � � � - 1��- /�� July 23, 1985 Mr. Thomas Zahn Historic Preservation Commission � City of St. Paul 25 West 4th Street St. Faul , Mn. 55102 Dear Tom: This is to .inform you of our intent to proceed with the formal approval process for the proposed 32 unit apartment building located on Selby Avenue between Nina and Summit. We understand that the Design Review Sub-committee meets next on July 31 , 1985, and the Commission next meets on August 8, 1985. Your files contain recent plans for the building. A revision of those plans will be delivered to you prior to the Design Review Meeting . � You may reach me at 291-0805 with any questions. Yours truly, Engstrom Carle artners �� ' �., Neill T. Carter ��`� �� . CITY OF SAINT PAUL . :;:��' °•; :;, �' <: '"" :': HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION :e ,: `• .`�u �nm .z � nn �uu ^: • 25 West Fourth St►eet,Saint Paui,Minnesota,5510: �..;�„__�-° 612-292-a:2y GcORGE`UTIMER ��i,—�,�'�7 MAYOR SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1985 4:00 P.M., 1503 CITY HALL ANNEX 25 WEST FOURTH STREET MINUTES PRESEI�T: McCormick, Angell , Frame, Frank, Michels, Reetz, Tracy; Tom Zahn - HPC Planner, Jerry Segal - City Attorney; Nels Sandberg and Fariborz Afsharjavan - HPC Interns ALSO PRESENT: Christine Cannon, George Rossback, Larry Millett, Gary - Johnson, Sarah Susanka, Jon Wendt, Jack Buxell , Neill Carter In Keith McCormick' s absence the meeting was called to order by Bill Angell . The June 13th and July llth minutes were reviewed and approved. There were no staff announcements made. Public Hearing In opening the public hearing, Angell modified the agenda to allow the Engstrom-Carley project to be considered first. 1. Selby-Maiden Lane Apartments Angell stated that the proposal submitted by Neill Carter of Engstrom- Carley Associates for a 32 unit apartment building was revised and complete for review. Angell also noted that the proposal was being presented to the full HPC without a recommendation by the Design Review Committee. Zahn presented the staff report showing slides of the site for the proposed construction. Reetz gave the Design Review report. Reetz noted that the Committee liked . the new proposal over the past submittals, citing improvements in the window placement and roof line. The Committee felt that the new design related better to adjacent buildings. Angell expressed concern over the "modern" nature of the proposed gate lighting. Jack Buxell , architect, and Neill Carter answered questions about the revisions. MOTION: Reetz proposed approval , Frank seco�ed, and the motion passed unanimously. _ _ .—-- - -T�_,✓_l.._��.z. _ _ �,,�d'7/,3�1� A G E N D A M A T E R I A L � COUNCIL ID�� DATE RECEIVED ✓� � � AGENDA DATE AGENDA ITEM 4� SUBJECT (�(%' : � -�� ,�: �� , �,4.ti��e�� '`��*�-�-ilt �_ ORIGINATOR CONTACT RESEARCH STAFF ASSIG�IED DATE SENT TO CLERK �,j � COUNCIL ACTION . 1 .�,,,.,. --- . MASTER FILE 3NF0 AVAILABLE ' .--�G��r.,✓ � � � .�a - �.�- . . . u.� -,-� / yv ��-�� ` . � . ' _ �� ORD'�RESOL. �� ' DATE FILE CLOSED . . �,, �. ,! �: � F� r . � � �' �� ". ` ST. PQUL CITY C4UNC1� �� '`��`� PUBI. IC HEARING NOTICE T0: Neill Carter, Ro.bert Engstrom Associates, Inc. FIL E N 0. 4801 W. 81st St. , Suite 101 , Mpls, MN 55437 HPC Mailing List HPC#756 A1 Olson, City Clerk PURPOSE Appeal of Heritage Preservation Commission �ecision to deny building permit to construct a 32-unit, four story apartment building at 252 Selby Avenue. LOC�4TION 252 Selby Avenue Lots 3,4 and 5, Auditors Subdivision No. 52 PETITIONER NEILL CARTER, SELBY-SUMMIT PLACE LIMITED PARTt;ERSHIP H E A R I N G Thursday, �uly 23, 1987 �o:oo A.M. Cit Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall — Court House Q U E S TIO N S please contact Allan Torstenson, City Planner, Heritage Preservation Commission, 1100 City Hall Annex, 25 W. 4th St. , Saint Paul , �4N 55102 or call 228-3397. Notice aent 1-17-87