The URL can be used to link to this page

01-639Council File # Q\� G 3q Green Sheet # � �� p RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 2 WHEREAS, Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly, in HPC File No. 4078, made application 3 to the Heritage Preservation Commission (hereinafter the "Commission") for a building permit 4 for a"tree house" structure in the rear yard of their properiy which is located in the Summit 5 Avenue West Heritage Preservation District and is commonly known as 1376 Sununit Avenue, 6 legally described as noted in the referenced HPC file; and � 8 WHEREAS, on October 19, 2000, the Commission conducted a public hearing after 9 having provided notice to affected property owners. By its Resolution No. 4078 adopted October 10 26, 2000, the Commission moved to deny the building permit based upon the location of the 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 structure for the following reasons: 1. The structure conforms to general guidelines which encourage architectural innovation and quality design while maintaining the harmony and continuity of the district. 2. The structure's form, materials, roofpitch and scare are differentiated fro the main residence yet compatible. 3. The shucture's location does not take into consideration the scale of the spaces between buildings and the rhythm of buildings to open space. WHEREAS, the Commission then moved in Resolution No. 4078 to grant the building permit "contingent upon moving the siructure so that its eastem wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence." WHEREAS, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06, Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Commission and requested a hearing before the City Council far the purposes of considering the actions taken by said Commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legfslative Code § 73.06 and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on May 23, 2001, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Council having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes, and resolution of the Commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, to reverse the Commission's decision in this matter. The Council finds, 1 based upon all the files, information, and the testimony gathered at the public hearing, that the p � a 2 Commission erred in its fmdings contained in Commission Resolution No. 4078 in support of 3 granting the building permit subject to the condition that the shucture in question be moved 4 based upon the following: 6 1. While the tree house is visible from Summit Avenue, it is visible only briefly 7 depending on how fast one travels past the property. The fact that the tree house is 8 visible does not support a definitive finding that the tree house "does not take into 9 consideration the scale of the spaces between buildings and the rhythm of buildings to 10 open space" that requires that the tree house be moved. Other measures - short of moving 11 the tree house - can be taken to screen and otherwise soften the view of the tree house 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 from Summit Avenue. Those measures include planting trees to screen the tree house from view. 2. The Commission found that the architecture, materials and consriuction of the tree house aze, in all other respects, compatible with the historic district. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly be and is hereby granted; and be it FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Council secretary shall mail a copy of Yhis resolution to Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly, the Zoning Administrator and to the Commission. Requested by Department of: By: Form Approv d by City Attorney B ��✓�/�-�-� 6-/�-v� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY� �� I ,-i� By: Approved by Mayor: Date VI! /� b�/ By' Adopted by Council: Date �-�� \ Adogtion Certified by Council cretary Ol.L1el DEPARTMINiroFFI(�ICOUNCIL onie wmnim " _ - � CITY COUNCIL .r„ne zo zoo� GREEN SHEET No ��766 c�nACr a�zs� & a � +or �L66-8630 �` ""�" Councilmember Hasris � oa,,mr�rwuaa, arrcarra MUSi BE ON COUNCIL AGHIQ4 BY (04Tq ❑ ❑ AIIEI611 June 27, 2001 (Consent) �� a,r.,,oeEr a,raau noorwc �� wuncu�amuresow. ❑ w�o��mnn�xro ❑M� �� ❑ TOTAL;E OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION REQUESTED Memorializing City Council action taken on May 23, 2001, granting the appeal o£ Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission regarding the con- struction of a tree house at 1376 Summit Avenue. RECAMMENDA ION Approve (A) w Reject (R) VERSONAISERVICE CANTRAGfS MUSTANSWER TNE iOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1. Has this Pe�M�m everv.wketl under e coMract fa Mis dePa�meM7 PLANNINGCOMMISSION YES NO CIBCOMMITTEE 2 HasttiispersmRrmererbeenacilyempbyee'7 qVIL SERVICE COMMISSION YES NO 3. Ooes Mis persoMrm P�� a sldli no[ nomiatlYGossessetl bY airy curte�R d[Y empioyee� VES NO 4. Is tAie pe�soNfiim a tarpetedvendoR YES NO F�lain all Yes answe�s on seParate sheet anE attach W Hreen shec4 INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPOR7UNITY (VJho, What, When, Where, Why) � ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISAWANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOLLL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION i COS7/FtEVENUE BUD6ETED (GRCLE ONq YES NO FUNDMGSOURCE ACTNITYNUMBER FlWWLW.INFORMATON (IXPLNI� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norzn Colem¢rt, Mayor Hand Deltvered June 18, 2001 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary Room 310 City Hall OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Claytorz M Robinson, Jn, Ciry Attorney O� � C' � civitDivisioa 400 City�Ha[1 Telephone: 65] ?66-871Q !S Wut Ke[Iogg Blvd. Facsimile: 6.i7 2985619 Saint Pau[, Minnesota »IO? RE: Resolution memorializing the Council's decision to grant the appeal of Engdahl and Eberly from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission for the property at 1376 Summit Avenue. Conncil Action Date: May 23, 2001 Dear Nancy: Attached please find a signed, original resolution memorializing the decision of the council in the matter and on the date noted above. Please add this item to the CounciPs consent agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Y � �L/G�aY+Q� eter W. Wamer e �—� OFF[CE OF LICbNSE, B3SPECTIONS AND EN V IlZONMEN'CAL PYtOTECTION Roger Curtis, Director 33 i .. • pIIZSTgIIN • . N01ZCE OF POBIdC HEABIIiC: CTfY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colerrsan, Mayor Apri123,2001 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: LOWRYPR The Samt Paul City Coimdl wfll con- 090 Suite 300 duct a public hearing on Wednesday, May �099 350 St Pete 23, 2001, at 5:30 p.m., City Cound7 . Saint Povl. Cl�ambecs; 3rd Floor GYty Hall. tn oonsider fihe appeal of Brian Engdalil and Raina Eberly of a Heritage Preservation Commisstion (f�CJ decision approving a building permit for conslruction of a tree house [wnstructed wlthout a bwldin�+ per' mit or T�C approval) with the condition that the tree hwse be mwed so that its eastern wall Is set tiack to a plane at least as far.advanced the eastern lot llne as the mafn residence at 1376 Summit Avenue. Dated: May 3, 2001 _ NANCYANDERSON � - . Asslstant GYty Council Seeretary - , Qu1aY � 81:PAULIEGALlSDGBR ozozie2s I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May 23, 2001 for the following heritage preservation case: Appellant(s): Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly File Nuxnber: 4078 Purpose: Appeal of a Aeritage Preservation Commission decision approving a building permit for construcfion of a tree house (constructed without a building pemut or HPC approval) with the condifion that the tree house be moved so that its eastem wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence. Location: 5taff 1376 Summit Avenue No staffrecommendafion. Commission : Approved with condition on a 6-1 vote. (Two motions were made: First was to deny the p°rmit :or the `t.ee hoase' in its cur:er.� 1x»?ier., and secon�? ±o approve the "building pernut confingent upon moving the structure so that its eastem wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence: ') I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Pat Harris. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you will publish norice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9078 if you l�ave any quesfions. Sincerely L ` �.� r �i Amy Spong Historic Preservation Specialist CC: Council Member Pat Harris Renee Eberly, Brian Engdahl SAIHS PAUL � AAAA CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 16, 2001 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paui, MN 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: OFFICEOFLCENSE, INSPECTIONSAND ENVIRONMENTi1L PROTECT/ON O � _` � °, Roger Curtis, Disector LOiPRYPROFESSIONALBUlLIDNG Telephone:611-166-9001 350 St Peter Street Facsimile: 612-266-9099 Suite 310 Saint Paul, Minnuota 55101-I510 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May 23 2001 for the foilowing heritage preservation case: Appellant(s): Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly File Number: 4078 � Purpose: Appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision approving a building pernut for construction of a tree house (constructed without a building pernut or HPC approval) with the condition that the tree house be moved so that its eastem wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastem lot line as the main residence. Locarion: Staff : 1376 Sumnut Avenue No staff recommendarion. Commission : Approved with condirions on a 6-i vote. (Two motions were made: First was to deny the pernut for the `tree house' in its current location, and second to approve the "building permit contingent upon moving the structure so that its eastern wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence.") I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Pat Harris. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your eazliest convenience and that you will publish norice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9078 if you have any quesrions. Sincerely, � Amy Spon�� Historic Preservarion 5pecialist Attachments b 1-��`l � LIST OF ATTAC�NTS: Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attaclunent D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G Attachment H Attachment I � Attachment J Photo copies of tree house Copy of building permit dated September 28, 2000 Site plan and elevarions (provided by the applicant on 10l02(Ol) Excerpt from October 5, 2000 HPC Minutes Excerpt from October 19, 2000 HPC Minutes and notes transcribed from meeting tapes Conespondence from applicant read at October 19, 2000 HPC Meeting Correspondence from HPC to applicant and HPC Resolution File #4078 Norice of appeal from applicant and statement on grounds of appeal Board of Zoning Appeais Resolution #O1-180961 and excerpt from March 26, 2001 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes Letter from owner to 7olui Hardwick, LIEP, dated May 8, 2001, which proposes to turn deck into covered porch � _t�, � .��r'y � ' i'� . .. . j R ' :Y� � Y ♦ �• , � � . ` .�< e • .. ' , :, �. _... `- ° . f �� . � : �',,,a_ �� . � �. � � ., � - o--T � � , � �.. . � �� i 1�' . �. _ � � . L �. � . T, �\ \ } . � ' � . . �, R} ' , '.� ,,a. �� —i �, ,+ s. , \ s ; �- � 4 , � , �J"Y�' � , � . \ .��k � � �' F � . . • �+� . i . ,� 4 ` : . � . .. �_. . � �. y� + <; '�'1.*► -:. . r +. � - � i � � ' y - � '% t' � •• • > YJJ�'Y el��i ♦. +f t.4.. •Y I" � ; :... i�• . �:t l/ iti�Ul � [, C � ` y • e : , ' �. . .4. �.� •. � i.. - �� > . i <l�� cc&� a . 3 � «L � � 9 � - '.. ".� �� -..P.r �� B� . . � �1� f�� y q ` d 1 .a� ...z-- �* t < "x -�.. � � �:. . . .. , . �'t'� } . . X� �^ i.,�. ".,T'_'4f�� '�wir .. �.�: .f= e� .�:��r� �j�� _ y �"�.z 2' � �p r1♦ i��• :�:. ._ � c�`�.. � _ ( ,St« x ;p r':f ~� � � � '� `- .""'^""-�mvmxyl�S'l�A��=...,� l i i .�� . n i .i �•� �� _ :��^' f� __ , ;} Y � [ _ _ � , s a,� f� y � 4 �^i .. .__ . _ �� . �� k 1 [ � � � � �� . . � � . t . fi � � �� f .• � � K 1 ; �� ' • ` y �y�, ^ N � c � � � �M� ' . :' » J , z �,„,� �?; r� ' , �'•! �„! , I, � t . ', , , ;:;: ::, .�, � , � �� r � �'z, . . � - :i • �' � i , � ' +-- � • � � � � �,� . . � ,�` , w. y �� 1 l. , , �! - .. � { . � �� ;, f r.,� ��r-_ � • � . . � „ . ., ., . .� � �.} ,, A �� 7� �,t' . ;� � , ; �•8 �, t - ---_ ``-�.'.�' . i _ . . - _ . --�--.�.�._,,._.__�..,.�_ � "�' �,��.:.>,., .. '� � � , � �. � i . � ;l _ . '1 `' �� J t+et �� ' F f �� . i _ .. . .. a . � i i � � ` � .,. 1` ��.� � . . `.! . ' [Y. i _ . . � � .. ...� 1, . . . � k. a` a`4� - �� ; :.. . ' . . .` ]. i �' . .....�..°...'"`�^ .. � . � .if... . ,_ . . _ *. * *.. . . , . � . � . .. . `� ..`. , . . . . . , �". � \ ' _ . ..._....,_ —.�. .....—..—. . ,-- . � . ., � , - _:; i �� . ' . � �,:� � . . . ,�� ' 4 r, r f.r � ``, i'� • ° � - < :w'�,. . �'" ' �� _ x. ,,, _ , . . F..':'' . . _ .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. ..1;�y- j . . , :.`.. � ..: ;, �. . . .. � . � � . M � st � � � 1 ; �� . . . ... _ � .. �'� � v . s .. vy � �� . �. .. .. .. . .... . . . ... _ . , ...._._,. : . k . � . :� . . . . �� .....'., #�' o : , �. . �...... .. � . � -m�m.o-.---�m....., �m a p� y � ' y � � . j ��'''' S � 7 �' , � _�±o-��,.:;...,. � � _ _ � �. �: r' � _ . , ,° . . < , , , , - �3 . - �tr ��- �- � � ? , : � � ��_ . � � �: �� 3 � .. .:� . . .. . . • . - ,_ . , .,._._.i� ... . . �_ a+e p ':+�t. �. . _ . . : . . a. �. _ 'y1. . . .. . � � . � t _ r..' r . � � tiN,.,.. . . _, . �ti:: ti +i. : ..a . . . . .. � - , ' � .., r:� .��... , �. . . . . ' .., . .. _ : .. ..�,�� •_ � � _ *. ° -"'�'�'x ._ , ,. , � �, .�, �„ ;� � .�. ,��. � I .;� ,� �� i� :t:�,�� . ,- �;; '"" :. �` �. � s ti i. �. �� zf��tkr; y � : - i�'- .,��. . i� i':/. . �`� . ..�{ ��° .i�EMf..�- �>�� .. �.�1 .} � _ � _ T ' :,a:- ` '� � . �, K �\ a�(�- •` Uw •�• ,!� F �w y • y' la � y'�. a; � �'+�. ` , ti . . V�� ls� '1 ` .4 ' � �� , :..Pa . . < �:�.� . 1�� , ��"r{ ,'1 � y 5 � e f a ` � ', �. • .� . � t 1w ' ` �1 �� d • 4 �� . 'q .a t� ,, .. � �� • j�4 . � � �r1� F� �v �� „ +�` � �� .�� . �� a �.�� ;�`.� � � s , � '� r �� '. � � « . � � ,�1,�,� • \ Y . �. , �} �.•,, � l.� , . �� f l . di . � - � � �i 1 ) � �` f'� r �4 �• '„� . .. . . . . '`�� s. � .� e � '. . . . . . i . a � ��.V.w � _ . . i . . � . l ( �.��^�1 M . . " .. , � . . . � 1 � _ � `, ,�yy, a. . �� r� ; �p � s fC` � ��. � ,� �� g _ � � �� " ��. �, � � � ' �'� A�! ;.j'"" „�� : ,�..�""` " t:�� r �", �+ � :�sl. �. ' � ��a . . ,. } )} ' �/,� � � t � �`. � � 1�� r j ` � 1: `�� " .� �,�{� �: � � '., . � . ,�. ��' '° r � .� � � � � � ., � T.s , w + 4 V . . "'.��. �1 � l�f� V�.tYY; :: k " • '�sa*• � z, " �(� . . 7 �, . w • .. * i �'� � a.� '� , �� ,� �.,�1� j • ' _}�,� , �' � �� • f� '1� , � . . {y � � 1 �t �;� 1�� - �. ° �`� � , k =,�� y .+ "` � - •"� r f ; .* , . ..,� � ,i r� p � i;� ,J �L 11, �� ;�' � � �� c"4 ti � \, �.. • .+'� !"�; � .- . ,� . �.,, .�. : l� 4; _ � . . �, . .� . ��L . . . �.� � `�w � �:�.�� ~ �� ! �• � � � . ) .�` X �� v:. �+ �� _ . j ry � � '. � .! � .. �i� • r�� 1<-e�y. � . _ ' . �� 1 � „y � , 4�� a , S. + � s •�` s �"� ..►�*' n +..'�� a 'l� .�� a•� =� _ ; ,: � • r 2 � v: '. z r . � � . 1 . . � . � . . - . .. . . . .. . - ` ' . . � - j: . _ .. , . - . ��. . �'^Z'�� - � -' � � . . ._ ' . y � .� . ._`` :., a S� v / • .. . . : i�.:\" (� i , t�� . uY'. � {..�b` - "�$^ ` r . . .. , : • � , -. r , �. , : �. .. . . w � � , ,_ . ' �� ' � . " - �� _ . - � � '� � _ �.., ._ . . =� L � . �. '� . ' ,r�"` -.►,� _� k �� Y :; . •' _ � � � ; � f � �'�+.,� , t � - ,, ,,xe. . - 1 �'�....�e :v,.� � �!�`'"� >!� - y s ,; ,� � �. � � _ �� " � �Y ,� �_ � - a ; � w f Yi �. ! � �,�'? ':u a.s� �S e « ;�; r� �i._.. . � .. . � i-5 : �� `„` { �Lr .. � F'F . tiY.� �s�. ¢� �. afiz'�. �.°.Y.a �e�'� 'ti a'� � °Y _ L � ) .��J.'�° nm � ?S�� :.F?�'�' �. y {(.a•l'•li'}^. . �4 _ �.� :Y ��F .• '� t. �: Y � ��,; .. +Q � ` ^Z+� .r ?` 9 `: Y �:1 '�a . _ r^ .+��. v y "' `�� `'��:�'r^ r_�:�. f r ;��: , ,.: ¢k` , �, �.,.� + � e ��; -.�. � ' ..: : aa'.:''i� ;r�l� h—.a.{ �� . _ � .,w .. �J': � 4 }F *� < �t�y ;�� y , . t t � , / Y" � . ` f f � l �� J} �' � . � �ai� � I' A y r ��' yF '�t . 1P ` , a �.�� -v�sLyYli 5. CITY OF ST. PAUL GENERAL BUILQING PERMIT � OFFICEOFLICENSE,WSPECTIONSANDENVIRONMENTAIPROTECTION APPUCATION D �—�� - 350 ST P T R T . E E 5 REET, SUITE 300 ST.PAUL,MtNNESOTA 55102-1510 Secfion I- INFORNATIONAL (See back ofform for additiona! informotion) Number Street Name St. Ace. Blvd. Etc. A1 S E`V SuiteiApt PROJECT ADDRESS t 3 7!� J�J ��•t � `{ - �1E'_ Cont�aCtOr qdd�C55 (Pemi[ wi0 be mailed to the Q Q I3h/l.P.�t Ciry � �r' ��i (Inc]ude Contact Person) S[ate, Ztp+4 Prope� qddress p .f�f � Cs-.nw. �Y,�cQf>�4'� Ciry 1 � (� S.� �-.aa� :'�- t\� (Include Contact Person State, Z�p+4 Ylasonry Contractor Address � --- Gty,StateZip+4 Architect Address � �❑ ❑ Estim ❑ Date: f� y o �-,� - f - rEF hc.,s� Section II - PLEASE COMPLETE TH1S SE Structure Dimensions (Tn Feet) Width Length He�ght Total Square Feet include basement � � t�` �� l�� ot Dimensions (In Feet3 >tWidth LotDe th Front 4� �°:� !�� -{-r�� h a Zoning Distnct I Plan Number PLAN REVIEW REMARKS IVumberof > > > ;ntiaV linits �-�y l�J. lmfG /G: ��'�� CoSla(°o-� [Z Phone i $ l � r-i( a� ;orrect and tha[ all pertinent state regulations and I �orqiinglkej9ork for which this permit is �ssued, i ls a Fire Suppress�on System Available? (i.e. - sprinklecs} Basement? S[ones 1'es or No Yes No J � " Set Backs from Property Lines Back Side 1 S�de 2 C� 7 � � ; �r O ice Use Onlv � — .,c �'AX IZ`? Building Permit Fee y Wo�ld you Iike qour j�]ari ChECk FCe permit faxed to �ou? �y Yes � State Surcharge 5 \o Ifyes,entercour SAC faz ° > � Total Permit Fee S SA.G C6argc ! Cmdit � Reviewed By: Da[e. Siate Valuation S Please comple[e �he (ollowing mfortnahon forcredrt card paymenC Orcle �he Card T}pe. 1�85IEi CBCa Expirabon Daro. E'.VTERYOURACCOIINTNUMSERINTHBBOXES Visa Month/Ycar -i Month Y"car 1 I I � I Please S�gn & Da[e SignaNre required forall charges. Q �'Z7 � D�i- l �sa� -� ��-,� �/ 10/02/00 MON 09:07 FAX VAMC PSYCHOLOGY � 001 ._._ To: 3"ohr..,st�r'o..di�1c> -4-nx (a5t - Z6�o -- �t2-� � � �aw.: �r�:rs.� �n��,�.t�,�. – 13 7� Sv �.,,..� +- �v �5 -� ao►- f�,•►+�.�r-� . � � z,- �.s - z o't 3 c,J � � `i'ha.�., I.�_5 � �s � �- �°'o� €�a- � -� � a-! � � o � -� � `._� - - - _. . �. —. .— - L --. � "�'t oo {�- - - - -� '�.=��L_---,.—":" _ � a,-Q�rio)i - Y --- ° -- i � ��k _. — _.___ - --- - -- _, .._ � -- - --- ._`�� - _ _.. . _ _ --- � . t�a � .�-z - — � � -- ... : �-.��..�ss e, _.. _ ..__ .. __ ... - --- -- s ` , �-"°��-- - — � � a ,� �'� � .__ , --._.... _ _ ___ .—_- � -- -- �. ._ . . . _ _ . —. _. �G(e t - -- � f � Q d � -- . — . �— - - — d � --- =--__ f — ' ... — ---- ----.. .. _. _ ._. _ _ --- - ' z � � . _. . __._ .— i �° . __ _— _ .... --. ' � IG�.'S�% _ _. _ _ � �..�. � __ , __ _.,_ � : � _.. --- - �---- —. _— - , --- .. �. -- — _... ---_ : h _._ .._. _.... o � -� - p -- _.. .._ i r. - - ._�� `.---.. __. ._y__. _._._. ---� • _.._ --- . _ _ _ _ � _—. —._ T- --- � - - _ - __ _ _� .—_ _ . — -- ... _ . --- � , _. _- — --- -. - - � i � _..—. _ .. _ ..._ . _. . . . .._ _. - — - �-! � . �. _-... i . �. _._ - � . -- ---.. --- -- - --- - - - — -- - - -,_ . _.� _. - - - - - - - - - - r Tf�,EhOJS� _—_ --_" � .__ '_.._. '_" - . -. _.._ — z� -- -___ i2`xl�� — ._ "� �—:.. -- ( , , � -.— _ .. , ._. _..��. - - ...... ..---•-' .�- . ___.. . -- - —. _"'___ - -- . . . — � — ._._... _—.� _ . . _. —_ � i 4 � � -- - "_ - �—�-- -- - � ---- -- - -... -- - _.� — -- -- _ _ ^ I ` ----- ; -,--- -- .._.. . .� --- -- ---- � �- - °-- � i ----� , _.— � _. _ � . ._._. _ _ —�—� - a , -- __ ._._�._ ._, ' ---- --4 , .-- � _ -- — --- --1tv..__� --- -- -- --- ._, --- -- —� --- ---- !� - - _ _ ---�5' ,. - - -^-. _.. ------� . I v � 4 . -- - N t3a.-� � ��s� ..._ -- - — �-- __.__. �, ._. _. --- ---- ___ . ocr-ez-zaee e9�s1 9�z ` P.ei � [ M 2�� - �c �� - i �_ l 7��-- � �-: b � , 5 ,r„r..�t - ��,�,-_ �-., t c-,c�-�Z� - :�: �-,: , - L, i . t 2 ----- -- — - ----- — - - t +E_"- _ __ _ _ ' _ . _ .. _: _ _ _ _ _ _ ' — ,." _.�.—_T.._—. _ � __ ' � C , � � - -- j ' } �\ � —� ; t f -� �1 - ; = - � / � _�i /\� �, . , � � i � - - ' -- 2� r- - - - - _ _ _ i'_ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ __ i ��ri. ; — — � — - � — J -- — — � -- — s � �� ._L - � - - ��- ;j i v �� i _ _ _ i r i -- - - - - - 1 - - - -- -- -- r c• ��-� �, �^ f' i� i ac_ ` -� I'I ,? _ , ...�` i s 1 T F ( ` l l i�� 'r i , / ____i � � i �� t 2 0� � � � �� 2� 1�t' 5E . . � i ;' i � � ___._. �___ _— ___ ; � _; —;—_ �: -f ` � ; i i i 3 � i � r� ' � i�`- �� ` pl-�� i , � V( l� ��a E� "�'- 4�± FJ s L��' { �� L � 5 � ` i • � ,/,� iFJ� 6 .r�cv° �.fic�d." � � � ' �� > � `. / i / � \ � � ~� .� � f � '�+�, ,\ - / \ ___ "_ _ _ _� . f i i i � f _' _ __'_ _' __""_____ _ "__"_—� v �-" � _ t _ t � . t . S 1 � 1 t ' 1 ' .^-„� � � i i ; / _ "., / \ i 3 4 � 0� �p '�...,� � � • 1 � � ) _ �e � / 1 � ' s._._-•_—� � _ 1 ( ` � _ _,__ _ � � . ! V:Ev� �rc_�3 �sSEx,� � # _ --- ' 4 � l ; - ? t � � , i - � i ` ' i � � f _ f _ I � 3 i i t �..e....�._._._ i o € ' � ; 4 � F i �14 1 . � � a � � , - i - � � i ! 1 _ f -- : - - - -� � - t - -- - --� - ; - -- ' -- - - -- � -- p } � � �- _ � � i � f : i � ' i : { F ---- ` ---- ----- '— ---`�._--' --- t , k � i I i • � ; . : ' ; ; - - --- ; �- - -; _ : .. 1 . { 3 �------� ^ -- - ' - -- � --�. _ ___.`� = i _� �� }�- :, . a� �,- ` � , , � ,,� � • ,: �� ( f:s i � � .. � � �� i ot-�`�`� V � E�,J ��Ck: .= ^�.. - . j�.;---- i � , , ---,. ; � ��d� saz�� --� _ 5 `�� , �--------- --- -- �� __ � _ _____�____ � ------ , _ ;,� ( ; " / i � , _ �i i � � 1 ; 1 �._ � ' i � � : ;: ;; k ' ij �oF to i� � i�,v `i e�::, t,-� � � --- -�� : :. , : : : _ . �� '.I . ; � . � �_�. - - --- ------- --- --- � — - - `� :_�y__�_ - ��- �� _..._ �, _ _� _ i � - " --� � -- i � - - -��'"� _ - _ i i ��J � __.__. _ � _ ' _ . . /' / ; _'___ � ,_''--__ i `" � � . i ` _ - _ __ '. �- " ; . -' : _ _'�.. --_ i = - .a � J,/� - � - --- -- , ; _ � � J �� , �\ _ � . - ---- -�� - -� - - - � - � • - •:— — -- s��.— — — ---- � --- — -- - — - . - __ � � (� 04 �o AmySpong�-6i11NOct52000.wpd._ ... _._.�,.._._.__� .. _ . _--- — -_�._.._ .._.___ _ .__._. Pag �.�. �{-achmc�fi � Minutes Saint Paui Heritage Preservation Commission October 5, 2000 Commissioners in Attendance: Errigo, Nargens, Larson, Meyer, Murphy, Scott, Wilsey, Wolfgramm, Younkin CommissionersAbsent: Beflus, Benton, Foote, Mikos, Staff Present: Lobejko, Riddering, Skradski 1. Cail to Order. 5:00 p.m. (Vice Chair Hargens). 2. Announcement Skradski stated committee reports would be tabled until the new heritage preservation specialist begins on October 9, 2000. 3. Approvat of the Aqenda: Approved unanimously. 4. Oid Business Skradski presented five projects in which action taken on them was not clear, in lieu of the former HPC staff person's departure. Commissioners told Skradski to consult the Commission in an informal manner after the meeting 5. New Business: Pubiic Heari�glDesign Review A. 211 E. 4'-" Street: Skradski reported that sign Faces were installed without HPC approval or proper permits and that existing signage was already noncompliantwith district guidelines. Without the applicant in attendance, the HPC did not hear publlc testimony nor take action. B. 546 Hollv Avenue: Will Rossbach, Rossbach Construction, explained the proposal which was to demolish existing side/rear porch and concrete steps and construct a new covered porch with deck above. Motion to approve the project as proposed (Scott) was seconded (Larson) and approved unanimously. C. 732 Marqaret Street: Wayne Lundeen stated he wanted to remove existing driveway, relocate the garage doors to the west side and install a stone paver driveway. HPC members asked about door design, and the materials for both the garage and driveway. Motion to approve the project as proposed (Younkin) was seconded (Larson) and approved unanimously. o�-�"�`� D. 565 Marshail Avenue: Michaei Terries from Outdoor Renovations explained the type of windows proposed to repface current, original windows. When asked by commissioners if other types of windows were considered, Mr. Terries stated `no.' Amy Spong - M NOct52000.wpd LL ' m � mmY T � � m Page 2, Motion to deny the project as proposed (Younkin) was seconded (Larson) and approved unanimously. E. 579 Ashland Avenue: After questions about fence height and design, the HPC decided to move this onto HPC staff for review and possible approval. 691 Davton Avenue: Dave Schilier from the City of Saint Paul asked the HPC which type of window is allowed for this type of structure (Queen Anne, construded in 1885). The HPC referred this to staff for review and possible approval. G. 1815 Summit Avenue: Robert Lunning, architect for the owners, for a project to renovate the front facade. Motion to approve the project (Murphy) was seconded (Scott) and approved unanimously. H. 1858 Summit'Avenue: Larson motioned approval of the projectwith two conditions: 'I} brick set back by four feet from original building; 2) hvo or three double hung wood windows, placed at will; Younkin seconded tbe motion. Motion approved unanimously. I. 382 Maple Street: The applicantwanted to lcno�.v which colors were approved, according to Skradski; however, since the applicantwas not there, the HPC took no adion. J. 725-733 E. 7'-" Street: (Younkir was recused from discussion and decision.) Motion to approve the project as proposed (Larson) was seconded (Meyer) and approved unanimously. K. 90 E 4'-" Street: Fran Golt presented revised plans for the Central Library renovation; many of the p(ans were from previous HPC member inpuf. The HPC totd fhe applicants iF the permit applications has the design presented tonight, tY�e HPC would approve those plans. � L. 1376 Summit Avenue: Skradski stated the applicant constructed a tree house withoe+t _._ -_-_ a permit Brian Engdahl explained hQlalked to HPC last spring and was told_he did __ not need a permit. A resident at 1374 Summit Avenue stated opposition to the tree house, since if significanfiy and negatively a(fered the view from Summit Avenue. ' ----- -- - -- - = ' _��_ _.._..._ .�:.. __.:_......:�� ti,. forwarded to the next full HPC meeting on October 19, 2000. 6. Rdjournment Vice Chair Hargens adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. � �t�'fQdnme✓�t' E �p p�red �avexr�be,- Minutes Sainf Pau! Heritage Preservatlon Commiss6on October 19 a000 Commissioners i� Attendance: Bellus, Foote, Hargens, Larson, Murphy, Wilsey, Wolfgramm Commissioners Absent: Staifi Present: Benton, Errigo, Meyer, P✓�ikos, Scott, Younkin �obejko, Riddering, Skradski, Spong 1. Ca!! to Order: 5:00 p.m. (Cfiair BelVus) dt-c.�� ((a, zAcao 2. Announcements: Belius introduced Amy Spong as LIEP's new heritage preservationspecialist. 3. Approval of the Agenda: Agenda approved • 4. Old Business _ r:; � =,: ��°'- ,� � ,. —"—'� A. 1376 Summit Avenue: The owners/appiicants could not�ft„ �,_ � statement to the Commission, summarizi,n,g�points that fhe project to canstruct a tree house inkhe�'�e��a�d� The ov✓r Summit Avenue stated opposition to�`f�is Q��ee2;"based on the visual gap from Summit,�ye�ue that th2tree�ioF�s�e;s,� submitted a written ;d as relevant to this • ;ighboring 1374 of the structure and fiils. Ms. Foote questioned why LBEP staff in;sfructed the applican#s°}Eh�'at;�ti�ey did not need a permit and asked if documentation w�r� available'_to verify�{iis"i�`avhat occurred. Mr. Skradski repeated the plan exar,n.In�r�s quest�oning process for permit applicants, claiming plan examiners' would onk��erbally check with appiieants to determine it the project needed a permit. Mr. Wofigratt�m stated �ig:Yhinks ihe;tree house added to the characier of the district and would �ot'vote to den�.z�Othercommissioners agreed with Mr. Wolfgramm regarding the.style;of the tree house�5iructure, but voiced a concern that it was readily � uisible from$Su'�[i�t Avenue. Mr:;Ca�son staced the HPC should do two things: 1) vote on '� the motion tn,de�xth� permii; 2) make a new motion with conditions. Motton to deny . rpeoject as I 6- 1(Woifgramm). Larson moved approval of the of the tree house to the same plane as the house; the ). Mo4ion approved 6 ='1 (Beiius). B:;;;- 565 NTa�sh` �aTvliehael Terries asked the Commission if it would reconsider its decision to ��,.� deny tfie�r�o�ec#�z�?posed at its Oatober 5, 2000 meeting; no commissioner was willing tc offer a motior��fo�¢consider. Mr. Terries proposed replacing the sash with aluminum or wood, thea,;ezpiained the details. Hargens moved approval of replacement sashes, giving discretion to the owner between aluminum and wood; Wilsey secanded. Larson aslced about the condition of the casings; Ms. Spong suggested that the casings �= t and triRia6e repaired; Mr. Terries told the Commission repairing would be very expensive. � � � - Motaon approvec9 unanimously (7 - O). �= -� 7��motion to approve wrapping the trim and sills (Larson) was seconded (Hargens) ° and approved unanimousfy (7 - 0). Mc Terries recommended the City give contractors a fist of HPC districts and individual sites when renewing or applying for the city contracting license. � Tc.nsc.r�bec4 4vm rn�efi,n� -f-apes. (�- {{�rapat� oqPr�Jed la� Comrv�i ss+ on� ST PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2000 • NIINUTES Present: Nfines. Foote, and Wilsey; Messrs. Bellus, Hazgens, Larson, Murphy, and Wolfgramm. James Bellus, chaired the committee. 1376 SiJMMIT AVEI`TL1E, the owmer constructed a tree house without HPC (Heritage Preservation Committee) approval. Amy Spong stated that the owner constructed a tree house in the back yard wiYhout a building permiY. Ms. Spong stated that they had denied the tree house at the previous HPC Hearing, but a quorum was not present to make it official. John Skradski provided photographs of the tree house and clarified that they that had built it around a tree not attached to the tree as most tree houses. Commissioner Bellus snggested that the Committee members read the letter sent by the property orvner of 1376 Summit Avenue before proceeding with the hearing. Kevin Leuthold, 1374 Summit Avenue, stated that he lives next door. Mr. Leuthold stated that the tree house does not match either house and fills the gap between the two buildings. Commissioner Foote, questioned whether the building was a reaP house or a child's play house. • Commissioner Foote, questioned whether there was any documentation to prove that the owner had tried to follow the proper procedure. Mr. Skradski explained the Plan Examiners question process. He stated that the size of their project and their location in the City are the fizst questions asked by the plan examiners, to -- -- --- deternaine need for-a-huilding permit and any�pproval needed in�3istoricDistricts. __ __ __ __ F * d been in.o osition To the project at the previous hearing. He thought that they had misrepresented the size of the project. The Commission discussed the differences in pemut requirements for regular districts and Historic Districts. Commissioner Wolfg�amm questioned what couId be more historic than a child's tree house. He stated it adds to the city, adds to the character of a chitd's life and is well constructed and designed. Mr. Wolfgramm stated thaY he is voting a�ainst the resolution. He stated that if they denied the permit aT the zoning level it would be more appropriate, if the tree house violated the zoning laws. Commission Hargans questioned whether tl�eir reason for eitber granting or not granting approval of the resolution was caused by lack of process or lack of historic compatibility. � � O�t �i Ol -��`� HPC Minutes � October I9, 2000 Page Two Commissioner Larson stated that he thought that it was a minor structure, and that the commission's position had not required Yhat a minor structure match the house. However, he noted that this case was the third case in four months, that was asking for approval after the fact. Commissioner Larson stated that he wanted people to be notified in some way that perxnits aze required in the historic district and that he wanted them to apply for the permits before they start building projects. Commissioner Wilsey stated that she agreed with Commissioner Larson. However, she would not have a problem with the structure if it were behind the house and not visible from the street. Commissioner Bellus stated that there were other reasons to deny or approve the proj ect other than that they did not follow the process correctly. Commissioner Wilsey stated that just because the structure was a kid's tree house, approving it when they had denied other projects that could be seen from the street was not fair. �ommissioner Hargens stated that the structure was on the cusp of what is considered a building. The tree house is lazge enough and because they build it off the ground it has the appearance of a . buildin�. Commissioner Beilus stated that there were several options available to the Commission at this point. He stated that the Commission could make a motion to deny the project and have a second motion for approval subject to certain conditions. Commissioner Bellus stated such as moving it further into the back yard and away from the lot line. He stated rather than waiting for the Zoning Board to move it over two feet, the Commission could have them move it over ten feet so iYasflushwith-thehouse. --__-___ ____ _ Commissioner Larson moved to deny the project, which passed 6-1(Wolfgramm). Commissioner Lazson moved to approve the project subject to the condition that they move the structure so the eastem wall is setback at least flush with the house. Commissioner Wilsey seconded the motion. Commissioner Hazgens stated he liked this move because it addresses the neighbor's privacy concems and the tree house will no longer be seen from the front yard. The motion passed 6-1 (Bellus). � 'L o � 2> �� F � , �� , oF z Deat Amy Spong: Having zeccived notice of Th�usday night's meeting on Tuesday night, Lve are sorry but �i�e cannut bc pres�nt. Below is a summary ofthe relevant points I discussed witn you today. Rte bttih a garage that matchcs ihe house 18 yeats ago and 1i�e obtained HPC approval for an addition to ouz house 7 years ago, so we are not unfamiliaz with HPC �.tidelines or the process. 6/I S('?) - biscussed with neighbozs (Robin Sydor, Kevin Leuthold, !3c Nancy Gan'ett) our thoughts ofbitilding a tree house c4: the proposed pl�cement. They raised no objections. 6/30 Called city for information on building requuemenis,ipermits. Brian �t�as told by a plazl revieweX that a peznut was not needed as ]ong as fhe sknictiuc was under 120 sq. ft. & the structure was in the back yard. He was advised to call the HPC liaison to see i� review w�.s required. 7/6 or Called HPC & tall:ed to Aaran Rubenstein. Brian was told that it did not need to go 7(R through HPC review. We were advised to keep it under 120 sq.f t. & in the back yazd. 2nd wk. Met with neighbors to review plans, including footprint & placement o£ structure in � of 7uly regard to fence and tree, Also 511owad ihezn color photos from a tTeehouse construction book that iilustrafed fhe materials & colors in which �i�a planned to fuush the exterior. They voSced no objections. 3rci �vk. Afrer 3 walls were erzcted, Nancy expressed concern that the sight line from the tr2�house Li�indows would allo�� children to see into their bedroom, which has a mirrored wall. \Ve went to tlie tree hoase so that slie could see �a�hat could l� seen & I — -could understand ker concems. I assured her that the wiudows#acine-their property --- would be covered in some manner. 7/25 - 8!6 On vacation lG'k. of 8/28 - Tall:ed H2th Nancy about the idea of a tight-weave privacy pane] that thz iv}� could grow up, which also wuuld provide privacy frotn the deck area, not just tha windo�vs. She stated that she thought this was a good idea 9(U3 V�'e stopped at the liunbex yazd (�;�here we had seen the privacy panel) to buy it - it w�s out of stock. �'Je checked many other lumber yards & they either didn't earry it or it wa,a out of stock. l�Te had to wait until a new shipment eame In, 9124 9/25 � T00 Qi Picked up the privacy panel. A notice was recaived in the mail box that the building inspector had �2sited & needed access to tree house. S90'IDH�SSd �ITiF:1 zta Ts:so i�xz on-ur;nx � o� � 9126 Brian caIled th� buitding inspector (John Hegner). He stated'that an "inquiry" l�ad been receiv�d & could see from the file that we had contACted ihe huilding uvpectiaai departmeztt earliei. He ecune the same aftemoon. He said that if structuse u�as imder 100 sq. ft. from "eave to eave," a permit & TIPC approval was not needed since it �vas not a"pernutable^ structure. His measllrements showed that it was just under 100 sq R. 9l27 - There was a notc left in the riailbox by Mz. Hegner that a building p�miit � required & where we S�ould go to apply for one. 9/28 - Brinn went to City Hall to apply for a bu$ding permit, He was told that one was not needed. He informed the staff that Mr. Hegner had directed him to get one. Tltey took ihe appl9catiou & the check, & told him that they would noc cash the eheck until the discrepancy was resolvzd. I�e was directed to John Skradski conceming F�PC regul'ation. Sohn had just left for lunch. Brian left a massage for 7ohzi to call. 9/29 - Contact �F�th John Sl:rads'ki. l'��e were informed that we were on the agenda for the 101� HPC meeiing. He asked ihat we fax a draN�in� of bsek yard, supporting not more than 3>% of the yard in structnres (in fact it is 16%), & t� bring Pictures. 9/30 1!1/2 Notice ofHI'C meeting receiv�d. Backyard dimensions' ��ere faxed to Jolm Skradski. Another building inspector c�*ne (John ?'?), to tal:a pictures before tlzz I�C meetuig, hecause 7ohn Hegner had not had time to do so. He also took rough measurements. I informed him that John Aeo er alrzady had taken fia:rly precise mzasuremevts from tbe eave lines & said that the shucture was 95 sq. ft. & did not need a permit. Jvhn ?? did not pursue the matter further, saying t6at he u�outd go along with, Hegner's caII on this. He also cammented #hat he atready had taken pictures fram the aIley & tke tre� l�ousetvzs barely_visible.— —. — — -- - U � ^� Up n� ' vin & Nanc assserted ttiat: 7} The structure does not match their honse. - 2) It "fills the spaoe between the houses." Onr response (not exgressed at the meeting): 1) The struCture fits u�Yh the a*chitecture of g� house, gara�e, & the home and garage to the ti�esc. 2} The structure is set welt back into our back }'ard, is barely visible from the sidewa1lc on tltz souih side of Sum.`nit Ave. and not visible a� from the sidewaLl' on the north side of Sununit Ave. G��l 6Rc'7 �-3�t � y- zoa�j z:��a7c�xaisa �rFe --� zFa zs:so i o f\a:�r. a �.�] �6" � "� $ c c+..� l � �7� s�a.�,,�.;�-�- r�FE. . �. �g�.�l . to—tS—a� n � •OI � (� CITY OF SAINT PAUL '�' h'orm CoTeman, MayOr 26 October 2000 Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly 1376 Summit Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105-2218 Dear Mr. Engdahl and Mrs. Eberly: /�rf� rn e n+ G. OFFiCE OF LSCENSE, INSPECTiOVS A?3D LNVIROVMENTALPROTEC770N o � � RobeN F."essler, Direcror LOWRYPXOFESSIONALBU/LDk�'G Telep7rorse:65]-266-9040 Suite 300 Fatsimile: 651-266-9099 3J0 St. Peler Streef SainlPa:il, Mrnneso[a Si102-IS/0 As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) considered at its October 19, 2000 meeting your application for the `tree house' structure built on your property at 1376 Summit Avenue. The commission voted to deny your application and then voted again to approve your app]ication with the condition that the structure be moved behind the main residence. I have enclosed a copy ofthe commission's resolution stating its findings and decision. � You have the right to appeal the Commission's decision to the Saint Paul Ciry Council underChapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Such an appeal must be filed within 14 days of receipt of this ]etter. Chapter 73 requires that the following paragraph be included in a1l Ietters indicating denial of a permit: (h) Appeal to ciry council. The permit applicant or any party ag�rieved by the decision of the heritage pzeservation commission shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of -- tiie heritage preservation"commission's order an8 decision; have a right to appeal such - order and decision to the city council. The appeal shalt be deemed perfected upon receipt by the division of planning of hvo (2) copies of a notice of appeal and statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal. The division of planning shall transmit one copy of the notice of appeal and statement to the city council and one copy to the hexitage preservation commission. The commission, in any written order denying a permit application, shall advise the applicant of the right to appeal to tbe city council and include this paragraph in all such orders. � I spoke with our zoning staff who indicated this structure, in its current location wiThin three feet of the side properiy line, requires a zoning variance. The HPC based its findings on the historic district guidelines and not zoning regulations. If you plan to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council, the Council would want to know the zoning issue has been resolved. Therefore, the appeal of tl�e HPC's decision would be delayed until the Board of Zoning Appeals makes their decision on whether or not to grant the sideyard setback variance. The appeal to City Council still needs to be filed within 14 days of receipt of this ]etter even thou�h the pub]ic hea*ing would be delayed until the zoning issue is resolved. Enclosed you tivi11 find a Board of Zonin� Appeals Application and information about the zoning process. Page 2 � 26 October 2000 ol -c�� Please feel free to call me at 651.266.9078 if you have any questions. Sincerely, L��,� P Amy Spong Iiistoric Preservation Specialist Enclosure cc: John Hardwick, LIEP zoning staff ,� File copY C - - - ---� - ) � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION 12ESOLIJTION FILE NUMBER 4078 DATE 26 October 2000 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Pau] Legislative Code to review permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or demolifion on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Disfricts; and «'$EI2EAS, Brian Engdahl and Raina E6erly constructed a`tree house' sYructure on their property at 1376 Summit Avenue, located �vithin the Summit Avenue ��est Heritage Preservation District; and W$EREAS, the owners, Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly applied for the building permit and HPC approval after the structure �vas built; and WHET2EAS, the exisTing structure on the site is the Rush $. �Vheeler House, a rivo and one half story residence desig�ed by Clarence H. Johnston, Sr. and constructed in 1909; it has stucco walls and a asphalt-shingled hipped roof; and WHEREAS, the new structure is located in the rear yard hvo feet from the property fence.on the east; the one story L-shaped structure is raised approximately seven feet off the ground.on wood posts; the walls are sided with cedar shin�les ar�d The gabled roof has asphalt-shingles; and � WHEREAS, the following is the citation in the City's Legislative Code concemin� HPC review of � building permits for new construction: Chapter 73, Heri[age Preservation Commission; Section 73.06, Review of permits; Paragraph (i),Factors to be considered: Before approving any permit application required under paza�raph (d) of this section to be approved by the heritage preservation commission, the commission shall make findings based on Yhe piogiatri For the preservation and arcfiifebturZ control for the — herita�e preservation site in regard to the following: {3) In the case of a proposed new building, that such building will not in itself, or by reason of its location on the site, materially impair the architectural or historic value of buildings on adjacent sites or in the immediate viciniry within the historic preservation site. WHEREAS, relevant portions of the Summit Avenue West District Heritage Preservation District design review guidelines for neiv construction that per[ain to the new buildin� include the following: Sea 7437. Netv construction. (a) General Principles: The basic principle for ne�i� construction in the Summit Avenue West District is Yo maintain the scale and quality of design ofthe disfrict. The Summit Avenue West District is architecturally diverse �vithin an overall pattern of harmony and continuity. These guidelines for new construction focus on general rather than specifc design elements in order to �_ � a�-�� Pa�e 2 � Hers(age Preservation Commission Resolution File Number 4078 26 October 2000 encourage architectural innovation and quality design while maintaining the hannony and continuity of the district New construction should be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rh}�thm, setback, color, material, buiidin� elements, site design, and character of surroundin� structures and fhe area. (b) Massing and Scale: New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height, facade proportions and scale of ex'ssting surrounding structures. The scale of the spaces betv✓een buildings and the rhytlim of buildings to open space should also be carefully considered. (c) Mnterials and Details: (1) Variety in the use of a�chitectural materials and details adds to the intimacy and visua] delight of the district. But there is also an overall thread of continuity provided by the range of materials commonly used along Summit and by the way these materials are used. This thread of continuity is threatened by the introduction of new industria] materials and the aggressive exposure of earlier materials such as concrete block, metal fcaming and glass. The materials and details of new construction shou(d re]ate to the materials and details of existing nearby buildings. (d) Building Elements: Individuai elements of a building should be integrated into its composition for a balanced and complete design. These elements of new construction should compliment existing adjacent structures as well. • (I) Roofs. There is a great variety of rooi treatments along Summit, but gab]e and hipped roofs are most common. The skyline or profile of new construction should re]ate to the predominant roof shape of exisfing nearby buildings. The recommended pitch for gable roofs is 9:12 (rise-to-run ratio) and in general the minimum appropriate pitch is 8:12. Highly visible secondary structure roofs should match the roof pitch of the main structure. A 6:12 pitch may be acceptable in some cases for secondary structures which are not visible from the street. WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its October 19, 2000 public hearing on said permit application, made the fo]]owing findings of fact concemina the construction of the `tree house' structure: 1. The structure conforms to general guSdelines which encourage architectural innovation and quality design while maintainin� the harmony and continuity of the d"astrict. 2. The structure's form, materials, roof pitch and sca]e are differentiated from the main residence yet compatible. 3. The stnicture's location does not take into consideration the scale of the spaces between buildings and the rhythm of buildings to open space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation Commission denies approval of the building permit for the `iree house' in its current location; and � Page 3 Heritage Preserva[ion Commission Resolution • File Number 4078 26 October 2000 BE TT F'Ul2THER RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation Commission grants approval of the building permit contingent upon moving the structure so that its eastern �yall is set back to a pIane at least as far advanced from the eastem Iot line as the main residence. MOVED BY Larson SECOri'DED BY Wilsey TN FAVOR 6 AGAINST 1 ABSTAIN 0 Dacisions of the Herifage Preservation Commission are final, subject to appeal to the City Council within 14 days bp anyone affected by the decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting applicable building and zoning code requirements, and does not constitute approval for faxcredits. �• . C� ! �{'�c.h m cn �f- . 7 November 2000 Amy Spong Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 Deaz Ms. Spong: � o i -�'�� This is to inform you that we do plan to appeal the heritage preservation commission's decision concerning the tree house located at 1376 Summit Avenue. We also are working on resolving the zoning issue, as instructed in your letter that we received on 30 October 2000. Enclosed are a copy of a notice of appeal and statement of the grounds for the appeal. A second copy is being sent to Ms. Nancy Anderson, as you instructed, along with a copy ofthe minutes ofthe heritage preservation commission meeting. Please call us at 651-690-3724 if we have omitted any necessary information or if you have questions. Sincerely, • �� Brian En�ahl i d_ - , ' a Eberly � Gl-��`� I�TOtice of Appeal and Statement of Crrounds for the Appeal - Structure at 1376 Summit Ave. � We are appealing the heritage preservation committee's (HPC) decision concerning the "tree house" located in the backyazd of our home at 1376 Suirimit (the building inspectors infonmed us that they consider 3t to be a structure built around a tree). We proceeded with this project in June/July 2000 entirely in good faith and we followed the instructions we were given by City of St. Paul LIEP offcials. We contacted LIEP and were told that we did not need a building pernut but were advised to be sure the neighbors did not objeCt, and to contact the HPC liaison (Aaron Rubenstein at that time) conceming the need for their review. Mr. Rubenstein told us that we did not need HPC review as long as it was in the back yard (According to Amy Spong, she spoke with Mr. Rubenstein and he does not recall what he told us, one way or the other). We discussed the project with the neighbors at 1374 Suinmit on at least two occasions, showing them drawings of the structure, the exact proposed placement, and colored photographs of how we planned to finish the exterior, and they voiced no objections. In September, when the project was nearly comp]ete, the neighbors at 1374 Siimmit, who previously had not raised ob}ections, filed a complaint with the HI'C. Tkus became clear to us only when they were the only neighborhood people who appeared at the HPC meeting to voice objections. Mr. Hegner, a building inspector came, took measurements, and told us that we did not need a building permit, but we would need a signed maintenance easement agreement. The next day, we were le$ a note that we would need to apply for a building permit. When Brian went to file the application, LTEP staff told him that he did not need a building permit and only � took the application after he told them that he had been directed to apply for one. He also was directed to someone in plans review who told him that we would need an easement agreement and provided hun with a sample copy. After the FIPC's meeting of 19 Octobez 2000, we then were instructed to apply for a zoning variance. After consultation with John Hardwick, LIEP zoning stafF, he informed us that either an easement agzeement or a zoning variance would be acceptable and we are in the process of pursuing this. At this point we aze not certain that the structure in question is out of compliance -- - withthe 3-foot setback requirement: The residents at 1374 �vho aze filed the HI'C-- — complaint, removed the last lmown monument from a site survey we had done in the about 1983, prior to having our garage built. Initial drawings submitted to HI'C and LIEP were based on our recollection that our lot is 40 ft. wide. In the process of collecting infornaation to complete the zoning variance application, we found that our lot may in fact be 41 ft. wide, based on the width on which we aze assessed for tases foz sidewalk maintenance, etc. by the City of St. Pau1. 7ohn Hardwick found nothing in our property's file that would definitively set our property boundaries. Amy Spong found a gazage building permit application that cited a 40 $. wide lot, but no copy of the property survey, based on an application subznitted by the property owners. We plan to pursue the issue of an in detemiinaxrt property line by requesting that the owners of 1374 Si.�tumit restore the survey monument mazker that they removed. We further feel that the HPC's decision to grant approval contingent upon moving the structure is unfeasible, given that the tree house is built around a tree and partially is anchored to two trees. We fiuther find the HPC's comment that "the structure's location does not take into consideration the scale of the spaces between buildings and the rhythm of buildings to open space" to be vague � and open to subjective judgement. The structure is visible, in any part, for a distance of about 30 ft. from the front sidewalk, and primarily visible (i.e., the main structure - not just a glimpse of eaue or deck) from only 10-I S ft. If the issue is one of visibility from the street, we believe that means other than moving the structure could be taken to block the view. In reviewing the HPC's charter, we notice that it is an advisory body, with authority to review and approve/deny applications for buitding pernuts. Given that we were told by LIEP, on three occasions, that this structure did not need a building pernut, a decision tt�at later was "reversed" by the HPC, we aze left wondering if the applicaYion for a building permit was required solely to provide the HPC with authority to review this project. If this is the case, we should have beer_ informed when we made the initiat inquiry. Throughout this process we have been told three times that we did not need a building pemrit and then had HPC instruct us otherwise, were toid we did not need HPC review (and later were toid othercvise in response to a neighbor complaint), were told twice by LIEP stafF that we needed an easement agreement and later told by HPC that we need a zoning variance, and had one seY of neighbors reverse themselves on an agreement Yhat they had an opportunity to review on at least two occasions. We have dealt with three different persons in the position of HPC liaison. At this point, it appears tt�at we may need to pay $180 for an application for a zoning vaziance for a structure for wluch we uutially were told we didn't even need a pernut and which had the approval ofthe most affected neighbors (however, Mr. Hardwick assured me that we would not be charged the additionat penalty of $225 for filing a zoning variance application for building a structure wzThout a bnilding permit). We feel the City has some responsibility in the current situation, given the number of times that we have been given either the wrong information or the city officials reversed themselves on information that we had been given. Unfortunately, when a citizen calls a city official for information or guidelines, apparently there is no record kept by that official of what the citizen was advised ar told. When Mr. Hazdwick was asked about his opinion about how a the issue of a child's tree house had escalated into such a"nightmaze," he responded (paraphrasing), "this is not a situation that occurs often (a tree house), the buiiding code is vague in this regard, and thus it is open to various interpretations". r� �J i In ciosing, we would like to ask that the City Council back its city officials in their initial interpretations of the building code and HPC guidelines. We also would like to put on record that - — - all ofth�people with whomwe �ave deaitfromthe Lf�P have beenTesponsive to oisquestions — and have treated us in a respectfiil, decent inaimer, in spite of providing conflicting informazion, _.. . .. - �- - ave one eu es m r have done the best they cou18 in this di�cult "grey" area. L� � /� Brian Engdahl �l - � --�� . ._ - - - e � �� Raina Eberly � /�/-j�fiv _. .: � � A'�'{t�chmc✓�'f Z G �-��`1 CITY OF SAINT PAUL . BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NiTMBER: Ol - 180961 DATE: March 26, 2001 WHEREAS, Brian Engdahi & Raina Eberly has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 62.1Q6 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertainin� to the construction of a tree house/play house structure in the rear yard in the R-2 zoning district at 1376 Summit Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2001 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisionns of the code. . The applicants appear to have followed all of the proper procedures priar to constructing the tree house/play house. They checked on the permit requirements as well as the HPC requirements and were given misleading information. They also discussed the project with their neighbors and were given no indication that there would be any objections to the psoposed structure. It is clear that there has been some confusion in LIEP over issues such as this in a heritage preservation dish In August of 2000, the HPC staffperson at that time sent a memo to various staff in LIEP, the City Attorney and the Executive Committee of the HPC, in an effort to clarify exactly what types of work require a building permit and HPC ---- -- - -- - approval. That memorandum clearly stated that a sfied of any size required a permit an� HPC approval. However, it also left open for discussion if play equipment should be included in the list of things that should require a permit and HPC approval. In November of 2000, the City Building Official drafted a clear written policy stating that any exterior construction or alteration within a designated herita�e preservation district, other than painting ar landscaping, requires a permit and HPC review. Unfortunately, this clarification came too late to help the applicants. The applicants wanted to construct a small, 10 foot by 10 foot tree house/play house for their daughter in the rear yard. Play equipment for children is a xeasonable use for residential property, whether it is the kind of equipment you can purchase with slides, swings, platforms etc., or a custom built tree house/play house such as the applicants have constructed. The only tree in their yard that would serve this purpose is located close to the eastem property line. The play house, after incorporating the tree within the structure, ended up 1.24 feet . Page I of 4 File # O1-180961 Resolution away from the east property line. For zoning purposes, an accessory stracYure, requires a 3- foot side yard setback when located in a rear yard. The applicants could not incorporate the tree within the structure and still meet the required 3 foot setback. 2. The plight of tlze Zand owner is due to circun�stances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The location of the tree in the applicanfs' yard as well as the lack of a clear, written policy concerning these type of structures at the time the tree house/play house was built, are circumstances that were not created by the app2icants. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent wizh the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Ciry of St. Paul. � The desire to provide a tree house/play house for their daughter is a reasonabPe request. The structure is approximately 10 feet by 10 feet. There are two small decks attached to the structure which increase the size to about 12 feet by 12 feet. This is not an excessive size regardless if it is considered a play house, play equipment or an accessory structure. Accessory sfixctures, and/or play equipment, when located in a rear yazd are permitted uses in residential districts. The relatively minor 20 inch variance, required because of the location of the tree on the lot, is in keeping with the spirit and inTent of the code. • 4. The proposed variance wi11 not impair an adequate szepply of Zight and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish establisherl property values within tlze sur area. The neighborin� property owner at 1374 Summit Avenue has expressed concem that the tree -- - house will aitow the applicants' daughter and her friends to look into the rear windows of their house. However, moving the structure 20 inches further away from the property line — F p ' t • Preservation Association (SARPA) has submitted a letter in opposition to this variance request statin� that the size, scale, materials, windows, doors, color, setback, and character of the playhouse are incompatible with sunounding structures in the neighborhood. This is in direct conflict with the findings ofthe HPC which found that the structure's form, materials and scale, while differenY from the main residence, are compatible. The letter fram SARPA further states that the entire width of the play house can be seen from Summit Avenue disrupting the rhythm of buildings to open space. This statement is in agreement with the findings of the HPC. However, when staff visited the site, only a portion of the tree house/play house was visible from the streef and then onIy when directly in front of the house. It was not visible from the alley due to the 6-foot obscuring fence sunoundin� the rear yard of the property. 5taff considered recommending that the existing obscuring fence Page 2 of 4 � File # O1-180961 Resolution o � -��°I • be raised across from the tree house/play house or that a new barrier attached directly to the eastem side of the play house be constructed, in order to address the concems of the neighbor. However, since the style and design of the tree house/play house has been approved by the HPC, staff is reluctant to recommend any changes to the structure. We have received 4letters of support for this request from the property owners of 1367 Grand Avenue, across the alley from this property, 1382 Summit, 1390 Summit and 1364 Summit, who all felt that the tree house/play house was exceptionally well built and was an asset to the neighborhood . When visiting the site, staff noticed that the neighboring property at 1374 Summit Avenue has a shed that encroaches onto the applicants' property. Staff could find no permit for this shed ar any ir�dication that it was ever approved by the HPC. The relatively minor 20 inch setback variance requesfed will not significantly affect the supply of light or air to the adjacent property nar given the existence of other noncomplying accessory structures in the immediate area, will it aiter the character or the neighborhood. 5. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the cocie for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning c�istrict classifzcation of the property. . Accessory structures and/or play equipment aze permitted in all zoning districts. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based pYimariZy on a desire to zncrease the value or income potential of the parcel of land. - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - ----_ _ NOW, TAEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 62.106 are hereby waived to allow a side yard setback of 1.24 feet; subject to the condition that the applicants obtain the appropriate building and electrical permits for the project. In order to construct a tree house/play house structure in the rear yard on property located at 1376 Summit Avenue; and legally described as Wann's Additon To St. Paul Ex Ave Lot 9 Blk 1; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. MOVED BY : Galles SECONDED BY: 1v�orton IN FA�OR: � � Pagz 3 oF 4 File # : 0� - 180961 Resolution AGAINST: o MAILED: March 27, 2001 TIME LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alterafion of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an extension nof fo exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. • APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeats are finai subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If perauts have been issued before an appeal has been filed, fhen the perraits are suspended and construction sha11 cease until tLe City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. . CERTIFICATI01��: I, the undersigned Secretarq to the Board of Zoning Appeats for the City of Saint Paul, DZinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the orib nal record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Sa4nt Paul Board of Zoning Appeais meetiag held on March 26, 2001 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and --- - — — — - EnvironrrienfalProtection, 3�0 Sf. Peter Stree�, SaintYaul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Debbie Crippen Secretary to the Board Page 4 oC 4 � MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, MARCH 26, 2001 d\ • PRESBNT: Mmes. Maddox, and Morton; Messis. Duckstad, Faricy, Gailes, Kleindl, and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT: Vince Courtney * "Excused . � The meeting was chaired by 7oyce Maddox, Chair. Brian Enadahl & Raina Eberlv (lt01-180961) 1376 Summit Avenue: A side yard setback variance in order to construct a play house/tree house structure in the rear yard. A setback of 3 feet is required and a setback of 1.24 feetis proposed, for a variance of 1.76 feet. The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for appioval, subject to the condition that the applicants obtain the appropriate building and electrical permits for the project. One letter was received in opposition to the variance request from SARPA (Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association). Five neighbors sent letters in support of the variance: 1367 Grand Avenue, 1382 Summit Avenue, 1390 Summit Avenue, 1364 Summit Avenue, and 1396 Summit Avenue. No correspondence was received regarding the variance from District 14. Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly, 1376 Summit Avenue. Ms. fiberly submitted an additional letter in support of the variance and addifional photos of the backyard and tree house/play house. She staeed that they built the tree house in the spring not in the fall as stated in the staff report. Ms. Bberly stated ---that the tree house could be-seen for 15-feet while walking-onxhe-front sidewalk. _- Mr. Engdahl stated that they had always tried to cooperate with the neighbors and the Heritage Commission during their 20 years of living in their home on Summit. Laura Kochevar, 1390 Summit Avenue, stated that she lives two doors down from the tree house and has a full view of it from her yard. She stated that when walking, biking, or driving on Summit Avenue the tree house is not noticeable. Ms. Kochevar stated that they love the tree house and would like to see it stay. Robin Cider, 1374 Summit Avenue - Unit l, stated that she opposed the granting of the setback variance to construct the tree house. She stated that there was a tree directly behind the house that could be used for the tree house that would not encroach on the property line. Ms. Cider stated that plans for tree house/play house plans considered a six foot by six foot structure large and the applicant chose to build a very large ten foot by ten foot tree house/play house. She stated that the plans shown to the neighbors did not reflect the final structure. Ms. Cider stated that the tree house was much larger in width and height. The play houseltree house became a two-srory structure on the fence line with windows, glass doors and electriciry. �':le #01-180961 Minutes March 26, 2001 Page Two Ms. Cider submitted photos of children in the tree house hanging off the safety railing and falIing to the � ground into her yard. She sTated concerns abouT the liabiliTy issues regarding the children falling into her yard and injuring themselves. Ms. Cider stated that they have noise, light and privacy encroachments not supported by the proposed variance. She stated that the tree house blocks one third of the air flow and light from their property on the west and significantly altexs the essential character of the surronnding area. Ms. Cider stated that the tree house/play house violaYes The HisToric -- Preservation District Guidelines and HPC (Heritage Preservation Commission) has denied a variance for this properry. She stated that the SARPA also supports the recommendation of the HPC to deny. Ms. Cider stated that the FTPC resolved to approve the structure provided they move it in line with the principle structure on the property. She stated that the neighbors support the decision eo deny the structure in the present location. Ms. Cider stated that the HPC judgement regarding the visual encroachment of Summit Avenue would take precedence due to the unique nature of the historic street. She stated that the structure reduces the historic value of the neighboring properties and has disturbed the neighborhood. Nancy Garrett, 1374 Summit Avenue, stated that they thought that the variance request failed to meet four of the six requirements of the Ciry Zoning Code. She stated that there was no reason that the tree house/play house had to be placed on the property line when there is another tree in the cenier of the yard. Ms, Garrett sta[ed that there were no unique circumstances related to the properry. Ms. Garrett stated that the side yard setback Zoning Code is in piace to protect neighbors from issues such as light pollution, noise pollution, and liability from neighbors actions and these are all concerns heze. She stated that twice this spring she had seen kids climbing over the safery railing and hanging over her yard. Ms. Garrett stated that on March 10, 2001 two kids had jumped into their yard and had they been injured, she could be held accountable. She stated that the structure acts as a 15-foot fence . blocking several hours of direct sunIight from her yard. Ms. Garrett stated that there are many doors and windows facing her home causing a lack of privacy. She stated that the glass doors are placed directly over her front yard and the kids constantly bang the doors. Ms. Garrett stated that her bedroom is about 15 feet from the entry to the tree house. She stated that the electricity is an issue because when the lights are on in the tree house, it also lights up her bedroom even with the blinds closed. Ms. Ganett stated that there is also a built-in bed, with kids sleeping in the tree house there is --- the potential for her sleep-to bedtsturbed: She stated-that during the building process they disttxbed -- - -- her sleep because they were working on the tree house after 9:00 p.m. Ms. Garrett stated that moving - � re rivac and pzovide screening from the other buildings and landscaping. She requested that ttte Board uphold the law and deny the variance request Ms. Garrett stated that they had tried ofren to commnnicate their concerns during the building process, but thought that their concerns had not been listened to. Ms. Eberly, stated that they did not have rnany ckoices for the tree house/play house. She stated that the tree behind the house was over the back sidewalk, and the tree further back in the yard has a pond below it so it was not a good choice. Ms. Eberly stated that the two trees, the tree house/play house is attached to is a better choice giving the tree house more stabiliry than a single tree would. She stated - that because fhe doots they had found were bigger than they,wan[ed it_became necessary to allow more room for the door to open. Ms. Eberly stated that they made the tree house/play house smaller and the deck larger because of the trouble with the door. Heating no further testimony, Ms. Maddox ctosed the public portion of the meeting. � Fiie 1101-180961 Minutes March 26, 2001 Page Threa �l_C�`l � Mr. Galles moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6, subject to the condition that the applicants obtain the appropriate buiiding and electrical permits for the project. Ms. Morton seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 7-0. Submitted by: 7ohn Hardwick � Approved by: Jpn Duckstad, Secretary � AitQ c.hm e.v�+ 3' D1 -G�� Brian Engdahl & Raina Eberly i 1376 Summit Ave. St. Paul, MN 55105 May 8, 2001 7ohn Hardwick, LIEP 350 St. Peter St., Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 Dear Mr. Hazdwick: As mentioned in the telephone message, we have reached a compromise with our neighbor, Robin Sydor, on the tree house. The revision essentially would turn the deck on the east side into a covered porch. The view from the north (Suinmit Ave.) would not change much. Enclosed are sketches of the cunent view from the east and the proposed view. We have agreed to do this if it is approved by the City. Sincerely, • Brian Eng ahl � Pa9e r of 3 � (�U i"/{%Vi � . .� __ _ _ _ " � l�5- �`S. :.l �__. �_ - - - - - ---- -- - -- - � - ; � - --- �� - - -- - : , ' � � _ ' + _ i � -- T— -- -- - --� - ---- - - -- ' �.� `. � `'' - -- � . s � r'm � ; =� � --� _ �---- ; � --- � ��; � �. , � ,,; � -� � ' - � - � - - - �- =' �'- -a. , 3 � P -� i -[ "' � - � { ' f ± 3 8-'�'=^_"_"` s -- - � y,.�„� - _� _ �__'_ � - � i . 1 . p " - t - "s — '—-- ` _ — — ° r—f — ' # 4 f; �, , _ - -- -- ' �' - --: : � _ ; i ;z #�------- � - - - s ; � � ; ; 3 r . . ' � , ' - . ., - - -- - -; - - - .. F - - --- -- .. ; : t �� . � : _ 3 _ _ _ _ - k _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _� __ __ . � +�� z ' n/ i -__--- -----__�`--- -- - - " - - --- - - ----- - - - � Z -- �)� S-�✓ m_ tu ��n — _� ---. y, _ . .. r .' ie` : , . ] - i - - � -- �5_Gica.S C�75u��ecr. __ __ _ __ _ � __.-• --____' _ 1 - � - - -- -- i --- - -_ _ i_ _ �- _ � � - �,. - e�,.✓ �n:c'j Li:•eE �' i u J f - °�� ` : _._ , � �:_�.=`-__ -: ' - .- -- .� � i i ' J , � - . _' -. —__ _ _ j� # � _ _ _ _ � n . .. . . , , ." , —� t . �/��i� , - � �`" `.a � - � k � -- "`` �,.,. ' � � ! � � , - d � - `� _ ,____- ; i .- , 'O_ G ��a e Z_ e6 � -�--� --- - — -- - -- � - • � 6�_�� i ' ! r� no.>. c� i �/� ' --------�--�_ �LL�_rrL�'G'�. _C� '.'r . e — •— i � �� - j � � � -- . � _ __— . . _. __.. _—_ —_--_ — j _ - _ -_—_ ' "'_"___"___..�.... . . - _ t . ___ __ '_---_'_____� ___ _ ' . . ___ ,_ ..-- _ . _ �� '—__ _'_ � � �_—'_ —_—___-__� ; _"' ., .__ .. .._ ... ` ' _—�_ ' —_ '—__� _� —__--'—_'___,__—_ ...,.,..___..»._.�._..__.._.._,.,_....�,.........._... -... .__ ... ... . ., . ' _ _ .. _ ' � � "_ 1 �,.,_....r_'__'— ___+_ ; 5 -_ _ _ ' __ _ '____ _ __'_ 3 -- -- ----- ---- �-� --- ----------------_ ------ � _ --_----- : � ,- ' 1 __ —'—_ ________ _____._—_—__________._____._ , ; _ _. .__-___ __ ____ �__—�_> � --"__'_______a "'__' _'"__—__"____—_' _____ _"_ __"___� i i —_ _.—____"—____—"—_—____—`_—"__'__—"_`___-____—___ � 3 ; : t a —___-__—____�._. —___—__— .___—____'____ . . _ -_.--_ — ____ _ ` i ' I ; � _—�_.—__ —..—__. ___--_� �%�— i -.=—__—'"_ _`"— �—"--_'__'_ —'—_ � , _ _�y . � ` _. _ __ ___ , ,n- - _7iR.e.S{✓L(C�vlil L=Z(G."� S'^� S�K/_✓1. r1-C-�: ct. C? _r.L?� C1t_ 5/ Ca fp� /� Gi4 !ti J� � _'P�� 3__oF 3 _ 6 � �� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, May 23, 2001, at 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Ha11, to consider the appeal of Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly of a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) decision approving a building permit for construction of a tree house (constructed without a building permit or HPC approval) with the condition that the tree house be moved so that its eastern wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence at 1376 Summit Avenue. Dated: May 3, 2001 Nancy Anderson Assistant City Council Secretary Council File # Q\� G 3q Green Sheet # � �� p RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 2 WHEREAS, Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly, in HPC File No. 4078, made application 3 to the Heritage Preservation Commission (hereinafter the "Commission") for a building permit 4 for a"tree house" structure in the rear yard of their properiy which is located in the Summit 5 Avenue West Heritage Preservation District and is commonly known as 1376 Sununit Avenue, 6 legally described as noted in the referenced HPC file; and � 8 WHEREAS, on October 19, 2000, the Commission conducted a public hearing after 9 having provided notice to affected property owners. By its Resolution No. 4078 adopted October 10 26, 2000, the Commission moved to deny the building permit based upon the location of the 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 structure for the following reasons: 1. The structure conforms to general guidelines which encourage architectural innovation and quality design while maintaining the harmony and continuity of the district. 2. The structure's form, materials, roofpitch and scare are differentiated fro the main residence yet compatible. 3. The shucture's location does not take into consideration the scale of the spaces between buildings and the rhythm of buildings to open space. WHEREAS, the Commission then moved in Resolution No. 4078 to grant the building permit "contingent upon moving the siructure so that its eastem wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence." WHEREAS, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06, Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Commission and requested a hearing before the City Council far the purposes of considering the actions taken by said Commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legfslative Code § 73.06 and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on May 23, 2001, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Council having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes, and resolution of the Commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, to reverse the Commission's decision in this matter. The Council finds, 1 based upon all the files, information, and the testimony gathered at the public hearing, that the p � a 2 Commission erred in its fmdings contained in Commission Resolution No. 4078 in support of 3 granting the building permit subject to the condition that the shucture in question be moved 4 based upon the following: 6 1. While the tree house is visible from Summit Avenue, it is visible only briefly 7 depending on how fast one travels past the property. The fact that the tree house is 8 visible does not support a definitive finding that the tree house "does not take into 9 consideration the scale of the spaces between buildings and the rhythm of buildings to 10 open space" that requires that the tree house be moved. Other measures - short of moving 11 the tree house - can be taken to screen and otherwise soften the view of the tree house 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 from Summit Avenue. Those measures include planting trees to screen the tree house from view. 2. The Commission found that the architecture, materials and consriuction of the tree house aze, in all other respects, compatible with the historic district. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly be and is hereby granted; and be it FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Council secretary shall mail a copy of Yhis resolution to Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly, the Zoning Administrator and to the Commission. Requested by Department of: By: Form Approv d by City Attorney B ��✓�/�-�-� 6-/�-v� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY� �� I ,-i� By: Approved by Mayor: Date VI! /� b�/ By' Adopted by Council: Date �-�� \ Adogtion Certified by Council cretary Ol.L1el DEPARTMINiroFFI(�ICOUNCIL onie wmnim " _ - � CITY COUNCIL .r„ne zo zoo� GREEN SHEET No ��766 c�nACr a�zs� & a � +or �L66-8630 �` ""�" Councilmember Hasris � oa,,mr�rwuaa, arrcarra MUSi BE ON COUNCIL AGHIQ4 BY (04Tq ❑ ❑ AIIEI611 June 27, 2001 (Consent) �� a,r.,,oeEr a,raau noorwc �� wuncu�amuresow. ❑ w�o��mnn�xro ❑M� �� ❑ TOTAL;E OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION REQUESTED Memorializing City Council action taken on May 23, 2001, granting the appeal o£ Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission regarding the con- struction of a tree house at 1376 Summit Avenue. RECAMMENDA ION Approve (A) w Reject (R) VERSONAISERVICE CANTRAGfS MUSTANSWER TNE iOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1. Has this Pe�M�m everv.wketl under e coMract fa Mis dePa�meM7 PLANNINGCOMMISSION YES NO CIBCOMMITTEE 2 HasttiispersmRrmererbeenacilyempbyee'7 qVIL SERVICE COMMISSION YES NO 3. Ooes Mis persoMrm P�� a sldli no[ nomiatlYGossessetl bY airy curte�R d[Y empioyee� VES NO 4. Is tAie pe�soNfiim a tarpetedvendoR YES NO F�lain all Yes answe�s on seParate sheet anE attach W Hreen shec4 INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPOR7UNITY (VJho, What, When, Where, Why) � ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISAWANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOLLL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION i COS7/FtEVENUE BUD6ETED (GRCLE ONq YES NO FUNDMGSOURCE ACTNITYNUMBER FlWWLW.INFORMATON (IXPLNI� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norzn Colem¢rt, Mayor Hand Deltvered June 18, 2001 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary Room 310 City Hall OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Claytorz M Robinson, Jn, Ciry Attorney O� � C' � civitDivisioa 400 City�Ha[1 Telephone: 65] ?66-871Q !S Wut Ke[Iogg Blvd. Facsimile: 6.i7 2985619 Saint Pau[, Minnesota »IO? RE: Resolution memorializing the Council's decision to grant the appeal of Engdahl and Eberly from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission for the property at 1376 Summit Avenue. Conncil Action Date: May 23, 2001 Dear Nancy: Attached please find a signed, original resolution memorializing the decision of the council in the matter and on the date noted above. Please add this item to the CounciPs consent agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Y � �L/G�aY+Q� eter W. Wamer e �—� OFF[CE OF LICbNSE, B3SPECTIONS AND EN V IlZONMEN'CAL PYtOTECTION Roger Curtis, Director 33 i .. • pIIZSTgIIN • . N01ZCE OF POBIdC HEABIIiC: CTfY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colerrsan, Mayor Apri123,2001 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: LOWRYPR The Samt Paul City Coimdl wfll con- 090 Suite 300 duct a public hearing on Wednesday, May �099 350 St Pete 23, 2001, at 5:30 p.m., City Cound7 . Saint Povl. Cl�ambecs; 3rd Floor GYty Hall. tn oonsider fihe appeal of Brian Engdalil and Raina Eberly of a Heritage Preservation Commisstion (f�CJ decision approving a building permit for conslruction of a tree house [wnstructed wlthout a bwldin�+ per' mit or T�C approval) with the condition that the tree hwse be mwed so that its eastern wall Is set tiack to a plane at least as far.advanced the eastern lot llne as the mafn residence at 1376 Summit Avenue. Dated: May 3, 2001 _ NANCYANDERSON � - . Asslstant GYty Council Seeretary - , Qu1aY � 81:PAULIEGALlSDGBR ozozie2s I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May 23, 2001 for the following heritage preservation case: Appellant(s): Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly File Nuxnber: 4078 Purpose: Appeal of a Aeritage Preservation Commission decision approving a building permit for construcfion of a tree house (constructed without a building pemut or HPC approval) with the condifion that the tree house be moved so that its eastem wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence. Location: 5taff 1376 Summit Avenue No staffrecommendafion. Commission : Approved with condition on a 6-1 vote. (Two motions were made: First was to deny the p°rmit :or the `t.ee hoase' in its cur:er.� 1x»?ier., and secon�? ±o approve the "building pernut confingent upon moving the structure so that its eastem wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence: ') I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Pat Harris. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you will publish norice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9078 if you l�ave any quesfions. Sincerely L ` �.� r �i Amy Spong Historic Preservation Specialist CC: Council Member Pat Harris Renee Eberly, Brian Engdahl SAIHS PAUL � AAAA CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 16, 2001 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paui, MN 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: OFFICEOFLCENSE, INSPECTIONSAND ENVIRONMENTi1L PROTECT/ON O � _` � °, Roger Curtis, Disector LOiPRYPROFESSIONALBUlLIDNG Telephone:611-166-9001 350 St Peter Street Facsimile: 612-266-9099 Suite 310 Saint Paul, Minnuota 55101-I510 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May 23 2001 for the foilowing heritage preservation case: Appellant(s): Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly File Number: 4078 � Purpose: Appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision approving a building pernut for construction of a tree house (constructed without a building pernut or HPC approval) with the condition that the tree house be moved so that its eastem wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastem lot line as the main residence. Locarion: Staff : 1376 Sumnut Avenue No staff recommendarion. Commission : Approved with condirions on a 6-i vote. (Two motions were made: First was to deny the pernut for the `tree house' in its current location, and second to approve the "building permit contingent upon moving the structure so that its eastern wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence.") I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Pat Harris. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your eazliest convenience and that you will publish norice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9078 if you have any quesrions. Sincerely, � Amy Spon�� Historic Preservarion 5pecialist Attachments b 1-��`l � LIST OF ATTAC�NTS: Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attaclunent D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G Attachment H Attachment I � Attachment J Photo copies of tree house Copy of building permit dated September 28, 2000 Site plan and elevarions (provided by the applicant on 10l02(Ol) Excerpt from October 5, 2000 HPC Minutes Excerpt from October 19, 2000 HPC Minutes and notes transcribed from meeting tapes Conespondence from applicant read at October 19, 2000 HPC Meeting Correspondence from HPC to applicant and HPC Resolution File #4078 Norice of appeal from applicant and statement on grounds of appeal Board of Zoning Appeais Resolution #O1-180961 and excerpt from March 26, 2001 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes Letter from owner to 7olui Hardwick, LIEP, dated May 8, 2001, which proposes to turn deck into covered porch � _t�, � .��r'y � ' i'� . .. . j R ' :Y� � Y ♦ �• , � � . ` .�< e • .. ' , :, �. _... `- ° . f �� . � : �',,,a_ �� . � �. � � ., � - o--T � � , � �.. . � �� i 1�' . �. _ � � . L �. � . T, �\ \ } . � ' � . . �, R} ' , '.� ,,a. �� —i �, ,+ s. , \ s ; �- � 4 , � , �J"Y�' � , � . \ .��k � � �' F � . . • �+� . i . ,� 4 ` : . � . .. �_. . � �. y� + <; '�'1.*► -:. . r +. � - � i � � ' y - � '% t' � •• • > YJJ�'Y el��i ♦. +f t.4.. •Y I" � ; :... i�• . �:t l/ iti�Ul � [, C � ` y • e : , ' �. . .4. �.� •. � i.. - �� > . i <l�� cc&� a . 3 � «L � � 9 � - '.. ".� �� -..P.r �� B� . . � �1� f�� y q ` d 1 .a� ...z-- �* t < "x -�.. � � �:. . . .. , . �'t'� } . . X� �^ i.,�. ".,T'_'4f�� '�wir .. �.�: .f= e� .�:��r� �j�� _ y �"�.z 2' � �p r1♦ i��• :�:. ._ � c�`�.. � _ ( ,St« x ;p r':f ~� � � � '� `- .""'^""-�mvmxyl�S'l�A��=...,� l i i .�� . n i .i �•� �� _ :��^' f� __ , ;} Y � [ _ _ � , s a,� f� y � 4 �^i .. .__ . _ �� . �� k 1 [ � � � � �� . . � � . t . fi � � �� f .• � � K 1 ; �� ' • ` y �y�, ^ N � c � � � �M� ' . :' » J , z �,„,� �?; r� ' , �'•! �„! , I, � t . ', , , ;:;: ::, .�, � , � �� r � �'z, . . � - :i • �' � i , � ' +-- � • � � � � �,� . . � ,�` , w. y �� 1 l. , , �! - .. � { . � �� ;, f r.,� ��r-_ � • � . . � „ . ., ., . .� � �.} ,, A �� 7� �,t' . ;� � , ; �•8 �, t - ---_ ``-�.'.�' . i _ . . - _ . --�--.�.�._,,._.__�..,.�_ � "�' �,��.:.>,., .. '� � � , � �. � i . � ;l _ . '1 `' �� J t+et �� ' F f �� . i _ .. . .. a . � i i � � ` � .,. 1` ��.� � . . `.! . ' [Y. i _ . . � � .. ...� 1, . . . � k. a` a`4� - �� ; :.. . ' . . .` ]. i �' . .....�..°...'"`�^ .. � . � .if... . ,_ . . _ *. * *.. . . , . � . � . .. . `� ..`. , . . . . . , �". � \ ' _ . ..._....,_ —.�. .....—..—. . ,-- . � . ., � , - _:; i �� . ' . � �,:� � . . . ,�� ' 4 r, r f.r � ``, i'� • ° � - < :w'�,. . �'" ' �� _ x. ,,, _ , . . F..':'' . . _ .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. ..1;�y- j . . , :.`.. � ..: ;, �. . . .. � . � � . M � st � � � 1 ; �� . . . ... _ � .. �'� � v . s .. vy � �� . �. .. .. .. . .... . . . ... _ . , ...._._,. : . k . � . :� . . . . �� .....'., #�' o : , �. . �...... .. � . � -m�m.o-.---�m....., �m a p� y � ' y � � . j ��'''' S � 7 �' , � _�±o-��,.:;...,. � � _ _ � �. �: r' � _ . , ,° . . < , , , , - �3 . - �tr ��- �- � � ? , : � � ��_ . � � �: �� 3 � .. .:� . . .. . . • . - ,_ . , .,._._.i� ... . . �_ a+e p ':+�t. �. . _ . . : . . a. �. _ 'y1. . . .. . � � . � t _ r..' r . � � tiN,.,.. . . _, . �ti:: ti +i. : ..a . . . . .. � - , ' � .., r:� .��... , �. . . . . ' .., . .. _ : .. ..�,�� •_ � � _ *. ° -"'�'�'x ._ , ,. , � �, .�, �„ ;� � .�. ,��. � I .;� ,� �� i� :t:�,�� . ,- �;; '"" :. �` �. � s ti i. �. �� zf��tkr; y � : - i�'- .,��. . i� i':/. . �`� . ..�{ ��° .i�EMf..�- �>�� .. �.�1 .} � _ � _ T ' :,a:- ` '� � . �, K �\ a�(�- •` Uw •�• ,!� F �w y • y' la � y'�. a; � �'+�. ` , ti . . V�� ls� '1 ` .4 ' � �� , :..Pa . . < �:�.� . 1�� , ��"r{ ,'1 � y 5 � e f a ` � ', �. • .� . � t 1w ' ` �1 �� d • 4 �� . 'q .a t� ,, .. � �� • j�4 . � � �r1� F� �v �� „ +�` � �� .�� . �� a �.�� ;�`.� � � s , � '� r �� '. � � « . � � ,�1,�,� • \ Y . �. , �} �.•,, � l.� , . �� f l . di . � - � � �i 1 ) � �` f'� r �4 �• '„� . .. . . . . '`�� s. � .� e � '. . . . . . i . a � ��.V.w � _ . . i . . � . l ( �.��^�1 M . . " .. , � . . . � 1 � _ � `, ,�yy, a. . �� r� ; �p � s fC` � ��. � ,� �� g _ � � �� " ��. �, � � � ' �'� A�! ;.j'"" „�� : ,�..�""` " t:�� r �", �+ � :�sl. �. ' � ��a . . ,. } )} ' �/,� � � t � �`. � � 1�� r j ` � 1: `�� " .� �,�{� �: � � '., . � . ,�. ��' '° r � .� � � � � � ., � T.s , w + 4 V . . "'.��. �1 � l�f� V�.tYY; :: k " • '�sa*• � z, " �(� . . 7 �, . w • .. * i �'� � a.� '� , �� ,� �.,�1� j • ' _}�,� , �' � �� • f� '1� , � . . {y � � 1 �t �;� 1�� - �. ° �`� � , k =,�� y .+ "` � - •"� r f ; .* , . ..,� � ,i r� p � i;� ,J �L 11, �� ;�' � � �� c"4 ti � \, �.. • .+'� !"�; � .- . ,� . �.,, .�. : l� 4; _ � . . �, . .� . ��L . . . �.� � `�w � �:�.�� ~ �� ! �• � � � . ) .�` X �� v:. �+ �� _ . j ry � � '. � .! � .. �i� • r�� 1<-e�y. � . _ ' . �� 1 � „y � , 4�� a , S. + � s •�` s �"� ..►�*' n +..'�� a 'l� .�� a•� =� _ ; ,: � • r 2 � v: '. z r . � � . 1 . . � . � . . - . .. . . . .. . - ` ' . . � - j: . _ .. , . - . ��. . �'^Z'�� - � -' � � . . ._ ' . y � .� . ._`` :., a S� v / • .. . . : i�.:\" (� i , t�� . uY'. � {..�b` - "�$^ ` r . . .. , : • � , -. r , �. , : �. .. . . w � � , ,_ . ' �� ' � . " - �� _ . - � � '� � _ �.., ._ . . =� L � . �. '� . ' ,r�"` -.►,� _� k �� Y :; . •' _ � � � ; � f � �'�+.,� , t � - ,, ,,xe. . - 1 �'�....�e :v,.� � �!�`'"� >!� - y s ,; ,� � �. � � _ �� " � �Y ,� �_ � - a ; � w f Yi �. ! � �,�'? ':u a.s� �S e « ;�; r� �i._.. . � .. . � i-5 : �� `„` { �Lr .. � F'F . tiY.� �s�. ¢� �. afiz'�. �.°.Y.a �e�'� 'ti a'� � °Y _ L � ) .��J.'�° nm � ?S�� :.F?�'�' �. y {(.a•l'•li'}^. . �4 _ �.� :Y ��F .• '� t. �: Y � ��,; .. +Q � ` ^Z+� .r ?` 9 `: Y �:1 '�a . _ r^ .+��. v y "' `�� `'��:�'r^ r_�:�. f r ;��: , ,.: ¢k` , �, �.,.� + � e ��; -.�. � ' ..: : aa'.:''i� ;r�l� h—.a.{ �� . _ � .,w .. �J': � 4 }F *� < �t�y ;�� y , . t t � , / Y" � . ` f f � l �� J} �' � . � �ai� � I' A y r ��' yF '�t . 1P ` , a �.�� -v�sLyYli 5. CITY OF ST. PAUL GENERAL BUILQING PERMIT � OFFICEOFLICENSE,WSPECTIONSANDENVIRONMENTAIPROTECTION APPUCATION D �—�� - 350 ST P T R T . E E 5 REET, SUITE 300 ST.PAUL,MtNNESOTA 55102-1510 Secfion I- INFORNATIONAL (See back ofform for additiona! informotion) Number Street Name St. Ace. Blvd. Etc. A1 S E`V SuiteiApt PROJECT ADDRESS t 3 7!� J�J ��•t � `{ - �1E'_ Cont�aCtOr qdd�C55 (Pemi[ wi0 be mailed to the Q Q I3h/l.P.�t Ciry � �r' ��i (Inc]ude Contact Person) S[ate, Ztp+4 Prope� qddress p .f�f � Cs-.nw. �Y,�cQf>�4'� Ciry 1 � (� S.� �-.aa� :'�- t\� (Include Contact Person State, Z�p+4 Ylasonry Contractor Address � --- Gty,StateZip+4 Architect Address � �❑ ❑ Estim ❑ Date: f� y o �-,� - f - rEF hc.,s� Section II - PLEASE COMPLETE TH1S SE Structure Dimensions (Tn Feet) Width Length He�ght Total Square Feet include basement � � t�` �� l�� ot Dimensions (In Feet3 >tWidth LotDe th Front 4� �°:� !�� -{-r�� h a Zoning Distnct I Plan Number PLAN REVIEW REMARKS IVumberof > > > ;ntiaV linits �-�y l�J. lmfG /G: ��'�� CoSla(°o-� [Z Phone i $ l � r-i( a� ;orrect and tha[ all pertinent state regulations and I �orqiinglkej9ork for which this permit is �ssued, i ls a Fire Suppress�on System Available? (i.e. - sprinklecs} Basement? S[ones 1'es or No Yes No J � " Set Backs from Property Lines Back Side 1 S�de 2 C� 7 � � ; �r O ice Use Onlv � — .,c �'AX IZ`? Building Permit Fee y Wo�ld you Iike qour j�]ari ChECk FCe permit faxed to �ou? �y Yes � State Surcharge 5 \o Ifyes,entercour SAC faz ° > � Total Permit Fee S SA.G C6argc ! Cmdit � Reviewed By: Da[e. Siate Valuation S Please comple[e �he (ollowing mfortnahon forcredrt card paymenC Orcle �he Card T}pe. 1�85IEi CBCa Expirabon Daro. E'.VTERYOURACCOIINTNUMSERINTHBBOXES Visa Month/Ycar -i Month Y"car 1 I I � I Please S�gn & Da[e SignaNre required forall charges. Q �'Z7 � D�i- l �sa� -� ��-,� �/ 10/02/00 MON 09:07 FAX VAMC PSYCHOLOGY � 001 ._._ To: 3"ohr..,st�r'o..di�1c> -4-nx (a5t - Z6�o -- �t2-� � � �aw.: �r�:rs.� �n��,�.t�,�. – 13 7� Sv �.,,..� +- �v �5 -� ao►- f�,•►+�.�r-� . � � z,- �.s - z o't 3 c,J � � `i'ha.�., I.�_5 � �s � �- �°'o� €�a- � -� � a-! � � o � -� � `._� - - - _. . �. —. .— - L --. � "�'t oo {�- - - - -� '�.=��L_---,.—":" _ � a,-Q�rio)i - Y --- ° -- i � ��k _. — _.___ - --- - -- _, .._ � -- - --- ._`�� - _ _.. . _ _ --- � . t�a � .�-z - — � � -- ... : �-.��..�ss e, _.. _ ..__ .. __ ... - --- -- s ` , �-"°��-- - — � � a ,� �'� � .__ , --._.... _ _ ___ .—_- � -- -- �. ._ . . . _ _ . —. _. �G(e t - -- � f � Q d � -- . — . �— - - — d � --- =--__ f — ' ... — ---- ----.. .. _. _ ._. _ _ --- - ' z � � . _. . __._ .— i �° . __ _— _ .... --. ' � IG�.'S�% _ _. _ _ � �..�. � __ , __ _.,_ � : � _.. --- - �---- —. _— - , --- .. �. -- — _... ---_ : h _._ .._. _.... o � -� - p -- _.. .._ i r. - - ._�� `.---.. __. ._y__. _._._. ---� • _.._ --- . _ _ _ _ � _—. —._ T- --- � - - _ - __ _ _� .—_ _ . — -- ... _ . --- � , _. _- — --- -. - - � i � _..—. _ .. _ ..._ . _. . . . .._ _. - — - �-! � . �. _-... i . �. _._ - � . -- ---.. --- -- - --- - - - — -- - - -,_ . _.� _. - - - - - - - - - - r Tf�,EhOJS� _—_ --_" � .__ '_.._. '_" - . -. _.._ — z� -- -___ i2`xl�� — ._ "� �—:.. -- ( , , � -.— _ .. , ._. _..��. - - ...... ..---•-' .�- . ___.. . -- - —. _"'___ - -- . . . — � — ._._... _—.� _ . . _. —_ � i 4 � � -- - "_ - �—�-- -- - � ---- -- - -... -- - _.� — -- -- _ _ ^ I ` ----- ; -,--- -- .._.. . .� --- -- ---- � �- - °-- � i ----� , _.— � _. _ � . ._._. _ _ —�—� - a , -- __ ._._�._ ._, ' ---- --4 , .-- � _ -- — --- --1tv..__� --- -- -- --- ._, --- -- —� --- ---- !� - - _ _ ---�5' ,. - - -^-. _.. ------� . I v � 4 . -- - N t3a.-� � ��s� ..._ -- - — �-- __.__. �, ._. _. --- ---- ___ . ocr-ez-zaee e9�s1 9�z ` P.ei � [ M 2�� - �c �� - i �_ l 7��-- � �-: b � , 5 ,r„r..�t - ��,�,-_ �-., t c-,c�-�Z� - :�: �-,: , - L, i . t 2 ----- -- — - ----- — - - t +E_"- _ __ _ _ ' _ . _ .. _: _ _ _ _ _ _ ' — ,." _.�.—_T.._—. _ � __ ' � C , � � - -- j ' } �\ � —� ; t f -� �1 - ; = - � / � _�i /\� �, . , � � i � - - ' -- 2� r- - - - - _ _ _ i'_ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ __ i ��ri. ; — — � — - � — J -- — — � -- — s � �� ._L - � - - ��- ;j i v �� i _ _ _ i r i -- - - - - - 1 - - - -- -- -- r c• ��-� �, �^ f' i� i ac_ ` -� I'I ,? _ , ...�` i s 1 T F ( ` l l i�� 'r i , / ____i � � i �� t 2 0� � � � �� 2� 1�t' 5E . . � i ;' i � � ___._. �___ _— ___ ; � _; —;—_ �: -f ` � ; i i i 3 � i � r� ' � i�`- �� ` pl-�� i , � V( l� ��a E� "�'- 4�± FJ s L��' { �� L � 5 � ` i • � ,/,� iFJ� 6 .r�cv° �.fic�d." � � � ' �� > � `. / i / � \ � � ~� .� � f � '�+�, ,\ - / \ ___ "_ _ _ _� . f i i i � f _' _ __'_ _' __""_____ _ "__"_—� v �-" � _ t _ t � . t . S 1 � 1 t ' 1 ' .^-„� � � i i ; / _ "., / \ i 3 4 � 0� �p '�...,� � � • 1 � � ) _ �e � / 1 � ' s._._-•_—� � _ 1 ( ` � _ _,__ _ � � . ! V:Ev� �rc_�3 �sSEx,� � # _ --- ' 4 � l ; - ? t � � , i - � i ` ' i � � f _ f _ I � 3 i i t �..e....�._._._ i o € ' � ; 4 � F i �14 1 . � � a � � , - i - � � i ! 1 _ f -- : - - - -� � - t - -- - --� - ; - -- ' -- - - -- � -- p } � � �- _ � � i � f : i � ' i : { F ---- ` ---- ----- '— ---`�._--' --- t , k � i I i • � ; . : ' ; ; - - --- ; �- - -; _ : .. 1 . { 3 �------� ^ -- - ' - -- � --�. _ ___.`� = i _� �� }�- :, . a� �,- ` � , , � ,,� � • ,: �� ( f:s i � � .. � � �� i ot-�`�`� V � E�,J ��Ck: .= ^�.. - . j�.;---- i � , , ---,. ; � ��d� saz�� --� _ 5 `�� , �--------- --- -- �� __ � _ _____�____ � ------ , _ ;,� ( ; " / i � , _ �i i � � 1 ; 1 �._ � ' i � � : ;: ;; k ' ij �oF to i� � i�,v `i e�::, t,-� � � --- -�� : :. , : : : _ . �� '.I . ; � . � �_�. - - --- ------- --- --- � — - - `� :_�y__�_ - ��- �� _..._ �, _ _� _ i � - " --� � -- i � - - -��'"� _ - _ i i ��J � __.__. _ � _ ' _ . . /' / ; _'___ � ,_''--__ i `" � � . i ` _ - _ __ '. �- " ; . -' : _ _'�.. --_ i = - .a � J,/� - � - --- -- , ; _ � � J �� , �\ _ � . - ---- -�� - -� - - - � - � • - •:— — -- s��.— — — ---- � --- — -- - — - . - __ � � (� 04 �o AmySpong�-6i11NOct52000.wpd._ ... _._.�,.._._.__� .. _ . _--- — -_�._.._ .._.___ _ .__._. Pag �.�. �{-achmc�fi � Minutes Saint Paui Heritage Preservation Commission October 5, 2000 Commissioners in Attendance: Errigo, Nargens, Larson, Meyer, Murphy, Scott, Wilsey, Wolfgramm, Younkin CommissionersAbsent: Beflus, Benton, Foote, Mikos, Staff Present: Lobejko, Riddering, Skradski 1. Cail to Order. 5:00 p.m. (Vice Chair Hargens). 2. Announcement Skradski stated committee reports would be tabled until the new heritage preservation specialist begins on October 9, 2000. 3. Approvat of the Aqenda: Approved unanimously. 4. Oid Business Skradski presented five projects in which action taken on them was not clear, in lieu of the former HPC staff person's departure. Commissioners told Skradski to consult the Commission in an informal manner after the meeting 5. New Business: Pubiic Heari�glDesign Review A. 211 E. 4'-" Street: Skradski reported that sign Faces were installed without HPC approval or proper permits and that existing signage was already noncompliantwith district guidelines. Without the applicant in attendance, the HPC did not hear publlc testimony nor take action. B. 546 Hollv Avenue: Will Rossbach, Rossbach Construction, explained the proposal which was to demolish existing side/rear porch and concrete steps and construct a new covered porch with deck above. Motion to approve the project as proposed (Scott) was seconded (Larson) and approved unanimously. C. 732 Marqaret Street: Wayne Lundeen stated he wanted to remove existing driveway, relocate the garage doors to the west side and install a stone paver driveway. HPC members asked about door design, and the materials for both the garage and driveway. Motion to approve the project as proposed (Younkin) was seconded (Larson) and approved unanimously. o�-�"�`� D. 565 Marshail Avenue: Michaei Terries from Outdoor Renovations explained the type of windows proposed to repface current, original windows. When asked by commissioners if other types of windows were considered, Mr. Terries stated `no.' Amy Spong - M NOct52000.wpd LL ' m � mmY T � � m Page 2, Motion to deny the project as proposed (Younkin) was seconded (Larson) and approved unanimously. E. 579 Ashland Avenue: After questions about fence height and design, the HPC decided to move this onto HPC staff for review and possible approval. 691 Davton Avenue: Dave Schilier from the City of Saint Paul asked the HPC which type of window is allowed for this type of structure (Queen Anne, construded in 1885). The HPC referred this to staff for review and possible approval. G. 1815 Summit Avenue: Robert Lunning, architect for the owners, for a project to renovate the front facade. Motion to approve the project (Murphy) was seconded (Scott) and approved unanimously. H. 1858 Summit'Avenue: Larson motioned approval of the projectwith two conditions: 'I} brick set back by four feet from original building; 2) hvo or three double hung wood windows, placed at will; Younkin seconded tbe motion. Motion approved unanimously. I. 382 Maple Street: The applicantwanted to lcno�.v which colors were approved, according to Skradski; however, since the applicantwas not there, the HPC took no adion. J. 725-733 E. 7'-" Street: (Younkir was recused from discussion and decision.) Motion to approve the project as proposed (Larson) was seconded (Meyer) and approved unanimously. K. 90 E 4'-" Street: Fran Golt presented revised plans for the Central Library renovation; many of the p(ans were from previous HPC member inpuf. The HPC totd fhe applicants iF the permit applications has the design presented tonight, tY�e HPC would approve those plans. � L. 1376 Summit Avenue: Skradski stated the applicant constructed a tree house withoe+t _._ -_-_ a permit Brian Engdahl explained hQlalked to HPC last spring and was told_he did __ not need a permit. A resident at 1374 Summit Avenue stated opposition to the tree house, since if significanfiy and negatively a(fered the view from Summit Avenue. ' ----- -- - -- - = ' _��_ _.._..._ .�:.. __.:_......:�� ti,. forwarded to the next full HPC meeting on October 19, 2000. 6. Rdjournment Vice Chair Hargens adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. � �t�'fQdnme✓�t' E �p p�red �avexr�be,- Minutes Sainf Pau! Heritage Preservatlon Commiss6on October 19 a000 Commissioners i� Attendance: Bellus, Foote, Hargens, Larson, Murphy, Wilsey, Wolfgramm Commissioners Absent: Staifi Present: Benton, Errigo, Meyer, P✓�ikos, Scott, Younkin �obejko, Riddering, Skradski, Spong 1. Ca!! to Order: 5:00 p.m. (Cfiair BelVus) dt-c.�� ((a, zAcao 2. Announcements: Belius introduced Amy Spong as LIEP's new heritage preservationspecialist. 3. Approval of the Agenda: Agenda approved • 4. Old Business _ r:; � =,: ��°'- ,� � ,. —"—'� A. 1376 Summit Avenue: The owners/appiicants could not�ft„ �,_ � statement to the Commission, summarizi,n,g�points that fhe project to canstruct a tree house inkhe�'�e��a�d� The ov✓r Summit Avenue stated opposition to�`f�is Q��ee2;"based on the visual gap from Summit,�ye�ue that th2tree�ioF�s�e;s,� submitted a written ;d as relevant to this • ;ighboring 1374 of the structure and fiils. Ms. Foote questioned why LBEP staff in;sfructed the applican#s°}Eh�'at;�ti�ey did not need a permit and asked if documentation w�r� available'_to verify�{iis"i�`avhat occurred. Mr. Skradski repeated the plan exar,n.In�r�s quest�oning process for permit applicants, claiming plan examiners' would onk��erbally check with appiieants to determine it the project needed a permit. Mr. Wofigratt�m stated �ig:Yhinks ihe;tree house added to the characier of the district and would �ot'vote to den�.z�Othercommissioners agreed with Mr. Wolfgramm regarding the.style;of the tree house�5iructure, but voiced a concern that it was readily � uisible from$Su'�[i�t Avenue. Mr:;Ca�son staced the HPC should do two things: 1) vote on '� the motion tn,de�xth� permii; 2) make a new motion with conditions. Motton to deny . rpeoject as I 6- 1(Woifgramm). Larson moved approval of the of the tree house to the same plane as the house; the ). Mo4ion approved 6 ='1 (Beiius). B:;;;- 565 NTa�sh` �aTvliehael Terries asked the Commission if it would reconsider its decision to ��,.� deny tfie�r�o�ec#�z�?posed at its Oatober 5, 2000 meeting; no commissioner was willing tc offer a motior��fo�¢consider. Mr. Terries proposed replacing the sash with aluminum or wood, thea,;ezpiained the details. Hargens moved approval of replacement sashes, giving discretion to the owner between aluminum and wood; Wilsey secanded. Larson aslced about the condition of the casings; Ms. Spong suggested that the casings �= t and triRia6e repaired; Mr. Terries told the Commission repairing would be very expensive. � � � - Motaon approvec9 unanimously (7 - O). �= -� 7��motion to approve wrapping the trim and sills (Larson) was seconded (Hargens) ° and approved unanimousfy (7 - 0). Mc Terries recommended the City give contractors a fist of HPC districts and individual sites when renewing or applying for the city contracting license. � Tc.nsc.r�bec4 4vm rn�efi,n� -f-apes. (�- {{�rapat� oqPr�Jed la� Comrv�i ss+ on� ST PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2000 • NIINUTES Present: Nfines. Foote, and Wilsey; Messrs. Bellus, Hazgens, Larson, Murphy, and Wolfgramm. James Bellus, chaired the committee. 1376 SiJMMIT AVEI`TL1E, the owmer constructed a tree house without HPC (Heritage Preservation Committee) approval. Amy Spong stated that the owner constructed a tree house in the back yard wiYhout a building permiY. Ms. Spong stated that they had denied the tree house at the previous HPC Hearing, but a quorum was not present to make it official. John Skradski provided photographs of the tree house and clarified that they that had built it around a tree not attached to the tree as most tree houses. Commissioner Bellus snggested that the Committee members read the letter sent by the property orvner of 1376 Summit Avenue before proceeding with the hearing. Kevin Leuthold, 1374 Summit Avenue, stated that he lives next door. Mr. Leuthold stated that the tree house does not match either house and fills the gap between the two buildings. Commissioner Foote, questioned whether the building was a reaP house or a child's play house. • Commissioner Foote, questioned whether there was any documentation to prove that the owner had tried to follow the proper procedure. Mr. Skradski explained the Plan Examiners question process. He stated that the size of their project and their location in the City are the fizst questions asked by the plan examiners, to -- -- --- deternaine need for-a-huilding permit and any�pproval needed in�3istoricDistricts. __ __ __ __ F * d been in.o osition To the project at the previous hearing. He thought that they had misrepresented the size of the project. The Commission discussed the differences in pemut requirements for regular districts and Historic Districts. Commissioner Wolfg�amm questioned what couId be more historic than a child's tree house. He stated it adds to the city, adds to the character of a chitd's life and is well constructed and designed. Mr. Wolfgramm stated thaY he is voting a�ainst the resolution. He stated that if they denied the permit aT the zoning level it would be more appropriate, if the tree house violated the zoning laws. Commission Hargans questioned whether tl�eir reason for eitber granting or not granting approval of the resolution was caused by lack of process or lack of historic compatibility. � � O�t �i Ol -��`� HPC Minutes � October I9, 2000 Page Two Commissioner Larson stated that he thought that it was a minor structure, and that the commission's position had not required Yhat a minor structure match the house. However, he noted that this case was the third case in four months, that was asking for approval after the fact. Commissioner Larson stated that he wanted people to be notified in some way that perxnits aze required in the historic district and that he wanted them to apply for the permits before they start building projects. Commissioner Wilsey stated that she agreed with Commissioner Larson. However, she would not have a problem with the structure if it were behind the house and not visible from the street. Commissioner Bellus stated that there were other reasons to deny or approve the proj ect other than that they did not follow the process correctly. Commissioner Wilsey stated that just because the structure was a kid's tree house, approving it when they had denied other projects that could be seen from the street was not fair. �ommissioner Hargens stated that the structure was on the cusp of what is considered a building. The tree house is lazge enough and because they build it off the ground it has the appearance of a . buildin�. Commissioner Beilus stated that there were several options available to the Commission at this point. He stated that the Commission could make a motion to deny the project and have a second motion for approval subject to certain conditions. Commissioner Bellus stated such as moving it further into the back yard and away from the lot line. He stated rather than waiting for the Zoning Board to move it over two feet, the Commission could have them move it over ten feet so iYasflushwith-thehouse. --__-___ ____ _ Commissioner Larson moved to deny the project, which passed 6-1(Wolfgramm). Commissioner Lazson moved to approve the project subject to the condition that they move the structure so the eastem wall is setback at least flush with the house. Commissioner Wilsey seconded the motion. Commissioner Hazgens stated he liked this move because it addresses the neighbor's privacy concems and the tree house will no longer be seen from the front yard. The motion passed 6-1 (Bellus). � 'L o � 2> �� F � , �� , oF z Deat Amy Spong: Having zeccived notice of Th�usday night's meeting on Tuesday night, Lve are sorry but �i�e cannut bc pres�nt. Below is a summary ofthe relevant points I discussed witn you today. Rte bttih a garage that matchcs ihe house 18 yeats ago and 1i�e obtained HPC approval for an addition to ouz house 7 years ago, so we are not unfamiliaz with HPC �.tidelines or the process. 6/I S('?) - biscussed with neighbozs (Robin Sydor, Kevin Leuthold, !3c Nancy Gan'ett) our thoughts ofbitilding a tree house c4: the proposed pl�cement. They raised no objections. 6/30 Called city for information on building requuemenis,ipermits. Brian �t�as told by a plazl revieweX that a peznut was not needed as ]ong as fhe sknictiuc was under 120 sq. ft. & the structure was in the back yard. He was advised to call the HPC liaison to see i� review w�.s required. 7/6 or Called HPC & tall:ed to Aaran Rubenstein. Brian was told that it did not need to go 7(R through HPC review. We were advised to keep it under 120 sq.f t. & in the back yazd. 2nd wk. Met with neighbors to review plans, including footprint & placement o£ structure in � of 7uly regard to fence and tree, Also 511owad ihezn color photos from a tTeehouse construction book that iilustrafed fhe materials & colors in which �i�a planned to fuush the exterior. They voSced no objections. 3rci �vk. Afrer 3 walls were erzcted, Nancy expressed concern that the sight line from the tr2�house Li�indows would allo�� children to see into their bedroom, which has a mirrored wall. \Ve went to tlie tree hoase so that slie could see �a�hat could l� seen & I — -could understand ker concems. I assured her that the wiudows#acine-their property --- would be covered in some manner. 7/25 - 8!6 On vacation lG'k. of 8/28 - Tall:ed H2th Nancy about the idea of a tight-weave privacy pane] that thz iv}� could grow up, which also wuuld provide privacy frotn the deck area, not just tha windo�vs. She stated that she thought this was a good idea 9(U3 V�'e stopped at the liunbex yazd (�;�here we had seen the privacy panel) to buy it - it w�s out of stock. �'Je checked many other lumber yards & they either didn't earry it or it wa,a out of stock. l�Te had to wait until a new shipment eame In, 9124 9/25 � T00 Qi Picked up the privacy panel. A notice was recaived in the mail box that the building inspector had �2sited & needed access to tree house. S90'IDH�SSd �ITiF:1 zta Ts:so i�xz on-ur;nx � o� � 9126 Brian caIled th� buitding inspector (John Hegner). He stated'that an "inquiry" l�ad been receiv�d & could see from the file that we had contACted ihe huilding uvpectiaai departmeztt earliei. He ecune the same aftemoon. He said that if structuse u�as imder 100 sq. ft. from "eave to eave," a permit & TIPC approval was not needed since it �vas not a"pernutable^ structure. His measllrements showed that it was just under 100 sq R. 9l27 - There was a notc left in the riailbox by Mz. Hegner that a building p�miit � required & where we S�ould go to apply for one. 9/28 - Brinn went to City Hall to apply for a bu$ding permit, He was told that one was not needed. He informed the staff that Mr. Hegner had directed him to get one. Tltey took ihe appl9catiou & the check, & told him that they would noc cash the eheck until the discrepancy was resolvzd. I�e was directed to John Skradski conceming F�PC regul'ation. Sohn had just left for lunch. Brian left a massage for 7ohzi to call. 9/29 - Contact �F�th John Sl:rads'ki. l'��e were informed that we were on the agenda for the 101� HPC meeiing. He asked ihat we fax a draN�in� of bsek yard, supporting not more than 3>% of the yard in structnres (in fact it is 16%), & t� bring Pictures. 9/30 1!1/2 Notice ofHI'C meeting receiv�d. Backyard dimensions' ��ere faxed to Jolm Skradski. Another building inspector c�*ne (John ?'?), to tal:a pictures before tlzz I�C meetuig, hecause 7ohn Hegner had not had time to do so. He also took rough measurements. I informed him that John Aeo er alrzady had taken fia:rly precise mzasuremevts from tbe eave lines & said that the shucture was 95 sq. ft. & did not need a permit. Jvhn ?? did not pursue the matter further, saying t6at he u�outd go along with, Hegner's caII on this. He also cammented #hat he atready had taken pictures fram the aIley & tke tre� l�ousetvzs barely_visible.— —. — — -- - U � ^� Up n� ' vin & Nanc assserted ttiat: 7} The structure does not match their honse. - 2) It "fills the spaoe between the houses." Onr response (not exgressed at the meeting): 1) The struCture fits u�Yh the a*chitecture of g� house, gara�e, & the home and garage to the ti�esc. 2} The structure is set welt back into our back }'ard, is barely visible from the sidewa1lc on tltz souih side of Sum.`nit Ave. and not visible a� from the sidewaLl' on the north side of Sununit Ave. G��l 6Rc'7 �-3�t � y- zoa�j z:��a7c�xaisa �rFe --� zFa zs:so i o f\a:�r. a �.�] �6" � "� $ c c+..� l � �7� s�a.�,,�.;�-�- r�FE. . �. �g�.�l . to—tS—a� n � •OI � (� CITY OF SAINT PAUL '�' h'orm CoTeman, MayOr 26 October 2000 Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly 1376 Summit Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105-2218 Dear Mr. Engdahl and Mrs. Eberly: /�rf� rn e n+ G. OFFiCE OF LSCENSE, INSPECTiOVS A?3D LNVIROVMENTALPROTEC770N o � � RobeN F."essler, Direcror LOWRYPXOFESSIONALBU/LDk�'G Telep7rorse:65]-266-9040 Suite 300 Fatsimile: 651-266-9099 3J0 St. Peler Streef SainlPa:il, Mrnneso[a Si102-IS/0 As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) considered at its October 19, 2000 meeting your application for the `tree house' structure built on your property at 1376 Summit Avenue. The commission voted to deny your application and then voted again to approve your app]ication with the condition that the structure be moved behind the main residence. I have enclosed a copy ofthe commission's resolution stating its findings and decision. � You have the right to appeal the Commission's decision to the Saint Paul Ciry Council underChapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Such an appeal must be filed within 14 days of receipt of this ]etter. Chapter 73 requires that the following paragraph be included in a1l Ietters indicating denial of a permit: (h) Appeal to ciry council. The permit applicant or any party ag�rieved by the decision of the heritage pzeservation commission shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of -- tiie heritage preservation"commission's order an8 decision; have a right to appeal such - order and decision to the city council. The appeal shalt be deemed perfected upon receipt by the division of planning of hvo (2) copies of a notice of appeal and statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal. The division of planning shall transmit one copy of the notice of appeal and statement to the city council and one copy to the hexitage preservation commission. The commission, in any written order denying a permit application, shall advise the applicant of the right to appeal to tbe city council and include this paragraph in all such orders. � I spoke with our zoning staff who indicated this structure, in its current location wiThin three feet of the side properiy line, requires a zoning variance. The HPC based its findings on the historic district guidelines and not zoning regulations. If you plan to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council, the Council would want to know the zoning issue has been resolved. Therefore, the appeal of tl�e HPC's decision would be delayed until the Board of Zoning Appeals makes their decision on whether or not to grant the sideyard setback variance. The appeal to City Council still needs to be filed within 14 days of receipt of this ]etter even thou�h the pub]ic hea*ing would be delayed until the zoning issue is resolved. Enclosed you tivi11 find a Board of Zonin� Appeals Application and information about the zoning process. Page 2 � 26 October 2000 ol -c�� Please feel free to call me at 651.266.9078 if you have any questions. Sincerely, L��,� P Amy Spong Iiistoric Preservation Specialist Enclosure cc: John Hardwick, LIEP zoning staff ,� File copY C - - - ---� - ) � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION 12ESOLIJTION FILE NUMBER 4078 DATE 26 October 2000 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Pau] Legislative Code to review permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or demolifion on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Disfricts; and «'$EI2EAS, Brian Engdahl and Raina E6erly constructed a`tree house' sYructure on their property at 1376 Summit Avenue, located �vithin the Summit Avenue ��est Heritage Preservation District; and W$EREAS, the owners, Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly applied for the building permit and HPC approval after the structure �vas built; and WHET2EAS, the exisTing structure on the site is the Rush $. �Vheeler House, a rivo and one half story residence desig�ed by Clarence H. Johnston, Sr. and constructed in 1909; it has stucco walls and a asphalt-shingled hipped roof; and WHEREAS, the new structure is located in the rear yard hvo feet from the property fence.on the east; the one story L-shaped structure is raised approximately seven feet off the ground.on wood posts; the walls are sided with cedar shin�les ar�d The gabled roof has asphalt-shingles; and � WHEREAS, the following is the citation in the City's Legislative Code concemin� HPC review of � building permits for new construction: Chapter 73, Heri[age Preservation Commission; Section 73.06, Review of permits; Paragraph (i),Factors to be considered: Before approving any permit application required under paza�raph (d) of this section to be approved by the heritage preservation commission, the commission shall make findings based on Yhe piogiatri For the preservation and arcfiifebturZ control for the — herita�e preservation site in regard to the following: {3) In the case of a proposed new building, that such building will not in itself, or by reason of its location on the site, materially impair the architectural or historic value of buildings on adjacent sites or in the immediate viciniry within the historic preservation site. WHEREAS, relevant portions of the Summit Avenue West District Heritage Preservation District design review guidelines for neiv construction that per[ain to the new buildin� include the following: Sea 7437. Netv construction. (a) General Principles: The basic principle for ne�i� construction in the Summit Avenue West District is Yo maintain the scale and quality of design ofthe disfrict. The Summit Avenue West District is architecturally diverse �vithin an overall pattern of harmony and continuity. These guidelines for new construction focus on general rather than specifc design elements in order to �_ � a�-�� Pa�e 2 � Hers(age Preservation Commission Resolution File Number 4078 26 October 2000 encourage architectural innovation and quality design while maintaining the hannony and continuity of the district New construction should be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rh}�thm, setback, color, material, buiidin� elements, site design, and character of surroundin� structures and fhe area. (b) Massing and Scale: New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height, facade proportions and scale of ex'ssting surrounding structures. The scale of the spaces betv✓een buildings and the rhytlim of buildings to open space should also be carefully considered. (c) Mnterials and Details: (1) Variety in the use of a�chitectural materials and details adds to the intimacy and visua] delight of the district. But there is also an overall thread of continuity provided by the range of materials commonly used along Summit and by the way these materials are used. This thread of continuity is threatened by the introduction of new industria] materials and the aggressive exposure of earlier materials such as concrete block, metal fcaming and glass. The materials and details of new construction shou(d re]ate to the materials and details of existing nearby buildings. (d) Building Elements: Individuai elements of a building should be integrated into its composition for a balanced and complete design. These elements of new construction should compliment existing adjacent structures as well. • (I) Roofs. There is a great variety of rooi treatments along Summit, but gab]e and hipped roofs are most common. The skyline or profile of new construction should re]ate to the predominant roof shape of exisfing nearby buildings. The recommended pitch for gable roofs is 9:12 (rise-to-run ratio) and in general the minimum appropriate pitch is 8:12. Highly visible secondary structure roofs should match the roof pitch of the main structure. A 6:12 pitch may be acceptable in some cases for secondary structures which are not visible from the street. WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its October 19, 2000 public hearing on said permit application, made the fo]]owing findings of fact concemina the construction of the `tree house' structure: 1. The structure conforms to general guSdelines which encourage architectural innovation and quality design while maintainin� the harmony and continuity of the d"astrict. 2. The structure's form, materials, roof pitch and sca]e are differentiated from the main residence yet compatible. 3. The stnicture's location does not take into consideration the scale of the spaces between buildings and the rhythm of buildings to open space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation Commission denies approval of the building permit for the `iree house' in its current location; and � Page 3 Heritage Preserva[ion Commission Resolution • File Number 4078 26 October 2000 BE TT F'Ul2THER RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation Commission grants approval of the building permit contingent upon moving the structure so that its eastern �yall is set back to a pIane at least as far advanced from the eastem Iot line as the main residence. MOVED BY Larson SECOri'DED BY Wilsey TN FAVOR 6 AGAINST 1 ABSTAIN 0 Dacisions of the Herifage Preservation Commission are final, subject to appeal to the City Council within 14 days bp anyone affected by the decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting applicable building and zoning code requirements, and does not constitute approval for faxcredits. �• . C� ! �{'�c.h m cn �f- . 7 November 2000 Amy Spong Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 Deaz Ms. Spong: � o i -�'�� This is to inform you that we do plan to appeal the heritage preservation commission's decision concerning the tree house located at 1376 Summit Avenue. We also are working on resolving the zoning issue, as instructed in your letter that we received on 30 October 2000. Enclosed are a copy of a notice of appeal and statement of the grounds for the appeal. A second copy is being sent to Ms. Nancy Anderson, as you instructed, along with a copy ofthe minutes ofthe heritage preservation commission meeting. Please call us at 651-690-3724 if we have omitted any necessary information or if you have questions. Sincerely, • �� Brian En�ahl i d_ - , ' a Eberly � Gl-��`� I�TOtice of Appeal and Statement of Crrounds for the Appeal - Structure at 1376 Summit Ave. � We are appealing the heritage preservation committee's (HPC) decision concerning the "tree house" located in the backyazd of our home at 1376 Suirimit (the building inspectors infonmed us that they consider 3t to be a structure built around a tree). We proceeded with this project in June/July 2000 entirely in good faith and we followed the instructions we were given by City of St. Paul LIEP offcials. We contacted LIEP and were told that we did not need a building pernut but were advised to be sure the neighbors did not objeCt, and to contact the HPC liaison (Aaron Rubenstein at that time) conceming the need for their review. Mr. Rubenstein told us that we did not need HPC review as long as it was in the back yard (According to Amy Spong, she spoke with Mr. Rubenstein and he does not recall what he told us, one way or the other). We discussed the project with the neighbors at 1374 Suinmit on at least two occasions, showing them drawings of the structure, the exact proposed placement, and colored photographs of how we planned to finish the exterior, and they voiced no objections. In September, when the project was nearly comp]ete, the neighbors at 1374 Siimmit, who previously had not raised ob}ections, filed a complaint with the HI'C. Tkus became clear to us only when they were the only neighborhood people who appeared at the HPC meeting to voice objections. Mr. Hegner, a building inspector came, took measurements, and told us that we did not need a building permit, but we would need a signed maintenance easement agreement. The next day, we were le$ a note that we would need to apply for a building permit. When Brian went to file the application, LTEP staff told him that he did not need a building permit and only � took the application after he told them that he had been directed to apply for one. He also was directed to someone in plans review who told him that we would need an easement agreement and provided hun with a sample copy. After the FIPC's meeting of 19 Octobez 2000, we then were instructed to apply for a zoning variance. After consultation with John Hardwick, LIEP zoning stafF, he informed us that either an easement agzeement or a zoning variance would be acceptable and we are in the process of pursuing this. At this point we aze not certain that the structure in question is out of compliance -- - withthe 3-foot setback requirement: The residents at 1374 �vho aze filed the HI'C-- — complaint, removed the last lmown monument from a site survey we had done in the about 1983, prior to having our garage built. Initial drawings submitted to HI'C and LIEP were based on our recollection that our lot is 40 ft. wide. In the process of collecting infornaation to complete the zoning variance application, we found that our lot may in fact be 41 ft. wide, based on the width on which we aze assessed for tases foz sidewalk maintenance, etc. by the City of St. Pau1. 7ohn Hardwick found nothing in our property's file that would definitively set our property boundaries. Amy Spong found a gazage building permit application that cited a 40 $. wide lot, but no copy of the property survey, based on an application subznitted by the property owners. We plan to pursue the issue of an in detemiinaxrt property line by requesting that the owners of 1374 Si.�tumit restore the survey monument mazker that they removed. We further feel that the HPC's decision to grant approval contingent upon moving the structure is unfeasible, given that the tree house is built around a tree and partially is anchored to two trees. We fiuther find the HPC's comment that "the structure's location does not take into consideration the scale of the spaces between buildings and the rhythm of buildings to open space" to be vague � and open to subjective judgement. The structure is visible, in any part, for a distance of about 30 ft. from the front sidewalk, and primarily visible (i.e., the main structure - not just a glimpse of eaue or deck) from only 10-I S ft. If the issue is one of visibility from the street, we believe that means other than moving the structure could be taken to block the view. In reviewing the HPC's charter, we notice that it is an advisory body, with authority to review and approve/deny applications for buitding pernuts. Given that we were told by LIEP, on three occasions, that this structure did not need a building pernut, a decision tt�at later was "reversed" by the HPC, we aze left wondering if the applicaYion for a building permit was required solely to provide the HPC with authority to review this project. If this is the case, we should have beer_ informed when we made the initiat inquiry. Throughout this process we have been told three times that we did not need a building pemrit and then had HPC instruct us otherwise, were toid we did not need HPC review (and later were toid othercvise in response to a neighbor complaint), were told twice by LIEP stafF that we needed an easement agreement and later told by HPC that we need a zoning variance, and had one seY of neighbors reverse themselves on an agreement Yhat they had an opportunity to review on at least two occasions. We have dealt with three different persons in the position of HPC liaison. At this point, it appears tt�at we may need to pay $180 for an application for a zoning vaziance for a structure for wluch we uutially were told we didn't even need a pernut and which had the approval ofthe most affected neighbors (however, Mr. Hardwick assured me that we would not be charged the additionat penalty of $225 for filing a zoning variance application for building a structure wzThout a bnilding permit). We feel the City has some responsibility in the current situation, given the number of times that we have been given either the wrong information or the city officials reversed themselves on information that we had been given. Unfortunately, when a citizen calls a city official for information or guidelines, apparently there is no record kept by that official of what the citizen was advised ar told. When Mr. Hazdwick was asked about his opinion about how a the issue of a child's tree house had escalated into such a"nightmaze," he responded (paraphrasing), "this is not a situation that occurs often (a tree house), the buiiding code is vague in this regard, and thus it is open to various interpretations". r� �J i In ciosing, we would like to ask that the City Council back its city officials in their initial interpretations of the building code and HPC guidelines. We also would like to put on record that - — - all ofth�people with whomwe �ave deaitfromthe Lf�P have beenTesponsive to oisquestions — and have treated us in a respectfiil, decent inaimer, in spite of providing conflicting informazion, _.. . .. - �- - ave one eu es m r have done the best they cou18 in this di�cult "grey" area. L� � /� Brian Engdahl �l - � --�� . ._ - - - e � �� Raina Eberly � /�/-j�fiv _. .: � � A'�'{t�chmc✓�'f Z G �-��`1 CITY OF SAINT PAUL . BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NiTMBER: Ol - 180961 DATE: March 26, 2001 WHEREAS, Brian Engdahi & Raina Eberly has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 62.1Q6 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertainin� to the construction of a tree house/play house structure in the rear yard in the R-2 zoning district at 1376 Summit Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2001 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisionns of the code. . The applicants appear to have followed all of the proper procedures priar to constructing the tree house/play house. They checked on the permit requirements as well as the HPC requirements and were given misleading information. They also discussed the project with their neighbors and were given no indication that there would be any objections to the psoposed structure. It is clear that there has been some confusion in LIEP over issues such as this in a heritage preservation dish In August of 2000, the HPC staffperson at that time sent a memo to various staff in LIEP, the City Attorney and the Executive Committee of the HPC, in an effort to clarify exactly what types of work require a building permit and HPC ---- -- - -- - approval. That memorandum clearly stated that a sfied of any size required a permit an� HPC approval. However, it also left open for discussion if play equipment should be included in the list of things that should require a permit and HPC approval. In November of 2000, the City Building Official drafted a clear written policy stating that any exterior construction or alteration within a designated herita�e preservation district, other than painting ar landscaping, requires a permit and HPC review. Unfortunately, this clarification came too late to help the applicants. The applicants wanted to construct a small, 10 foot by 10 foot tree house/play house for their daughter in the rear yard. Play equipment for children is a xeasonable use for residential property, whether it is the kind of equipment you can purchase with slides, swings, platforms etc., or a custom built tree house/play house such as the applicants have constructed. The only tree in their yard that would serve this purpose is located close to the eastem property line. The play house, after incorporating the tree within the structure, ended up 1.24 feet . Page I of 4 File # O1-180961 Resolution away from the east property line. For zoning purposes, an accessory stracYure, requires a 3- foot side yard setback when located in a rear yard. The applicants could not incorporate the tree within the structure and still meet the required 3 foot setback. 2. The plight of tlze Zand owner is due to circun�stances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The location of the tree in the applicanfs' yard as well as the lack of a clear, written policy concerning these type of structures at the time the tree house/play house was built, are circumstances that were not created by the app2icants. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent wizh the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Ciry of St. Paul. � The desire to provide a tree house/play house for their daughter is a reasonabPe request. The structure is approximately 10 feet by 10 feet. There are two small decks attached to the structure which increase the size to about 12 feet by 12 feet. This is not an excessive size regardless if it is considered a play house, play equipment or an accessory structure. Accessory sfixctures, and/or play equipment, when located in a rear yazd are permitted uses in residential districts. The relatively minor 20 inch variance, required because of the location of the tree on the lot, is in keeping with the spirit and inTent of the code. • 4. The proposed variance wi11 not impair an adequate szepply of Zight and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish establisherl property values within tlze sur area. The neighborin� property owner at 1374 Summit Avenue has expressed concem that the tree -- - house will aitow the applicants' daughter and her friends to look into the rear windows of their house. However, moving the structure 20 inches further away from the property line — F p ' t • Preservation Association (SARPA) has submitted a letter in opposition to this variance request statin� that the size, scale, materials, windows, doors, color, setback, and character of the playhouse are incompatible with sunounding structures in the neighborhood. This is in direct conflict with the findings ofthe HPC which found that the structure's form, materials and scale, while differenY from the main residence, are compatible. The letter fram SARPA further states that the entire width of the play house can be seen from Summit Avenue disrupting the rhythm of buildings to open space. This statement is in agreement with the findings of the HPC. However, when staff visited the site, only a portion of the tree house/play house was visible from the streef and then onIy when directly in front of the house. It was not visible from the alley due to the 6-foot obscuring fence sunoundin� the rear yard of the property. 5taff considered recommending that the existing obscuring fence Page 2 of 4 � File # O1-180961 Resolution o � -��°I • be raised across from the tree house/play house or that a new barrier attached directly to the eastem side of the play house be constructed, in order to address the concems of the neighbor. However, since the style and design of the tree house/play house has been approved by the HPC, staff is reluctant to recommend any changes to the structure. We have received 4letters of support for this request from the property owners of 1367 Grand Avenue, across the alley from this property, 1382 Summit, 1390 Summit and 1364 Summit, who all felt that the tree house/play house was exceptionally well built and was an asset to the neighborhood . When visiting the site, staff noticed that the neighboring property at 1374 Summit Avenue has a shed that encroaches onto the applicants' property. Staff could find no permit for this shed ar any ir�dication that it was ever approved by the HPC. The relatively minor 20 inch setback variance requesfed will not significantly affect the supply of light or air to the adjacent property nar given the existence of other noncomplying accessory structures in the immediate area, will it aiter the character or the neighborhood. 5. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the cocie for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning c�istrict classifzcation of the property. . Accessory structures and/or play equipment aze permitted in all zoning districts. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based pYimariZy on a desire to zncrease the value or income potential of the parcel of land. - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - ----_ _ NOW, TAEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 62.106 are hereby waived to allow a side yard setback of 1.24 feet; subject to the condition that the applicants obtain the appropriate building and electrical permits for the project. In order to construct a tree house/play house structure in the rear yard on property located at 1376 Summit Avenue; and legally described as Wann's Additon To St. Paul Ex Ave Lot 9 Blk 1; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. MOVED BY : Galles SECONDED BY: 1v�orton IN FA�OR: � � Pagz 3 oF 4 File # : 0� - 180961 Resolution AGAINST: o MAILED: March 27, 2001 TIME LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alterafion of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an extension nof fo exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. • APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeats are finai subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If perauts have been issued before an appeal has been filed, fhen the perraits are suspended and construction sha11 cease until tLe City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. . CERTIFICATI01��: I, the undersigned Secretarq to the Board of Zoning Appeats for the City of Saint Paul, DZinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the orib nal record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Sa4nt Paul Board of Zoning Appeais meetiag held on March 26, 2001 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and --- - — — — - EnvironrrienfalProtection, 3�0 Sf. Peter Stree�, SaintYaul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Debbie Crippen Secretary to the Board Page 4 oC 4 � MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, MARCH 26, 2001 d\ • PRESBNT: Mmes. Maddox, and Morton; Messis. Duckstad, Faricy, Gailes, Kleindl, and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT: Vince Courtney * "Excused . � The meeting was chaired by 7oyce Maddox, Chair. Brian Enadahl & Raina Eberlv (lt01-180961) 1376 Summit Avenue: A side yard setback variance in order to construct a play house/tree house structure in the rear yard. A setback of 3 feet is required and a setback of 1.24 feetis proposed, for a variance of 1.76 feet. The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for appioval, subject to the condition that the applicants obtain the appropriate building and electrical permits for the project. One letter was received in opposition to the variance request from SARPA (Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association). Five neighbors sent letters in support of the variance: 1367 Grand Avenue, 1382 Summit Avenue, 1390 Summit Avenue, 1364 Summit Avenue, and 1396 Summit Avenue. No correspondence was received regarding the variance from District 14. Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly, 1376 Summit Avenue. Ms. fiberly submitted an additional letter in support of the variance and addifional photos of the backyard and tree house/play house. She staeed that they built the tree house in the spring not in the fall as stated in the staff report. Ms. Bberly stated ---that the tree house could be-seen for 15-feet while walking-onxhe-front sidewalk. _- Mr. Engdahl stated that they had always tried to cooperate with the neighbors and the Heritage Commission during their 20 years of living in their home on Summit. Laura Kochevar, 1390 Summit Avenue, stated that she lives two doors down from the tree house and has a full view of it from her yard. She stated that when walking, biking, or driving on Summit Avenue the tree house is not noticeable. Ms. Kochevar stated that they love the tree house and would like to see it stay. Robin Cider, 1374 Summit Avenue - Unit l, stated that she opposed the granting of the setback variance to construct the tree house. She stated that there was a tree directly behind the house that could be used for the tree house that would not encroach on the property line. Ms. Cider stated that plans for tree house/play house plans considered a six foot by six foot structure large and the applicant chose to build a very large ten foot by ten foot tree house/play house. She stated that the plans shown to the neighbors did not reflect the final structure. Ms. Cider stated that the tree house was much larger in width and height. The play houseltree house became a two-srory structure on the fence line with windows, glass doors and electriciry. �':le #01-180961 Minutes March 26, 2001 Page Two Ms. Cider submitted photos of children in the tree house hanging off the safety railing and falIing to the � ground into her yard. She sTated concerns abouT the liabiliTy issues regarding the children falling into her yard and injuring themselves. Ms. Cider stated that they have noise, light and privacy encroachments not supported by the proposed variance. She stated that the tree house blocks one third of the air flow and light from their property on the west and significantly altexs the essential character of the surronnding area. Ms. Cider stated that the tree house/play house violaYes The HisToric -- Preservation District Guidelines and HPC (Heritage Preservation Commission) has denied a variance for this properry. She stated that the SARPA also supports the recommendation of the HPC to deny. Ms. Cider stated that the FTPC resolved to approve the structure provided they move it in line with the principle structure on the property. She stated that the neighbors support the decision eo deny the structure in the present location. Ms. Cider stated that the HPC judgement regarding the visual encroachment of Summit Avenue would take precedence due to the unique nature of the historic street. She stated that the structure reduces the historic value of the neighboring properties and has disturbed the neighborhood. Nancy Garrett, 1374 Summit Avenue, stated that they thought that the variance request failed to meet four of the six requirements of the Ciry Zoning Code. She stated that there was no reason that the tree house/play house had to be placed on the property line when there is another tree in the cenier of the yard. Ms, Garrett sta[ed that there were no unique circumstances related to the properry. Ms. Garrett stated that the side yard setback Zoning Code is in piace to protect neighbors from issues such as light pollution, noise pollution, and liability from neighbors actions and these are all concerns heze. She stated that twice this spring she had seen kids climbing over the safery railing and hanging over her yard. Ms. Garrett stated that on March 10, 2001 two kids had jumped into their yard and had they been injured, she could be held accountable. She stated that the structure acts as a 15-foot fence . blocking several hours of direct sunIight from her yard. Ms. Garrett stated that there are many doors and windows facing her home causing a lack of privacy. She stated that the glass doors are placed directly over her front yard and the kids constantly bang the doors. Ms. Garrett stated that her bedroom is about 15 feet from the entry to the tree house. She stated that the electricity is an issue because when the lights are on in the tree house, it also lights up her bedroom even with the blinds closed. Ms. Ganett stated that there is also a built-in bed, with kids sleeping in the tree house there is --- the potential for her sleep-to bedtsturbed: She stated-that during the building process they disttxbed -- - -- her sleep because they were working on the tree house after 9:00 p.m. Ms. Garrett stated that moving - � re rivac and pzovide screening from the other buildings and landscaping. She requested that ttte Board uphold the law and deny the variance request Ms. Garrett stated that they had tried ofren to commnnicate their concerns during the building process, but thought that their concerns had not been listened to. Ms. Eberly, stated that they did not have rnany ckoices for the tree house/play house. She stated that the tree behind the house was over the back sidewalk, and the tree further back in the yard has a pond below it so it was not a good choice. Ms. Eberly stated that the two trees, the tree house/play house is attached to is a better choice giving the tree house more stabiliry than a single tree would. She stated - that because fhe doots they had found were bigger than they,wan[ed it_became necessary to allow more room for the door to open. Ms. Eberly stated that they made the tree house/play house smaller and the deck larger because of the trouble with the door. Heating no further testimony, Ms. Maddox ctosed the public portion of the meeting. � Fiie 1101-180961 Minutes March 26, 2001 Page Threa �l_C�`l � Mr. Galles moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6, subject to the condition that the applicants obtain the appropriate buiiding and electrical permits for the project. Ms. Morton seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 7-0. Submitted by: 7ohn Hardwick � Approved by: Jpn Duckstad, Secretary � AitQ c.hm e.v�+ 3' D1 -G�� Brian Engdahl & Raina Eberly i 1376 Summit Ave. St. Paul, MN 55105 May 8, 2001 7ohn Hardwick, LIEP 350 St. Peter St., Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 Dear Mr. Hazdwick: As mentioned in the telephone message, we have reached a compromise with our neighbor, Robin Sydor, on the tree house. The revision essentially would turn the deck on the east side into a covered porch. The view from the north (Suinmit Ave.) would not change much. Enclosed are sketches of the cunent view from the east and the proposed view. We have agreed to do this if it is approved by the City. Sincerely, • Brian Eng ahl � Pa9e r of 3 � (�U i"/{%Vi � . .� __ _ _ _ " � l�5- �`S. :.l �__. �_ - - - - - ---- -- - -- - � - ; � - --- �� - - -- - : , ' � � _ ' + _ i � -- T— -- -- - --� - ---- - - -- ' �.� `. � `'' - -- � . s � r'm � ; =� � --� _ �---- ; � --- � ��; � �. , � ,,; � -� � ' - � - � - - - �- =' �'- -a. , 3 � P -� i -[ "' � - � { ' f ± 3 8-'�'=^_"_"` s -- - � y,.�„� - _� _ �__'_ � - � i . 1 . p " - t - "s — '—-- ` _ — — ° r—f — ' # 4 f; �, , _ - -- -- ' �' - --: : � _ ; i ;z #�------- � - - - s ; � � ; ; 3 r . . ' � , ' - . ., - - -- - -; - - - .. F - - --- -- .. ; : t �� . � : _ 3 _ _ _ _ - k _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _� __ __ . � +�� z ' n/ i -__--- -----__�`--- -- - - " - - --- - - ----- - - - � Z -- �)� S-�✓ m_ tu ��n — _� ---. y, _ . .. r .' ie` : , . ] - i - - � -- �5_Gica.S C�75u��ecr. __ __ _ __ _ � __.-• --____' _ 1 - � - - -- -- i --- - -_ _ i_ _ �- _ � � - �,. - e�,.✓ �n:c'j Li:•eE �' i u J f - °�� ` : _._ , � �:_�.=`-__ -: ' - .- -- .� � i i ' J , � - . _' -. —__ _ _ j� # � _ _ _ _ � n . .. . . , , ." , —� t . �/��i� , - � �`" `.a � - � k � -- "`` �,.,. ' � � ! � � , - d � - `� _ ,____- ; i .- , 'O_ G ��a e Z_ e6 � -�--� --- - — -- - -- � - • � — •— 6�_�� i ' ! r� no.>. c� i �/� ' --------�--�_ �LL�_rrL�'G'�. _C� '.'r . e � � � �� - j � � � --,--' . ' ' _ ' _ . . _. __.. _—_ —_--_ — j ' "'_"___"___..�.... . . - _ t . --- __ '_ `_ r , _'_ .._ ..-- _ . _ . �l : ; __"'., ._� .. .._... '—__ � _' " —__—_'__'___'_--_— � "'_ "—_'—__'_ __' '__ 1 �,.,_....r_'__'— ___+_ ; 5 -_ _ _ ' __ _ '____ _ __'_ 3 _ �-� --- ----------------_ ------ � _ --_----- : , ' 1 __ —'—_ ________ _____._—_—__________._____._ , ; _ _. .__-___ __ ____ �__—�_> � --"__'_______a "'__' _'"__—__"____—_' _____ _"_ __"___� i i —_ _.—____"—____—"—_—____—`_—"__'__—"_`___-____—___ � 3 ; : t a —___-__—____�._. —___—__— .___—____'____ . . _ -_.--_ — ____ _ ` i ' I ; � _—�_.—__ —..—__. ___--_� �%�— i -.=—__—'"_ _`"— �—"--_'__'_ —'—_ � , ,n- - _7iR.e.S{✓L(C�vlil L=Z(G."� S'^� S�K/_✓1. r1-C-�: ct. C? _r.L?� C1t_ 5/ Ca fp� /� Gi4 !ti J� � _'P�� 3__oF 3 _ 6 � �� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, May 23, 2001, at 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Ha11, to consider the appeal of Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly of a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) decision approving a building permit for construction of a tree house (constructed without a building permit or HPC approval) with the condition that the tree house be moved so that its eastern wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence at 1376 Summit Avenue. Dated: May 3, 2001 Nancy Anderson Assistant City Council Secretary Council File # Q\� G 3q Green Sheet # � �� p RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 2 WHEREAS, Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly, in HPC File No. 4078, made application 3 to the Heritage Preservation Commission (hereinafter the "Commission") for a building permit 4 for a"tree house" structure in the rear yard of their properiy which is located in the Summit 5 Avenue West Heritage Preservation District and is commonly known as 1376 Sununit Avenue, 6 legally described as noted in the referenced HPC file; and � 8 WHEREAS, on October 19, 2000, the Commission conducted a public hearing after 9 having provided notice to affected property owners. By its Resolution No. 4078 adopted October 10 26, 2000, the Commission moved to deny the building permit based upon the location of the 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 structure for the following reasons: 1. The structure conforms to general guidelines which encourage architectural innovation and quality design while maintaining the harmony and continuity of the district. 2. The structure's form, materials, roofpitch and scare are differentiated fro the main residence yet compatible. 3. The shucture's location does not take into consideration the scale of the spaces between buildings and the rhythm of buildings to open space. WHEREAS, the Commission then moved in Resolution No. 4078 to grant the building permit "contingent upon moving the siructure so that its eastem wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence." WHEREAS, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06, Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Commission and requested a hearing before the City Council far the purposes of considering the actions taken by said Commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legfslative Code § 73.06 and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on May 23, 2001, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Council having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes, and resolution of the Commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, to reverse the Commission's decision in this matter. The Council finds, 1 based upon all the files, information, and the testimony gathered at the public hearing, that the p � a 2 Commission erred in its fmdings contained in Commission Resolution No. 4078 in support of 3 granting the building permit subject to the condition that the shucture in question be moved 4 based upon the following: 6 1. While the tree house is visible from Summit Avenue, it is visible only briefly 7 depending on how fast one travels past the property. The fact that the tree house is 8 visible does not support a definitive finding that the tree house "does not take into 9 consideration the scale of the spaces between buildings and the rhythm of buildings to 10 open space" that requires that the tree house be moved. Other measures - short of moving 11 the tree house - can be taken to screen and otherwise soften the view of the tree house 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 from Summit Avenue. Those measures include planting trees to screen the tree house from view. 2. The Commission found that the architecture, materials and consriuction of the tree house aze, in all other respects, compatible with the historic district. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly be and is hereby granted; and be it FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Council secretary shall mail a copy of Yhis resolution to Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly, the Zoning Administrator and to the Commission. Requested by Department of: By: Form Approv d by City Attorney B ��✓�/�-�-� 6-/�-v� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY� �� I ,-i� By: Approved by Mayor: Date VI! /� b�/ By' Adopted by Council: Date �-�� \ Adogtion Certified by Council cretary Ol.L1el DEPARTMINiroFFI(�ICOUNCIL onie wmnim " _ - � CITY COUNCIL .r„ne zo zoo� GREEN SHEET No ��766 c�nACr a�zs� & a � +or �L66-8630 �` ""�" Councilmember Hasris � oa,,mr�rwuaa, arrcarra MUSi BE ON COUNCIL AGHIQ4 BY (04Tq ❑ ❑ AIIEI611 June 27, 2001 (Consent) �� a,r.,,oeEr a,raau noorwc �� wuncu�amuresow. ❑ w�o��mnn�xro ❑M� �� ❑ TOTAL;E OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION REQUESTED Memorializing City Council action taken on May 23, 2001, granting the appeal o£ Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission regarding the con- struction of a tree house at 1376 Summit Avenue. RECAMMENDA ION Approve (A) w Reject (R) VERSONAISERVICE CANTRAGfS MUSTANSWER TNE iOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1. Has this Pe�M�m everv.wketl under e coMract fa Mis dePa�meM7 PLANNINGCOMMISSION YES NO CIBCOMMITTEE 2 HasttiispersmRrmererbeenacilyempbyee'7 qVIL SERVICE COMMISSION YES NO 3. Ooes Mis persoMrm P�� a sldli no[ nomiatlYGossessetl bY airy curte�R d[Y empioyee� VES NO 4. Is tAie pe�soNfiim a tarpetedvendoR YES NO F�lain all Yes answe�s on seParate sheet anE attach W Hreen shec4 INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPOR7UNITY (VJho, What, When, Where, Why) � ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISAWANTAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOLLL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION i COS7/FtEVENUE BUD6ETED (GRCLE ONq YES NO FUNDMGSOURCE ACTNITYNUMBER FlWWLW.INFORMATON (IXPLNI� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norzn Colem¢rt, Mayor Hand Deltvered June 18, 2001 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary Room 310 City Hall OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Claytorz M Robinson, Jn, Ciry Attorney O� � C' � civitDivisioa 400 City�Ha[1 Telephone: 65] ?66-871Q !S Wut Ke[Iogg Blvd. Facsimile: 6.i7 2985619 Saint Pau[, Minnesota »IO? RE: Resolution memorializing the Council's decision to grant the appeal of Engdahl and Eberly from a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission for the property at 1376 Summit Avenue. Conncil Action Date: May 23, 2001 Dear Nancy: Attached please find a signed, original resolution memorializing the decision of the council in the matter and on the date noted above. Please add this item to the CounciPs consent agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Y � �L/G�aY+Q� eter W. Wamer e �—� OFF[CE OF LICbNSE, B3SPECTIONS AND EN V IlZONMEN'CAL PYtOTECTION Roger Curtis, Director 33 i .. • pIIZSTgIIN • . N01ZCE OF POBIdC HEABIIiC: CTfY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colerrsan, Mayor Apri123,2001 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: LOWRYPR The Samt Paul City Coimdl wfll con- 090 Suite 300 duct a public hearing on Wednesday, May �099 350 St Pete 23, 2001, at 5:30 p.m., City Cound7 . Saint Povl. Cl�ambecs; 3rd Floor GYty Hall. tn oonsider fihe appeal of Brian Engdalil and Raina Eberly of a Heritage Preservation Commisstion (f�CJ decision approving a building permit for conslruction of a tree house [wnstructed wlthout a bwldin�+ per' mit or T�C approval) with the condition that the tree hwse be mwed so that its eastern wall Is set tiack to a plane at least as far.advanced the eastern lot llne as the mafn residence at 1376 Summit Avenue. Dated: May 3, 2001 _ NANCYANDERSON � - . Asslstant GYty Council Seeretary - , Qu1aY � 81:PAULIEGALlSDGBR ozozie2s I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May 23, 2001 for the following heritage preservation case: Appellant(s): Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly File Nuxnber: 4078 Purpose: Appeal of a Aeritage Preservation Commission decision approving a building permit for construcfion of a tree house (constructed without a building pemut or HPC approval) with the condifion that the tree house be moved so that its eastem wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence. Location: 5taff 1376 Summit Avenue No staffrecommendafion. Commission : Approved with condition on a 6-1 vote. (Two motions were made: First was to deny the p°rmit :or the `t.ee hoase' in its cur:er.� 1x»?ier., and secon�? ±o approve the "building pernut confingent upon moving the structure so that its eastem wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence: ') I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Pat Harris. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you will publish norice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9078 if you l�ave any quesfions. Sincerely L ` �.� r �i Amy Spong Historic Preservation Specialist CC: Council Member Pat Harris Renee Eberly, Brian Engdahl SAIHS PAUL � AAAA CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor May 16, 2001 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paui, MN 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: OFFICEOFLCENSE, INSPECTIONSAND ENVIRONMENTi1L PROTECT/ON O � _` � °, Roger Curtis, Disector LOiPRYPROFESSIONALBUlLIDNG Telephone:611-166-9001 350 St Peter Street Facsimile: 612-266-9099 Suite 310 Saint Paul, Minnuota 55101-I510 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, May 23 2001 for the foilowing heritage preservation case: Appellant(s): Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly File Number: 4078 � Purpose: Appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision approving a building pernut for construction of a tree house (constructed without a building pernut or HPC approval) with the condition that the tree house be moved so that its eastem wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastem lot line as the main residence. Locarion: Staff : 1376 Sumnut Avenue No staff recommendarion. Commission : Approved with condirions on a 6-i vote. (Two motions were made: First was to deny the pernut for the `tree house' in its current location, and second to approve the "building permit contingent upon moving the structure so that its eastern wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence.") I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Pat Harris. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your eazliest convenience and that you will publish norice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9078 if you have any quesrions. Sincerely, � Amy Spon�� Historic Preservarion 5pecialist Attachments b 1-��`l � LIST OF ATTAC�NTS: Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attaclunent D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G Attachment H Attachment I � Attachment J Photo copies of tree house Copy of building permit dated September 28, 2000 Site plan and elevarions (provided by the applicant on 10l02(Ol) Excerpt from October 5, 2000 HPC Minutes Excerpt from October 19, 2000 HPC Minutes and notes transcribed from meeting tapes Conespondence from applicant read at October 19, 2000 HPC Meeting Correspondence from HPC to applicant and HPC Resolution File #4078 Norice of appeal from applicant and statement on grounds of appeal Board of Zoning Appeais Resolution #O1-180961 and excerpt from March 26, 2001 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes Letter from owner to 7olui Hardwick, LIEP, dated May 8, 2001, which proposes to turn deck into covered porch � _t�, � .��r'y � ' i'� . .. . j R ' :Y� � Y ♦ �• , � � . ` .�< e • .. ' , :, �. _... `- ° . f �� . � : �',,,a_ �� . � �. � � ., � - o--T � � , � �.. . � �� i 1�' . �. _ � � . L �. � . T, �\ \ } . � ' � . . �, R} ' , '.� ,,a. �� —i �, ,+ s. , \ s ; �- � 4 , � , �J"Y�' � , � . \ .��k � � �' F � . . • �+� . i . ,� 4 ` : . � . .. �_. . � �. y� + <; '�'1.*► -:. . r +. � - � i � � ' y - � '% t' � •• • > YJJ�'Y el��i ♦. +f t.4.. •Y I" � ; :... i�• . �:t l/ iti�Ul � [, C � ` y • e : , ' �. . .4. �.� •. � i.. - �� > . i <l�� cc&� a . 3 � «L � � 9 � - '.. ".� �� -..P.r �� B� . . � �1� f�� y q ` d 1 .a� ...z-- �* t < "x -�.. � � �:. . . .. , . �'t'� } . . X� �^ i.,�. ".,T'_'4f�� '�wir .. �.�: .f= e� .�:��r� �j�� _ y �"�.z 2' � �p r1♦ i��• :�:. ._ � c�`�.. � _ ( ,St« x ;p r':f ~� � � � '� `- .""'^""-�mvmxyl�S'l�A��=...,� l i i .�� . n i .i �•� �� _ :��^' f� __ , ;} Y � [ _ _ � , s a,� f� y � 4 �^i .. .__ . _ �� . �� k 1 [ � � � � �� . . � � . t . fi � � �� f .• � � K 1 ; �� ' • ` y �y�, ^ N � c � � � �M� ' . :' » J , z �,„,� �?; r� ' , �'•! �„! , I, � t . ', , , ;:;: ::, .�, � , � �� r � �'z, . . � - :i • �' � i , � ' +-- � • � � � � �,� . . � ,�` , w. y �� 1 l. , , �! - .. � { . � �� ;, f r.,� ��r-_ � • � . . � „ . ., ., . .� � �.} ,, A �� 7� �,t' . ;� � , ; �•8 �, t - ---_ ``-�.'.�' . i _ . . - _ . --�--.�.�._,,._.__�..,.�_ � "�' �,��.:.>,., .. '� � � , � �. � i . � ;l _ . '1 `' �� J t+et �� ' F f �� . i _ .. . .. a . � i i � � ` � .,. 1` ��.� � . . `.! . ' [Y. i _ . . � � .. ...� 1, . . . � k. a` a`4� - �� ; :.. . ' . . .` ]. i �' . .....�..°...'"`�^ .. � . � .if... . ,_ . . _ *. * *.. . . , . � . � . .. . `� ..`. , . . . . . , �". � \ ' _ . ..._....,_ —.�. .....—..—. . ,-- . � . ., � , - _:; i �� . ' . � �,:� � . . . ,�� ' 4 r, r f.r � ``, i'� • ° � - < :w'�,. . �'" ' �� _ x. ,,, _ , . . F..':'' . . _ .. .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. ..1;�y- j . . , :.`.. � ..: ;, �. . . .. � . � � . M � st � � � 1 ; �� . . . ... _ � .. �'� � v . s .. vy � �� . �. .. .. .. . .... . . . ... _ . , ...._._,. : . k . � . :� . . . . �� .....'., #�' o : , �. . �...... .. � . � -m�m.o-.---�m....., �m a p� y � ' y � � . j ��'''' S � 7 �' , � _�±o-��,.:;...,. � � _ _ � �. �: r' � _ . , ,° . . < , , , , - �3 . - �tr ��- �- � � ? , : � � ��_ . � � �: �� 3 � .. .:� . . .. . . • . - ,_ . , .,._._.i� ... . . �_ a+e p ':+�t. �. . _ . . : . . a. �. _ 'y1. . . .. . � � . � t _ r..' r . � � tiN,.,.. . . _, . �ti:: ti +i. : ..a . . . . .. � - , ' � .., r:� .��... , �. . . . . ' .., . .. _ : .. ..�,�� •_ � � _ *. ° -"'�'�'x ._ , ,. , � �, .�, �„ ;� � .�. ,��. � I .;� ,� �� i� :t:�,�� . ,- �;; '"" :. �` �. � s ti i. �. �� zf��tkr; y � : - i�'- .,��. . i� i':/. . �`� . ..�{ ��° .i�EMf..�- �>�� .. �.�1 .} � _ � _ T ' :,a:- ` '� � . �, K �\ a�(�- •` Uw •�• ,!� F �w y • y' la � y'�. a; � �'+�. ` , ti . . V�� ls� '1 ` .4 ' � �� , :..Pa . . < �:�.� . 1�� , ��"r{ ,'1 � y 5 � e f a ` � ', �. • .� . � t 1w ' ` �1 �� d • 4 �� . 'q .a t� ,, .. � �� • j�4 . � � �r1� F� �v �� „ +�` � �� .�� . �� a �.�� ;�`.� � � s , � '� r �� '. � � « . � � ,�1,�,� • \ Y . �. , �} �.•,, � l.� , . �� f l . di . � - � � �i 1 ) � �` f'� r �4 �• '„� . .. . . . . '`�� s. � .� e � '. . . . . . i . a � ��.V.w � _ . . i . . � . l ( �.��^�1 M . . " .. , � . . . � 1 � _ � `, ,�yy, a. . �� r� ; �p � s fC` � ��. � ,� �� g _ � � �� " ��. �, � � � ' �'� A�! ;.j'"" „�� : ,�..�""` " t:�� r �", �+ � :�sl. �. ' � ��a . . ,. } )} ' �/,� � � t � �`. � � 1�� r j ` � 1: `�� " .� �,�{� �: � � '., . � . ,�. ��' '° r � .� � � � � � ., � T.s , w + 4 V . . "'.��. �1 � l�f� V�.tYY; :: k " • '�sa*• � z, " �(� . . 7 �, . w • .. * i �'� � a.� '� , �� ,� �.,�1� j • ' _}�,� , �' � �� • f� '1� , � . . {y � � 1 �t �;� 1�� - �. ° �`� � , k =,�� y .+ "` � - •"� r f ; .* , . ..,� � ,i r� p � i;� ,J �L 11, �� ;�' � � �� c"4 ti � \, �.. • .+'� !"�; � .- . ,� . �.,, .�. : l� 4; _ � . . �, . .� . ��L . . . �.� � `�w � �:�.�� ~ �� ! �• � � � . ) .�` X �� v:. �+ �� _ . j ry � � '. � .! � .. �i� • r�� 1<-e�y. � . _ ' . �� 1 � „y � , 4�� a , S. + � s •�` s �"� ..►�*' n +..'�� a 'l� .�� a•� =� _ ; ,: � • r 2 � v: '. z r . � � . 1 . . � . � . . - . .. . . . .. . - ` ' . . � - j: . _ .. , . - . ��. . �'^Z'�� - � -' � � . . ._ ' . y � .� . ._`` :., a S� v / • .. . . : i�.:\" (� i , t�� . uY'. � {..�b` - "�$^ ` r . . .. , : • � , -. r , �. , : �. .. . . w � � , ,_ . ' �� ' � . " - �� _ . - � � '� � _ �.., ._ . . =� L � . �. '� . ' ,r�"` -.►,� _� k �� Y :; . •' _ � � � ; � f � �'�+.,� , t � - ,, ,,xe. . - 1 �'�....�e :v,.� � �!�`'"� >!� - y s ,; ,� � �. � � _ �� " � �Y ,� �_ � - a ; � w f Yi �. ! � �,�'? ':u a.s� �S e « ;�; r� �i._.. . � .. . � i-5 : �� `„` { �Lr .. � F'F . tiY.� �s�. ¢� �. afiz'�. �.°.Y.a �e�'� 'ti a'� � °Y _ L � ) .��J.'�° nm � ?S�� :.F?�'�' �. y {(.a•l'•li'}^. . �4 _ �.� :Y ��F .• '� t. �: Y � ��,; .. +Q � ` ^Z+� .r ?` 9 `: Y �:1 '�a . _ r^ .+��. v y "' `�� `'��:�'r^ r_�:�. f r ;��: , ,.: ¢k` , �, �.,.� + � e ��; -.�. � ' ..: : aa'.:''i� ;r�l� h—.a.{ �� . _ � .,w .. �J': � 4 }F *� < �t�y ;�� y , . t t � , / Y" � . ` f f � l �� J} �' � . � �ai� � I' A y r ��' yF '�t . 1P ` , a �.�� -v�sLyYli 5. CITY OF ST. PAUL GENERAL BUILQING PERMIT � OFFICEOFLICENSE,WSPECTIONSANDENVIRONMENTAIPROTECTION APPUCATION D �—�� - 350 ST P T R T . E E 5 REET, SUITE 300 ST.PAUL,MtNNESOTA 55102-1510 Secfion I- INFORNATIONAL (See back ofform for additiona! informotion) Number Street Name St. Ace. Blvd. Etc. A1 S E`V SuiteiApt PROJECT ADDRESS t 3 7!� J�J ��•t � `{ - �1E'_ Cont�aCtOr qdd�C55 (Pemi[ wi0 be mailed to the Q Q I3h/l.P.�t Ciry � �r' ��i (Inc]ude Contact Person) S[ate, Ztp+4 Prope� qddress p .f�f � Cs-.nw. �Y,�cQf>�4'� Ciry 1 � (� S.� �-.aa� :'�- t\� (Include Contact Person State, Z�p+4 Ylasonry Contractor Address � --- Gty,StateZip+4 Architect Address � �❑ ❑ Estim ❑ Date: f� y o �-,� - f - rEF hc.,s� Section II - PLEASE COMPLETE TH1S SE Structure Dimensions (Tn Feet) Width Length He�ght Total Square Feet include basement � � t�` �� l�� ot Dimensions (In Feet3 >tWidth LotDe th Front 4� �°:� !�� -{-r�� h a Zoning Distnct I Plan Number PLAN REVIEW REMARKS IVumberof > > > ;ntiaV linits �-�y l�J. lmfG /G: ��'�� CoSla(°o-� [Z Phone i $ l � r-i( a� ;orrect and tha[ all pertinent state regulations and I �orqiinglkej9ork for which this permit is �ssued, i ls a Fire Suppress�on System Available? (i.e. - sprinklecs} Basement? S[ones 1'es or No Yes No J � " Set Backs from Property Lines Back Side 1 S�de 2 C� 7 � � ; �r O ice Use Onlv � — .,c �'AX IZ`? Building Permit Fee y Wo�ld you Iike qour j�]ari ChECk FCe permit faxed to �ou? �y Yes � State Surcharge 5 \o Ifyes,entercour SAC faz ° > � Total Permit Fee S SA.G C6argc ! Cmdit � Reviewed By: Da[e. Siate Valuation S Please comple[e �he (ollowing mfortnahon forcredrt card paymenC Orcle �he Card T}pe. 1�85IEi CBCa Expirabon Daro. E'.VTERYOURACCOIINTNUMSERINTHBBOXES Visa Month/Ycar -i Month Y"car 1 I I � I Please S�gn & Da[e SignaNre required forall charges. Q �'Z7 � D�i- l �sa� -� ��-,� �/ 10/02/00 MON 09:07 FAX VAMC PSYCHOLOGY � 001 ._._ To: 3"ohr..,st�r'o..di�1c> -4-nx (a5t - Z6�o -- �t2-� � � �aw.: �r�:rs.� �n��,�.t�,�. – 13 7� Sv �.,,..� +- �v �5 -� ao►- f�,•►+�.�r-� . � � z,- �.s - z o't 3 c,J � � `i'ha.�., I.�_5 � �s � �- �°'o� €�a- � -� � a-! � � o � -� � `._� - - - _. . �. —. .— - L --. � "�'t oo {�- - - - -� '�.=��L_---,.—":" _ � a,-Q�rio)i - Y --- ° -- i � ��k _. — _.___ - --- - -- _, .._ � -- - --- ._`�� - _ _.. . _ _ --- � . t�a � .�-z - — � � -- ... : �-.��..�ss e, _.. _ ..__ .. __ ... - --- -- s ` , �-"°��-- - — � � a ,� �'� � .__ , --._.... _ _ ___ .—_- � -- -- �. ._ . . . _ _ . —. _. �G(e t - -- � f � Q d � -- . — . �— - - — d � --- =--__ f — ' ... — ---- ----.. .. _. _ ._. _ _ --- - ' z � � . _. . __._ .— i �° . __ _— _ .... --. ' � IG�.'S�% _ _. _ _ � �..�. � __ , __ _.,_ � : � _.. --- - �---- —. _— - , --- .. �. -- — _... ---_ : h _._ .._. _.... o � -� - p -- _.. .._ i r. - - ._�� `.---.. __. ._y__. _._._. ---� • _.._ --- . _ _ _ _ � _—. —._ T- --- � - - _ - __ _ _� .—_ _ . — -- ... _ . --- � , _. _- — --- -. - - � i � _..—. _ .. _ ..._ . _. . . . .._ _. - — - �-! � . �. _-... i . �. _._ - � . -- ---.. --- -- - --- - - - — -- - - -,_ . _.� _. - - - - - - - - - - r Tf�,EhOJS� _—_ --_" � .__ '_.._. '_" - . -. _.._ — z� -- -___ i2`xl�� — ._ "� �—:.. -- ( , , � -.— _ .. , ._. _..��. - - ...... ..---•-' .�- . ___.. . -- - —. _"'___ - -- . . . — � — ._._... _—.� _ . . _. —_ � i 4 � � -- - "_ - �—�-- -- - � ---- -- - -... -- - _.� — -- -- _ _ ^ I ` ----- ; -,--- -- .._.. . .� --- -- ---- � �- - °-- � i ----� , _.— � _. _ � . ._._. _ _ —�—� - a , -- __ ._._�._ ._, ' ---- --4 , .-- � _ -- — --- --1tv..__� --- -- -- --- ._, --- -- —� --- ---- !� - - _ _ ---�5' ,. - - -^-. _.. ------� . I v � 4 . -- - N t3a.-� � ��s� ..._ -- - — �-- __.__. �, ._. _. --- ---- ___ . ocr-ez-zaee e9�s1 9�z ` P.ei � [ M 2�� - �c �� - i �_ l 7��-- � �-: b � , 5 ,r„r..�t - ��,�,-_ �-., t c-,c�-�Z� - :�: �-,: , - L, i . t 2 ----- -- — - ----- — - - t +E_"- _ __ _ _ ' _ . _ .. _: _ _ _ _ _ _ ' — ,." _.�.—_T.._—. _ � __ ' � C , � � - -- j ' } �\ � —� ; t f -� �1 - ; = - � / � _�i /\� �, . , � � i � - - ' -- 2� r- - - - - _ _ _ i'_ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ __ i ��ri. ; — — � — - � — J -- — — � -- — s � �� ._L - � - - ��- ;j i v �� i _ _ _ i r i -- - - - - - 1 - - - -- -- -- r c• ��-� �, �^ f' i� i ac_ ` -� I'I ,? _ , ...�` i s 1 T F ( ` l l i�� 'r i , / ____i � � i �� t 2 0� � � � �� 2� 1�t' 5E . . � i ;' i � � ___._. �___ _— ___ ; � _; —;—_ �: -f ` � ; i i i 3 � i � r� ' � i�`- �� ` pl-�� i , � V( l� ��a E� "�'- 4�± FJ s L��' { �� L � 5 � ` i • � ,/,� iFJ� 6 .r�cv° �.fic�d." � � � ' �� > � `. / i / � \ � � ~� .� � f � '�+�, ,\ - / \ ___ "_ _ _ _� . f i i i � f _' _ __'_ _' __""_____ _ "__"_—� v �-" � _ t _ t � . t . S 1 � 1 t ' 1 ' .^-„� � � i i ; / _ "., / \ i 3 4 � 0� �p '�...,� � � • 1 � � ) _ �e � / 1 � ' s._._-•_—� � _ 1 ( ` � _ _,__ _ � � . ! V:Ev� �rc_�3 �sSEx,� � # _ --- ' 4 � l ; - ? t � � , i - � i ` ' i � � f _ f _ I � 3 i i t �..e....�._._._ i o € ' � ; 4 � F i �14 1 . � � a � � , - i - � � i ! 1 _ f -- : - - - -� � - t - -- - --� - ; - -- ' -- - - -- � -- p } � � �- _ � � i � f : i � ' i : { F ---- ` ---- ----- '— ---`�._--' --- t , k � i I i • � ; . : ' ; ; - - --- ; �- - -; _ : .. 1 . { 3 �------� ^ -- - ' - -- � --�. _ ___.`� = i _� �� }�- :, . a� �,- ` � , , � ,,� � • ,: �� ( f:s i � � .. � � �� i ot-�`�`� V � E�,J ��Ck: .= ^�.. - . j�.;---- i � , , ---,. ; � ��d� saz�� --� _ 5 `�� , �--------- --- -- �� __ � _ _____�____ � ------ , _ ;,� ( ; " / i � , _ �i i � � 1 ; 1 �._ � ' i � � : ;: ;; k ' ij �oF to i� � i�,v `i e�::, t,-� � � --- -�� : :. , : : : _ . �� '.I . ; � . � �_�. - - --- ------- --- --- � — - - `� :_�y__�_ - ��- �� _..._ �, _ _� _ i � - " --� � -- i � - - -��'"� _ - _ i i ��J � __.__. _ � _ ' _ . . /' / ; _'___ � ,_''--__ i `" � � . i ` _ - _ __ '. �- " ; . -' : _ _'�.. --_ i = - .a � J,/� - � - --- -- , ; _ � � J �� , �\ _ � . - ---- -�� - -� - - - � - � • - •:— — -- s��.— — — ---- � --- — -- - — - . - __ � � (� 04 �o AmySpong�-6i11NOct52000.wpd._ ... _._.�,.._._.__� .. _ . _--- — -_�._.._ .._.___ _ .__._. Pag �.�. �{-achmc�fi � Minutes Saint Paui Heritage Preservation Commission October 5, 2000 Commissioners in Attendance: Errigo, Nargens, Larson, Meyer, Murphy, Scott, Wilsey, Wolfgramm, Younkin CommissionersAbsent: Beflus, Benton, Foote, Mikos, Staff Present: Lobejko, Riddering, Skradski 1. Cail to Order. 5:00 p.m. (Vice Chair Hargens). 2. Announcement Skradski stated committee reports would be tabled until the new heritage preservation specialist begins on October 9, 2000. 3. Approvat of the Aqenda: Approved unanimously. 4. Oid Business Skradski presented five projects in which action taken on them was not clear, in lieu of the former HPC staff person's departure. Commissioners told Skradski to consult the Commission in an informal manner after the meeting 5. New Business: Pubiic Heari�glDesign Review A. 211 E. 4'-" Street: Skradski reported that sign Faces were installed without HPC approval or proper permits and that existing signage was already noncompliantwith district guidelines. Without the applicant in attendance, the HPC did not hear publlc testimony nor take action. B. 546 Hollv Avenue: Will Rossbach, Rossbach Construction, explained the proposal which was to demolish existing side/rear porch and concrete steps and construct a new covered porch with deck above. Motion to approve the project as proposed (Scott) was seconded (Larson) and approved unanimously. C. 732 Marqaret Street: Wayne Lundeen stated he wanted to remove existing driveway, relocate the garage doors to the west side and install a stone paver driveway. HPC members asked about door design, and the materials for both the garage and driveway. Motion to approve the project as proposed (Younkin) was seconded (Larson) and approved unanimously. o�-�"�`� D. 565 Marshail Avenue: Michaei Terries from Outdoor Renovations explained the type of windows proposed to repface current, original windows. When asked by commissioners if other types of windows were considered, Mr. Terries stated `no.' Amy Spong - M NOct52000.wpd LL ' m � mmY T � � m Page 2, Motion to deny the project as proposed (Younkin) was seconded (Larson) and approved unanimously. E. 579 Ashland Avenue: After questions about fence height and design, the HPC decided to move this onto HPC staff for review and possible approval. 691 Davton Avenue: Dave Schilier from the City of Saint Paul asked the HPC which type of window is allowed for this type of structure (Queen Anne, construded in 1885). The HPC referred this to staff for review and possible approval. G. 1815 Summit Avenue: Robert Lunning, architect for the owners, for a project to renovate the front facade. Motion to approve the project (Murphy) was seconded (Scott) and approved unanimously. H. 1858 Summit'Avenue: Larson motioned approval of the projectwith two conditions: 'I} brick set back by four feet from original building; 2) hvo or three double hung wood windows, placed at will; Younkin seconded tbe motion. Motion approved unanimously. I. 382 Maple Street: The applicantwanted to lcno�.v which colors were approved, according to Skradski; however, since the applicantwas not there, the HPC took no adion. J. 725-733 E. 7'-" Street: (Younkir was recused from discussion and decision.) Motion to approve the project as proposed (Larson) was seconded (Meyer) and approved unanimously. K. 90 E 4'-" Street: Fran Golt presented revised plans for the Central Library renovation; many of the p(ans were from previous HPC member inpuf. The HPC totd fhe applicants iF the permit applications has the design presented tonight, tY�e HPC would approve those plans. � L. 1376 Summit Avenue: Skradski stated the applicant constructed a tree house withoe+t _._ -_-_ a permit Brian Engdahl explained hQlalked to HPC last spring and was told_he did __ not need a permit. A resident at 1374 Summit Avenue stated opposition to the tree house, since if significanfiy and negatively a(fered the view from Summit Avenue. ' ----- -- - -- - = ' _��_ _.._..._ .�:.. __.:_......:�� ti,. forwarded to the next full HPC meeting on October 19, 2000. 6. Rdjournment Vice Chair Hargens adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. � �t�'fQdnme✓�t' E �p p�red �avexr�be,- Minutes Sainf Pau! Heritage Preservatlon Commiss6on October 19 a000 Commissioners i� Attendance: Bellus, Foote, Hargens, Larson, Murphy, Wilsey, Wolfgramm Commissioners Absent: Staifi Present: Benton, Errigo, Meyer, P✓�ikos, Scott, Younkin �obejko, Riddering, Skradski, Spong 1. Ca!! to Order: 5:00 p.m. (Cfiair BelVus) dt-c.�� ((a, zAcao 2. Announcements: Belius introduced Amy Spong as LIEP's new heritage preservationspecialist. 3. Approval of the Agenda: Agenda approved • 4. Old Business _ r:; � =,: ��°'- ,� � ,. —"—'� A. 1376 Summit Avenue: The owners/appiicants could not�ft„ �,_ � statement to the Commission, summarizi,n,g�points that fhe project to canstruct a tree house inkhe�'�e��a�d� The ov✓r Summit Avenue stated opposition to�`f�is Q��ee2;"based on the visual gap from Summit,�ye�ue that th2tree�ioF�s�e;s,� submitted a written ;d as relevant to this • ;ighboring 1374 of the structure and fiils. Ms. Foote questioned why LBEP staff in;sfructed the applican#s°}Eh�'at;�ti�ey did not need a permit and asked if documentation w�r� available'_to verify�{iis"i�`avhat occurred. Mr. Skradski repeated the plan exar,n.In�r�s quest�oning process for permit applicants, claiming plan examiners' would onk��erbally check with appiieants to determine it the project needed a permit. Mr. Wofigratt�m stated �ig:Yhinks ihe;tree house added to the characier of the district and would �ot'vote to den�.z�Othercommissioners agreed with Mr. Wolfgramm regarding the.style;of the tree house�5iructure, but voiced a concern that it was readily � uisible from$Su'�[i�t Avenue. Mr:;Ca�son staced the HPC should do two things: 1) vote on '� the motion tn,de�xth� permii; 2) make a new motion with conditions. Motton to deny . rpeoject as I 6- 1(Woifgramm). Larson moved approval of the of the tree house to the same plane as the house; the ). Mo4ion approved 6 ='1 (Beiius). B:;;;- 565 NTa�sh` �aTvliehael Terries asked the Commission if it would reconsider its decision to ��,.� deny tfie�r�o�ec#�z�?posed at its Oatober 5, 2000 meeting; no commissioner was willing tc offer a motior��fo�¢consider. Mr. Terries proposed replacing the sash with aluminum or wood, thea,;ezpiained the details. Hargens moved approval of replacement sashes, giving discretion to the owner between aluminum and wood; Wilsey secanded. Larson aslced about the condition of the casings; Ms. Spong suggested that the casings �= t and triRia6e repaired; Mr. Terries told the Commission repairing would be very expensive. � � � - Motaon approvec9 unanimously (7 - O). �= -� 7��motion to approve wrapping the trim and sills (Larson) was seconded (Hargens) ° and approved unanimousfy (7 - 0). Mc Terries recommended the City give contractors a fist of HPC districts and individual sites when renewing or applying for the city contracting license. � Tc.nsc.r�bec4 4vm rn�efi,n� -f-apes. (�- {{�rapat� oqPr�Jed la� Comrv�i ss+ on� ST PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 19, 2000 • NIINUTES Present: Nfines. Foote, and Wilsey; Messrs. Bellus, Hazgens, Larson, Murphy, and Wolfgramm. James Bellus, chaired the committee. 1376 SiJMMIT AVEI`TL1E, the owmer constructed a tree house without HPC (Heritage Preservation Committee) approval. Amy Spong stated that the owner constructed a tree house in the back yard wiYhout a building permiY. Ms. Spong stated that they had denied the tree house at the previous HPC Hearing, but a quorum was not present to make it official. John Skradski provided photographs of the tree house and clarified that they that had built it around a tree not attached to the tree as most tree houses. Commissioner Bellus snggested that the Committee members read the letter sent by the property orvner of 1376 Summit Avenue before proceeding with the hearing. Kevin Leuthold, 1374 Summit Avenue, stated that he lives next door. Mr. Leuthold stated that the tree house does not match either house and fills the gap between the two buildings. Commissioner Foote, questioned whether the building was a reaP house or a child's play house. • Commissioner Foote, questioned whether there was any documentation to prove that the owner had tried to follow the proper procedure. Mr. Skradski explained the Plan Examiners question process. He stated that the size of their project and their location in the City are the fizst questions asked by the plan examiners, to -- -- --- deternaine need for-a-huilding permit and any�pproval needed in�3istoricDistricts. __ __ __ __ F * d been in.o osition To the project at the previous hearing. He thought that they had misrepresented the size of the project. The Commission discussed the differences in pemut requirements for regular districts and Historic Districts. Commissioner Wolfg�amm questioned what couId be more historic than a child's tree house. He stated it adds to the city, adds to the character of a chitd's life and is well constructed and designed. Mr. Wolfgramm stated thaY he is voting a�ainst the resolution. He stated that if they denied the permit aT the zoning level it would be more appropriate, if the tree house violated the zoning laws. Commission Hargans questioned whether tl�eir reason for eitber granting or not granting approval of the resolution was caused by lack of process or lack of historic compatibility. � � O�t �i Ol -��`� HPC Minutes � October I9, 2000 Page Two Commissioner Larson stated that he thought that it was a minor structure, and that the commission's position had not required Yhat a minor structure match the house. However, he noted that this case was the third case in four months, that was asking for approval after the fact. Commissioner Larson stated that he wanted people to be notified in some way that perxnits aze required in the historic district and that he wanted them to apply for the permits before they start building projects. Commissioner Wilsey stated that she agreed with Commissioner Larson. However, she would not have a problem with the structure if it were behind the house and not visible from the street. Commissioner Bellus stated that there were other reasons to deny or approve the proj ect other than that they did not follow the process correctly. Commissioner Wilsey stated that just because the structure was a kid's tree house, approving it when they had denied other projects that could be seen from the street was not fair. �ommissioner Hargens stated that the structure was on the cusp of what is considered a building. The tree house is lazge enough and because they build it off the ground it has the appearance of a . buildin�. Commissioner Beilus stated that there were several options available to the Commission at this point. He stated that the Commission could make a motion to deny the project and have a second motion for approval subject to certain conditions. Commissioner Bellus stated such as moving it further into the back yard and away from the lot line. He stated rather than waiting for the Zoning Board to move it over two feet, the Commission could have them move it over ten feet so iYasflushwith-thehouse. --__-___ ____ _ Commissioner Larson moved to deny the project, which passed 6-1(Wolfgramm). Commissioner Lazson moved to approve the project subject to the condition that they move the structure so the eastem wall is setback at least flush with the house. Commissioner Wilsey seconded the motion. Commissioner Hazgens stated he liked this move because it addresses the neighbor's privacy concems and the tree house will no longer be seen from the front yard. The motion passed 6-1 (Bellus). � 'L o � 2> �� F � , �� , oF z Deat Amy Spong: Having zeccived notice of Th�usday night's meeting on Tuesday night, Lve are sorry but �i�e cannut bc pres�nt. Below is a summary ofthe relevant points I discussed witn you today. Rte bttih a garage that matchcs ihe house 18 yeats ago and 1i�e obtained HPC approval for an addition to ouz house 7 years ago, so we are not unfamiliaz with HPC �.tidelines or the process. 6/I S('?) - biscussed with neighbozs (Robin Sydor, Kevin Leuthold, !3c Nancy Gan'ett) our thoughts ofbitilding a tree house c4: the proposed pl�cement. They raised no objections. 6/30 Called city for information on building requuemenis,ipermits. Brian �t�as told by a plazl revieweX that a peznut was not needed as ]ong as fhe sknictiuc was under 120 sq. ft. & the structure was in the back yard. He was advised to call the HPC liaison to see i� review w�.s required. 7/6 or Called HPC & tall:ed to Aaran Rubenstein. Brian was told that it did not need to go 7(R through HPC review. We were advised to keep it under 120 sq.f t. & in the back yazd. 2nd wk. Met with neighbors to review plans, including footprint & placement o£ structure in � of 7uly regard to fence and tree, Also 511owad ihezn color photos from a tTeehouse construction book that iilustrafed fhe materials & colors in which �i�a planned to fuush the exterior. They voSced no objections. 3rci �vk. Afrer 3 walls were erzcted, Nancy expressed concern that the sight line from the tr2�house Li�indows would allo�� children to see into their bedroom, which has a mirrored wall. \Ve went to tlie tree hoase so that slie could see �a�hat could l� seen & I — -could understand ker concems. I assured her that the wiudows#acine-their property --- would be covered in some manner. 7/25 - 8!6 On vacation lG'k. of 8/28 - Tall:ed H2th Nancy about the idea of a tight-weave privacy pane] that thz iv}� could grow up, which also wuuld provide privacy frotn the deck area, not just tha windo�vs. She stated that she thought this was a good idea 9(U3 V�'e stopped at the liunbex yazd (�;�here we had seen the privacy panel) to buy it - it w�s out of stock. �'Je checked many other lumber yards & they either didn't earry it or it wa,a out of stock. l�Te had to wait until a new shipment eame In, 9124 9/25 � T00 Qi Picked up the privacy panel. A notice was recaived in the mail box that the building inspector had �2sited & needed access to tree house. S90'IDH�SSd �ITiF:1 zta Ts:so i�xz on-ur;nx � o� � 9126 Brian caIled th� buitding inspector (John Hegner). He stated'that an "inquiry" l�ad been receiv�d & could see from the file that we had contACted ihe huilding uvpectiaai departmeztt earliei. He ecune the same aftemoon. He said that if structuse u�as imder 100 sq. ft. from "eave to eave," a permit & TIPC approval was not needed since it �vas not a"pernutable^ structure. His measllrements showed that it was just under 100 sq R. 9l27 - There was a notc left in the riailbox by Mz. Hegner that a building p�miit � required & where we S�ould go to apply for one. 9/28 - Brinn went to City Hall to apply for a bu$ding permit, He was told that one was not needed. He informed the staff that Mr. Hegner had directed him to get one. Tltey took ihe appl9catiou & the check, & told him that they would noc cash the eheck until the discrepancy was resolvzd. I�e was directed to John Skradski conceming F�PC regul'ation. Sohn had just left for lunch. Brian left a massage for 7ohzi to call. 9/29 - Contact �F�th John Sl:rads'ki. l'��e were informed that we were on the agenda for the 101� HPC meeiing. He asked ihat we fax a draN�in� of bsek yard, supporting not more than 3>% of the yard in structnres (in fact it is 16%), & t� bring Pictures. 9/30 1!1/2 Notice ofHI'C meeting receiv�d. Backyard dimensions' ��ere faxed to Jolm Skradski. Another building inspector c�*ne (John ?'?), to tal:a pictures before tlzz I�C meetuig, hecause 7ohn Hegner had not had time to do so. He also took rough measurements. I informed him that John Aeo er alrzady had taken fia:rly precise mzasuremevts from tbe eave lines & said that the shucture was 95 sq. ft. & did not need a permit. Jvhn ?? did not pursue the matter further, saying t6at he u�outd go along with, Hegner's caII on this. He also cammented #hat he atready had taken pictures fram the aIley & tke tre� l�ousetvzs barely_visible.— —. — — -- - U � ^� Up n� ' vin & Nanc assserted ttiat: 7} The structure does not match their honse. - 2) It "fills the spaoe between the houses." Onr response (not exgressed at the meeting): 1) The struCture fits u�Yh the a*chitecture of g� house, gara�e, & the home and garage to the ti�esc. 2} The structure is set welt back into our back }'ard, is barely visible from the sidewa1lc on tltz souih side of Sum.`nit Ave. and not visible a� from the sidewaLl' on the north side of Sununit Ave. G��l 6Rc'7 �-3�t � y- zoa�j z:��a7c�xaisa �rFe --� zFa zs:so i o f\a:�r. a �.�] �6" � "� $ c c+..� l � �7� s�a.�,,�.;�-�- r�FE. . �. �g�.�l . to—tS—a� n � •OI � (� CITY OF SAINT PAUL '�' h'orm CoTeman, MayOr 26 October 2000 Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly 1376 Summit Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105-2218 Dear Mr. Engdahl and Mrs. Eberly: /�rf� rn e n+ G. OFFiCE OF LSCENSE, INSPECTiOVS A?3D LNVIROVMENTALPROTEC770N o � � RobeN F."essler, Direcror LOWRYPXOFESSIONALBU/LDk�'G Telep7rorse:65]-266-9040 Suite 300 Fatsimile: 651-266-9099 3J0 St. Peler Streef SainlPa:il, Mrnneso[a Si102-IS/0 As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) considered at its October 19, 2000 meeting your application for the `tree house' structure built on your property at 1376 Summit Avenue. The commission voted to deny your application and then voted again to approve your app]ication with the condition that the structure be moved behind the main residence. I have enclosed a copy ofthe commission's resolution stating its findings and decision. � You have the right to appeal the Commission's decision to the Saint Paul Ciry Council underChapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Such an appeal must be filed within 14 days of receipt of this ]etter. Chapter 73 requires that the following paragraph be included in a1l Ietters indicating denial of a permit: (h) Appeal to ciry council. The permit applicant or any party ag�rieved by the decision of the heritage pzeservation commission shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of -- tiie heritage preservation"commission's order an8 decision; have a right to appeal such - order and decision to the city council. The appeal shalt be deemed perfected upon receipt by the division of planning of hvo (2) copies of a notice of appeal and statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal. The division of planning shall transmit one copy of the notice of appeal and statement to the city council and one copy to the hexitage preservation commission. The commission, in any written order denying a permit application, shall advise the applicant of the right to appeal to tbe city council and include this paragraph in all such orders. � I spoke with our zoning staff who indicated this structure, in its current location wiThin three feet of the side properiy line, requires a zoning variance. The HPC based its findings on the historic district guidelines and not zoning regulations. If you plan to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council, the Council would want to know the zoning issue has been resolved. Therefore, the appeal of tl�e HPC's decision would be delayed until the Board of Zoning Appeals makes their decision on whether or not to grant the sideyard setback variance. The appeal to City Council still needs to be filed within 14 days of receipt of this ]etter even thou�h the pub]ic hea*ing would be delayed until the zoning issue is resolved. Enclosed you tivi11 find a Board of Zonin� Appeals Application and information about the zoning process. Page 2 � 26 October 2000 ol -c�� Please feel free to call me at 651.266.9078 if you have any questions. Sincerely, L��,� P Amy Spong Iiistoric Preservation Specialist Enclosure cc: John Hardwick, LIEP zoning staff ,� File copY C - - - ---� - ) � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION 12ESOLIJTION FILE NUMBER 4078 DATE 26 October 2000 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Pau] Legislative Code to review permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or demolifion on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Disfricts; and «'$EI2EAS, Brian Engdahl and Raina E6erly constructed a`tree house' sYructure on their property at 1376 Summit Avenue, located �vithin the Summit Avenue ��est Heritage Preservation District; and W$EREAS, the owners, Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly applied for the building permit and HPC approval after the structure �vas built; and WHET2EAS, the exisTing structure on the site is the Rush $. �Vheeler House, a rivo and one half story residence desig�ed by Clarence H. Johnston, Sr. and constructed in 1909; it has stucco walls and a asphalt-shingled hipped roof; and WHEREAS, the new structure is located in the rear yard hvo feet from the property fence.on the east; the one story L-shaped structure is raised approximately seven feet off the ground.on wood posts; the walls are sided with cedar shin�les ar�d The gabled roof has asphalt-shingles; and � WHEREAS, the following is the citation in the City's Legislative Code concemin� HPC review of � building permits for new construction: Chapter 73, Heri[age Preservation Commission; Section 73.06, Review of permits; Paragraph (i),Factors to be considered: Before approving any permit application required under paza�raph (d) of this section to be approved by the heritage preservation commission, the commission shall make findings based on Yhe piogiatri For the preservation and arcfiifebturZ control for the — herita�e preservation site in regard to the following: {3) In the case of a proposed new building, that such building will not in itself, or by reason of its location on the site, materially impair the architectural or historic value of buildings on adjacent sites or in the immediate viciniry within the historic preservation site. WHEREAS, relevant portions of the Summit Avenue West District Heritage Preservation District design review guidelines for neiv construction that per[ain to the new buildin� include the following: Sea 7437. Netv construction. (a) General Principles: The basic principle for ne�i� construction in the Summit Avenue West District is Yo maintain the scale and quality of design ofthe disfrict. The Summit Avenue West District is architecturally diverse �vithin an overall pattern of harmony and continuity. These guidelines for new construction focus on general rather than specifc design elements in order to �_ � a�-�� Pa�e 2 � Hers(age Preservation Commission Resolution File Number 4078 26 October 2000 encourage architectural innovation and quality design while maintaining the hannony and continuity of the district New construction should be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rh}�thm, setback, color, material, buiidin� elements, site design, and character of surroundin� structures and fhe area. (b) Massing and Scale: New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height, facade proportions and scale of ex'ssting surrounding structures. The scale of the spaces betv✓een buildings and the rhytlim of buildings to open space should also be carefully considered. (c) Mnterials and Details: (1) Variety in the use of a�chitectural materials and details adds to the intimacy and visua] delight of the district. But there is also an overall thread of continuity provided by the range of materials commonly used along Summit and by the way these materials are used. This thread of continuity is threatened by the introduction of new industria] materials and the aggressive exposure of earlier materials such as concrete block, metal fcaming and glass. The materials and details of new construction shou(d re]ate to the materials and details of existing nearby buildings. (d) Building Elements: Individuai elements of a building should be integrated into its composition for a balanced and complete design. These elements of new construction should compliment existing adjacent structures as well. • (I) Roofs. There is a great variety of rooi treatments along Summit, but gab]e and hipped roofs are most common. The skyline or profile of new construction should re]ate to the predominant roof shape of exisfing nearby buildings. The recommended pitch for gable roofs is 9:12 (rise-to-run ratio) and in general the minimum appropriate pitch is 8:12. Highly visible secondary structure roofs should match the roof pitch of the main structure. A 6:12 pitch may be acceptable in some cases for secondary structures which are not visible from the street. WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its October 19, 2000 public hearing on said permit application, made the fo]]owing findings of fact concemina the construction of the `tree house' structure: 1. The structure conforms to general guSdelines which encourage architectural innovation and quality design while maintainin� the harmony and continuity of the d"astrict. 2. The structure's form, materials, roof pitch and sca]e are differentiated from the main residence yet compatible. 3. The stnicture's location does not take into consideration the scale of the spaces between buildings and the rhythm of buildings to open space. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation Commission denies approval of the building permit for the `iree house' in its current location; and � Page 3 Heritage Preserva[ion Commission Resolution • File Number 4078 26 October 2000 BE TT F'Ul2THER RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation Commission grants approval of the building permit contingent upon moving the structure so that its eastern �yall is set back to a pIane at least as far advanced from the eastem Iot line as the main residence. MOVED BY Larson SECOri'DED BY Wilsey TN FAVOR 6 AGAINST 1 ABSTAIN 0 Dacisions of the Herifage Preservation Commission are final, subject to appeal to the City Council within 14 days bp anyone affected by the decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting applicable building and zoning code requirements, and does not constitute approval for faxcredits. �• . C� ! �{'�c.h m cn �f- . 7 November 2000 Amy Spong Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 350 St. Peter Street St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 Deaz Ms. Spong: � o i -�'�� This is to inform you that we do plan to appeal the heritage preservation commission's decision concerning the tree house located at 1376 Summit Avenue. We also are working on resolving the zoning issue, as instructed in your letter that we received on 30 October 2000. Enclosed are a copy of a notice of appeal and statement of the grounds for the appeal. A second copy is being sent to Ms. Nancy Anderson, as you instructed, along with a copy ofthe minutes ofthe heritage preservation commission meeting. Please call us at 651-690-3724 if we have omitted any necessary information or if you have questions. Sincerely, • �� Brian En�ahl i d_ - , ' a Eberly � Gl-��`� I�TOtice of Appeal and Statement of Crrounds for the Appeal - Structure at 1376 Summit Ave. � We are appealing the heritage preservation committee's (HPC) decision concerning the "tree house" located in the backyazd of our home at 1376 Suirimit (the building inspectors infonmed us that they consider 3t to be a structure built around a tree). We proceeded with this project in June/July 2000 entirely in good faith and we followed the instructions we were given by City of St. Paul LIEP offcials. We contacted LIEP and were told that we did not need a building pernut but were advised to be sure the neighbors did not objeCt, and to contact the HPC liaison (Aaron Rubenstein at that time) conceming the need for their review. Mr. Rubenstein told us that we did not need HPC review as long as it was in the back yard (According to Amy Spong, she spoke with Mr. Rubenstein and he does not recall what he told us, one way or the other). We discussed the project with the neighbors at 1374 Suinmit on at least two occasions, showing them drawings of the structure, the exact proposed placement, and colored photographs of how we planned to finish the exterior, and they voiced no objections. In September, when the project was nearly comp]ete, the neighbors at 1374 Siimmit, who previously had not raised ob}ections, filed a complaint with the HI'C. Tkus became clear to us only when they were the only neighborhood people who appeared at the HPC meeting to voice objections. Mr. Hegner, a building inspector came, took measurements, and told us that we did not need a building permit, but we would need a signed maintenance easement agreement. The next day, we were le$ a note that we would need to apply for a building permit. When Brian went to file the application, LTEP staff told him that he did not need a building permit and only � took the application after he told them that he had been directed to apply for one. He also was directed to someone in plans review who told him that we would need an easement agreement and provided hun with a sample copy. After the FIPC's meeting of 19 Octobez 2000, we then were instructed to apply for a zoning variance. After consultation with John Hardwick, LIEP zoning stafF, he informed us that either an easement agzeement or a zoning variance would be acceptable and we are in the process of pursuing this. At this point we aze not certain that the structure in question is out of compliance -- - withthe 3-foot setback requirement: The residents at 1374 �vho aze filed the HI'C-- — complaint, removed the last lmown monument from a site survey we had done in the about 1983, prior to having our garage built. Initial drawings submitted to HI'C and LIEP were based on our recollection that our lot is 40 ft. wide. In the process of collecting infornaation to complete the zoning variance application, we found that our lot may in fact be 41 ft. wide, based on the width on which we aze assessed for tases foz sidewalk maintenance, etc. by the City of St. Pau1. 7ohn Hardwick found nothing in our property's file that would definitively set our property boundaries. Amy Spong found a gazage building permit application that cited a 40 $. wide lot, but no copy of the property survey, based on an application subznitted by the property owners. We plan to pursue the issue of an in detemiinaxrt property line by requesting that the owners of 1374 Si.�tumit restore the survey monument mazker that they removed. We further feel that the HPC's decision to grant approval contingent upon moving the structure is unfeasible, given that the tree house is built around a tree and partially is anchored to two trees. We fiuther find the HPC's comment that "the structure's location does not take into consideration the scale of the spaces between buildings and the rhythm of buildings to open space" to be vague � and open to subjective judgement. The structure is visible, in any part, for a distance of about 30 ft. from the front sidewalk, and primarily visible (i.e., the main structure - not just a glimpse of eaue or deck) from only 10-I S ft. If the issue is one of visibility from the street, we believe that means other than moving the structure could be taken to block the view. In reviewing the HPC's charter, we notice that it is an advisory body, with authority to review and approve/deny applications for buitding pernuts. Given that we were told by LIEP, on three occasions, that this structure did not need a building pernut, a decision tt�at later was "reversed" by the HPC, we aze left wondering if the applicaYion for a building permit was required solely to provide the HPC with authority to review this project. If this is the case, we should have beer_ informed when we made the initiat inquiry. Throughout this process we have been told three times that we did not need a building pemrit and then had HPC instruct us otherwise, were toid we did not need HPC review (and later were toid othercvise in response to a neighbor complaint), were told twice by LIEP stafF that we needed an easement agreement and later told by HPC that we need a zoning variance, and had one seY of neighbors reverse themselves on an agreement Yhat they had an opportunity to review on at least two occasions. We have dealt with three different persons in the position of HPC liaison. At this point, it appears tt�at we may need to pay $180 for an application for a zoning vaziance for a structure for wluch we uutially were told we didn't even need a pernut and which had the approval ofthe most affected neighbors (however, Mr. Hardwick assured me that we would not be charged the additionat penalty of $225 for filing a zoning variance application for building a structure wzThout a bnilding permit). We feel the City has some responsibility in the current situation, given the number of times that we have been given either the wrong information or the city officials reversed themselves on information that we had been given. Unfortunately, when a citizen calls a city official for information or guidelines, apparently there is no record kept by that official of what the citizen was advised ar told. When Mr. Hazdwick was asked about his opinion about how a the issue of a child's tree house had escalated into such a"nightmaze," he responded (paraphrasing), "this is not a situation that occurs often (a tree house), the buiiding code is vague in this regard, and thus it is open to various interpretations". r� �J i In ciosing, we would like to ask that the City Council back its city officials in their initial interpretations of the building code and HPC guidelines. We also would like to put on record that - — - all ofth�people with whomwe �ave deaitfromthe Lf�P have beenTesponsive to oisquestions — and have treated us in a respectfiil, decent inaimer, in spite of providing conflicting informazion, _.. . .. - �- - ave one eu es m r have done the best they cou18 in this di�cult "grey" area. L� � /� Brian Engdahl �l - � --�� . ._ - - - e � �� Raina Eberly � /�/-j�fiv _. .: � � A'�'{t�chmc✓�'f Z G �-��`1 CITY OF SAINT PAUL . BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONING FILE NiTMBER: Ol - 180961 DATE: March 26, 2001 WHEREAS, Brian Engdahi & Raina Eberly has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 62.1Q6 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertainin� to the construction of a tree house/play house structure in the rear yard in the R-2 zoning district at 1376 Summit Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on March 26, 2001 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203 of the Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paui Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisionns of the code. . The applicants appear to have followed all of the proper procedures priar to constructing the tree house/play house. They checked on the permit requirements as well as the HPC requirements and were given misleading information. They also discussed the project with their neighbors and were given no indication that there would be any objections to the psoposed structure. It is clear that there has been some confusion in LIEP over issues such as this in a heritage preservation dish In August of 2000, the HPC staffperson at that time sent a memo to various staff in LIEP, the City Attorney and the Executive Committee of the HPC, in an effort to clarify exactly what types of work require a building permit and HPC ---- -- - -- - approval. That memorandum clearly stated that a sfied of any size required a permit an� HPC approval. However, it also left open for discussion if play equipment should be included in the list of things that should require a permit and HPC approval. In November of 2000, the City Building Official drafted a clear written policy stating that any exterior construction or alteration within a designated herita�e preservation district, other than painting ar landscaping, requires a permit and HPC review. Unfortunately, this clarification came too late to help the applicants. The applicants wanted to construct a small, 10 foot by 10 foot tree house/play house for their daughter in the rear yard. Play equipment for children is a xeasonable use for residential property, whether it is the kind of equipment you can purchase with slides, swings, platforms etc., or a custom built tree house/play house such as the applicants have constructed. The only tree in their yard that would serve this purpose is located close to the eastem property line. The play house, after incorporating the tree within the structure, ended up 1.24 feet . Page I of 4 File # O1-180961 Resolution away from the east property line. For zoning purposes, an accessory stracYure, requires a 3- foot side yard setback when located in a rear yard. The applicants could not incorporate the tree within the structure and still meet the required 3 foot setback. 2. The plight of tlze Zand owner is due to circun�stances unique to this property, and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. The location of the tree in the applicanfs' yard as well as the lack of a clear, written policy concerning these type of structures at the time the tree house/play house was built, are circumstances that were not created by the app2icants. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent wizh the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Ciry of St. Paul. � The desire to provide a tree house/play house for their daughter is a reasonabPe request. The structure is approximately 10 feet by 10 feet. There are two small decks attached to the structure which increase the size to about 12 feet by 12 feet. This is not an excessive size regardless if it is considered a play house, play equipment or an accessory structure. Accessory sfixctures, and/or play equipment, when located in a rear yazd are permitted uses in residential districts. The relatively minor 20 inch variance, required because of the location of the tree on the lot, is in keeping with the spirit and inTent of the code. • 4. The proposed variance wi11 not impair an adequate szepply of Zight and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish establisherl property values within tlze sur area. The neighborin� property owner at 1374 Summit Avenue has expressed concem that the tree -- - house will aitow the applicants' daughter and her friends to look into the rear windows of their house. However, moving the structure 20 inches further away from the property line — F p ' t • Preservation Association (SARPA) has submitted a letter in opposition to this variance request statin� that the size, scale, materials, windows, doors, color, setback, and character of the playhouse are incompatible with sunounding structures in the neighborhood. This is in direct conflict with the findings ofthe HPC which found that the structure's form, materials and scale, while differenY from the main residence, are compatible. The letter fram SARPA further states that the entire width of the play house can be seen from Summit Avenue disrupting the rhythm of buildings to open space. This statement is in agreement with the findings of the HPC. However, when staff visited the site, only a portion of the tree house/play house was visible from the streef and then onIy when directly in front of the house. It was not visible from the alley due to the 6-foot obscuring fence sunoundin� the rear yard of the property. 5taff considered recommending that the existing obscuring fence Page 2 of 4 � File # O1-180961 Resolution o � -��°I • be raised across from the tree house/play house or that a new barrier attached directly to the eastem side of the play house be constructed, in order to address the concems of the neighbor. However, since the style and design of the tree house/play house has been approved by the HPC, staff is reluctant to recommend any changes to the structure. We have received 4letters of support for this request from the property owners of 1367 Grand Avenue, across the alley from this property, 1382 Summit, 1390 Summit and 1364 Summit, who all felt that the tree house/play house was exceptionally well built and was an asset to the neighborhood . When visiting the site, staff noticed that the neighboring property at 1374 Summit Avenue has a shed that encroaches onto the applicants' property. Staff could find no permit for this shed ar any ir�dication that it was ever approved by the HPC. The relatively minor 20 inch setback variance requesfed will not significantly affect the supply of light or air to the adjacent property nar given the existence of other noncomplying accessory structures in the immediate area, will it aiter the character or the neighborhood. 5. The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the cocie for the property in the district where the affected land is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning c�istrict classifzcation of the property. . Accessory structures and/or play equipment aze permitted in all zoning districts. The proposed variance, if granted, will not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based pYimariZy on a desire to zncrease the value or income potential of the parcel of land. - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - ----_ _ NOW, TAEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that the provisions of Section 62.106 are hereby waived to allow a side yard setback of 1.24 feet; subject to the condition that the applicants obtain the appropriate building and electrical permits for the project. In order to construct a tree house/play house structure in the rear yard on property located at 1376 Summit Avenue; and legally described as Wann's Additon To St. Paul Ex Ave Lot 9 Blk 1; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. MOVED BY : Galles SECONDED BY: 1v�orton IN FA�OR: � � Pagz 3 oF 4 File # : 0� - 180961 Resolution AGAINST: o MAILED: March 27, 2001 TIME LIMIT: No order of the Board of Zoning Appeals permitting the erection or alterafion of a building or off-street parking facility shall be valid for a period longer than one year, unless a building permit for such erection or alteration is obtained within such period and such erection or alteration is proceeding pursuant to the terms of such permit. The Board of Zoning Appeals or the City Council may grant an extension nof fo exceed one year. In granting such extension, the Board of Zoning Appeals may decide to hold a public hearing. • APPEAL: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeats are finai subject to appeal to the City Council within 15 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits shall not be issued after an appeal has been filed. If perauts have been issued before an appeal has been filed, fhen the perraits are suspended and construction sha11 cease until tLe City Council has made a final determination of the appeal. . CERTIFICATI01��: I, the undersigned Secretarq to the Board of Zoning Appeats for the City of Saint Paul, DZinnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the orib nal record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minutes of the Sa4nt Paul Board of Zoning Appeais meetiag held on March 26, 2001 and on record in the Office of License Inspection and --- - — — — - EnvironrrienfalProtection, 3�0 Sf. Peter Stree�, SaintYaul, Minnesota. SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Debbie Crippen Secretary to the Board Page 4 oC 4 � MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, MARCH 26, 2001 d\ • PRESBNT: Mmes. Maddox, and Morton; Messis. Duckstad, Faricy, Gailes, Kleindl, and Wilson of the Board of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Hardwick and Ms. Crippen of the Office of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. ABSENT: Vince Courtney * "Excused . � The meeting was chaired by 7oyce Maddox, Chair. Brian Enadahl & Raina Eberlv (lt01-180961) 1376 Summit Avenue: A side yard setback variance in order to construct a play house/tree house structure in the rear yard. A setback of 3 feet is required and a setback of 1.24 feetis proposed, for a variance of 1.76 feet. The applicant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for appioval, subject to the condition that the applicants obtain the appropriate building and electrical permits for the project. One letter was received in opposition to the variance request from SARPA (Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association). Five neighbors sent letters in support of the variance: 1367 Grand Avenue, 1382 Summit Avenue, 1390 Summit Avenue, 1364 Summit Avenue, and 1396 Summit Avenue. No correspondence was received regarding the variance from District 14. Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly, 1376 Summit Avenue. Ms. fiberly submitted an additional letter in support of the variance and addifional photos of the backyard and tree house/play house. She staeed that they built the tree house in the spring not in the fall as stated in the staff report. Ms. Bberly stated ---that the tree house could be-seen for 15-feet while walking-onxhe-front sidewalk. _- Mr. Engdahl stated that they had always tried to cooperate with the neighbors and the Heritage Commission during their 20 years of living in their home on Summit. Laura Kochevar, 1390 Summit Avenue, stated that she lives two doors down from the tree house and has a full view of it from her yard. She stated that when walking, biking, or driving on Summit Avenue the tree house is not noticeable. Ms. Kochevar stated that they love the tree house and would like to see it stay. Robin Cider, 1374 Summit Avenue - Unit l, stated that she opposed the granting of the setback variance to construct the tree house. She stated that there was a tree directly behind the house that could be used for the tree house that would not encroach on the property line. Ms. Cider stated that plans for tree house/play house plans considered a six foot by six foot structure large and the applicant chose to build a very large ten foot by ten foot tree house/play house. She stated that the plans shown to the neighbors did not reflect the final structure. Ms. Cider stated that the tree house was much larger in width and height. The play houseltree house became a two-srory structure on the fence line with windows, glass doors and electriciry. �':le #01-180961 Minutes March 26, 2001 Page Two Ms. Cider submitted photos of children in the tree house hanging off the safety railing and falIing to the � ground into her yard. She sTated concerns abouT the liabiliTy issues regarding the children falling into her yard and injuring themselves. Ms. Cider stated that they have noise, light and privacy encroachments not supported by the proposed variance. She stated that the tree house blocks one third of the air flow and light from their property on the west and significantly altexs the essential character of the surronnding area. Ms. Cider stated that the tree house/play house violaYes The HisToric -- Preservation District Guidelines and HPC (Heritage Preservation Commission) has denied a variance for this properry. She stated that the SARPA also supports the recommendation of the HPC to deny. Ms. Cider stated that the FTPC resolved to approve the structure provided they move it in line with the principle structure on the property. She stated that the neighbors support the decision eo deny the structure in the present location. Ms. Cider stated that the HPC judgement regarding the visual encroachment of Summit Avenue would take precedence due to the unique nature of the historic street. She stated that the structure reduces the historic value of the neighboring properties and has disturbed the neighborhood. Nancy Garrett, 1374 Summit Avenue, stated that they thought that the variance request failed to meet four of the six requirements of the Ciry Zoning Code. She stated that there was no reason that the tree house/play house had to be placed on the property line when there is another tree in the cenier of the yard. Ms, Garrett sta[ed that there were no unique circumstances related to the properry. Ms. Garrett stated that the side yard setback Zoning Code is in piace to protect neighbors from issues such as light pollution, noise pollution, and liability from neighbors actions and these are all concerns heze. She stated that twice this spring she had seen kids climbing over the safery railing and hanging over her yard. Ms. Garrett stated that on March 10, 2001 two kids had jumped into their yard and had they been injured, she could be held accountable. She stated that the structure acts as a 15-foot fence . blocking several hours of direct sunIight from her yard. Ms. Garrett stated that there are many doors and windows facing her home causing a lack of privacy. She stated that the glass doors are placed directly over her front yard and the kids constantly bang the doors. Ms. Garrett stated that her bedroom is about 15 feet from the entry to the tree house. She stated that the electricity is an issue because when the lights are on in the tree house, it also lights up her bedroom even with the blinds closed. Ms. Ganett stated that there is also a built-in bed, with kids sleeping in the tree house there is --- the potential for her sleep-to bedtsturbed: She stated-that during the building process they disttxbed -- - -- her sleep because they were working on the tree house after 9:00 p.m. Ms. Garrett stated that moving - � re rivac and pzovide screening from the other buildings and landscaping. She requested that ttte Board uphold the law and deny the variance request Ms. Garrett stated that they had tried ofren to commnnicate their concerns during the building process, but thought that their concerns had not been listened to. Ms. Eberly, stated that they did not have rnany ckoices for the tree house/play house. She stated that the tree behind the house was over the back sidewalk, and the tree further back in the yard has a pond below it so it was not a good choice. Ms. Eberly stated that the two trees, the tree house/play house is attached to is a better choice giving the tree house more stabiliry than a single tree would. She stated - that because fhe doots they had found were bigger than they,wan[ed it_became necessary to allow more room for the door to open. Ms. Eberly stated that they made the tree house/play house smaller and the deck larger because of the trouble with the door. Heating no further testimony, Ms. Maddox ctosed the public portion of the meeting. � Fiie 1101-180961 Minutes March 26, 2001 Page Threa �l_C�`l � Mr. Galles moved to approve the variance and resolution based on findings 1 through 6, subject to the condition that the applicants obtain the appropriate buiiding and electrical permits for the project. Ms. Morton seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 7-0. Submitted by: 7ohn Hardwick � Approved by: Jpn Duckstad, Secretary � AitQ c.hm e.v�+ 3' D1 -G�� Brian Engdahl & Raina Eberly i 1376 Summit Ave. St. Paul, MN 55105 May 8, 2001 7ohn Hardwick, LIEP 350 St. Peter St., Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 Dear Mr. Hazdwick: As mentioned in the telephone message, we have reached a compromise with our neighbor, Robin Sydor, on the tree house. The revision essentially would turn the deck on the east side into a covered porch. The view from the north (Suinmit Ave.) would not change much. Enclosed are sketches of the cunent view from the east and the proposed view. We have agreed to do this if it is approved by the City. Sincerely, • Brian Eng ahl � Pa9e r of 3 � (�U i"/{%Vi � . .� __ _ _ _ " � l�5- �`S. :.l �__. �_ - - - - - ---- -- - -- - � - ; � - --- �� - - -- - : , ' � � _ ' + _ i � -- T— -- -- - --� - ---- - - -- ' �.� `. � `'' - -- � . s � r'm � ; =� � --� _ �---- ; � --- � ��; � �. , � ,,; � -� � ' - � - � - - - �- =' �'- -a. , 3 � P -� i -[ "' � - � { ' f ± 3 8-'�'=^_"_"` s -- - � y,.�„� - _� _ �__'_ � - � i . 1 . p " - t - "s — '—-- ` _ — — ° r—f — ' # 4 f; �, , _ - -- -- ' �' - --: : � _ ; i ;z #�------- � - - - s ; � � ; ; 3 r . . ' � , ' - . ., - - -- - -; - - - .. F - - --- -- .. ; : t �� . � : _ 3 _ _ _ _ - k _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _� __ __ . � +�� z ' n/ i -__--- -----__�`--- -- - - " - - --- - - ----- - - - � Z -- �)� S-�✓ m_ tu ��n — _� ---. y, _ . .. r .' ie` : , . ] - i - - � -- �5_Gica.S C�75u��ecr. __ __ _ __ _ � __.-• --____' _ 1 - � - - -- -- i --- - -_ _ i_ _ �- _ � � - �,. - e�,.✓ �n:c'j Li:•eE �' i u J f - °�� ` : _._ , � �:_�.=`-__ -: ' - .- -- .� � i i ' J , � - . _' -. —__ _ _ j� # � _ _ _ _ � n . .. . . , , ." , —� t . �/��i� , - � �`" `.a � - � k � -- "`` �,.,. ' � � ! � � , - d � - `� _ ,____- ; i .- , 'O_ G ��a e Z_ e6 � -�--� --- - — -- - -- � - • � 6�_�� i ' ! r� no.>. c� i �/� ' --------�--�_ �LL�_rrL�'G'�. _C� '.'r . e — •— i � �� - j � � � -- . � _ __— . . _. __.. _—_ —_--_ — j _ - _ -_—_ ' "'_"___"___..�.... . . - _ t . ___ __ '_---_'_____� ___ _ ' . . ___ ,_ ..-- _ . _ �� '—__ _'_ � � �_—'_ —_—___-__� ; _"' ., .__ .. .._ ... ` ' _—�_ ' —_ '—__� _� —__--'—_'___,__—_ ...,.,..___..»._.�._..__.._.._,.,_....�,.........._... -... .__ ... ... . ., . ' _ _ .. _ ' � � "_ 1 �,.,_....r_'__'— ___+_ ; 5 -_ _ _ ' __ _ '____ _ __'_ 3 -- -- ----- ---- �-� --- ----------------_ ------ � _ --_----- : � ,- ' 1 __ —'—_ ________ _____._—_—__________._____._ , ; _ _. .__-___ __ ____ �__—�_> � --"__'_______a "'__' _'"__—__"____—_' _____ _"_ __"___� i i —_ _.—____"—____—"—_—____—`_—"__'__—"_`___-____—___ � 3 ; : t a —___-__—____�._. —___—__— .___—____'____ . . _ -_.--_ — ____ _ ` i ' I ; � _—�_.—__ —..—__. ___--_� �%�— i -.=—__—'"_ _`"— �—"--_'__'_ —'—_ � , _ _�y . � ` _. _ __ ___ , ,n- - _7iR.e.S{✓L(C�vlil L=Z(G."� S'^� S�K/_✓1. r1-C-�: ct. C? _r.L?� C1t_ 5/ Ca fp� /� Gi4 !ti J� � _'P�� 3__oF 3 _ 6 � �� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, May 23, 2001, at 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Ha11, to consider the appeal of Brian Engdahl and Raina Eberly of a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) decision approving a building permit for construction of a tree house (constructed without a building permit or HPC approval) with the condition that the tree house be moved so that its eastern wall is set back to a plane at least as far advanced from the eastern lot line as the main residence at 1376 Summit Avenue. Dated: May 3, 2001 Nancy Anderson Assistant City Council Secretary