The URL can be used to link to this page

275708 WHITE - CITY CLERK -� '��0 PINK �- FINANCE COUflC1I Jrt� v C%►NARY - DEPARTMENT G I T Y O F S A I N T PA U L BLUE - MAYOR File N O. . esolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, Applications for Building Permits to construct garage units in the rear of 223, 231 and 235 Arundel Street had been considered and reviewed by the Saint Paul Heritage Preser- vation Commission to determine whether the proposed construction is consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines adopted by the City Council for the Hill Historic Preservation District; and WHEREAS, The Heritage Preservation Commission by its reso- lution adopted August 14, 1980 following a public hearing held for that purpose in accordance with Ordinance No. 16006, deter- mined that the proposed construction of garages adversely affects the applicable program and therefore denied the issuance of the building permit, the Heritage Preservation Commission basing its determination of adversity upon the following findings: 1. That on July 16, 1980 the building permit applicant and committee agreed on three acceptable plans, each of which would have had a 21 foot setback from the front line facing b7arshall. 2 . That on August 12, 1980 the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a four foot variance far the garages which would allow a 21 foot setbacl� in accordance with three approved site plans, and that the site plan proposed with the building permit application does not meet that contingencv. 3. The site plan proposed for the building permit application shows paving and dumpster location which would not be in conformance with the new construction guidelines C-1 setback requirements. 4. That the proposed curb driveway to be installed on Marshall Avenue and garage doors facing Marshall are in clear COUNCILMEN Requestgd by Department of: Yeas Nays Hunt Levine IR Favo[ Maddox McMahon B snowaiter Against Y — Tedesco �Ison Form Approved by Ci y A ney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Yassed by Council Secretary BY By� Approved by :Vlayor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY - BY WNITE - CITY CLERK ��ww..��.. PINK -. - FINANCE ��n� Qd►NARY-'- DEPARTMENT G I T Y O F S A I N T PA LT L COUIICII �' �� BLUE - MAYOR File N 0. Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date conflict with the new construction guidelines C-II, Garages and Parking, which provide that if an alley is adjacent to the dwelling, a new garage should be located off the alley. Garage doors should not face the street and parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping. 5. That there is sufficient space in the rear yards of the property to allow an alternate solution which would not require a curb cut or garage doors facing Marshall Avenue and that such a solution does not constitute a hardship. WHEREAS, The building permit applicant has appealed the determination of the Heritage Preservation Commission to the Saint Paul City Council, and in accordance with Ordinance No. 16006 and the City Council following a public hearing held for that purpose, and having considered the actions of the Heritage Preservation Commission and the testimony of the applicant and other interested parties does hereby make the following determination: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby affirm the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission in disapproving the building permit application and site plan for garages to be located at 223, 231 and 235 Arundel Street for the reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact adopted by the Heritage Preservation Commission by its Resolution, Permit Review Resolution No. 11, adopted August 14, 1980; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the appeal of Rysdahl Restorations, Kenilworth Condo Association, and Elmwood Condo Association be and is hereby denied; and, be it -2- COUNCILMEN Requestgd by Department of: Yeas Nays Hunt Levine In Favor Maddox McMahon B snowaite� __ Against Y — Tedesco Wilson Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date — Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By Approved by :Vlayor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY - - BY WHITE - CITY CLERK �� /,!j� CANAl21�'- D PARTMENT COUflCII / VV BLUE - MAYOR G I TY O F SA I N T PA U L File N O. � Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this Resolution to the applicant, the Building Code official, the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission. -3- COUNCILMEN Requestgd by Department of: Yeas Nays hFeRt Levine In Favor Maddox McMahon � Against BY Showalter Tedesc� Wilwn Adop y Counci . Date SEP 2 5 198(� Form Approved by t rney rtified Ya� by C .i Secre�ry BY �t� 2 6 198 Ap by :Nayor: �_ Approved by yoc r Submission to Council By - BY Pu�uSt��D p CT 4 19$O f' , _ _ . .. ._. . .. .. .. .. ._ �11 �r �_ _ , -�— � � � _ - �� . � . �� !/' --�, �'- � � � � . �- � � �r �- f' l�-� � •_- � ` V � N , , N � � c�n � -� 04 . � '� � - -- lv , / 1 � . v �� °� . , WHITE - CITY CLERK (RETURN TO JEROME SEGAL AFTER ADOPmT^*T� ��'S��IIi PINK - FINANCE La.�Sl��ll1 CANARY - DEPARTM6NT 1.0U Cl BLUE - MAYOR � I T Y O F S A I N T PA U L File N O. ' � � Council Resolution � Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, Applications for Building Permits to construct garage units in the rear of 223, 231 and 235 Arundel Street had been considered and reviewed by the Saint Paul Heritage Preser- vation Commission to determine whether the proposed construction is consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines adopted by the City Council for the Hill Historic Preservation District; and WHEREAS, The Heritage Preservation Commission by its reso- lution adopted August 14, 1980 following a public hearing held for that purpose in accordance with Ordinance No. 16006, deter- mined that the proposed construction of garages adversely affects the applicable program and therefore denied the issuance of the building permit, the Heritage P,reservation Commission basing its determination of adversity upon the following findings: 1. That on July I6, 1980 the building permit applicant and committee agreed on three aceeptable plans, each of which would have had a 21 foot setback from the front line facing DZarshall. 2 . That on August 12, 1980 the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a four foot variance for the garages whicr. would allow a 21 foot setback in accordance with three approved site plans, and that the site plan proposed with the building permit applicatian does not meet that contingency. - 3. The site plan proposed for the building permit application shows paving and dumpster location which would not be in conformance - with the new construction guidelines C-1 setback requirements. 4. That the proposed curb driveway to be installed on Marshall Avenue and garage doors facing Marshall are in clear COUIVCILMEN Requestgd by Department of: Yeas Nays Hu�t Levine In Favor Maddox McMahon 8 snoWeiter Against Y — Tedesco Wilson Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY By, Approved by Vtavor. Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY - BY WHITE - CITY CLERK �y�('�(((�� PINK - RINANCE �� ,/e�� CANARY - DEPARTMENT G I TY O F SA I N T PA U L COUflC1I � tJ BLUE - MAYOR File N . � � � Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date conflict with the new construction guidelines C-II, Garages and Parking; which provide that if an alley is adjacent to the dwelling, a new garage should be located off the alley. Garage doors should not face the street and parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping. 5. That there is sufficient space in the rear yards af the property to allow an alternate solution which would not require a curb cut or garage doors facing Marshall Avenue and that such a solution does not constitute a hardship. WHEREAS, The building permit applicant has appealed the determination of the Heritage Preservation Commission to the Saint Paul City Council, and in accorda-nce �with Ordinance No. 16006 and the City Council following a public hearing held for that purpose, and having considered the actions of the Heritage Preservation Commission and the testimony of the applicant and other interested parties does hereby make the following determination: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Council af the City of Saint Paul does hereby affirm the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission in disapproving the builriing permit application and site plan for garages to be located at 223, 231 and 235 Arundel Street for the reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact adopted by the Heritage Preservation Commission by its Resolution, Permit Review Re.�olution No. 11, adopted August 14, 1980; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the appeal of Rysdahl Restorations, Kenilworth Condo Association, and Elmwood Condo Association be and is hereby denied; and, be it -2- COU[VCILMEfV Requestgd by Department of: Yeas Nays Hunt Levine In Favor Maddox McMahon __ A ge l Il S t BY Showalter - Tedesco Wi Ison Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Yassed by Council Secretary BY � Bl' -- . Approved by Mayor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By _ — BY wn��C � (.11-■ GLCHK PINK - FINANGE - CANARY - DEPARTMENT G I TY O F SA I NT PA U L Council �� BLUE - MAYOR Fite N0. � �� Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this Resolution to the applicant, the Building Code official, the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission. -3- � COUNCILMEIV Requestgd by Depactment oE: Yeas Nays Hunt �evine Itt Favor Maddox McMahon showa�cer _ Against BY Tedesco �Ison Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date Cerlified Passed by Council Secretary BY By Approved by :Vlavor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By By � � � , - ,�� ' , . , , , , , , , , � � ; , . ` , , . . . , . Septe�ier 30th, 1980 � � '�anmaere �ndominiwn Associatton 231 Arundel Strest Elmwood Gondomintum Aisociatio� 235 Arundel Strset . . Rea�lvorth Eondonini,um Association 22'3. Azundal Strest � ; � Dear Sirs aad Madams: � i � , Bnclosed !e a copy of a St. Paul City Council Resolutiou,. C.F. Nar 275�7Q8, `, adapted bq the Council on Sept.. 25, 1980 affirming tbe' dacieiaa of the t � Seritage Pr�servation Co�miasioa i'n dieappraving the l�uilding permit , � appl�catia�► and s�te plaa for garagea to b� 2ocat�d at 223, 231 snd 235 - ; Ar�mdel Street. � � , � � . , � , Very trulq yours, , � � , , , � , Roas Mix � , - City Clark � Attach. _ . . ach . . , " c�: fleritage Prss�ernation Coumission ,1 . Plannin= Commission Glenn E�ickaon, Building Cods Official . � � f � \. , - � � • � � " � ;� • • , , , � . , � «•, ,° r.-- , � �� . . ' • . - . � � ' �!u�.st ?8,.\19�p ,` , . _ P�, Terry Pt}out� , �'l.r��uin� 5tnff � . ` C�:ty� �a11 �nnex ` _ . . , � _ r, j . • t , . Aear Sirs � ,, • , _ . �.aa � .At�ache,cl £or �h� 3.nfox-aiaCion of the ?i��ita�e� Pueserv�tion Cor�zission � ` _ is a copy o� the appeal of Lanamexe, Elc��aad .a�td �.ex;iiworth. Coado�n#:niu� Assoc�8t�ns.ie �o an uction of .th� °3eriCage Pre�eervatton , g: Co�i.ssivn concernin� properties at �23, 231 ar,d 235 �_rundal Street, � �:' The C�.Ly Coemcil will I�ld'a p�.b�.i,c hearin� on this aPPea1 on �hursclay, � . S�ptember 2.1. .I3t�0. . , � . . °� • ' Very tru�.y yours, . _ , :.,y _ . � ,. � . � ,. � . ` � . ' , ' . . . . � � _ .. . . � . , Y'. . . � I�ase Mix '� .' � ' - C3ty�.CZerk . , . . . , � . � . . . . . . . 1 � . . . . . .. _ - , . .. . � . . �. .r � i�+Zdt� . , . . . . .. � � . ... � . .. . . . . . _ . • . . . . � �. � . � J . ..i � ' . _ .. _ . . . . . . ' . . . .. . � . - . . . � . . � � � . . • . . , " �. '. . . . ' . . . . _ - . , � _. � . . . � . _ � • ' ' . . . . . � � � � . . � . . . . . . . . -, . . . . . . .. . . . . .. � .. . ... � . � . , � � � ' ' � ,. . � - .. � � '� , . . � � � , ' - .. • . - � . - . � ' . _ �' ` � . . . � . � , . . , .. �. . • � . . . . � . . . . . ��. . . � . . .., . .-. . . .' . . . . . ' . �, ' . . � ' ,. . � . � . ' . � �� . . ' � � � . . . . , . � . ' . _ � - ' . . . . . � r . .. ' . .....1 . - . . 1;. � .. . � . .. . . � � �. . � � � . � .. � � . , ' � . . . � � �r � , ' � - ' . . . . . , . . . `. . ' ' . . � . • , . � I� . . ' " . � . - � .. . ' .. ' . � . ... . . . . � ' ' . � . . . � '.... ; � � � � . .. . . . . " , . � . � r . . � .'�Zls„LSSt Z+3, �.Afl{y , . . � ! _ . . � . I,�n�er� Co�x�'��ir�iur! a!�.asoc�atior; 231 �runc�el �.treet ' �:lriwvo�l C',o��r�ini�.a�i Assc�ciat�or. 235 A�ru�xcle2 �Creet � , � I�eni7:4�ox�b�z Conr?ominiurt AFSOCiation 2?3 hrunc�el Str.eeti , • "`ear �irs ancl- ''4x�ctams: , , , � � � � � "�e Sr_. �'�tul ^�t't' ^��anuil wil� �ol�.'.: � puri�:e hezr'�nR or� 'C'=1«r��Y, , �, � �� Septew:`�er Z3, I`?�`? ��:3t '^.�'� ":':. �r. the C�tr Cozxnc�' C�z�r��ier_s csr.� � � the ti�ird �laoY qf �'ity `T:��_? to co��i�ar �your, apneal to'�s� act6c�n: - , ' of; the I�erita�e PreQervation Ga�rmission' ��envin�; '� Iau�.lc?i�n �ernit to con�trc�ct �n eiT•;,tee�� x �;araF e ta sc�rve �t�A c�?�tit�en Gonr�ari�iuri :�partnent� locatQCl at ?�3, 23Z and 2�5 Arunctel S�zee�. , ' � � . �,'ery txuly yours, �f , • i � ' r'".R. � . - � . , � � , : � �, � : Fose T tix ^ �ity E;�er..k ' ' . ' c�'t$�.t Wea��:� 3:��-'.` � Woodlaad P�rk Na3g2iborhood Asaociatiat , ' . 1�r. G],es� Erickson Old TaNU '�storatioae , � Distric� �8 P�ana,iag Council P�t $traag , � , A,�pts+�y Hill Agsociation Herit�g+e P�reservation Commission. . ' . , - � -....: � . , _ , � � � , � � � . . . . , - ' .. � . � . . . ' . . . . .. . . .. .\ .. . . . . . . . . . � - . . �, . � ` � . ; : � + � c � . - _• , ; . � , , � , . , , . , . .� - _ ' 3eptember 11, 1980 _ . � � . � '� , � ' � i . \ , � � � ' . � . •M . . . , . . . Mr. Fd 8tarr , , . City A��rn�y . � ' ' Room 647, City Hall . ,, , , Re: Appeal of �,snsmere Condominium Assoai�tion, ElmvooQ t;ond�minium � - Asbn. and Ksnilworth Conda�init� Aissn. to s decisioa oP the , Herif.a�e Pre$ervation C4mmiasion regsr8lr�; prop�rtie�r at •223�, " , i `, 231, Btid �3'S A''L1I1dC� SL"eEt• ' . � , � Dee�r Sir; : �. . • ., �_. . , _ _ "f Prepar�tion of a reaolution deqying tbe above•rePereneeid Mas re- quested by the City Council at ita September 11, 1980 m�etin�, � " . VerY trulY Youre, , , ,� , Rose Mix ti % � City Clerk _ • � � � � I�S s 1� _ , , , cc: Plannin�; �_ mcs ' Mr.. T�rry pfouts, I�ritage Preservation� Commiasion � � . ; . • " � � , ' , i , • ; , . � . _ , . : ` . . ; , ��•��„ CITY OF SAf NT PAUL "' � *� �'�� • � . �G�� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK .<; =o . �s � � .�It1111111i •"s �,� �� "'� �� BUREAU Of RECORDS , � : ''�o, ,. ��` 386 City Hall, Saim Paul, Minnesota 55�02 ��Ym��••` . 612-298-423� GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR August 28, 1980 Lansmere Condominium Association 231 Arundel Street Elmwood Condominium Association 235 Arundel Street Kenilworth Condominium Association 223 Arundel Street Dear Sirs and Madams: The St. Paul City Council will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 11, 1980 at 10:00-A.M. in the City Council Chambers on -- the third floor of City Hall to consider your appeal to an action of the Heritage Preservation Co�ission denying a building permit to construct an eighteen car garage to serve the eighteen Condominium apartments located at 223, 231 and 235 Arundel Street. V truly yours, �R�� Rose Mix City Clerk /� !J►� ABO:dt cc: Ms. Wendy Lane Woodland Park Neighborhood Association Mr. Glenn Erickson Old Town Restorations District ��8 Planning Council Pat Strang Ramsey Hill Association Heritage Preservation Commission ��•v �:�� • CITY OF SAINT PAUL . �`LITi^O�V�4. � =-�•` �:"''�-. � OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK �. ., r-� ;o _ -: �� ( �� ;� iii�ii��ii �' ,,� �� BUREAU OF RECORDS ,.,, _ .c,.�� 386 City Hall,Saint Paul, Minnesota 55�02 �'Y,��I�R1R••�� ' 612-298-4231 GEORGE UTIMER MAYOR August 28, 1980 Lansmere Condominium Association 231 Arundel Street Elmwood Condominium Association 235 Arundel Street Kenilworth Condominium Association 223 Arundel Street DeaX Sirs and Madams: The St. Paul City Council will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 11, 1980 at T0:00 A.M, in the City Council Chambers on the third floor of City Hall to consider your appeal -to an action of the Heritage Preservation Commission denying a building permit to construct an eighteen car garage to serve the eighteen Condominium apartments located at 223, 231 and 235 Arundel Street. Very truly yours, Rose Mix City Clerk ABO:d t �O ��"��y4 CITI' OF SAINT PAUL � �\11 p��.� � - ` ' `'� ' • OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ;-;� �", ';`< . �; �� ,: ,��#�� ,;� �� "' ,�� BUREAU OF RECORDS < . _ ••.,,, , = 386 City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 �4Tn••wK�<" . .612-298-4231 GfORGE LATIMER MAYOR , August 28, 1980 Lansmere Condominium Association 231 Arundel Street Elmwood Condominium Association 235 Arundel Street Kenilworth Condominium Association 223 Arundel Street Dear Sirs and Madams: The St. Paul City Council will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 11, 1980 at 10:00-A.M. in the City Council Chambers on -- the third floor of City Hall to consider your appeal to an action of the Heritage Preservation Commission denying a building permit to construct an eighteen car garage to serve the eighteen Condominium apartments located at 223, 231 and 235 Arundel Street. V truly yours, �R�� Rose Mix City Clerk /� !Jv ABO:dt cc: Ms. Wendy Lane Woodland Park Neighborhood Association Mr. Glenn Erickson Old Town Restorations District 4�8 Planning Council Pat Strang Ramsey Hill Association Heritage Preservation Commission ��.�. _,;��T��o,,,�� CITY OF SAINT PAUL _-�•` -;'��,, •�� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK '• :': ',� iiii'iinii� �� ,•� _ BUREAU OF RECORDS `-��z. ,��. �,,_�` 386 City Hall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102 �um"°••••c 612-298-4231 GEORGELATIMER MAYOR August 28, 1980 Lansmere Condominium Association 231 Arundel Street Eliuwood Condominium Association 235 Arundel Street Kenilworth Condominium Association 223 Arundel Street Dear Sirs and Madams: The St. Paul City Council will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 11, 1980 at 10:00 A.M. in the City Council Chambers on the third floor of City Hall to consider your appeal to an action of the Heritage Preservation Co�nission denying a building permit to construct an eighteen car garage to serve the eighteen Condominium apartments located at 223, 231 and 235 Arundel Street. Very truly yours, Rose Mix City Clerk ABO:dt �� ' 3: �`''=,a��e ,,,�� 1,� ''"�,�� Td i � • �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: August 28, 1980 T0: A1 Olson FROM: Terry Pfoutz � RE: Public Notice for Council Hearings on Heritage Preservation Commission Appeals For any appeals of HPC decisions on sites within the Hill District, please routinely notify the following parties: �l Ms. Wendy Lane and �Nr. Glenn Erickson Building Dept. 445 City Hall District 8 Planning Council Attn: Julie Hiebert 178 N. Avon - Apt. 3 St. Paul , MN 55104 �Ramsey Hill Assn. c/o Chris Huck 239 Selby Avenue St. Paul , MN 55102 Woodland Park Neighborhood Assn. c/o Ellen Read 546 Marshall Avenue St. Paul , Mn 55102 Chris Owens, Director `Old Town Restorations 820 Holly Avenue St. Paul , MN 55104 The applicant and the Heritage Preservation Corr�nission (Attn: Terry Pfoutz) should, of course, be notified. For the upcoming hearing of September 11 , regarding the Arundel Condominium, please also notify: '�Pat Strang 460 Marshall Ave. St. Paul , MN 55102 You may state in the hearing notice that anyone may contact Terry Pfoutz, 292-6229, for information. Thanks, A1 . TP/cc �.�� ; �,T..`,, ��,�� CITY OF SAINT PAl)L =;` ,,.,, �:� , ' OFFICE OF THE CITI' CLERK :� �� :�: •,,, �� L ,�� BUREAU OF RECORDS . - 386 City Hail, Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102 :��i�Tm�••�c��'�`t 612-298-4231 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR August 28, 1980 - Lansmere Condominium Association 231 Arundel Street Elmwood Condominium Association 235 Arundel Street Kenilworth Condominium Association 223 Arundel Street Dear Sirs and Madams: The St. Paul City Council will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 11, 1980 at 10:00 A.M. in the City Council Chambers on -- the third floor of City Hall to consider your appeal to an action of the Heritage Preservation Cotmnission denying a building permit to construct an eighteen car garage to serve the eighteen Condominium apartments located at 223, 231 and 235 Arundel Street. Very truly yours, Rose Mix City Clerk ABO:dt cc: Ms. Wendy Lane Woodland Park Neighborhood Association Mr. Glenn Erickson Old Town Restorations District ��8 P�.anning Council Pat Strang Ramsey Hill Association � ��,�: �� ; . � , � . � ��'� � C` �Y �°'vwG, L ' . Dates Auguet 20, 1980 \ Tos St Paul City Council �/�/ ' 7th Floz�r City Hall \ st Paul, MN 55102 From: Lansmere Condominium Assocation 231 Areu�del Street, 3t Paul Elmxood Gondominium Aseociation 235 Artuidel Street, 5t Paul Kenilxorth Condominium Aseooiation 22� Arundel Strest, St Paul xe: Notiae of Appeal I. i�e hereby give notioe that �e �c�,sh to appeal�:the Au�g�st 14th deciaioa of the Heritage Preservation Commiaaion (HPC)� der�,ying a. building permit to aonstruat an 18 aar ga�age to serve the 18 aondominium apartmenta located at 223, 231, and 235 Arundel Stre�t. II. The reasonsfor our appeal a�e as f olloxs. A. �Te feel that ineu�ficient consideration hae been given to our inveatment in, and aomm3tment to this pro3ect arid it�°� immedi�te neighborhood. Ne have �o�,lectively spent 1.6 million dollare on three buildingg xhich xere in_s�varely deteriorated aondition� txo of xhiah had been abandoned for some years. Our buildings have inareaeed the property taz baee aorrespondingly, and being the largeet and moet vieible projecte in the area, have motivated sdditiosal developmmx�t is �he im�ediate neighborhood. Ths -two renovation projeata to the immediate xeet of oure, the four unit O�Hallervn House, and the txo unit aondo�nini� c�+med and developed by Robert Buntz, are clear esample� of the i,mpaat of our development. B. i�e feel that ineuffiQient co��ideration haa been given to the innerr con— sistancy of the �ite plan inoluding our three condominium buildinga.. The ga,�age plana xh3ah �e have preaented to the HPC and xhioh hsve been re�erted� are the final. phase of an overall �ite pian, the remainaer o� xhiah�has been already completed. The gagage plan�s have been developed by the same landsoap�e arahiteatural firm, Earth Plue Inc., and the same architeat, Thomas Blanok� s.s the already co�pleted ma3ority of the pro— 3eat. These professionals each have a great a�ns�unt of ezperience xith design in the Hiatoria Hill District. The HPC has been quite compli— mentary of the3r designs and our �rork on the portions of the building and and Iandscape cso�pleted to date� but den�y the .permit Por it'e final pha$e. Both of the�e profeaaionals feel atrongly�ahat the plans approved by the HPC, but �insati��aetory to the Condo�tinivm Arasociation�� tould �everely oompromise the quality af the xork already aompleted. Ae the enti�re site ie vieable from Marshall Avenue, xe all feel that the inner aoneistaricy o� the pro3ect ie felt and appreoiated by the publio as xell. we xould like to point out that the Board oF Zoning Appeals xas atrongly inclined to approne our original plan� as their eta�f report indiastes. A copy o� thia report ia attacshed. Tt xas only xhen a rep— resentative of the HPC testi�ied that the Commis�ion had a�#hority to deny any permit even after the neceaeary vt�rianaes had been granted� thet the Bosrd of Zoning Appeala moderated the�r approval o� �the variance� requested to those indicated on the Boar$ of' �oning Appeals xesolution of August 12th, a copy of xhiah is aleo attached. . � . 2'�5'7Q8 , ' We xorked c�oaely and seriously xith the design review aommittee of . , the HPC during the aourse of siz xeeks to develop a compromiee plan that xould be aaceptable to themselves and �ti11 not cauae �eriou� harm to our site plan. We have spent and addi+�nal ��00.00 on site plan studiea and revi$ions since our first cantaat xith the HPC.'�nd coneider— able time. We have shoxn the HPC eight different plane xhioh xere developed and ooneidered by oiuc de�ign people. They hane indicated a xillingneas to approve only those xhich xe wers forced to diecard due to ,their inaonsietancy �rith all the work xe hace completed to th3.a point. C. The main.t�b�ect3on by the HPC to the plan xe ha�re propossd, ie that it violateg Paragraph II of Section C of the St Paul Historia Hill Heritage G�idelinee� xhich reads as �ollows; "If an alley� °3s ad3aoent to an ; dxelling, a nex gahrage should be located on thie a11ey,Where alleys do _ not -eziatF ga�,rei,¢ea f�cing -�he_�tr�e� or drive�a�r aurb cuts may be accept— � able. Garage doors �ould not face the"��reet� �f thie ie �ound neae�sary �irig�.e garage doors should be u�ed. Parking spaaes s3�ould be screened from' the �atreet;and side�ralk by landsoapin�." We f'eel that the3r denial reeulte from an over—simplified application of the guideline� to this, a somexhat more complicated pro3ect. They ask that the alley be uged to �erve the garagee belonging not only to the bu�lding a�d3a�ent to the alley, as ouggegted by the guidelines� but to the garages on the nez� t�ro prc�pertiee to the north as xe11, �hich do not ad�i��n the alley. These buildinge, not being adjacent, use the alley acaees only by croaeing • property not oxned by themaelves. The plana approved by the HPC require a permamnent easement for ingrees and egre�s aaroae un—oWned property� to faoilitate parking Por the middle and north aondominium buildinga� an eaeement �e cannot presume �ill be aontin,ued to facilitate a garage plan �hich the condominiums feel is detrimental to their aite plan. Eapeaially for the north building, xh3c�h ad�oina Marahall Avenue, a �arage entrance from Marshall seems to be iri acaordanoe xith the guidelines. Pas�iaularly if a plan oan be approved by all asr�oaiations alloxing ingresc� and egre�a to all eighteen atalls, which req�aires only t'iro garage doore faa3ng and ent�ring from l�ar�hall gve.,and only on� txelve foot curb cut� this concession seems minor° in relation to the magnitude of the prablem soTved. As far as �creening and landscaping� materials and detaile� massing volume and height, roofing� door sizes, all of xhiah are other aonaider— tions within the guidelinee , the HPC findg our pian acceptable� ack— nowledging -�hat xe have gone to aon�iderable addtional ezpenee to make our propoaed garage$ aon:P;�vm to the csommon iaiage of a historically sensit3ve deeign D. The plana approved by the HPC have tb�'following defiQiencies; l. One plan leaves only 16 atalls for 18 eondominium homes. We all hav,e a more or lesa equal investment in our homes� and those xho xould not be allo�ed to build now xould permanently eacrifice that right. - Ke Peel thst is an unfair compromiee in the value of the hos�a� espec— ially for the purpose of resale. 2. The other plans require that the, garage etruature be broken into txo 1 or three separate buildings, xith txo or four stalls plaaed in an area presntly lanacaped with graes, trees, and hedging. The plaeing is certain to appear hapha�ard or poorly concieved. It will eliminate a subetantial psr°t of vhat already is a limited green apaoe �hared by 18 homes. It �ill also create area� betxeen buildings over xhich xe do not have ei.te control, for aecurity purposes. . . �. . �7 �--�a � Ne'aek tha�t you conaider the above information a� you repie�v our appeal� . ,and arrive at a decieion xhich acknoxledgee our eP�ort� in a►�commit�aent to the neighborhood to date, and xhiah allox� us to continue to improve our property. Sinaerely, ��X!L�. Kenilxorth Condomini ociation 223 A del Street, Paul Lsnsmere Cond iniwn saoaiation 231 Arunds�; S reet, St Paul l'0 /�:,/��o Elmxood Condominium Aesociation 235 Arundel Street, St Paul . ZUNING STAFF REPORT � - � . 5��'.. . � . . . . . . . . . ` . ., � � • • � •y . f,. . . ' . ' . .. ' . . ' . �' /1PPL�ICANTq RYSDAHL RESTORATION CO.. , , � bATE` OF HEARING 7/$/80 • • � • • • . . . . . . CLASS I FI CATION . � , �� . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS � Rezoning ❑ Var ance � � special Condition Use ❑ Admini�strative Review ❑ Determination of Similar Use ❑ Other ❑ Change of Nonconforming Use p Other � t.00ATION: 223-235 Arundel (Sw corner Arundel and Marshall ) � � IEGAL' DESCRIPTION: On file in Zoning Office ' f'ltESENT ZONING: RM-2 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 61 .101(d) , 62.106(b) STAFF INVESTIGATION & REPORT: DATE 6/25/80 gy Laurence Jung ; ----------------------------------------------- F'URPOSE: Applicant requests variances pertaining to setback� requirements for accessory bu-ildings on corner lots and setbacks from interior lot lines. in order to construct an 1;3-car garage on property held in..joint easement behind 223-235 Arundel . FI�ONTAGE AND AREA: Frontage of the three properties along Arundel is approximately 175' an the epth is 190' for a total area of approximately 33,100 sq. ft. SI_�E�AREA`-'CONDITIONS: This level , above grade corner site has 3 separately described propert esXeach containing six condominium units (the middle building currently in the pr•ocess; of:�;being recorded.) �All three were constructed as apartment .buildings during tf�e 1890's�,, but after being vacant for a number of years were purchased by Ramsey Hill �roperties�'some 5 years ago. Since then, they have been resold with the north and south buildings 'becaning condominiums. The applicant is the contractor doing the rehab work � as well as'�undertaking construction of the garage on behalf of, the two other property otivners to�;replace the• existing unenclosed parking arrangement in �the rear. There is alley access on the block. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by highly m�xed housing uses ranging from single family to multi-family structures. Most have or are currently undergoing some type of rehab or restoration activity. The property ad,7acent to the west at 450 Marshall is also a recent condo. � Bethel Nursing Home is located directly across Arundel . I-94 is 3 blocks north and Selby Avenue, a bus route, is 1? blocks south of the subject site. VARIANCE: �.Section 61 .101(d) requires accessory buildings on corner lots be setback in accor ance with established front setback requirements for the side street. Front yard setback' on- the south side of Marshall between Mackubin and Arundel is 25 �feet. Appli- cant requests, a 22 ft. variance to place the garage 3 ft. from the north property line. Section'<.62.i06(b) requires accessory buiTdings be set back 3 ft. from all interior lot li►�es: ':Applicant requests 1 ft. variance from the west lot line in order to construct up to 2 ft.'�from this line. Si e t r�ee separate ownerships are involved thus requiring similar 3 ft. setbacks for each accessory building, applicant is requesting 6 ft. variances fio�� two locations in order to construct one long (164.5')L-shaped garage for 8 cars. FI�lDINGS: ` 1 . Applicant',contends it would be impossible to construct three separate garages (one for�each property) to house 18 cars in the rear yards without unduly infringing on the 'remainder of the open space character of these yards . There would be no feasible way, according to code, in which to provide one stall per unit if set back limits � were enforced. The variance is thus based on limitations of the sites in terms of useable°':area and narrowness of properties. h n....�_---i -'--1-- '� - , � . • • - - 4. ; . a�s;�� 2. Applicant states it would 6e more practical to construct one long (164.5') garage � ' � :'�rather: than three separate buildings. All access would be to the alley. About $800 �er stall is p�lanned to be sperrt over normal construction costs so that the structure , may be aesthetically compatible with other structures in the area. . 3. �Although the 22 ft. setback variance on the north side and'the two 6 ft. setback ` `�"variances may be reasonable in order to accommodate 18 stalls, there dbes not appear 'to`be any justification for a 1 ft. variance from the west lot. line. Placing the � structure one foot more to the east would not appear to unduly infringe on existing rear yard area. . � . . __ __ _ _------_ _._ , � ,.,�� , . _ .- -- ,_. _�--- -- -- __._ , . �. � j�RYSDAHL: RESTORATiON C0. > � STAFF REPORT PAGE TWO �� § ' :-1'.. . . . E: '`' FINDINGS: (continued) 4. °The presence of the existing 5 ft. high wood fence along a portion of the north �„. ' k ipr.operty line would appear to help.obscure the proposed garage from view along �Marshall . The granting of� relief along the- north .property line should not sub- �stantially impair the supply of light and air to adjacent property nor �,unreasonably diminish or impair established property values in the area. . _�' ` 5. �EAside from the west p'roperty line, granting of relief would not appear to be a � �; �substantial detriment to the public good and would not substantially impair the rintent and purpose of the ordinance. 6. While increasing value; of the properties, the request for variance is apparently � not based primarily on a desire for econdmic gain. ' .. ; OTHER FINDINGS: Staff has notified the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission of the • variances requested and the July 8th public hearing since the site is situated within the > boundaries of the Historic Hill District. As of June 30, 1980, the Heritage Preservation Comnission has authority to approve or reject certain building permits that may be ``applied for within the District based on architectual/historic guidelines. The Corrmission has .not yet had the opportunity to comnent on this matter but could review the proposed �, variances at its July 10 meeting. The Heritage Preservation Commission has requested the ��:� Board of Zoning Appeals to tay this matter over until the July 22nd hearing. ��. � STAFF RECON�IENDATIONS: Based on Findings 1 and 3 through 6 above, Staff recommends approva of t e ft. and two 6 ft. variances but denial of the 1 ft. variance along the west property line. Recognizing the fact that hearing notices have been sent, stafif further reeorr�nends that public testimony should be taken but that final action should be layed over until the ��uly 22nd hearing pendinq Heritage Nreservation Conmission action . _ , ;;= �;.; �n.�.. v ��: F, �.� - :.��.� � 0;�. . ^ : : �. �'t; , " ' • d� � � d � � C� � �� 23 O �a .� . ,� . �------ ---.. �/��e , '�� a �.. -�— � A �, , rY ��-�� ir..�� .• �,� •-� �� Y ��V Vv �' � y V VC'� V '' P�f�Zr4 Q � rF rr ,�^ � � � i2 _... , , ,,; � O 8 . �,:.¢ � F. :: CAR�OL�. ��V� , .� �Mt�R1'IN ''l.UTH� �' . . � � : ? �r, �? � ' . KiNa .4�RK� � j � � � 5 Q O �� v � .. - ' �'� �r� : � A A � ( � ; � , .3 Q O •F z � • , i � � ' •,`� • i � ,. �2 i2 8oX v ',� . r4 J:f,��; C� O� � ¢- � O O � 6 � . �si � � ��ER/c,� . .�w . '��`,f ry�� _� . --�f�l�f��-�------ �I � "��- 7 �8 • �IS � V� � . 16 � 'i � ¢ ��- I' I � � a � k. I ,�` v � ;. 1 � . � -C}- �; ; t V � / � � • n{�� ; � i, ' \I� � � � I �r — v 1. � �� ' 1 � � r,j�� n �. _ I i I �_a'� � -- � a! --�� :..I. : � ' .« _<<. �,' . . � '.. . ' � v � ,- � ---' ;--� ' -r- .-,.r_._ : � 3, J . �/_ I � I I + s , — � , @�� '� ' � 1 I 7r � ' I I � T— . , � :�. �; � � � � ' I I � '_.._.�__ � � � I �e � j V � ` °>� � � v � ; I � Y � � v� �, �� ; � � .. �'�� I � i i � � ��d� i � 8 � � �5 I U� +4ti :,�� r ��.� �- �D�4Y?"o� ,�✓E �• �� x "'T_� � � � � � 6 6 i 5� ' �e i � 5 � v � . Q � �: Q 1- � v�*. (�� 4� � v v v .Y ;�� v � �� ;� � __�. ;: £,,� � . •� , �.�� _ . . _ _ .� '�� ;�:# R � �V a V i = V �ia. ♦� , i�" , �/ � ♦ �; �V 0 � 6 g I � � �; A� :� . _ �. — ,� �•■�■� � �! ��.�.,BY 1/,�. -�-� � ... � �k Q �� '��} ��`� � � � � V V �k � / I "*�..� � � j , V :. •A'�+n �' � � �� '��` . . � � ( V V � 1 v �� I i � �::��V��-.'�. . � � V � � u, I �'J S . � I ,� � �. _ � , � _____ . .. '� _�%L, y � i j � i � '' v �,� j C�� ).'�'�Q ' I i _.__ , }� ' � � - ''�'� � V o a � �I v � �~ ; {: w 4 O , c �� 2 � O �� A8 � ,�,....�, V �u� � �� Ay� a x � ,.� �I'�' , : U " � O � i � s s � ��i � r ;� A6 io �o � � �. � � � � , , � C� 4�- , i , , , oc� � � � , Y � � � _._1.. . . :. : m , � o � - . _ -- _ _�.� _ _ ,-- ---� -�-=-r- r-T-�-� r-�--,-T—r---r---,T-.,--, ---r. � r----�� -r-� �=--y �.__.__�_T____.r__r: �r—.r--r--r=-�=::�__: AREA MAP � - �PR�ICANT RYS.Lt4NL �Pf.ST��eATioN �'d LEGEND � „ � � �nu�� f11QT�InT nn��nnov . ., . ''�� y,. . _ .. . . . . . . . . .�. � � 7S� a � _ . , � �, . . , . �o e , .g , a� � � =-_-- - � ° � � � � : .� - � � � . � <; .. . •._ � . : i b � o .� ��` � 4 �� 'p � i • � .. _. . _ ..I �r'tl� g h b � ' o lf�• ��n' o b • �L . e � o f ._o . . .. ... _.. . � o o .o s. ... _ , , �. �� ,: o b � � t,. -�� q �� J . .� O 0 � qQ�� p � � � � V . �� ._yF. , i � 5� 1 Of.o o_ _ - ► s w, o '.O ♦e V L , ' O- ' °•-� : L i: 4 ^ �p � ❑1 . � _ t n �� o '�o } c ..h_ o 0 0� ..�. 1 0 0^- ° jf {' ' �� • ^ q p ^ �^• ;� o o O � ..� � � ._ �5� � .., .. •i.Nqw � �i � : O� s.I;{� o .� :�6 -��t.; . - ` , � o P 'O „ U ylr o ;b;` � � e! t)- � -'� � _�-`' -- �-- � a _ . _ 3 � t� ;�g �!� � � � _b i . o �' •Q qq _.�up� y .ri+ � '� � '�� . , � ^ e�- o � i,_�;: '-- � I`.�.'� ee .�•X : .`.� Q .. Q . � [ ' . o a � _..J r d � : C2i�4 w_ �5�� • ��': • . . ,^ __- •------✓-. - ' - - - o n o tt) �i. OC) .O• o :p ;��C O r. � � _ -'a'. • 'T . • : ° b �.Q' ' .� • _ a � p I�I � � ,_ �' �. � s� p , a . i�, e a . o• . ' _c 4 � ' ' o .I � � l� �p ,. ::� � :�► .o olf�o� p!b� � ,�� u:� ` 4 :o ��i a .• { ., i '.¢ . . ..� o � � . .� .. � � r .� ' • I ''--'� p. '^ a. -_ �;�?�a 1 p .��- o� K e . f. � � . . ', � � � .�.:. ::$. �-,,. h o'. � '1 . .� . o ^ O I r.�• �� _ �. �f.. -� a_�� A �5 D ii� �i: g 'i ` �. .�p p� ,•{�.. . • . }.! K2. .�) Cy: ¢� - .1: . .,. v' �v. . o ' _ � � Q � ��` 01 ": .i. :i o O o � O: e ; , � , ��' �� s o , . .O p ..Ck o ` �, z o1 r ► c. 4 N -• .. O X� � �. . ' .. � �` Q e �� , � _�,: 's _ � � F= ": • : ,�.� :�;g � . L $ ; � ; � �Q � '� - ! - - " `'"' �:� 'm =_ -'-` g ' o p .�»�`°�5 �' . ° �t -�s o ° ��_ $� 1-• � r � 4'_ � z =�_ F _S! .� _ � n /t " 4� � A I �.�. _ - ZO n ..p . 'e 0 � Ii O •O O. _ 4 O � _ ►. 1. x'> o 0 4 " o- -O �j: .d � .�o ' i� .� 3F' �; � � �: o_ 1i o � I � 4�� v��" ' �f F ' o , „ � o l b. � '�' •6. _o o ' { :� �I: 'o ,� iI ,• D ..+. .,� � , � ° ` n , � � •-i� � �� O��. � - '�, � -` . -�I�-„� C '� . �... L� o o . •'• .o � < i � r �-._ ��.� � 1!Y � ' .. '` 'I�I �. __ I KENT. " sT ` , J ,:� '.i"' n ., � �,y �. , :i� � 'b o• J ; �9 . .. � ' .r� ----y �/� �� s ° 4 °� t i,i t(� �` i• o �. o�� E" �� .V/ `��. � c � ��. _ft. I _ $ o �i..- ..$' '� Y a� .�I. 1 � ° - , �l 1 � . ,� � ! �� n d - - 'j a v � � I o 4. a . ��t.p E�.� �� I �� "� �-q 'O $ � -.� $ _Z�- � b II o o � .. ', j � ►•; '��. I i �� n,..,� 1��.. ' ' -: C) 7 , 3.• �,•,� 14 t�. :� .4 r%,� � � . C ��' � �. "" �° �' � a °� -, �,_ � ` .i�� '� : Y a o �, , o- -e I et .:.�+ c c. "_S�_ ;1�ti a" o x.f' M1 T� b• r` `a� '..� t�q�y.� �n � , o ' -0 I NUBIN . SL • p•� ° r' �- n • � . , • ► i ' � , , • —�' � '•� � �� . e � :o" a::: . .m3 < .._ <o:l . �c,� � ' . .f � j _�" o_ ' � p . I� _ . -} � � 'V� 4.l �� . x o ��I�- - � o --y ° .1 .4._m - � �Q.<1 � I. ° * C � �. n � �' •• '. . � � ._. �, •� .a s-- o li .2 e... tl � �. . r ��.��.. .�,..` � � ii. ^ . � . I � 4: n' r; �o�J; :� I J CF��i � �� r �K.'• 3l � �y: ..� . . v � o o .�.. S � ._ i �.: , • �• . � . ^ S ,� b n' � ' ^ p t d � ° a � b �_ � "'_ i, .6 i� ,_ � '� �, - ,€ s Sr ✓ � ^ �:� � : .:' � o _ -� ,p at a (��i _O .� ��^ i;] fi 4,r ei �i II" o T ' A f�� 'UF: � �' 1 �. • �: ��'J1 � :Q. :. I UNDEL z +-r � �.. 'n �� .'�o I o �'T �� a' o e r � �-,�b o � _� � c � *n � �'. '.�.1 �r:l� � .� A � �. �,...�? �.}•i,• r'�� 'o • � -f.. n� 1�-�. . o__ .:: 3- e ,e .� i' . � I�� ( � �S .� � �i �. �• ' e. , t �� . . \ O. +1 � , o ;r o ' ► •n ' �' ��. _t »� � o .� � N� .p ' �A . � � p , Q�✓O�� ` •. °� SrO� J • "� a' • ` F'�bt0� � '` ,, b � , f ,,,, .< .'�� b ,-f. a ;�� t • :8. �:" . _ � �� .. . . $ ,�� , a .. ,, [� .o , . . � ' •Yn . 4�r.rM� ' �� ry •�n t . ♦ , '. Qa �, ,• DO: •O +�' _ �: 0 ... /� � ' �y .. ... ` _ ... �y� _. ._.__ .._ ' '.. _._ ' _ "'_ /, ..._� � �._ ¢ + 3 � �pp+ •'n , �i I� J� �� jn,� � �?� �, �"` 'a. ! ,. ry t' � � � �i E.c � ' e i` p__ �L °/ b��'U . .. �. �:1�1 � �� . r • � .iY� y��.�� a �3n. � � �y'� � pX< '°�. �' 'n �+� o i'�• ��bv.. A, � �•r,:i7� � � . �}�` �..i � � .:.'� a - _ p ,d� 3::j.-..,.�^ "h e� r ' � � . " " . YIRGiM . ' "�` � � ��II ' � � ��.i}-xn .�` u �>r niO4�r , -��^ � - � � • . � e ' e o �. , I�� •,� �' � �. � �i (� �t.0. .� �s �� h OMiKlO ! o� �.�?. ..��' �yo y, lo" j.l. .�•`r ,�h,�, � � `'. , .I�.,' ' 9 ° -�: ., � fApH 10N `sr.: a� : 3• y o n ��" '�°. G o� a (a ��,b�. e U '�. o � �"� # . e �°. e � ' . . ' ,c•. . '�a_ 1� � � i��; ° ;�' ° .�{� : � .��._ � _ - �-� �� ,,: ;�►�- � _ Y ,( A � � '4)✓ O n �� • • ��1t . � S < ( o ( ° ` �� • �� '� .(1 "#` ��o � � � !_� o�. � ,. n' ^ ) N�N g � :��,)� . �� '_ r • c r � � �'IOM�• ' •'1 � 3 0 �" 1?0 OP � ,I�i�k I fi�� n ^ C�� .;�) t!t��: .ri i i. '��n� pe ,.i.. D�UGl45 DOV6US •�•�. � �L c�� 1' . '.�n• ..O C .U'.i1 ri�n ol, � � �,' �' �� 3` ,��.�J� � � i,:,'� g ^� �'- - �i r� T� �-. ,� �q;r�- _ � ,- _ ��:. -�� . . A S'-..'��• �� o 'T : -n �P ' ° � E ;; �.e e e e�ai:?� � • p. . �u�b. + �y o: '' • � �'� Swn� w� r�soa �� .� ��,;. T�` : �� rf. WE + . . ��o- �CS% �. � LJ ,• s ,• �� d' , � O + . �., •t�. '�• ) � ,€� .• r. > m ~� 1 � � �� wJtr .�Met�. + . . �� ' �� . ' .. 'n ` ia'1 sc 1��. ' r _ �t�. �`_ � ;�,:N r ��: , ., . ,. `� J �. s °i 'L� "(��:.o� ' .t� ,-{ . � �•- lE CH�, 5T L �. •�1� . . - I, . � . �.�,x..:�..r+ ?'.: I �.o•ern( , i . �.��•. • ' .. .� �� ?�. �; \ . � i I � � w� « S,, i1r• t •, o 'a' " '�,a0`, "i`� b'�'o• �` `�;�•, �' -�� •r^ y� � .� :,•�, ' � e � �'° ' ,. �V �� ' � � ':`� < ��." �• ci. � `� '� � � •-r.�..��.'"i "!",._.sr — •'1: ,{,w st,"o/�� _ . n. _ `. O �y; � i ',..� � • �V� - ' .111� f� f; '�J t �� '�•. :. �. � � ! f�, ,O• � � . � �� city of saint paul � board of zoning appeals resolution zoning file number 868a � date Auqust ,2, ,980 _ WHEREAS, RYSDAHL RESTORATION C0. has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 61 .101 (d) and 62.106(b) of the Saint Paul �Legislative Code pertaining to setback requirements on corner lots and interior lot lines for accessory buildings in an RM-2 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on July 22, 1980, pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements , of Section 64.203(a) of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the applicant and the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission reached an agreement prior to said public hearing wherein the variance requests were amended; and • � WHEREAS, the St. Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon this agreement and other evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes attached hereto, made the following findings of fact: 1 . That the strict application of the regulations would result in exceptional practical difficulties upon the applicant as distinguished from mere inconvenience by reason of limitations of the site in terms of amount of usable area and narrowness of properties. 2. That granting the amended variances can be made without substantial . detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the . intent and purpose of this Ordinance. � 3. That granting �he amended variances will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties or unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area. � 4. That the request for variances is not based primarily on� a desire for • economic gain. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 61 .101 (d) and 62.106(b) be hereby waived to allow construction of up to 18 interconnected garage stalls in the rear yards of 223, 229 and 235 N. Arundel, and 3 feet from the rear (west) property line, and 21 feet south of the north property line of 235 N. Arundel in accordance with the amended variance and the site plan attached hereto. m oved by Mr� �r�ic Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are final subject to appeal seco n d ed by Mr. Peterson _ to the City Council within 30 days in favo r 6 by anyone affected by the decision. against � , , � 'r . .� ... . :�� ,1� ' � ZONING BOARD r APPLICATION FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE ICITY OF SAINT PAUL O � 5 G,L� � � A VARIANCE OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER � � ,SECTION �•� �PARAGRAP F#„��`_�! � IS REQUESTED IN CONFOHM�TY WITH THE POWERS VESTED IN THE BOARD OF 20NING AF'-- ' PEALS TQ PERMIT THE � �' �j' � ) � � ' ' '� ' � �� •+t�-�� ON PROPERTY ! DESCRIBED BELOW. ( �� . � , . A. Applicant; NAME: � �'� � �� E ' " ' I�CY v• .. , � � �, S � `h ' �t'i� v�' ADDRESS — OAYTIME TELEPHONE NO. �� °" � ��7 .� ZIP CODE�� ' ,�,. ' 1. Property interest of pplicanr. (owner,contract purchaser,etc.) , .� � � • , (�.d( � ! . l.�t.t. �!�; �,�j r'�It7�'faU.�(!,�� , � � � J�CsC��?�, �� ,c:: 2. Name pf owner (if'different) , ` 1 ' • ;i' /) ' � K, r � l�.c.;,. :,�� r • „l�v. %)Sivl. ��r�tu.�oc�f,,. ,. , Pr p ty Description: ADDR ESS � �.i r 1• ��, ;;� �'7� �f�1( ,-- � ��._ _ /-- xsr � �. egal description: LO � BLOCK ! ADD. �+p � . � � � < < - , r �;�7 : � at s,ze.� . , p•�.v`�. :f� — �'b ,.., �.; , /��( ' resent Use f'�� r��V� Present Zoning Dist. �!`�` � � -- � .�s nt for Requesr. _ . �„�rr roposed use % ' Ld+. , � (t.:1�l 5 � r u �' Co ��t/(�� a i� .�� ; � �;-'� 'r��t c:�r► �1 ;�rPs e,��Yy -P�,-.;s��%� �O t.'?;7� ,i r��y /(�� . –. ",� f�at physical ch�racteristics of the property prevent its being used for any of the parmitted uses ^ , �`�' n your zone? (topography,so I condi ions,size an shap of IoI,o c.) �\ �s"' � _�i�- •;, .�.�� .,�J s�� -P/ -� � �o�/ v��v�,v .e.�,,;✓ , , �� g(�y' l�;�J/i� �� f(.'�� (' Y�l� � �� ri!%•��'rl/h�W' Q-fila.�(�r M - . . '� ;; �i �� ,.,�,�� ,v(� c�//t A e��% �,, l�.s,/!' <.�e>f�t �f d�sru,e.ae:t� /. fate the spacific variation re `festad,�tving disyanqes ere approp atd,�(f GYs1 ��,�i ,�.✓k. � �i ��•:-c/r i�.r � •� > �j«,��f '�lv�c�G (� t��l,� l� /'a��y c /,► �' , � . �;,��, � 7 ��j'� /)y�,r �S'7�u a�i7 � � e�f -,� ib . ,. �J�i/� ,'�Or l��r �i�„ �� U�,� y�`I .,;�, ./..v, f�i �r� �(�3 �7 �1 ��,�.�t�/ . �� ,"se t J�T,•�i� t�(6 i , f��r�(�� u, �'p�� 1(,i.r�� ., ✓?. +� T,.�� ..�:Y �j�,�.�� /�-� `�� i.`�'�xplaJin how Your case conf��mi to each of tAe foNo�i y. / �� ., � �/� � l• . ( , :�u �J i t� '"l�Q. .�U YV' �(�.'Y�l� �• ,1�1� t�� - C a. That ihe strict application of the�ovidions of�the Zo�ing Ordiancg woul recult In p�`u�l�ar , ' �' ��i or exceptional practical difficulties,or xceptional undue hardship: / � � t.i 1 W10�� !'O�.') al c�/ ' . ��4, ��°') ��?�1.L�F 1 S ✓�O �/�y-f�IQ �/G, � i . ' �,•j�� , ,r „�� l�� . Vc��1 �f 1 Vi�t� `�� Cl�J Gi.�ID�`�nr1��'�'� � �:`-c4.. f ;,, ;rluc.Y <<, �•�aa ,Sa;��/ i $ OB0000 �fl�pIDR1l��9S+Bb ,��. ' �c Il��R U N�Y b. That the granting of a variance will � � � fi(' �P�! �; not be a substantial detrimant to ' �� '�� C J public good or a subttantial impair- ,1 , mant of the intent and purpose of ;� ; '� �; �I�Lv �h f 2onir}g Ordinanca. � t� /��: ��re u �,��f� �� t ,�� r Q�t�r'�� `'' . , ' • � � ; l 1�t.t'.itill 1i ./1�i1� ' �� , � i 11+ )l�u�''' K_i��V I ��r��' U` � ,�, , :�1 . �„M1� { �,1,� �U,. (� �!. �-'(l,sL�:J (� W '; � — ; � -�;�4� ��,�;;�K� • , ' NOTE: • HIS WILL N0�7�E PROCESSEDyV�THOUT qc CQjA�LETE SITE PIANI � / �,U � / �., �"• /��,�/ • •(,J . .; Signature ` � .-• �-r� ��. ( . ,f ,' �"1 f!,,: ✓ . :. � / ��L x a. f.�..,I,":%/f�'�" i;�.:o a o�,.�� (/ _/ . . , , ��-�� MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, JULY 22, 1980 PRESENT: Mme. Surrnners; Messrs. Grais, Kirk, Parrish, Peterson and Woods of the Board of Zoning Appeals ; Mr. Jerome Segai , Assistant City Attorney; Ms. Wendy Lane of the Division of Housing and Building Code Enforcement; Ms. Beseman, Mr. Jung and Mr. Torstenson of the Planning Division Staff. ABSENT: Mme. Morton. The meeting was chaired by Samuel Grais , Vice-Chairman. RYSDAHL RESTORATION C0. (#8680) : A request for variance pertaining to setback requirements for accessory buildings on corner lots and setbacks from interior lot lines in order to construct an 18-car garage on property held in joint easement behind 223-235 Arunde�l . The appellant was present. There was no opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Jung reported this matter was laid over from the meeting on July �8 for the purpose of allowing the Heritage Preservation Commission time to review and ' submit their recorr�nendation. The public hearing portion on this matter was closed. A letter dated July 14 was received from the HPC stating they agree that a garage could be built on the site, and the construction of 1 garage structure rather than 3 separate structures is more appropriate. They indicated that they would not be in favor of a variance from the Marshall Avenue $ide since there is additional room on the site to put all the garage spaces. They also requested the alley entrance be the only entrance to the garage area and that the garage should be 3 feet rather than 2� feet €rom the west lot line. They recommended that based on findings l , 2 and 5, they have : no objections to the two, 6 foot variances , based on finding 6, they would � recommend denial of the 1 foot variance along the west property line, and - based on findings 3 and 4 they wou]d recomnend denial of the 22 foot variances along the no.rth property line. Mr. Jung also reported that the Heritage Preservation Commission's Design Review Committee recently met with the appellant to review alternative plans for the construction of the garage. � T�ie Committee and the appellant agreed on the acceptability of several options, each of which would have a 21 foot setback from the front lot line. The appellant presented three sets of plans to the Board all of which met the 21 foot setback requested by HPC. , Mr. Parrish made a motion to approve the two, 6 foot variances , approve the `�� 4 foot setback on Marshall Avenue based on findings 1 and 3 through 7 of the ;�:'�: � staff report, and recommended denial of the 1 foot variance on the west side of the site. Ms. Summers seconded the motion. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 6 to 0. ^ Submitted by: Approved by: /' %' /� �/ � ca�G LvVM�Gwt.t � �'^�`'� , �' �� -�1/ � � � V � /� Laurence J. Jun Gladys Morton, Chairman . i • �, , ' �� , ' _ t�; . �-;� ,,.� MINUTES OF THE MEETTNG OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN � CITY COUNCIL" CHAMBERS, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, JULY 8, 1980 PRESENT: Mnes. Morton and Summers; Messrs. Grais, Kirk, Parrish and Woods of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Jerome Segal , Assistant City ' Attorney; Ms. Wendy Lane of the Division of Housing and Building Code Enforcement; Ms. Beseman, Mr. Bunnell , Mr. Jung and Mr. Torstenson of the Planning Division Staff. ABSENT: Messr. Peterson The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton , Chairman. RYSDAHL RESTORATION C0. (#8680) : A request for variance pertaining to setback requirements for accessory uildings on corner lots and setbacks from interior lot lines in order to construct an 18-car garage on property held in joint easement behind 223-235 Arundel . The appellant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. � Mr. Jung showed slides of the site and reviewed his staff report with a recommendation for approval of the 22 �ft. and two 6 ft. variances but denial of , the 1 foot variance along the west property line. Staff also recomnended that � final dction should be laid over until the July 22 meeting pending Heritage Preservation Comnission action. A letter was received from the Heritage Preservatian Commission requesting that this matter be laid over in order that �"� it cquld be considered at their July l0 meeting. Dennls Rysdahl , 223 Arundel , testified that he was managing partner of the deV�lopment company doing all three condominium projects. ' Both the north and <` south buildings are completed and have been sold, and have been turned over �.�` to the condominium association. The middle building is near completion with -` all units sold and awaiting final details for closing. He said because of . security problems , there �is �a real need for the garage space. It is becoming' more and more of a requirement when selling these apartments , that garage space is �Vailable. 'They have committed themselves to building 6 garages for the middle building. The garage space for the two end buildings come from the consensus among the owners to cont'ract to have them built. They feel they' have a right to continue to improve and secure their property. They studied a number of design alternatives and. felt� this .design was the best aesthetically; ` . _ it adds balance� to the site because� of the 3 ma,ssive buildings in the front of;- the si te. ` - �; � '. ��ro �, Ron Seve1^son said he live,s in the southernmost condominium and spoke in suppor� Y�� of the praposal . He was concerned about the winter and his need for a garag�, =i`' He felt it would be a hardship on him if the variances were not granted. Laurie Farsberg, 223 Arundel , expressed her concern regarding security and felt it wauld be an improvement to,the property and the neighborhood. Alice Browne, 223 Arundel , expressed her concern regarding security and felt ;;:' it would �be an improvement to the property and the neigh6orhood. � . Roy Dorn, 235 Arundel , spoke in support of the variances mainly because of security �^easons. , ,;�� ' ;.�, r � � �� . - . . : �`7�7� � � . . RYSDAHL RESTORATION C0. (#8680) ` PAGE 2 �, , Robert Buntz, 460 Marshall , designer and deve1oper of 0'Halloran House, said ' he felt it would be good for the neighborhood and the residents of the condominiums. He did not feel that the 1 foot variance would make a substantial diffe►^ence to 0'Halloran House and felt it should be granted. Pdt Strang, 460 Marshall , President of 0'Halloran House Condominium Association. reported that she was speaking for the Association and presented a petition in : opposition from the members. She also presented a letter _to the Board stating ;�-_ the Association's objections. Sheila Cullen, 460 Marshal] , 0'Halloran House, said the residents had purchased the units without garages and their reasoning for wanting the garage space did not merit an exception from the code. Terry Pfoutz, City Planner for Heritage Preservation Commission, reported that �'� he did not wish to address any�of the design issues related to the zoning ��:;; ' variance request at this time, but pointed out that the Heritage Preservation, ��; by virture of City Ordinance, would have an opportunity to review the building 'Y ` permit application for the garage. He felt it would be appropriate f.or the f r� Board to lay this matter over until they received some input from the Heritage �,,: PreserVation Comnission. _ '.'' Dennis Ry$dahl comnented that the garage they are proposing would house 18 cars; The parkin9 lot currently parks 18 cars and there would be no additional '` parking problems created by constructing the garage. He felt that to deny the ,�"' variances would be setting a precedent and moving away from what is really necessary to continue redevelopment in that area. � Hearing no further testimony, Ms. Morton closed the public hearing portion of � the meeting. ��x, �� Mr. Parrish made a• motion to lay this matter over until July 22. Mr. Woods �;; � seconded the.motion. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 6 to 0. �`� ; , Submi tted by: Approved by: � � �.,� , n C � �� ' . . , .b'� Laurence J. Jung Gladys Mor on, Chairman , , ....+ . , B � ��I -1-� j�?� �� ,� -..► � R _ � ��, � , , I ' -'°� � ��/��' ,� .�,/ ' �_�L.j ' '� ' !�G =`' j - ° � � I� :� � !....,/ t. ��:j., � / , , r I ./� /�vl!/1■�I'.:I i�7ILiL:'�/ ' rL� �� / / fl r I .� _��fLl ��r�� ' �l� :'�/ _.:a� r rM I !�� '�' ,� / , �! .��'�- � � � ,- � � ,�_ ., , . . ; � ,�,,, ,�--� , , i� �,.1 , .�, �� .,�i ' �!:��' � °' � � �''° �i ` � I ' �• �' ' /, . �� • / ,�6.. �,�.. �� 1 .r �ilr��y:�_'� �f��`-- � ,�� ' � � ' '' ( , L,t • • / '�� • `N ' .�, , I ' � I� ,, I i � � ,� r � ��/.�� ''" �' ♦ �- ��j� � ' � `=:3, I ,� i ,�, I ' �% L L.' �� _/ <L[rL r. I / I ��'� 6''.�,� ��i� //�/ �` /s.t.. !i/i l� IL�ri' � ��"- � �:/ I�� :/ '.// _:'> , I j ` �,J•� � i /� �-... .- 1� � ��' ��► 1 .u.s� i_ %.7�� % ..'.�1 ' � � � �� i � � � �, ,% � .� - i - i� ' �r� �. � I / i � � .�'` �'�..�. �� ,t�� _'� � � �� /r / /� l ' I ' +r1w.1 � �' � � . I / ` � / �t _i��(a� a/ �i � I�i V i[� .. � � ( ' � � ' ��f �1 � _�i�� .1�� ' " I �� 7 � „�' �.• ♦ �� i � � , � ` . .k :� .. w . � � �. �1 ,� . ^ . . _ ,. , , - . .. �..t.x;, �. x ,4 _ � � ;�. ,\��. *� .1:..*i 'E�.�� i. .1`� ��l\�a.i ,�.�Sj'„` -�c.r-, `\~ � � +., 'r��+�� i`.�..� . - . � . � . , w � � . ._�� i�'•��t,.�..� � i t'."v.e{`�� '1 �i�. p..�\ � � [ ' - _ .-.. . . . . .. . . . , �� . � . .� � . • . . .. - � i'� L•k i� �' �L. j y }4'' - '� - �.`�'- e> - 1. �� t.". ,.}.-- . . . . . . _ . . .� �. � -. . . - � � . . .. - . , _ . ` _, \ � . . . . � . , _ . i. �S. , j"�-s" �. � 1� a a� �.w' ' �-'_ � �i.. t ,,. � ` ��4 ; h ,, _T � . _ � .:�;,::.. .�.�.% � �`, ��,.��..4:.��..:�.� �',F..y. i . .��, � � ,_.. . . . ' . . � . . - `, ' :� , . . . . - ... � £ . � _. ,:a � �: _ . . ' . � \ . . - . .. .. . . .. . . � � . . �� . . , . � ' . =.k ` ,, '.�. � ,:: ` a,s. �� ..:s , #, :� .. . '�`i �•. „ i _.�� _ ; . {i'_�; .�, �:` _ . . ' .. [ . .. ; � '' .•'� .. � . . . . �. , . . • `�` l � '�t i - \�.\i.4 �.�^�t'"�.�� .�'+, ...�a*.��. . . � _y'z, - •`3;-� - i a � . 'r , � . � � . . . •�t�� ... ., ,l ;�4".�.:�' . �i" ,t t "i\�' ° �. . � � � . � . ' . . . . . 4 i . � � �. - . . . ` tn ' .. . , . . � . ' . , + �l r y�� + .`� ,r `'� � - _, - � . . . __ � � ... �;�., � '�* � i 1 ' , ¢ .. - . � . . � i .. . . . _ ''\ S*t\ y � t � '� , - .. . . . �i , . . - � .. . , _'.� �� _ ;" , . '. . : � - _. � . . � � . . y ♦ ' 'l'�ti� �t. � . �. . �.. . ii� .� �..\#d �� t�� .t � , . \ . . . � , �-.. . . . . .. . . f � 1��` 4� ` - ,�� , � ``�. t '-� t1 ,l� � � _ . ..• � ._....... .. . . . .. 1.^ � . - • . '�; �- t .. . � .. . z .:., _-: c , , , . , .. _,.t_;r .. • ' . �-.� 't.,�' _ �;_ � ,.� , ', .�: - . • :� . � � - � - i�r .. ', . r. .. . .-.. . � ., - . . .. � . �- - <A,..� . . .. ... .. . . 1 - . � , . . � . � � . �.\ . . . � . , . } ` i' � .....1 ,� y _.. . , . , . 4 ;•.j' .,._ L , . .. . . ' � „ ...-.� . - ..�.:-?. L . . •� � ;, .�.. .,.. .' ., -. .' � . ._� � � . . . . . .' . � . . � - .. � , . '`l.. RA 'a..: t' .��. + - '�4 �y+�h .i.S. . 3 ��.�.�, . ._ �� . - � � 1 � _ -� ' � � ' - .. , 1,..; � a L .. .`: .. . �` '�.``��..� ��S�''�:. . ,�. , . it . , � ♦ . . . . '�: : ,...� �' _ .��.�-`...�.. . .�,�, H;- ' . �-. ,..-.l �t- 1 '1? ..5..�....�- t ' --.� ,� �'^. . . . . ti . ti, ,1 .. T..� . i \ . `ti ; . . . �� .t . - . , . .._;t. a,`, � ' ' - S� • . � . i' `. ¢ � �r :'a, t \ 'r \ ,�;� , ., . . . t ` � , ♦ . 4 `•��'� . < � =�' � �-• . _=��a .s:.� � ��''w�� . � � •��>t��- w.. • �• � ,� . � � t . • ,. . � �� . � . . . . . S � '^S ' . � . : �, . . � . . - � ' .S �yy,� � .� �.�' . .. .� i . . _ . . � .. ..,�. .-4 �S`--'�_,r' �,k..Y .. '�y ti _.. . j k`�� .. , .. . . ' . - .. _ . . e �� '�� ,� r �!/ 1/(� !�� / / d / � /Li � ' ��// • /�� //. /I �' �.ir � - � - , I - n� �. � .lr�� - %� - ,-� 1 ,, �.�� _'�,j -i . /�<<�.s i ��.: � � � � � � � s � � �� i � � / L' lv ��l.� ' � 'r � �� 1� � ��.,��I1II�Li�� i Lu.' _<< /�'L / � L,��.%�.r► . �i �L�_'' i� iL� !/ • ;�� , � � 1 � i/i/ r/L�!L�I � 1_ //� .,`. . �� /' .�� /, ., i. �i .� ��% : ��i ! �iL '�I�il� / i � r / �� l � ' `/� / ' � �/`/ `/ � / `,� ��I//�./ ;� %r L . .'�L. /�/ / 1 � ��._ L,.� I��,, i �.� i � �:.1...- _,y � �e�� - , . .i� � !��. : ��' '�� .�,-� -��,�.��. ., ,% rL �'� �/ lL � _ /I�� / '��iL✓� �� ' / �/ � � /�.� '" ��. .�.-�... is. i.►, �� L' LL' ' ' / /`� ' �' � ,/ // .L/ i �� _I�i i<.� ai /L�_ -.. /�� 1� ;/ �..� �/�,� �� .►J I�%�.��1 . � ' i � �� ✓� � � L� � . i ��i� �/� � �� I. • � 1i� /lr /, r.� _ �/ , � �.�', . ./ � ��L'�Ls //A /1��'�/ �/ ��L�% �� 'i/� • .�ii1 �.� � � _ � _�_.__'y_______ ___ __-_.. . . , . '. ... -. . �'; +. . . -' .. ..� . � . . ' ,_ . . ' . E _�__ _'__-_�_.__ .._,.__'__'_ i __-,.'�"'� .: .. . ; . _ . . . .. . - ...r .. .. ., ' . . . . . .. _ . .. . . , . - � .... � y. . . , _ , , - . . ..- .. -:. . � .. .. _. . ' . - ^_ _T-_'-___'-__. ... ___�__ � ' ___.__-__ '_-"'_.- ��- ��_�."'--_.'"_--_�.-____��.-"__...� � ____`_'...^-'-�,. . ' • . . . ' � . , .� " .� ,.. . . " � . ' . . _ . . . . . . - . . . � � .' ', � . � .. � � . . _t _ . . . . . . . . . , � __' _'__ . _-__ . ___��-....�._ -^, , _ . . . �� f ` ' ' >.. � . . - . .-� . � .,. �� . . . �. ! � �♦. : . ��:. - ' � �..... �. .. . . ., ..- , .. � ' . . _ _ . . :i+ .� . . . .. ` . . __--___ �� . . . -'. . :�� : .. _- "___._ -_ -_S�.i_._.___ _. . .:. _____--__'_"_.....��___._._... -__"--_� . . . . . . . , . _�._ ____ .� �. "-• �' '. ' . . �. �. ' ' .. . - . . � ' � . . �. . y : .,. . ... � .� . ,.. .. i . . , .. ' ". �. � . . �. ��. �__ __'- __._ ... .F ,,_ " ' ._ -�.____. �� _ � � , i .. �..�. .. . � � ~ � . . . . . `..� ': . . . � . � . �:�:. ` . .. . . . �' � - ... . - �' 'r ' � .� �. . �, . . �. . ' . � . � i . ..._ . . �.- . . .. .. , . . __ '_'"__ `__' ________-'-'___ �`�. • - . . - ' . . l�. _. .. . . . - � "� . . . . . ' � .' . . Y . ,. 1.. f� . . . � '. .. . . . � � � � � . � ,t ,. �. � " . .. . � . � . � ' . . • ' ' . . . �� ' :.k . . . . . , . . . . .. � � ` � � ' . � � � .. . - . . . . . � - ... . . S' .��}� , � . .- . . . ' .. _. S . . . . ' . fi f� �� I / � � L�✓�,'[�� s�� L i�%�I._� '" �/ / ",:►e LL�� , '�% , , �' ; � � �;%� � - � i , �, _,� .. . � . ,;%� �_ .! .. -� . ...� � - ,�I • , / / / �1 ,,.-i,��; �/ �� / , � ,/. �i/ -a. ' I ' s � I�..� s�� ,.•.� ._ �� c.� I� �� t�'.�L ,..d/�,.r �.�. .''.//.[L...� I I � `_ . / Z�°��-'-•� s.. °L11�w- . ( � ; r .�� f� �� . I�//%��1 /1� _�r ,.� �� i',.�_' i�: � ,i - � �, _. % �� _ �� ' -�. I ��_.�.� , ' '/ ��!� .?�� L._'� i' /'�� ' � � _��l -t.. � - ,� ' //./ �_.��' ' .:LI`1� I �� s/� _ �i ' ��.J� �iu.. 1 � t � � �• _�/L�...� L.�� !� � � i/i�� /_�-�' � I�� , � � '� � � � � �� LS.:' � � �1� _ i � �. �� ,�._ i� . , � I� � i�� ; I �� . ��!�.�I�-. /e r ' � -�� . �.. �_ `' If/ / � / .l/ / I! 'i/�� ' ��'�� I . ; . ii�J iL :':/� / ��iiltl��/�� :'r :... I ��1 _ � , �!. . t ' / ` / �/ �t► Iit t..i! I ��L �/� ' �� i l ��.� � / �'/%L I - , � . . . e /� I ` � d� � �. - � % �� ` � �� I f1/ /I!I � . r/�i�� L.� .�l�i �/ r` I I I i I �� _ � + , _ . . ' . ^`1. , _\ .. - ` 1.. .� � .. . . �i1.-. , .. +� j�'.t -. . � l��. : . _ ' , \ , � . . . � , - _ . \ " � . . � .. � � � - . . . . . . . � . . . - . �� . . , . . - . � . i ' ' �',ti � � .. . . , . . _ � � . . . � . . �__..:�.�t�.�. .-`� �. . :�, ' . , _.. . li.*1-�� . . . - . . �,,t�� ` �,�;"e :�`. 't - � . ' � . '� . . ,,Y . . _�i � - . . . `_ . - . �. - . . . . _ . , _ . _ . - .....� ,` . - . ., � ., . _ �. . �:� �� . . , � s� , �� - . . . . � .�° � X`�, 1 1 . . � S� ' � � - . � . . . " . ..�`. � � . 't . � . .. .. - , � �. � .. . . � � .. . 1 , . . 1 . . . . . � . .. . , . . � � k,. � . a � . �- ' ... . . � � �`` �,� � . . � . � �'' .,...� � . • l. .v.. �. . — -� . 0.. 1`.... . . � � ,� .�. 1� _ . . �, . -.\ � ' ' ''..l ` . .. . , . ' ' y�\ .�", t �..� " � t. � . . . '\", v _ \ _`` _ '��` �i+�. 'wr.. �� . . ` ��\. • . . ��', �i. ...i�'•{ � . . .,.,_- � � '` .' . ! tii f"y � � `� � '�1 -,+i' � ' \ 1 j ' ' � ,,, _'y —� , -'1' ... , l� .... • - . l,,,�• �, � ti'�' i �� , t. . . . „`�. ; .. . �. .�1 �: �� °+--. ��;,.`. _..:�' • '. , ,,,. � -;--.,_ � r' � - .� . � _ � : , �, . :z 4` .. �, ' . , �. � . , . :.! :� �.�.;! �`�s , ^ ,;�� .. ti; a , 'c:� � ,, ��, - • ,.:_ f ,�._ '•�.;`� � 3 j �. \ , L _;.. : �� ' ,_ `,, , � , ,• , t. �'k� ,�.. '. . ,�i ,-., _ * ;""t'!��``� ��' y. \' .,� �j 4' _ +•` s } � ., .\ , � , * � � �\ .�1,� � �..e 1 ... � . � '. .:_ . . . _ . � .i� -��o . , - . a . ,\ _ , . . . - T.�� % ti ��.��'.: � `, ' c z� ��'� .Tti�� 1 ,i�.' �1. � , . . . �� / . .� . �' r�" �` �'`ti � ,�-, ..) :, ' ' # i �� / i �I ! /.�� /� �� / / '� � /// /' _�_��/�'j.IL✓ `:/ !'.�u,.'�"��iCL/ /��/ � / � . ' '/ _� �/ _1-.� �l./ Iti/ �� . i // . t r ` / I, �� ' ��`�, - ` %,►. !��,�� /_ � , �.�,�.,_- . _�� . ,�r 1�I �� , � ' �/ , �.��.A ' ''� . / J � L � !i.,.j��, .. / � % _ � i// �� i..r�� `� ._ , i_�� .-�/ �• L�o , % r .�` _�� '� / �/ � /ri/ �/ I_� .(' IL _".1�v /�� .�,/ li,/,'� , .,.�.. . , ��' , _ � - , � � L �i� !�� L 'i.�.i��// .� i � � .�;,!' ' ,� i, . � << .� ..i r . ` ��`��. �—/.././�/ '/��/ ' f i '�./ � � — _ T.� �� s.. �' � •'�e� �L..� � : / . % - �. �' � _i.��/ �` � � d % i � � . /rL_ .;., / � I � � " ��i-' -' � 1�`l'.G:., � ��o � �� iL� .' E�� /�t �/�'O�, /� 1_ . i! / � •'�.., �`� .r//L,i '�.�� • / _�_ - � - � ��r �' / / / � i . / � Y � �1� `_" �`O1� 1 .1 i � �..[1/' / . � �l �� L♦/'.�'/,�� _ � ' / � _ � w : . . -�� ..� _ ��_�._ _._____.____._____-- ------- . � , , , , , ., .. . �; _ . , _ , , . � . - - - ----- ------- --. ___ _ , --�-- -------- � . � . � . . . . . . . 'L ` .. " .. . � `.�� . �� ' � . � .. � .. " . y. . . �.. .. . , . - . O .. ' . � r. .. � � �. � �. . � . . __ _�_. _�-....-�-. . . . . . - ` . _, , � . . . . � . � . - � � .. . ...�...-_ .: .. ' . ��-. . . '. . . . . ._. . . ..' / . . . - ,. �� ' . � . . . --- * . ' -_-`"'."A.' . . . __ . ... . . . � . . .. , . " . . � ' . . .. ' . � � . _ •, ... ..� � .. +.-: . � . .. .: :. . . .� .,.. � . ... ;... , .. . ., . . ' . ��___--__--_______..__'-_ . _-__ . - � � ' . . . � � � ' . . }� . .. _ ._ '__- ' .♦. =- . � . �` ♦ � �� _�,�� 1..�,� I I +I , � � 1 4 Ni' ,.� � �...:'h � � �� `�� I ' I ... •�j A» �j1♦ Z `� ' �r a I i �� r � �k,� � _ `+�4' �I�Fr, � � f� �:� , .� �i � ,r . �# `'�, ''� ' ,� ,-,`�- : . . ' �� a� � ., r �...... ,T , �_ � . ,,r ;�:�' _. — . . 'o :{ a � �� 1 � � � �' : +'r � `�2�;�� .,+ } >. � �.ti �, t` � (�.�e x �` . t� F�' ,� ..��v � i �� , • . �. � • ;v�'� ° ` � �r � �A�..) � �- •c�;r� ,r��;`a� 3 � � � � �illi ti��' J4' R4 p " • ..;:i � � � � °' : � ; �! �t �t� ' .. 3. .I � t;� '�, �� .. -`�..� ' :..J . 1 ��`� t - ' � ' �� ' .��. . � 7 � i � I � � J � ) � � �/° / Fdi� Rg�� # ' , . . r� _ ��p , � ` � .�� ,, ,�.. ,��. , , �. � �`� ��-'�� ,�, '" `: _ , �,(i�,, � ��. '__� 'i!;I'� . . _,_ , :, .. ..r �1r� _� _ � `` f""'.�. � ��, �`��,. � R � �r � � � s� ��'�� x � �.� � � ., � �. ., �� ,� S � ��! M1S; e��: •. ' `M. 3 h !? :� .%�/ � 3 � i ^�'t 12 =': � �� + �� ' ''; .e� x• '4 3 � �(: : � �► � , ^ -�t 3.�fi � � �.' ?.�� i n i �� .�y ' . . . I y�� . ��•.�(� �l �//// . . . �� 4 / .� . ' ... . . '� 14 ��.'''� - .... ......� ._. a: ,.�.' \�� k , '3,. ! ntY^- . t �� ♦ �,��, � �n�""F�, . � '� :'! 01,..Y S �Y1 �� Y � �-�ti .� ��"� r F 4 ,+.,". .a ry �4' ,��',� W a - r..A D.� { �� .�. s '� � �� • ��. f �'w ) �--...f '� Y�,. � 4 ;':.. j Y �i�i 3: � � �. � v �� i �!�j � � ' � .� '� � ;�� ,� I � z' � #�'�' f�r� r : , � \ `V:' M . �}Y�'..��t � 4 y.� l �`. ' 'Y `� 1 { � k �' i�? 1 ♦ � �; � : • � � � f�� . � i , �, i �� t- %��g,: �� 9 ; I . r �- � � a �9� 4.. � y � �,�} � . .M � 4. h �` 'i. 1A. �ryx.k. . . � i� � � .,x s � i �_. 'f 5 ,m�' r ♦ r` ��y �-an � r i:„�``tj�5. � � r "�1 Y • . y{' ,r � �4,�C�r ',\i.;.w.: �, < <� �F ► •� � � / � x � . �� y �� . � � � � �. ;� � .�-_�.._ � � � �/�� } \ \. � .r�. � �.~ �� ,�;�. :� � �-.�-�. .. :._..'�� . _ , ; - :�- � ,., : .� � r ,�r �. E f.� } t� a �, �'r� ; �,,,,� '� �.��'� '� � } k S � � � : � ' � � �� 1 'i � r ,�f� �� C� �� :a �s � � , �� .* � �� .. ,. � a � � � , � �� ¢f5�.y '� � .r�l � '�i�,� '� � � *y �}„ .�.•� � s °� , ri ,,;�j w �� , � � .� ,gi . �', . u . 1 n- �!� � � � ,±p '�, '�' ��:� 3: � F j ` a � 1�� t�'t € C� Z. L ` . (A a. . Y 7 .. � t '�� '�.. �` '. �: ei �+;y. ' � �C v � � �` r �4 w k � . �� + ' � . ��C'� � � r 3` }'�i� n � �.. +� �.a�s e z`ya F` , � �x ; �...� .�1 4 +i'Y 3 ��3 ��' � ' .''��.tF�� A�. `� .� �' # � �. � i �t,. {� . : ..a? '�lJ+.Y�t i ' . �,. - . ..� '_ _ � � ,..�. �. �.' �. � �' _ -� � n � �. . ,_� � __ �=T' -- - -� �.. / m� +�, ..� . _ � � . y�1, .��:�:�� :� �:'�� 4�� P .ti � '� "�� $��, :`h.� 4 � ��, " � � �c .. R ye.,. ... sr� �, ��Y• '✓'' Yh��"4': �� i,, � rt r�-..,s��' .Y„ �r ��i � � )t�: �-� �t�.�',� p !' �..�� .�""�` ''v'°. Y�/�� iLs�'u.�_3e.$w�e"��L`'�..d�u:Y.i�`� �.�� .vi�� .rr... yd:y '1; v �,.. .�_ ��-�.,� ��' �• "."..r.....+��-.� M"rk�� \k • . �'�T'� ?' � �,'..- �.ara°�� / � _ _. _ ` I 1 �� r��p ~��.dl�!I'� J'•�y}�l r"� '" . � f. ! � . ` _ `'+�( . ., l� �'-}' ► � � " '�� . �_� '�..,t; '�� % a�(' � 1 ,y� i �' �, j }ti�a„ �: t ^�� r�, ;�� n -.._ ,� �,,,, � } ��'� ,,f ��Y _ :;.''; �. . .� .�,r��=.� �` � � 7� 1r�� ` x;4 t'^ �t a'�+ �` � � ��'''�t�� ' ` „�'..t{j� y yS�a. ki� *-- ,�� r. ,.� .�.�.�� $, �; �t i*, i �,( .� �' + 1 � �� i �� t 1� i f. ./ii ♦ , r ' r � ��' •�-�--�.-. ..'� .1 . I., If.. i 1 � ':� - � � . ��' . i `�.r� � / • ' ..f�.. �yq ' � _ �A ... ' t �� .. .r�,�, , �-� —;� sr r.�. � �� 7�'Y:� ( � i �� `$xt pY y � .i i]� �"`� �� , � � �i. a� �.L�' .��i+�v�Y T� ,�.�.,��~ M ', e � �DLd{„�� Y ' �� 1 �w`,rc�a' � ..�.'4�4�� :: . �' ra��. , � . � � ' ` . `w.:. �I ' /�r�7� �•�� E�� ,� j i � ; E� � a � � {�`,�' t" � :S� .��,� �.' �'c, r. �TM . � � r s�`` . � ��A � � � �-� � .:�:ti� , ;. , � a�''`r � .� K ` � , 1I 1 'y _ � �: � � �, ♦ . a.�.: 4 � ;� i u,y,� � � .�-� � : � ,� � .. .� �Na�. P � ��:� l, �"'� � ��t � �, � �k; s \ - ��,, :°' `,.,� � _ `'�.� .�..�m. � � -�• . �� i�� ; s-� 1 � �` ��.� � �� t �� , ` � '�, ; Q� , � 3 ,�:� t �I lT 9. � .��i.. v �� , .�i �� t � i ` � • � �: z� �'1 ,r.f ' ,. i� `}' Y� i_ ��► t ' �� . �.: '`' .._ x# ` ~� �-- ;- �� p -�;,�� - r�y k �� ' F ,��` s � � iK� •y�� ! y ` T °}��f' '�� r... S_�.,�y 1 :.�. �\� ''�0 ;A 'H `�.�a � �(�, ?, �!p ¢ �,, '�' e '�, ay�"F,. '� r� �� '� ��;� �� `�' . .��.:�,�:�� -- _`�.��.,�- , � �.�:�� :� � �� -; " ` ; � '' �:; ` � 5 } � '�� i� . F r� �g' ~�•. .k�. ♦ � , i '� ( T � a � w� � ; � ��. ; . .:; � �: , •. .t d�. '' ' � �, 2 �r,' � � f �.Z �� x �� i � � ,� � p; 1 . � � . y�`�_� � , . j . y'�'�� • } � ? � � . T � .i `� ,.��{Qr,�1 �'.i � ,{ ~+[[[ ��4 �. .�.Y � • �, �� P ��kF _ � l 1�� 1 ey�� .` a��' , Yt � �S� �1 . �``• . . '• �~'�� _. �E � .l� ""T.W' ts• '."r�a�� ` ��_/ � ��«^�� +�' ' _ _ ._''� . , e ',��p�� . '�j�,.+F°� .��. n . /I� � . 90 � •� '' <� — � zv:— � �'Y' �. ..,� � . �. ' � � -- � if ' ` �: 3i� _ •�;ti �� , I� ,.r...- . ..,.�s...w„�� ^ _ - .. . .. .. , '......_ �__ � � . � � .. .. _. . .. •+. `.., .�� ,li�� . ` .«: ��'•+1" I ' >_�;�: - z'�, �.�t _ .�-� . �, ., - , ` '� . 4. �; p , ,� �lfi : � ;�: +� . `', it �.f� , .. ^' ,. M 'l\ � s �k . -��.� ��, , t�. �. � �, �. ,� ;.... ��,�, . . � . � �. �-, ��„�� ,. r,�� ;��..,..� � .r,r,_�-:�.. . . . - � - �a�cmO�wOa•'��f1�..�,�',S ..... _ � . � �� !G + ��k� � t�1 ','� �it.. ; ;� --: � , f� � _• �'�� ' , ;-r, '�a�: I ��;�+ .•' — � , � � � i. ,,.. � ,� ;, � j � �� ',.��'�� I a,� �.,a�,.d#.: � �� ' �� .r -- � 7� ��"'�� -- ' y.. 'T��J '�.,r K:, �.�r � � 1 ��l�� '*' � � � ��'`� ., e_ � 1 " � i � � ��;` � i !�; ' � ` � � (! �, � �� ,,�; . �� : � it� ` � _ �i;� , , ;�'� �� ^� , i � � ' � �� ,l �t, ° � :�+► � ,� 'i •�� / � �' � �r � It�I�l � ` �� ",r -� ; ' � � � �� ., �� s ` � ' ;� � ' �� . � � ,i: . � � � � ,,I � � , .i _„�. �� i��;a i � ,, a7�Ta�� LL�Y ' ` (� • -- ,,. __ r. � � Z � .,`fk{,p'�}.d., ,� � � 1.�{n",�'4;.�d� r ^ 0 ^ � � '1"' :w:,,. V• � i � �+ � ' � �L � � � � -�m z D , � o ' Y...� � � 1 . � N � l?� � y � � � ;t; r � � o_ 8 � � - Q , , � � � �° � N , � - � Q z i '." ��' �" � M�sH,�-L _ :�*'�'=" CITY OF SAINT PAUL =�• =:� '"�' HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ' �O �0 . � �j� Itll�l�!1"1 0� � '�a ° ��,Y� � 25 West fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 :.,`'''�*� 612-242-6229 GEORGE LATIMER ' ' MAYOR MEMORANDUM DATE: September 9, 1980 T0: Saint Paul City Council Members FROM: Ernest Sandeen, Chairperson Heritage Preservation Commission RE: Appeal of Heritage Preservation Commission.'s � disapproval of building permit at 223-235 Arundel , You will hear, on Thursday, an appeal of the Heritage Preservation Comnission's disapproval of new garage construction, which would have conflicted with the Hi 1 District's Design Guidelines;. � For your information, I have attached the Comnission's resolution which sets forth the findings of fact behind our decision. I have also enclosed� the back- ground report from our Design Review Committee, minutes of the public hearing, and a copy of the applicant�'s letter of appeal . We now appreciate the Council 's foresight in insisting on clear guidelines for HPC design review decisions. In this case, we believe the Corrmission inter- � preted the applicable guidelines as fairly and flexibly as possible. The' Corrmission and applicant 'had previously agreed on several acceptable plans before the denied plans were submitted. The Woodland Park Neighborhood Association spoke in support of the Comnission's decision at the pubiic hearing. We hope the Council will support the Corrmission's decision, which we believe to be consonant with the letter and spir't of the Hill District's Design Guidelines. . ` ' �:71`� ( � �� -- -- . �v �� GC� r�lsrt �� .. _ :.�,. .,.. _ ,_ --.w-...�..�..� ! ... ,,� . . _ � . , , .: / � • • - ��o� �� city of sa�nt paul � . her�tage preservation comm�ssion resolution f I�e C�Ull�lbeC Permi t Revi ew #11 C�ate' _ August 14, 1980 � WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Corrmission 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, Rysdahl Restorations, Kenilworth Condo. Association, and Elmwood Condo. Association have applied for a building permit to construct garage units in the rear of 223-235 Arundel , in the Hill District, and WHEREAS, the Sai�t Paul Heritage Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing on. said permit application on August 14,1980 , 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: : 1 . Provision of garage space for condominium units, such as those at 223-235 Arundel , is a reasonable expectation, if physical placement is possible on the lot in a manner compatible with the Hill District architectural character. Whi1e a multiple-unit garage does not have "historical " precedent, it answers a valid contemporary need and is an appropriate structure, if mitigated by careful placement, compatible design and landscaping. - 2. Placement of the structure at a 21 ' setback would sufficiently conform with New Construction Guidelines C-II, setback and siting, if mitigated as best possible with landscaping and physical design. 3. On July 16, 1980, the Design Review Committee and the applicant agreed on three acceptable plans, each of which would have a 21 foot setback from the front lot line facing Marshall . 4. On August 12, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a 4' variance, allowing a 21 ' setback, only in accordance with one of the three approved plans. The currently proposed plan would not meet that contingency. I�OVe� b Decisions of the Heritage seconde b�/ Preservati on CorrQni ssi on are fi nal ; subject to appeal to the City �n faV�r Council within 10 days by anyone affected by the decision. against . . _ _,. __ _.. �_ .. ..� ....��.... ._ .. __�. _ _ ._ �_ . _�_�:. �.:��, . ��s7� g city of saint paul . �� . . heritage preservat�on comm�ss�on resolution � file number date 5. The site plan showing paving and dumpster would not be in conformance with New Construction Guidelines C-I , Setback. 6. The proposed curb cut off of Marshall and garage doors facing the street are in clear conflict with New Construction Guidelines C-II , Garages and . Parking, which states, "If an alley is adjacent to the dwelling, a new garage should be located off this a11ey. . . . .Garage doors should not face the street. . . .Parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping.° 7. There is sufficient space in the rear yards to allow an alternate solution which would not require a curb cut or garage doors facing the street. Such a solution would not constitute a hardship. 8. The height, roof shape, and siding of the proposed construction is in . conformance with New Construct-on Guideline C-III, (Massing, volume, and Height) , New Construction and Guideline C-V (Roofs) , and New Con- . • struction and Guideline C-VI (Materials and Detail) . NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Heritage Preservation Commission, that based on Findings 3-7, the Commission denies a huilding permit for garage con- struction in the rear of 223-235 Arundel , as per submitted plans. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based on Findings 1-8, the Car�nission would give positive consideration to any of the three plans previously approved by the Design Review Comnittee, ar one which is substantially similar, provided the front yard space is appropriately landscaped. moved b McLauqhlin Decisions of the Heritage seconde by Preservation Commission are r,�;r,PC final , subject to appeal to in favor 8 the Ci ty Counci 1 wi thi n 10 days by anyone affected by agalrlSt _� the decision. , __ .___, _ .. _.__ _.�_. . _.......�.,__..._. _��.._�__��. __. .. � ___�__. _ _ � _�._�_._.�.�,,...� _._._ a_.____�-....�,.�._.,,..�,w�,�,....,..�..� _ _. ,. --,: ' �t � _ . .... .. . . . . •. . .. . . . . . �� .t� ... � . . . . . . , . . . : * DESIGN REVIEW COMMI7TEE REPORT* PERMIT REVIEW #: 80-6 - APPIICANT:. Rysdahl Restorations, KEnilworth Condomi�nium Assoc. , Elmwood Condominium Assoc. APPLICATION DATE: July 30, 1980 LOCATION: 223-235 Arundel (in rear) , SW corner of Arundel and Marshall HFC SITE: Hill District ,. AT�EGORY: ' RE'�SE—RV�i TION PROGRAM: Des i gn Gui del i nes DA E: August 6, 1980 � , - - STAFF: Terry Pfoutz Site Descriptian: ; The site of the proposed construction is in the rear of 3 separately described properties each containing six condominium units (the middle building currently in the process of being recorded. All three were constructed as apartment buildings in 1894 and 1895, but after being vacant for a number of years were purchased by Ramsey Hill properties some 5 years ago. Since then, they have : been resold with the north and south buildings becoming condominiums. The applicant is the contractor doing the rehab work.as•well as undertaking construction of the garage on behalf of the two other property owners to replace the existing unenclosed parking arrangement in the rear. There is alley access on the block. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized hy mixed housing uses ranging from single family to multi-family structures. Most have � or are currently undergoing some type of rehab or restoration activity. The property adjacent to the west at 460 Marshall is also a recent 4-unit condo: It is°large, 2� story house built around 1915 in a Georgian Revival style. Background: " At its July 10 meeting, the Heritage Preservation Co:�nmission reviewed the applicant's request for a 22 ft. variance from required 25 ft. setback to enable construction of an 78-unit garage placed 3 feet from the fron� lot line. The Commission recommended that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny that variance as it strongly conf7icts with New Construction Guidelines C-I, governing set- back. At the same meeting the Commission rejected an alternative plan which showe� a 20 ft. setback, but with a Marshall Avenue curbcut and garage doors facing the street. This plan was clearly in conflict with the P�ew Constr•�ction Guidelines C-II , governing Garages and Parking, which states "If an alley is adjacent to the dwelling, a new garage should be located off this alley" and "Garage doors should not face the street.° The Design Review Committee then met with the applicant on July 16, to discuss � possible design alternatives. The Committee and the applicant agreed on three potential solutions, each of which had a setback of 21 feet. The Cornmittee felt that a setback of 21 feet was an acceptable compromise to the required 25 foot setback, since it required re-orientation of only 2 stalls and would reasonably meet the spirit of the setback guideline, if the front yard space was carefully landscaped. On the basis of zne HPC recommendation and the agreement between the Design Review Committee and the applicant, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the applicant a 4 foot variance (allowing a 21 foot setback) , in accordance with any�one of the three approved site plans , approved by the Design Review Committee. . On July 30, the applicant submitted plans showing a 14 stall structure on the west lot line, a two stall structure in the rear of the northern building, and a two car structure in the rear of the southern building. This was a com- bination of the plans approved by the Design Review Committee. Hence, in the Cor�nittee's judgement, this plan would have to be acceptable, with the possible exception of proposed parking and insufficient landscaping in the yard facing Marshall . On August 5, the applicant acting on behalf of the two condominium associations withdrew those plans and submitted new nians which show an elongated U shaped structure with a 4-unit extention facing Marshall . :. ,. . .. , ,..�..�,,,,�,...�.— � _ . _ _ _ .. - a� s'� ��' . :�cSIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 2 Proposed Changes: . The applicant is proposing an 18-stall garage structure in an elongated U shape, Three units would have entrances off the alley and eleven off of the west lot line. A 4-stall section facing P�arshall would have two entrances facing the rear yards (with alley entrance) and two entrances facing htarshall , requiring a curbcut off of Marshall and paving in the front yard up to the west 1ot 1ine. Findings of Fact: , , . 1 . Provision of garage space for condominium units, such as those at 223-235 Arundel , is a reasonable expectation, if physical placement is possible on the lot in a manner compatible with the Hill District architectural character. While a multiple-unit garage does not have "historical" precedent, it answers a valid contemporary need and is an appropriate structure, if mitigated by careful piacement, compatible design and landscaping 2. Placement of the structure at a 21 ft. setback would suff�iciently confarm with New Construction Guidelines C-II , setback and siting, if mitigated as best possible with landscaping and physical design. 3. On July 16, 1980, the Design Reivew Corrmittee and the applicant agreed on 4 acceptable plans, each of which would have� a 21 foot setback from the front lot line facing Marshall . 4. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a 4 foot variance, allowing a 21 foot setback, only in accordance with one of the three approved plans. The currently proposed plan wou7d� not meet that contingency. 5. The site plan showing paving and dumpster would not be in conformance with .New Construction Guidelines C-I , Setback. 6. The proposed curbcut off of Marshall and garage doors facing the �street are in clear conflict with New Construction Guidelines C-II, uarages and Parking, ' which states "If an alley is adjacent to the dwelling, a new garage . should be located off this alley. . . Garage doors should not face the street. . . Parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping.° : 7. There is sufficient space in the rear yards to allow an alternate solution wnich would not require a curbcut or gar�age doors facing the street. Such a solution would not constitute a hardship. 8. The height, roof shape, and siding of the proposed construction is in conformance with New C�struction Guideline C-III, (Massing, volume, and Height) , IVew Construction and Guideline C-V (Roofs} , and New Con- struction and Guideline C-VI (Materials and Detail). Design Review Committee Recommendations Based on findings 4 through 7, the Design Review Committee recommends denlal of the permit application for garage construction in the rear of 223-235 Arundel . Based on findings 1 through 8, the Committee would recommend acceptance of any of the three plans previously approved by the Committee, or one which is substantially similar, provided the front yard space is appropriateiy land- scaped. __ ._. _._.�._- ----- ,__r.__ _. - _.____.. _ . _ ...__.,_ ____. ._,.,,��..� _ .__>-,�,.-.i-�•a� , . _ -. ' -' ..- :...: ��;;�' _::.ia-�'w:+a�auee:t.�� ` � ' .,::s'.a. .�:.'.'t- ....ryr:`.'y- -' - .. - . - -�:,r ., .:�«.,_.. -',...:.,. , _,..; -,=ks,,- .�, t2�J L�.�i'1sJ l_.J L_—I �1 �`-� �t� �� « =i_�__'� __ , �-- ,1• . - �O7T0 . 50 . ( v :. �- ' o� � 0 0 -- f� •- S _ � D, �� o l U s e - � L�� . � V a ! � _o o_�� o -� a�' � . < _ �1 ` :. a ��-- -„ �_�- < < _... < ", �.. v J, f� <• G ` � n � , O o Q �.... n n � .. L. . . .� , b' - e �T:f_ # 'O 0 O O _p � ....... �I' '_. .w�..� p ' O � i > (y� t G ' �.0' ��c.. � p O 0 � :(.� 9 •' '" �� "_ O _ L+: 9 V` 7 �p '�' P...� 1 i O .��^o Q... ....; -- .��K• ` O •O � � O � �..� � , ►�1 �.o � . , ..�_ _- ° '� .i • .._ ' � _ ° o �-' _ _ _r� s> i o • o k��: _ v '°i° o,a g��0� _� .t-..� ° o a.�L y �` �_:� ° � °Q •° � �. .. S ..... .:': :: � � -�.- � ...-.S. �'- — -r ---�--��• —- - . �.�.► o o .� o :O � O:O:nj} � °. `-- ?�� _ C•C _T.'r -� :.i.�.,.,- .•< , �v 'o .J�, " 'O' I _'d - o "_a' J_s -: -Q �s = `"� - _ ?�' i � �� b o__O• ,r �� -- _'° .� '�:—o ° : • _ .. • - ;$'_" n�. ' o __a y _o � •p'. - L.+.J o_�_O' o_._� ' -_ �. SC= �_' a ;i. . � '_'o o=_ � •Q-~ ._ "O � '"� '?_` � • �--. .. _ �. �' -°. '.- � � �-� ��T- • � �a• i Q-� -•o -' '^�? o). _� � =0 '�'. °- T � O � � O--' • • � .. G 'f„�o ^L ,� p --_C 'p.' '_ � • 1.� n •� . � '�.-�? � i o =�. '� O: _1x. _'��• � a. .u -° 0.�� o=:.+' 5..=? `.-�� .i__�1 _j. T � o o_�:_ a �:j�Q ,Q:, ._ 2S. � � �o ��- ° 7� :'JL' � ;�ar•' ,`�'L,-* - ;o. '-,°. - ►".�• 6sLi�--�---�5 _-.. ' .:� .. .— --' -�---�-�_ • •--... _ . � � - ° -Q � - ..G: o i'__ly•�� %'y a�:_•�<'s��'?�:_�. ..�'� '� .�° ;. • _ ` . � a � -. O� v _• .i '�= ' °��D�� ¢� ��_ . '=o a �m e�_'<?..._- E �- : � o ° �s . � - -�t`y.� •r.r r . m�•_.�, _ � j = • o u_ ° .o .° _ _ �. s�-• � °' 8 a��.'—A �'Q�+ � ; 'p�^ _ ' • � , o Z .__. o z � > � o o --� °o . o .p •_ _. o�- 7--7-° -�_-� ,C��"'-_, o _. �� i � °_�: o •o i � �' J' '�--'', °_-_-e°. .p -•- . - _ o._ u Op O �b O '.1 1 0.". a 4 '� ' . �'f�-�� •.. • �� . . �T'1 . � �D i ..i-�. .�/'�� ' J O � O .y. ��O .,... < «_ , r�.�i V _ ' .1. .: • r ` REMT � .. � sr. < .. . � � p•—�... ��ii2T`a'•' ' • < � . r v eo.? o .40. ` �q`�' y v.. o-� r.�� . — %.! v � 4 ,�� _ -Q 6 �� •� j. . . o .� ,,_ a � o a_'s8- o a ; � o c � o �o _-c- i ' ° .°_ � _ ' -. �_-� f.i_ t O 4 . Y� . � ` � 'C -o! "'� 'O 8 �-<_ O_ .�1� � O E`b- ' =a -`{��r.i ,. ' � �� O _ L�• p ' 4. `�• - _ '� � _ ��• ` •�,�.. , V � ... . ..� -o ; o e� • 4 ' • • .]g�'- _ . � 1 3 a� ar ' ..:1 Z• . : c Y ..� ' o"' _o i o af�` O o0 a .r�. '�6> �'�'� :.�' '•} O• 0�� ' `"T'! / .p-' � o _ _ n_ � Mi►CKUBiN • Si ' � � .�'r' s _°s s � �.�._ ..0.� � � '� -- 4 y .� t ° -�a n�,:,.. ° < �a:_.. T =— A�. � ' . ~• •�l�� 3 ° � a r..a ' , � ''' -#. v-'_o �-- - �-.._ v- . ?- . O : o rr-d �u ° 1 q..' o.. ° �..- #- . s '-.-�. �� o � . � •+ I -e... ._.. , -' o---o � - . �.• � ' e�y o °. i ��''r.n °.-..s ,'-� -v o o 0...1 �� y� o'~ .1 o � . . , o � c� •� o o •C== ' e °o s e�'m ,°� „ � --:1�_.. '.. o � =p :p_ .o �---e---- S �'Y. - .c �'_' o .;e �.v,Dp vy, �� '� II::�.o c� �. �— :'J�'."� p 'r'J__.' �- — _- � �•' s � y. �� ' • I .ARUNOEI `' 1' SL �l�1�M '.— '� '• . �� °i n o'?y \•Q .~o o � o � i0 �.. ..j•� ;i.�°� � _9p- A7_- �':,�`�. -.: �=- •�S._F; :O YJ � � �C .• .O Q.. . f �..._ .J. ? o -1• ��• ' °_ �/ o� .0 � '�. O � " � � �'-_ o ..^_�• y . ��• . 6'_-�� 6 � '.1 \ � a � - - 7 _ � •`_ � G : _�_ ;�0 iQ � �'. . /� _'� � =�✓: � \ � v '_`� � '(� �,.� J_ • �' .��''-C: , • � G a 8 .J� � . ' �� ,l, �'J: O `� � Q..�' �< ��= -�� _-. �^. ..� � ' a0 iQ } . � •�O' �+C:^t+»' .\ • � �� O+ �•_ ��r .E•�• :�. �j: � � ( . ♦V _ _ _' .� � w ' '_ _ ' '+_' �Ia- �__ __'_. .>. y � " ____ ' : o , ��/� � . o - •�. _ i = . �,C•�.'.�o � .o o _:�• �'� -.;:r.. . � �� p � YS 9 � _n" "`, �ir % C.`�� '".- �. C � � � � !� �4 ��'i � . 1 . .. -� C L' .i ; ��e < . ,f. ' . ,'j p`i I � a .,� �} �`i � r . a `^"• —L��.J , .. <'* h� � �' a 'O" 9 � �� VIRGIN�A gT �. ! . : O-�i �'] N 9L . ::'.. � -'� . }� �`O :_ - � � � . 'i• O � ' 'a i:.�. : Z �.'' .-•.J� �Y �' . :� _ '' � Y � . J• � 1.o . ' -�_ � '�/� � �L.. "....�. _ C_7' _ i . a 4 0 oe ?ee' I � .'. � •�� :o �� - - -L'' �� : "� G6Rf�clO • � ^ � ' S• � � — - o � � � � . o O - - ' �� ,�•. \ ' F4RN�NGTON � ST � �rj . .. • . , � } 9 �r,,� .'',�•. J. o. a ; � !.` ,�, _� , �: � e,''_% _ a >= � \v ,% '�� ` -�,� . � ;^� )i�- c o o- -.,-' o � •v ]]��]] � _ • R-- '__� <'�� '/' C: ,Q � � '�'��1'�=n• .J+� V� � N: f. ^�"�. o V .O �'NINA $; F--" ' �;�! � � � =0 •�'' ♦ = � '4 1♦ � •/,� ] ..�.' 00 �''�: _� ` ' - 0 �7: S�^ .� �.'.�� /. � �.��:L��'i�? �� :'1� fy o OOUGl4S ,. • COtlGlAS � '� �/, L� `� \`—=_••i . - - 1 f. �Z- c. c c c .0:=�' ' ' �-i s f 4p: i '�a —:1 . � :. -._``. �_ -- "' --; ��1:.�7 �,,, �� , J4� ��,7� -- .n �' - ' � C^",'� .. ' .l .-- �. T � s • i+� �oo e��'o- �+• � �a�+ T�+c �so\ � ��3� s'�, P.�'.� �� ' S� D � SM17M d�e. _ � . .a N ;�;: ,a, ,� � /f ;�� r•i ; � � � � � � :- �" -'� ��'8t.. ''Z ; -,' � •� � __... � � ,� __ -'+•('� wr!(r ,c:+ot� 1' . - . . ' � . . � � o ° ,�:�, �� n.b o x ':.�, ! � �' +IEEt�� sr NC� �L_�Ca:- . ' ,\ �� — _ ��`. '� � � e o e cn.• :� �.: � . 4<\\\�� _ ' _ . , . . ' ,�" � _ _ ! �✓ �`'; ��p �'s <' :O'°' � - ` � �'r,-: . -'�'.' 1 7 /�� - � a � .� � `�. l�� .�� _�N^ - , �%'r a' , y 'O td a - _ � " ' . �\�. . � ,'.�� . � ' • ^� �_ ' �•. �` � j:' ,•t1 :. • � � �4 n/\ -r�:r� W�l1f�NI_ 5r - .�i � ^ �+� 'a� � - _ � G' _� Q�J •�s f,�. �%��' �O � 2,G' ��`/��=' ~-s � ' �``� ='\� _ '�r � /. % �'� \/ i / i � . . � . .. .. . .. . . � .. . . . _ . .._ .._.._.. . .. .. �. . ._ � . _.. . .. ----' ..._.�- . .. . .. ._..�-- ' �St . . .. ..... ..... .. ..___..__.. __._ ^�_ . �. . .. � � - _ � .. �t . . _ � . .. � . . . . ^C . . . .. �. �' . .. _ � y � . . ' ' . . - .. . � � . . . � .. . _ Sc`�'3�,•aa�� CITY OF SAINT PAU�L , _R.�a�T p�� ' =; '"" �� HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMlSSION ;� i3ii'i n i o� " • � 25 West fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 ' `' •••• � 612-292-6229 °-rn�� _ GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR � !� � �,�i i � SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 14, 1980 3:30 P.M. , 1503 CITY HALL ANNEX, 25 W. 4TH ST. PRESENT: Faber, Glines, McCormick, McLaughlin, Oxton, Sandeen, Sorrmerdorf, Toscano, Williams ABSENT: Fitzgibbon, Langford, Haley ALSQ PRESENT: Terry Pfoutz, Clare Leary and Seth Levin of the Department of Planning and Ecanomic Development. Don Ahern, Tom Blanck, Alice Browne, Cort Downey Idelia Patterson, Kevin Rasmussen, Ellen Read, Ray Rossini , Dennis Rysdahl , Jerry Segal , Ron Severan, Mary Steitz, Pat Strang, Lou Sudheimer-, and Matthew Tirrell . � � Chairperson Sandeen called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m; APPROVAL OF JULY 10, 1980 MINUTES Mr. McCarmick moved approval of the July minutes. Mr. Glines seconded the motion. � The motion for approval carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ON BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS Chairperson Sandeen called the Public Hearing to order at 3:37 p.m. A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant. Pa�r3cia Fullerton, requesting reroofing of her house at 130 Farrington. Staff presented the Design Review Com- mittee Report. No one spoke on the matter and there was no discussion. McCormick moved approval of the permit; Ms . McLaughlin seconded the motion and it passed unartimously. A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant Ray Rossini , requesting to rebuild two side entrance steps and sidewalk at 124 North Dale Street. Staff presented the Design Review Committee Report. No one spoke on the matter and there was no dis- cussion. Ms. McLaughlin moved approval of the permit; Mr. McCormick seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant Joseph Fergen, requesting to construct a garage at 435 Portland Avenue. Staff presented the Design Review Com- mittee Report. No one spoke on the matter and there was no discussion. Ms. McLaughlin moved approval of the permit; Mr. Williams seconded and the motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant Mrs. Shepard, requesting to reroof her house at 403 Portland. Staff presented the Design Review Corrmittee Repart. No ane spoke on the matter and there was no discussion. Mr. Faber moved approval of the permit; Mr. Glines seconded and the motion passed unanimously. _ _ _ _. .._.._ _ ,�..�. , ._ . .. _ _. .. _. - :.. . ,_,.. _ ,,.�._�__._.�.�..._.-_� ' -2- A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant Enrico Caruso, requesting to construct a garage and fence at�"477 Holly. Staff presented the Design Review Corrmittee Report. No one spoke on the matter. After brief discussion, it was moved by McCormick and seconded by McLaughlin that the Commission approve the permit with the recomnendation that an eave line connect the gable ends of the east and west elevations of the garage in a fashion similar to 477 Holly. The motion carried unanimously. A public hearing was held on the permit of appl'icant DAE Properties, requesting to repair the porch brick, front soffit, and fascia at 583 Holly. Staff presented the Design Review Committee Report. No one spoke on the matter. Discussion was had by the Corr�nission. It was moved by McLaughlin and seconded by Glines that the Comnission approve the permit. The motion carried unanimously. A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant 01d 7own Restorations, requesting to add a rear deck, combination storm windows, and two skylights to the property at 580 Selby. Staff presented the Design Review Corrmittee Report. Chris Owen, of Old TQwn Restorations, spoke. Discussion was had by the Comnission. It was moved by Mc�aughlin and seconded by McCormick that the Commission approve the permit contin- gent on the use of turned spindles on the rear deck similar to those on the front porch. The motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant Idelia Patterson, requesting to apply aluminum trim and siding to her house at 615 Holly. Staff presented the Design Review Corr�nittee Report. Idelia Patterson, the applicant and owner, spoke. Discussion was had between Mrs. Pwtterson and the Comnission on the purpose of using 4" aluminum siding. Faber moved approved. of the permit; McCormick: seconded. It carried unanimous- ly. �: public hearing was held on the permit of applicant 495 Ashland Associates, requesting ,��xterior alteration for conversion of a church building at 495 Ashland to residential �nits. Staff presented the Design Review Comnittee Report. Tom Blanck, architect �or the project, addressed the Corrnnission and answered questions. Mr. Blanck requested , ositive consideration of introducing balconies into the west roof line, an element cf an earlier submitted plan. Mr. Oxton spoke in favor of said balconies. Mr. McCormick roted that Mr. Oxton had been absent from the two Design Review Comnittee meetings khere that proposal was discussed and denied, due to serious conflict with Hill District Design Guidelines. Staff concurred that the idea of balconies on the west elevation did not conform to Rehab. General Principle III and Rehab. Guidelines III and IV ("Roofs" and "Windows and Doors") . Staff urged the Comnission to positively consider t��e Design Review Committee's Findings of Fact and the Committee's approval of the a��plicant's submitted plans, which show minimal alteration of the principle western e�'evation. Ms. Somnerdorf moved approval of the plans as submitted; Mr. McCormick sE�conded the motion and it passed unanimously. A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant Rysdahl Restoration Company, requesting to construct garage units in the rear of 223-235 Arundel . Staff presented th� Design Review Committee Report. The Commission looked at submitted plans and th�se previously submitted, which had approval of Design Review Corrmittee. Chair- pe�son Sandeen asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on the matter. Several me:nbers of the audience spoke. Laurie Forsberg, of 223 Arundel , spoke on security concerns if the proposed garage pl��ns were not approved. She stated that there were other curb cuts on Marshall and sa�id that the submitted plans were more acceptable visually than other plans . _ . _ _. . .�.,_ _. .... .._,._..,,.,�.��.. ... __._.�,�T .,.�._, ..,.,._..._w_ ..,._..._.,..: � -- - _ ,._.w. . ..�.� .. .�,.�. . -+�- _ _ -r,. � � -3- � , 2'75'��S Pat Strang, of 460 Marshall , spoke for the 0'Halleran House Condominiums Association, 460 Marshall , the condominiums adjacent to the subject property. Ms. Strang spoke of the Association's opposition to the proposed garage plans for visual reasons and the 0'Halleran Association's concern about security implications of the plans. She stated that several other of the previously approved plans were feasible. Alice Brown, of 223 Arundel , spoke on the advantage of the proposed garage plans in relation to environmental issues. Ellen Read, 546 Marshall , president of the Woodland Park Neighborhood Association, stated that desian solutions were possible which would meet security concerns of 223-235 Arundel residents and still respect the District guidelines. She stated that the Association supported the Design Reyiew Committee's recorrmendation of denial . Mary Steitz, of 235 Arundel , stated the economic advantage of the proposed garage plans over the previously approved plans, which she said would reduce property value of 223-235 Arundel units. .Much discussion was had by the Comnission. Dennis Rysdahl , the developer and occupant of the condominiums, addressed the Comnission and stated what he felt were the aesthetic advantages of the proposed garage plan. ' Ms. McLaughlin moved and Glines seconded for denial of a building permit for garage construction at the rear of 223-235 Arundel , the motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant li�storic Hill Homes requesting � to alter the roof line and apply French 2nd Empire details at 500 Ho11y. Staff pre- sented the Design Review Committee Report. Chairperson Sandeen asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. No one spoke. Discussion was had by the Comnission. McLaughlin moved and McCormich seconded denial of building permit at 500 Holly. The motion passed unanimously. TMe public hearings were concluded a� 5:08 p.m. (Al1 resolutions are attached) . APPROVAL OF DESIGN .GUIDELINES Clare Leary, HPC Intern, gave a slide presentation of the draft of the design guidelines for the proposed Irvine Park District, to be presented at the Public Meeting of August 28, 1980. Glines moved approval of the Irvine design guidelines as a draft for public discussion. Mr. Toscano seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. REPORT FROM THE CANDIDATES COMMITTEE ' Chairperson Faber reported that the Candidates Corrmittee reviewed the nomination of the St. Paul Auditorium Theater and voted that the building did not meet the criteria for designation as a Heritage Preservation Site. � Seth Levin, Intern, gave a slide presentation on his research of Seton Center/Salvation Army Headquarters. A resolution was read stating that the building met the criteria for designation as a Heritage Preservation Site, and that no action of designation should be taken until the Historic Sites Community Survey is completed, as in accordance with Resolution 79-11 , and that the owners of the Seton Center be presented with the research of the building. Faber moved approval of the resolution; Toscano seconded, the motion carried unanimously. . , _,._ _ ,_�..._.� _.___�_ ....�_.w._rp___��...._ ._,.___.. _.. . _�.,. .. ..�..__ _ ..... ... __. - - , : �.� : . -_.�.�,_ r . `� �� . � •Date: August 20, 1980 � • - ��"� �"r+ ��"''"'� To: St Paul City Council �� 7th Floor City Hall ;, st Paui, r�r 55102 . From: Lansmere Condominium Assocation 232 Arundel Street, St Paul Elmwood Condominium Association 235 Arundel Street, �St Paul - KenilWOrth Condominium Association 223 Arundel Str.eet, St Paul Re: Notice of Appeal : � I. `We hereby give notice that xe �tish to appeal..the August 24th decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC�� der�ying a building permit to� construct an 18 car garage to serve the 18 condominium apartments Iacated at 223, 231� and� 235 .Arundel, Street. - � . - :, - r � _, . .. . : . ., ... . _, . . _ . .. _, . , �; . _ . � . . . . . . . ._ .,_. . _. _ _. . . ._ . II. " The reasonsfor our appeal a�e as follows. " ' ' l. Ne feel that insufficient consideratio� has been given to our investment � in, and commitment to this project and it's immediate neighborhood. We }�ave collectively spent 1.6 million dollars on three buildings which �ere in_severely deteriorated con8ition, two of xhich had been abandoned �or some years. Our buildings have increased the property taa base correspondingly, and beia� the largest and most visible projects in the area, have motivated additional development in the iia�nediate neighborhood. The t�o renovation projects to the immediate West of ours, the four unit 0'flalleran House, and the txo unit condominium a-�rned and deyeloped by Robert Buntz, are clear examples of. the impact of our development. B. We feel that insufficient consideration has been given to� the inner con— sistancy of the site plan 3ncluding our three condominium buildir�s.. The garage plans which xe have nresented to the HP� and Nhich have been rejected, are the final. phase oi an overall site plan, the remain�er of �rhich has been already com�leted. The gaga.�e p�ans have been developed by the same landscape architectural firm, iarth Plus Inc., and the same architect, Thomas Blanck, as the alreac�y completed majority of the pro— - ject. These professionals each have a great aa►cunt of experier_ce with design in the Historic Nill District. The �PC has been quite compli— mentary of their designs and our work on the portions of the building and and landscape' conpleted to date, but deny the .permit for it's final phase. � Both of these professionals feel strong]y�hat the plans approved by the HPC, but unsatisfactory to tbe .Condominium Associations� aould severely compromise the quality of the work already completed. As the entire site is visable from Pdarshall Avenue, we all feel that the inner consistancy of the project is felt and appreciated by the public as Kell. �Te Would like to paint out that the Board of Zoning Appeals was strongly inclined to approve our original plan, as their staff report indicates. A copy of this report is attached. It Was only �hen a rep— resentative of the HPC testified that tne Co�mission had a�thority to deny any permit even after the necessary variancas had been granted, th� the Board of Zonin� Appeals moderated t�ei�' ap�roval of the variances reauested to those indicated on the 3oard of Zoning Appeals Resolution of August 12th, a copy of Khich is also attached. : ' ___ _ _._ _._.. __�..,..� .__..�,�.r,�...�... v,,,,.,...,,,.,.�,.�,...........�_ �._..._�_:�.. .__...9�.,,�. , _..,4,.,.,�. ... �.. . ___ _. _ __..,�....�,.,�.,,,. ,......�... , . . -•� �:�_ . . ' _ ,. .. . . . ly6 Y/Ql.�1tiC�1 lii:�SG13/ tiilli DcltvucaiJr w1Y11 �uv aa..o baa .... �.... ...........�� , tbe HPC during the course of sia �eeks to develop a comuromise plan . �that would be acceptable to themselves and.still not cause serious harm � � to our site plan. We have spent and addi�nal $900.00 on site plan studies ar�d revisions since our first contact with the HPC-and consider- able time. We have shoKn the HPC eight different plans �hich were developed and considered by our design people. They have indicated a - xiZlingness to approve only those xhich We Were forced to discard due to their inconsistancy with all the work we hace completed to this point. , . C. The main _objection by the HPC to the plan we have proposed� is that it violates Paragraph II of Section C of the St Paul Historic Hill Heritage Guidelines, Which reads as folloxs; "If an alley �s adjacent to an • � d�elling, a nex �ga,rage shoul.d be located on this a11ey,Fb�here alleys do ._ not eaist� garartes facing. the_stree� or_.drivewax curb cuts may be accept- � able. Garage doors �iouId no� face the'street; if this is found necessary single gara.ge' doors should be used. Parking spaces `should be screened from the streeMand sidesaalk by landscaping." - S+le feel that their deni�l . results from an over-simpli�ied application of the guidelines to this, a somexhat more complicated project. They ask tbat tYre alley be used to serve the garages belonging not only to the bui.lding adjaaent to tbe . alley, as suggested by the guidelines, but to the garages on the nexta' two properties to the north as well, which do not ad3oln the alley. These � buildir.gs, not being adjacent, use the alley access only by crossing 'property not owned by themselves. The plans approved by the HPC require a permanent easement for ingress and egress across un-owned property, to facilitate �arking for the middle and north condominium buildings, an easement we canriot presume will be continued to facilitate a garage pZan xhich the condominiums feel is detrimental to their site plan. Especially for the north building, which adjoins P:arshall Avenue, a garage entrance from A"_arshall seems to be iri accordance wit�' the guidelines. Paz°�Eicularly � a plan can be approved by all associations allowing ingress and e�*�s to all eighteen stalls, which requires only two �arage doors facing and entering from hsars�all Ave. ,and only one twe?ve foot curb �cut,�this concession seems minor in relation to the magnitude of the problem solved. As far as screening and. lan3scaping, materials and details� massing volwve and height, roofing, door sizes, all of which are other consider- tions s+*ithin the �uidelines , the HPC finds our plan acceptable, ack- nowlec3.oing that we have gone to considerable addtional expense to make our proposed garages conf�am to the common ima.ge of a historically sensitive design - . D. The plans approved by the HPC have tb�'following deficienciess 1. One plan leaves only 16 stalls for 18 condominium homes. We all have a more or less equ�l investment in our homes, and -those who would not be allowed to build noK would permanently sacrifice that right.: T�Te feel that is an unfair compromise in the value of the hom`�s� espec- ially for the purpose of resale. 2. The other plans require that the garage structure be broken into two or three separate buildings, with two or four stalls piaced in an area presntly lanscaped with grass, trees, and hedging. The placing is certain to appear haphazard or pooriy concieved. It �ill eliminate a substantial part of w�at alreac�y is a limited green space shared by 18 homes. It will also create areas between buildings over which we � do not have site control, for security purposes: .,_..__.�,.,�.�..��.�...�._.,..,._�....,.,_ -- �- �., �. .��.. � ..- . �i ' � �Te ask that you consider the above infor�ation as you reyiew our appeal� � and arrive at a decision xhich acknowledges our efforts in andcommitment to t�ae ' ' nei�hbeT'�ood to date, and xhich allo�s us to continue to improve our property. � ��U Sincerely, �l,.l.X LL. L. i�enilworth Condomini ociation - , 223 A 3e1 Street, S.t Paul , ...f , � Lansmere Corid�inium �ssociation 231 grunde2;S-Ereet,:St.'Paul. , ...:�.. _ . �G�(.tt! .�./C�' ��'�X'a,� � _. ElmHOOd Condominium Association , . 235 rlrundel Street, St Paul - _ �.�� --�-�.-..-.---� _ .�m�._,_....�._.__.�...__ __...._.._ _.__,.,�._�..._�.�_�. ..... •�' '°�" - CITY OF SAINT PAUL -~* �' HERITA E P =' `• • G RESERVATION COMMtSSiON . .:e aF `� 'ii�i�i�ii �' . ;�� ,� � 25 West Fourth 5treet,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 : �`�'"�� 612-292-6229 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR �� MEMORANDUM DATE: September 9, 1980 ; . T0: Saint Paul City Council Members FROM: Ernest Sandeen, Chairperson HerTtage Preservation Comnission RE: Appeal of Heritage Preservation Corr�nission's disapproval of building permit at 223-235 Arundel You will hear, on Thursday, an appeal of the Heritage Preservation Comnission's disapproval of new garage construction, which would have conflicted with �the Hill District's Design Guidelines. � For your information, I have attached the Comnission's resolution which sets forth the findings of fact behind our decision. I have also enclosed, the back- ground report from our Design Review Committee, minutes of the public hearing, and a copy of the applicant�'s letter of appeal . � We now appreciate the Council 's foresight in insisting on clear guideiines for. HPC design review decisions. In this case, we believe the Comnission inter- � preted the applicable guidelines as fairly and flexibly as possible. The' Comnission and applicant had previously agreed on several acceptable plans before the denied plans were submitted. The Woodland Park Neighborhood Association spoke in support of the Commission's decision at the public hearing. We hope the Council will support the Comnission's decision, which we believe to be consonant with the letter and spirit of the Hill District's Design Guidelines. , .. ...,. :.. ��,.. , _.,_ .. . . _ _ � _ . . . �__.�..�..�.�,.._,.„,� >: . . � , .. / �. • �.P/ //t� .r. , ' f � � � � . ��'�' ac�l'T--` city of sa�nt paul . , � ,, , her�ta e reservat�on commission resolution �� g p f��e n(aj'rjber Permi t Revi ew #11 date _ August 14, 1980 ; _ WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Corrmission 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, Rysdahl Restorations, Kenilworth Condo. Association, and Elmwood Condo. Association have applied for a building permit to construct garage units in the rear of 223-235 Arundel , in the Hi11 District, and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing on. said permit application on August 14,1980 , 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: 1 . Provision of garage space for condominium units, such as those at 223-235 Arundel , is a reasonable expectation, if physical placement is possible on the lot in a manner compatible with the Hill District architectural character. While a multiple-unit garage does not have "historical " precedent, it answers a valid contemporary need and is an appropriate structure, if mitigated by careful placement, compatible design and landscaping. - 2. Placement of the structure at a 21 ' setback would sufficiently conform with New Construction Guidelines C-II, setback �and siting, if mitigated as best . possible with landscaping and physical design. 3. On July 16, 1980, the Design Review Committee and the applicant agreed on three acceptable plans, each of which would have a 21 foot setback from the front lot line facing Marshall . 4. On August 12, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a 4' variance, allowing a . 21 ' setback, only in accordance with one of the three approved plans. The currently proposed plan would not meet that contingency. moved b Decisions of the Heritage SeCO11de b�/ Preservation Comnission are final , subject to appeal to the City in favor �oun�;� wi thi n 10 days by anyone � affected by the decision. against . _ . _ _ ..�. _ --.. � . �. . _�._ . . _ ._ .._ �.. _ _ . �- .. __�__ r .. _ __:_ ._._. _ _;�.� -�� , �'�Q �� city of saint paul . . her�tage preservat�on comm�ssion resolution file number date � , 5. The site plan showing paving and dumpster would not be in confor�ance with New Construction Guidelines C-I , Setback. 6. The proposed curb cut off of Marshall and garage doors facing the street are in clear conflict with New Construction Guidelines C-II, Garages and Parking, which states, "If an alley is adjacent to the dwelling, a new garage should be located off this a11ey. . . . .Garage doors should not face the street.. . .Parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping." 7. There is sufficient space in the rear yards to allow an alternate solution which would not require a curb cut or garage doors facing the street. Such a solution would not constitute a hardship. 8. The height, roof shape, and siding of the proposed construction is in conformance with New Construct-on Guideline C-III, (Massing, volume, and Height) , New Construction and Guideline C-V (Roofs) , and New Con- struction and Guideline C-VI (Materials and Detail) . NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Heritage Preservation Commission, that based on Findings 3-7, the Commission denies a h�ilding permit for garage con- � struction in the rear of 223-235 Arundel , as per submitted plans. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based on Findings 1-8, �he Commission would give positive consideration to any of the three plans previously approved by the Design Review Comnittee, or one which is substantially similar, provided the front yard space is appropriately landscaped. moved b McLauqhlin Decisions of the Heritage seconde b�/ Preservation Comnission are ��;"p` final , subject to appeal to in favor 8 the Ci ty Counci 1 wi thi n 10 � days by anyone affected by agalC�St _ .. the decisian. a-- _. �,........ .._.d^_._.�...... ..�,. _.. _.�...,,.�..�......_..._. . ..y.- ,_. .�,,..�,.��_...�..... __-.�_---�,._��.�..�.�......,,�..�.,.,...�...,.��,_.,�..�.,.. , � �. _ �_ _ . _,_ ' . �� . _ : _. _._._ ; !`+.t ��t1V , ..�rr+++✓""� * DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT* PERMIT REVIEW #: 80-6 - � � PPLICANT: Rysdahl Restorations, Kenilworth Condomiriium Assoc. , Elmwood Condominium Assoc. APPLICATION DATE: July 30, 1980 LQC TION: 223-235 Arundel (in rear) , SW corner -af Arundel and Marshall - PI�C SITE: Hill District T�EGORY: PRESERVATION PROGRAM: Design Guidelines DATE: ugust 6, 1980 � S FF: Terry Pfoutz Site Description: � The site of the proposed canstruction� is in the rear of 3 separately described properties each containing six condominium units (the middle building currently in the process of being recorded. All three were constructed as apartment buildings in 1894 and 1895, but after being vacant for a number of years were purchased by Ramsey Hill properties some 5 years ago. Since then, they have been resold with the north and south buildings becoming condominiums. The applicant is the contractor doing the rehab work as well as undertaking construction of the garage on behalf of the two other property owners to replace the existing unenclosed parking arrangement in the rear. There is alley access on the block. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by mixed housing uses ranging from single family to multi-family structures. Most have � or are currently undergoing some type of rehab or restoration activity. The property adjacent to the west at 460 Marshall is also a recent 4-unit condo. It is°large, 22 story house built around 1915 in a Georgian Revival style. Background: : . . . , _ .. At its July 10 meeting, the Heritage Preservation Cominission reviewed_the applicant's request for a 22 ft. variance from required 25 ft. setback to enable construction of an 18-unit garage placed 3 feet from the front lot line_ The Commission recommended that the Board of Zoning Appeals deny that variance as it strongly conflicts with New Construction Guidelines C-I, governing set- back. At the same meeting the Commission rejected an alternative�plan which showe� a 20 ft. setback, but with a Marshall Avenue curbcut and garage doors facing the street. This plan was clearly in conf:ict with the PJew Construction � Guidelines C-II, governing Garages and Parking, which states "If an a11ey is adjacent to the dwelling, a new garage should be located off this alley" and "Garage doors should not face the street.° The Design Review Corrnnittee then met with the applicant on Ju1y 16, to discuss � possible design alternatives. The Committee and the applicant agreed on three potential solutions, each of which had a setback of 21 feet. The Committee felt that a setback of 21 feet was an acceptable compromise to the required 25 foot setback, since it required re-orientation of only 2 stalls and would reasonably meet the spirit of the setback guideline, if the front yard space was carefully landscaped. On the basis of the HPC recommendation and the agreement between the Design Review Committee and the applicant, the Board of Zoning Appea]s granted the app]icant a 4 foot variance (allowing a 21 foot setback) , in accordance with any,one of the three approved site plans , approved by the Design Review Comm�ttee. . � _ On July 30, the applicant submitted plans showing a 14 stall structure on the west lot line, a two stall structure in the rear of the northern building, and � a two car structure in the rear of the southern building. This was a com- bination of the plans approved by the Design Review Committee. Hence, in the Committee's judgement, this plan would have to be acceptable, with the possible exception of proposed parking and insufficient landscaping in the yard facing Marshall . On August 5, the applicant acting on behalf of the two condominium ass�ci�tions withdrew those olans and submitted new plans whir_h Sh�w an elongated U shaped structure with a 4-unit extention facing Marshall . .� . : _ ,.._ . .._;..�,...�...--- , . . . . . , . . � .� r . , . � . . . .. . - . ,tSIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 2 Proposed Changes : �� The applicant is proposing an 18-stall garage structure in an elongated U shape, Three units would have entrances off the alley and eleven off of the west lot line. A 4-stall section facing Marshall would have two entrances facing the rear yards (with alley entrance) and two entrances facing h1arshall , requiring a curbcut off of Marshall and paving in the frQnt yard up to the west lot line. Findings of Fact: 1 . Provision of garage space for condominium units, such as those at 223-235 Arundel , is a reasonable expectation, if physical placement is �ossible on the lat in a manner compatible with the Hill District architectural character. While a multiple-unit garage does not have "historical" precedent, it answers a valid contemporary need and is an appropriate structure, if mitigated by careful placement, compatible design and landscaping ; 2. Placement of the structure at a 21 ft. setback would sufficiently conform with New Construction Guidelines C-II , setback and siting, if mitigated as best possible with landscaping and physical design. 3. On July 16, 1980, the Design Reivew Cor�nittee and the applicant agr2ed on 4 acceptable plans, each of which would have a 21 foot setback from the front lot line facing Marshall . 4. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a 4 foot variance, allowing a 21 foot setback, only in accordance with ane of the three approved plans. The currently proposed plan would not meet that contingency. 5. The site plan showing paving and dumpster would not be in conformance with .New Construction Guidelines C-I , Setback. 6. The proposed curbcut off of Marshall and garage'doors facing the �street are in cjear , conflict with New Construction Guidelines C-II ,-Garages and Parking, which states "If an alley is adjacent to the dwelling, a new garage should be located off this alley. . . Garage doors should not face the street. . . Parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping.° 7. There is sufficient space in the rear yards to allow an alternate solution which would not require a curbcut or garage doors facing the street. Such a so,lution would not constitute a hardship. 8. The height, roof shape, and siding of the proposed construction is in conformance with New Cc�struction Guideline C-III, (Massing, volume, and Height) , hew Construction and Guideline C-V (Roofs), and New Con- struction and Guideline C-VI (Materia]s and Detail ). Design Review Corr�nittee Recommendations � Based on findings 4 through 7, the Design Review Committee recommends denial of the permit application for garage construction in the rear of 223-235 Arundel . Based on findings 1 through 8, the Committee would recommend acceptance of any of the three plans previously approved by the Committee, or one which is substantially s.imilar, provided the front yard space is appropriately land- scaped. , __.. ..._ . _ _. _ _ ..._ _ ___.. . . _ ._. ..__�__ _ _ _ -. — -. ,----�-:�-,--. ..-�..,.�-...-.�.� ,. - ��.�s a�r�aa�-:-s.,.:. ��-�. � . •. . ...s�:_. _-;_.,. ,�Y-�.. :��...: . �. h r_. `° •�, �� uuJ u ►._-� �� :�.�, ,o , � , . . ^_, _=_=—� �y �� ° . . S T. 10TT0 5 . � . � � ' �e e =• - O . . _�_O � O p •'d' � i < <� Go,. p r C- �` 7 O V�� < � � ,: a �. � �J--- < _: , . _.o 0 0 , =; '^ �' —— .,� ,. . • <_ : _ e : _r ` Q o 0 0 ;� .... ; n _� +r,... o o � c• > '� {[ - --o- - q ,''-C] o o • : �' I , o �- F • �� ° o._. -• •. .. :__ - l-P '�' �� i . i 0��.0 ,fl ' � O �O � � O ' �C -4 0 - . � Q Q-� . . : �' N!4• O � 4 0 � . : G j� �o- �"�� . . � �' � O '�. e o�_' � -y '_.� 1� �' -�," "Q�r�' p s� o �� - ' �� . �•o'o a a 6'_.7:0: ' � _ `Q.Q``--� � ° �� oo '° .f . . • S ---�: ... .. r � �_ t v'v o _';.r..- •_ ,.� � .:e ° -1__0-°, `� O�O•�� .O= I a..y ?-_� _!�=� _ �. ..�.. __ �- --,•�-�y -" _ . -' � -• . ' �.. stb• , -- --� I `. tr -i ° _ j �� .- - •�^ � n��' . o:=0 �'- • � . o �O: -J:_c _.J, o O o_� _ % ;�; `� a = . . � __ .. _._ � - ' _ __ . _ _ ?'. 3 .. ' . �p 9��.4 ..�'.""'o Q-:�4 ;'�'�'t �y `_�'-_�. �� O_ • o i' o � _O •p . 1 _"O _e a O)'_ ' "f ?' _G ? ; /!1 _ o�_ � _.O, � .. o ��...,_a "L:� o__4 _ ' '._ 6. �• -- • � __ � t V p e-�� '� �: "; �. o. .C - �s—.� o__.... V, _, LL� - -"--`� -.�I�+ � o o' - o o'7 O., �J'�- � (�] •o >•, - o j; ::k-� i��" CT-' - ib. ' � - M.1• �1L•- -- � � .., .. ._ _ ,� __... _ • _ _ '� : � a. _ _� p ,� � ..C< o f'._��.r-�� sF%,?•-'• y;�o' �`r'[{��.�!'Tt+•-'^ _'° ." :�° ; - '�'�'' ' � o � -ti�',n0 ` o:; s� a ;- o cL � _ � � °< ?�_ >�a'� '�i- ; � o ° ►..0' ° ' o 'Q' � ��'" M••i c' � s`---0 ��'+L'-.-��'i .-�-�-pR-• ._-.-_ m ' i � u ° '�, � o __1� _ 'I_ � ?_ � �__p � �"'' • Z c s� ' -_ e• _ = o • - _'_o :.� -GT_.•__ — r• �d /`l' o ° o o - o -o ' _ o R . . ._ � - o � _ r�_ rc `- O�� a' i . p • ''j -'1��•J O��O ' ' � - �_ 0 0 � O I q� . J O -� _ .O� �J . O 6 O o' "", � '-. ° - 8 ' •. � _1�� '� , �� . va 4r+D 's,�. .'i�'=�� -'� 00� o� :d� ..o r�� < � . ,...�. .• . 'N ` � KENT , , ^ ST. . .. . . /� ° rp.-�.. �/= `2� -` ' < < `. ^�i�. s �-> o .RO. !9? o .. �. :_'1` . �... V/ b .� j t � � � .� J j '-•° o}_'_Q' _ o-_r' o� ' � u_�' �. ��c \ � �" �.t_ I ° - o. . --� � ° o � '�-� s � � r a -�L_• ---A �O _rs -��....r_a o� .-r� . _o fo-_ ° =a .-T�-:;1 -, .�� \ I � �o .. _ -- ' .'' I <...^ •�. -•` -=' ° � l�` - ' . .. _ _� ��.�• �,_ C v f a o � � o e 4 r3�r-��. ._r� s a-- . � Y � o 'O ' o a� o 0o s V :'¢> _G'' 4F _n •-'' O' O: �.';c,.s. _ �� o_.. o -n.. , « �3.. „� t.� -.� � . � � e � / =�o �� II" ' MACKUBIN _4 _ s• ST.� < . ��' '�-_O'— � � ' . ..___ ' a s 1 � �'�� . \ a� .... .�_..0 4. � � � °••�-T'n?...a. ° n ii)� ��'-.. � a._"' .. " C—G � �� _ •."" "' p _ % a "_.._ �-_ E-.--• s� 1 0 � C? � �.. ' � ��-i , O _ .. o - � a-_�'..a �. "'�'' oy o -_ r_..,_ _ � Q � 6 �� ,� �-� 4 �.... # —S ._ .... _�i' ".. � ¢i' /'� •,G° �O"' �_. � � _' O '�O I ' � . �• i 9�� o O � .0..�? 6.—. J _� o _o- b ..f` t � '`--�' ] . o o a�, .. . o � �_.n �...� 0 4 •C-_� ' -- �� ` � . � p `I 9 � � ._ii , o� o � O ..O ��-.--- 9 -' y: � •-"� � '� �°a� 0 99 'C�=� /�� y � II_:ta a �. �-o e0-.. o . -{-:J-••— z_ _ .G _ � •�� _ �p � � ° • I .ARUNOEt '. 5T. L�— N�rM�� ,__ lq1A�Y�w • - ? o o � o o � o I ' � „�, :i�°� ° p: %7- 'cS`= -_- <<_ {11 ''S.' A 70 ' � o _ =�Z` . •�'4� ' .. •�Ci .Q. `- -�._ •—¢_G `y= p-": o . - '_-I �-`-. �i' 9 . • � `C ° a <. - ,�J- `' � -o '` -- � , . . -�:_b_. ,c- -, o � - --- -p :-- .-_ �---•• ,°- . f � s b �J,, . � - c _ f o o _ .O i0 �-� n a- 1:y r ~� _•y` ^° '�`�'✓:��, �. �, ~; t- .^G .�-• �--�� -_ _ -f' .� �y"^'C ' 1 � . °p �:-COa'� ��"� ,c" .:1: o �.ry. r.�'� '.�...�� `�O►!•�: �� • 'J: � � � '�O �O F - <.t � f av^ _. - -—� .\,�( � µ' -- -. .T._. y,�- --- ----- ° • -- ---- - � 0 0--�_ � �� _ y a 1 _ < '� ' JS��.. „O �, ' .o 0 7�,'�•_� � ' ,�•� �;Y,' �^� . ° &.' .c ; s ` L ,�� _} •... . ; ,� ' - � _ � . a} r� D(�-'� I _ o_ o m, � D �� ^._ `� �•r '� �'` �� a`�3� c � � "� ��J � •a ""L_._.! r = v�, � ' , � � � a Op ' 9� �� ° viRG�N�� St. ��- � = o-� � �„ �� . _ ::•.. � ..� : � f < o; - � -U �;'O' ''z� - :.�J.O �`�°r• :,� _ � ' � .,- ' 1 ' �• - ..3'��, _.. . : ?- - t P� o eoo �.py . . ' c .i. � .4:�J•,:o, _�- :.i I: — .ti�_ a : � . Gaq��elp . .� _/_/��` - +�t � r�.' . � o C� - ';�� . . �.� ��C� : � �. ��', •� •.\ � �, i4RN1N6TON •gT• .: ��j . . .. i :I � r ,`�� ^�. o_a ° ..O^•� ,t)� o� ''' � !' .,�_• . } ` 7 J O O L^�, �3,. •e e�_"r. ' _ � '� O .I �`' �, :i p �'"'a p e %r '7� ^�' ' . _ { �Rr __j� �O��o�� O �� C� •a . '� .�" ��•i• •�; ,j+� � �ti .�f -� N:' G _ p � � 0 ' NINA 57 ' �J' . 1 o.•..��.ti .�- = ^ o i. j� ��7 �^,p�• 1 �.(� � . . -p _ _^ � o • ��4 ��^ ..' .�.� /• � p:C"�} {C'_ �l t �:'1; . � OOUGlGS •. �OOUGL S I - '� 9�, .O' ��'\`�' _ . . . --o c� �. . _cc �.. Qe: i � �.� '/, �^ ,0::',J�,�_� - - �� s = . C �.,�,_ '_ C � . '/f� �'�---� • ,' �� : ° `• _ _—o � � �� J�� — ,fl i � �o-° O-eoa.�'-I �• .� -o ?a,° r ,OSO\ t �?s' ��+.'. `T° .v' '� �S � 'ou�_ g •?� . � �� SM�TN • OvE . �Cw° n ; ._\ ti � .,Q� ; /• .nl / 7. t� . �''le;i -:, , �o �.81.. tZ ` \/ � , � s ' / {� � , ._.._. � • -- m�'�'� wr�rt• .c:+ot.r �'�} . . . . � _ j�, �. C .,'..:�� . �O � �O.. �'O S�r� .�..w�1 � �. � 3� . � '1." '� •N� V._� • ` \ - - ` ,.f !� � +IEECN ST - i <Ce- ' _ __: `- . / Io can. :�- _ • S't.- � •� , � ,^,J�� _-� _ � ��'�',/�a„�. �',,,, J.ay ��i� .�.a 4 ,; • - . ' ~, `� �� .. --.��' .. br�� 7 Nr/_ �a a ° � „ . �""\L � :'�� •^• I • . �' J \� s�'. �?* - � `� : : � -� � -r.... w��Ktn sr, ",; � . . ^ �;� .. � � G. ._� � � •�..nf�� '^' �f -o `` �,G> -•.`_yc=..? ,S`°, � ..- - ,Q�( • �--- •;\ r. 1�/ . \a'„ y .�;� �.„ �l;, � [ 1 / . .. ,_ . . . � . _.._� . ........... __ . �• . .. � .� _"� ' ' ' �.. . ..�__. . _...._�.... . . � _. .. . .. . . _"'.__..,.... .. . '"��.. _�".. . �1. � . . -.. � • �=�'a°°� CITY OF SAINT PAUL �4+� ;, , ' =; a� � HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION • >+ uumn ,� :,� �in t u u � �',,' � 25 West founh Street.Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 ��'"�+n:�� 612-292-6229 GEORGE LATIMER MAYOR SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUfES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 14, 1980 3:30 P.M. , 1503 CITY HALL ANNEX, 25 W. 4TH ST. j PRESENT: Faber, Giines, McCormick, McLaughlin, Oxton, Sandeen, Somnerdorf, Toscano, Williams ABSENT: Fitzgibbon, Langford, Haley ALSO PRESENT: Terry Pfoutz, Clare Leary and Seth Levin of the Department of Planning and Economic Development. Don Ahern, Tom Blanck, Alice Browne, Cort Downey Idelia Patterson, Kevin Rasmussen, Ellen Read, Ray .Rossini , Dennis Rysdahl , Jerry Segal , Ron Severan, Mary Steitz; Pat Strang, Lou Sudheimer-, and Matthew Tirrell . ' Chairperson Sandeen called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m:. APPROVAL OF JULY 10, 1980 MINUTES Mr. McCormick moved approval of the July minutes. Mr�-. Glines seconded the motion. The motion for approvai carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING ON BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS Chairperson Sandeen called the Public Hearing to order at 3:37 p.m. 4 public hearing was held on the permit of applicant. Patricia Fullerton, �^equesting reroofing of her house at 130 Farrington. Staff presented the Design Review Com- mittee Report. No one spoke on the matter and there was no discussion. McCormick moved approval of the permit; Ms. McLaughlin seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. � A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant Ray Rossini , requesting to rebuild two side entrance steps and sidewalk at 124 North Dale Street. Staff presente�-- the Design Review Committee Report. No one spoke on the matter and there was no dis- cussion. Ms. McLaughlin moved approval of the permit; Mr. McCormick seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. . A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant Joseph Fergen, requesting to construct a garage at 435 Portland Avenue. Staff presented the Design Review Com- mittee Report. No one spoke on the matter and there was no discussion. Ms. McLaughlin moved approval of the permit; Mr. Williams seconded and the motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant Mrs. Shepard, requesting to reroof her house at 403 Portland. Staff presented the Design Review Corr�nittee Report. No one spoke on the matter and there was no discussion. Mr. Faber moved approval of the permit; Mr. Glines seconded and the motion passed unanimously. . _�.. . .._. ..,:. . _... ___......_,a.._..�._,..,.�__. _ ..,._.� �.._.�,�.. �._.�_., . �.�..��_. .._,.:.. .._..._._,.__,_- --��.,,a.�..,.n...-.. ...,,s,�,.��.. -2- . � � 2�75'��8 A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant Enrico Caruso, requesting to construct a garage and fence at 477 Holly. Staff presented the Design Review Committee Report. No one spoke on the matter. After brief discussion, it was moved by McCormick and seconded by McLaughlin that. the Commission approve the permit with the recorrmendation that an eave line connect the gable ends of the east and west elevations of the garage in a fashion similar to 477 Holly. The motion carried unanimously. A public hearing was held . on the permit of applicant DAE Properties, requesting ta repair the porch brick, front soffit, �and fascia at 583 Holly. Staff presented the Design Review Committee Report. No one spoke on the matter. Discussion was had by the Car�nission. It was moved by Mclaughlin and seconded by Glines that the Commission approve the permit. The motion carried unanimously. A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant Old Town Restorations, requesting to add a rear deck, combination storm windows, and two skylights to the property at 580 Selby. Staff presented the Design Review Comnittee Report. Chris Owen, of Old Town Restorations, spoke. Discussion was had by the Comnission. It was moved by McLaughlin and seconded by McCormick that the Commission approve the permit contin- gent on the use of turned spindles on the rear deck similar to those on the front porch. The motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant Idelia Patterson, requesting to apply aluminum trim and siding to her house at 615 Hoi]y. Staff presented the Design Review Comnittee Report. Idelia Patterson, the applicant and owner, spoke. Discussion was had between Mrs. Pwtterson and the Comnission on the purpose of using 4" aluminum siding. Faber moved approved of the permit; McCormick seconded. It carried unanimous- ly. . : _ _ A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant 495 Ashland Associates, requesting exterior alteration for conversion of a church building at 495 Ashland to residential units. Staff presented the Design Review Comnittee Report. Tom Blanck, architect for the project, addressed the Commission and answered questions. Mr. Blanck requested positive consideration of introducing balc�nies into the west roof linP, an eTement � of an earlier submitted plan. Mr. Oxton spoke in favor of said balconies. Mr. McCormick noted that Mr. Oxton had been absent from the two Design Review Committee meetings where that proposal was discussed and denied, due to serious conflict with Hill District Design Guidelines. Staff concurred that the idea of balconies on the west elevation did not conform to Rehab. General Principle III and Rehab. Guidelines III and IV ("Roofs" and "Windows and Doors") . Staff urged the Correnission to positively consider the Design Review Corr�nittee's Findings of Fact and the Comnittee's approval of the applicant's submitted plans, which show minimal alteration of the principle western elevation. Ms. Somnerdorf moved approval of the plans as submitted; Mr. McCormick seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. A public hearing was he1d on the permit of applicant Rysdahl Restoration Company, requesting to construct garage units in the rear of 223-235 Arundel . Staff presented the Design Review Comnittee Report. The Comnission looked at submitted pians and those previously submitted, which had approval of Design Review Corrmittee. Chair- person Sandeen asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on the matter. Several members of the audience spoke. Laurie Forsberg, of 223 Arundel , spoke on security concerns if the proposed garage plans were not approved. She stated that there were other curb cuts on Marshall and said that the submitted plans were more acceptable visually than other plans. ,,.... . ... . .,.�_.... m__._,�....�......�._...�,,.��.._..�,.��_.�,.4..�..,___�__�.._�__..�,,.._._.,.,.�.:_,.-.r.,�_-...,.�.,A.-..._�.,...�. .,...P.,.-•�.�-� � - ��5'�l�8 � -3- Pat Strang, of 460 Marshall , spoke for the 0'Halleran House Condominiums Association, 460 Marshall , the condominiums adjacent to the subject property. Ms. Strang spoke of the Association's opposition to the proposed garage plans for visual reasons and the 0'Halleran Association's concern about security implications of the plans. She stated that several other of the previously approved plans were feasible. Alice Brown, of 223 Arundel , spoke on the advantage of the proposed garage plans in relation to environmental issues. ; , Ellen Read, 546 Marshall , president of the Woodland Park Neighborhood Association, stated that design solutions. were possible which would meet security concerns of 223-235 Arundel residents and sti11 respect the District guidelines. She stated that the Association supported the Design Review Comnittee's recomnendation of denial . Mary Steitz, of 235 Arundel , stated the economic advantage of the proposed garage plans over the previously approved plans, which she said would reduce property value of 223-235 Arundel units. .Much discussion was had by the Comnission. Dennis Rysdahl , the developer and occupant of the condominiums, addressed the Corrmission and stated what he felt were the aesthetic advantages of the proposed garage plan. � Ms. McLaughlin moved and Glines seconded for denial of a building permit for garage construction at the rear of 223-235 Arundel , the motion passed unanimously. A public hearing was held on the permit of applicant Historic Hill Homes requesting to alter the roof line and apply French 2nd Empire details at 500 Holly. Staff pre- sented the Design Review Committee Report. Chairperson Sandeen asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. No one spoke. Discussion was had by the Comnission. McLaughlin moved and McCormich seconded denial of building permit at 500 Holly. The motion passed unanimousiy. The public hear�ngs were concluded at 5:03 p.m. (A11 resolutions are attached) . APPROVAL OF DESIGN .GUIDELINES Clare Leary, HPC Intern, gave a slide presentation of the draft of the design guidelines for the proposed Irvine Park District, to be presented at the Public Meeting of August 28, 1980. Glines moved approval of the Irvine design guidelines as a draft for public discussion. Mr. Toscano seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. REPQRT FROM THE CANDIDATES .COMMITTEE Chairperson Faber reported that the Candidates Corrmittee reviewed the nomination of the St. Paul Auditorium Theater and voted that the building did not meet the criteria for designation as a Heritage Preservation Site. Seth Levin, Intern, gave a slide presentation on his research of Seton Center/Salvation Army Headquarters. A resolution was read stating that the building met the criteria for designation as a Heritage Preservation Site, and that no action of designation should be taken until the Historic Sites Community Survey is completed, as in accordance with Resolution 79-11 , and that the owners of the Seton Center be presented with the research of the building. Faber moved approval of the resolution; Toscano seconded, the motion carried unanimously. _ ._ .�_.. _., ._.._ ____.,.. _._._..._ �. n__..,.�. ...�,r.,.._..: ._.,_ _��..:...��__._..�..__.�.�_.�,. . ..�.�.�.�__,�_.-�.�..__�.__.�.�,.�.��,.__.�_,�.��_.._,.,Y..�..,,�,.,,,;,.�,� /��- �'� - •Date: August 20, 1980 • , _ C'�•k ,,, ► /T.�.,�.. To: St Paul City Council .�''j��f�� 7th Floor City Hall �'� i st p8ui, r�r 55102 From: Lansmere Condominium Assocation 231 Arundel Street, St Paul Elmwood Condominium Association 235 Arundel Street, St Paul KenilKOrth Condominium Association 223 Arundel Street, St Paul � Re: Notice of Appeal � -. ; , . - . I, We hereby give notice that xe Yish to appeal:.the August 14th decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), der�ying a building permit to- construct an 18 car gasage to serve the 18 condominium apartments located at 223, 231: and 235 :Arundel, Street.; . .., _ . ,. _ _ ., .,, ,_ . . . _ . _ .. . . -;: ._ . . . _ .. .__, __ ... ,_ . II. - The reasonsfor .our appeal a�e as folloKS. .- 9. Ne feel that insufficient consideratio� has been given to our investment in, and commitment to this project and it's immediate neighborhood. �Je have collectively spent 1.6 million dollars on three buildings which Were in_severely deteriorated condition, two of xhich .had been abandoned for some years. Our buildings have increased the property tax base correspondingly, and being the largest and most visible projects i,n the area, have motivated additional development in the immediate neighborhood. The two renovation projects to the im�ediate �est of ours, the four unit 0'Halleran .House, and the tKO unit condominium a;�ned and .deyeloped by Robert. Buntz, are clear examples of. the impact of our development. � B. We feel that insufficient consideration has been given to the inner con- sistancy of the site plan including our three condominium buildings..` The garage plans which �re h�ve prese�ted to the HPC and Nhich have been rejected, are the final. phase of an overall site plan, the remain�er of which has been already completed. The ga.ga.ge plans have been developed by the same landscape architectural firm, yarth Plus Ine., and the same architeet, Thomas Blanck, as the already completed majority of the pro- - ject. These proPessionals each have a great a�ncunt of experience �rith � design in the Historic Eill District. The HPC has been quite compli- mentary of theitr designs and our xork on the portions of the building and and Iandscape� conple-ted to date, but deny the .permit for it's final phase. Both of these pro�essionals feel strongly�hat the plans approved by the HPC, but unsatisfactory to the Conc3ominium Associations, �ould severely compromise the quality of the work already completed. - As the entire site is visable from Marshall Avenue, we all feel that the inner . consistancy o� the project is felt and appreciated by the public as well. He Would like to point out that the �oard of �oning Appeals was strongly inclined to approve our original plan, as their staff report indicates. A copy of this report is attached. It was only when a rep- resentative of the HPC testified that the Co�mission had a�thority to deny any permit even after the necessary variances had been granted, t� the Board of Zoning Appeals moderated thei� approval of the variances requested to those indicated on the Board of Zoning Appeals Resolution of August '12th, a copy af xhich is also attached. .,_,..,,., �.�.�....,_..,,..�....,_ _.��,. .�,.,�......_. _..�_..�_,.A..�,,_...�.,,.- ,.. ._� ._.�,,... _.,..,.r.�.�..a.,.,.�,. _ ._ _ __ ..__... n._..�.� . _�_..._ .-.{....�.�. _ . ' . _ . . _ ..:��; �:._ � , ,.� X6 �orKea Ci05ely 8nQ SBTlously w1tiII tinc uc�i�u 1GY1Gn vvu+..+��.�� -- � the HPC during the course of s�a �eeks to develop a comaromise plan . �that would be acceptable to thenselves and still not cause serious harm . � �. to our site plan. We have spent and addi-�-'�nal �900.00 on site plan studies and revisions since our first contact with the HPC'and consider— able time. We have shown the HPC eight different plans xhich were developed and considered by our design people. They have indicated a - Willingness to approve only those which xe Were forced to discard due to their inconsistancy with all the work we hace completed to this point. . . - � . C. The main_objection by the HPC to the plan We have proposed, is that it violates Paragraph II of Section C oi the St Paul Historic Hill Heritage Guidelines, which reads as folloKS; "If an alley��is adjacent to an • � , d�elling, a nex �ga,rage shoul.d be located on this alley�tdhere alleys do __ - not ezistfgara¢es facing� the_stree-� or_driveway curb cuts may be accept— � ab1e. Garage doors �ould not -face the"s�reet, if this is found necessary . single garage doors should be used. Parking spaces should be screened �rom the stree;�.and side�alk by landscaping." - We feel that their denial . results from an over—simplified application of the guidelines to this, a somexhat more complicated project. They ask that the alley be used to serve the �arages belonging not or_ly to the building adjacent to the alley, as suggested by the guidelines, but ta the garages on the next�' two properties to the nor�h as well, which do not ad3flin the alley. These " bui3dings, not being adjacent, use the alley access only by crossing 'property not ox*ied by themselves. The plans approved by the HPC require a permanent easement for ingress and egress across un—owned proper-ty, to facilitate parking for the middle and north condominium buildings, an easement We ca_nnot presume will be continued to facilitate a gara.ge plan which the condominiums feel is detrimental to their site plan. Especially for the north building, Which adjoins Pdarshall Avenue, a garage entrance from A?arshall seems to be iri aceordance wit�i': the guidelines. Par�icularly if a plan can be approved by all associations allowing ingress and egre�s to all eighteen stalls, which requires only two garage doors facing and entering from Niarshal3 Ave. ,and only one twelve foot curb cut, this concession seems minor• in relation to the �agnitu�e o� the problem solved. As far as screening and landscaping, materials and details, massing volume and height, roofing, door sizes, all of which are other consider— tions wi_thin the �;uidelines , the HFC fi:�ds our plan acceptable, ack— � nosrle�ing that we have �one to considerable addtional exne�se to make � our proposed garages confnn� to the common ima.�e of a historically sensitive design - - . . D. The plans approved by the HPC have tb�"following deficiencies: 1. One plan ].eaves only 16 stalls for 18 condominium homes. We all have � a more or less equal investment in our homes, and those who would not be allowed to build noW would permanently sacrifice that right.. .. �Fe feel th$t is an unfair compromise in the value of the hom�s, espec— ially for the purpose of resale. 2. The other plans require that the �arage structure be broken into two . or three separate buildings, with two or four stalls placed in an area presntly lanscaped with grass, trees� and hedging. The placin� is certain to appear haphazard or poorly concieved. It Kill eliminate a substantial part of what alreac�y is a limited green space shared by 18 homes. It �+rill also create areas between buildings over �rhich we do not have site control, for security purposea. _ . __ _ .�.,.�..�_...9n,..�m ,,......,.��_._,.�--��, __ - ,_ �. _.. .....�--- . � _,.,�,. -. -�.. _ "�.._. ...-�_ . � , We ask that you consider the above infornation as you re�riew our agpeal, . ' and arriv^� at a decision xhich acknowledges our efforts in a►�com:nitment to the � ' neighbcT��od to date, and �hich allows us to continue to improve our proper�y. Sincerely;� �� l„J�l�.Jr tL l.�• Kenilworth Condomini ociation - 223 A 3�1 Street, SJt Paul � � � , . . � , , r Lansmere G�orid 2nium �ssocia-tion � : - '231 Arunds2; S�eet, St Paul. . �G�GL�If ,,/C� r�'�'i�!'fi—� Elmxood Ccndominium Association 235 Arundel Street, St Paul � . _ ____ _. .___----_ _n,�-.a:-� ,,,._,� -�,._..-.