The URL can be used to link to this page

02-1151Council File # _�1.� \�S , Green Sheet # 1\'� R t� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 2 WHEREAS, on August 5, 2002, Commonwealth Properties, 340 Cedar Street, Saint 3 Paul, MN 55102 made application to The Heritage Preservation Commission (hereinafter the 4 "HPC") pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code for a building pernut to 5 construct a deck to the existing widow's walk circling the belvedere located on the building at 6 432 Summit Avenue which is located in the Hill Historic District; and 10 7 8 WHEREAS, the Commission conducted a public hearing on the application on August 9 22, 2002, after having provided notice to affected property owners. At the close of the public 10 hearing, the HPC moved to grant the application based upon all the testimony and records before 11 it including the following findings and conclusions set forth in the HPC staff report dated August 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 39 14, 2002: 1. The property is considered pivotal, is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places and listed as a St. Paul Heritage Preservation Site. 2. Because of the building's site and prominence, the north (front) elevation and the east (side) elevation are both visible from Summit as it curves. Staff views both elevations as primary elevations. 3. The widow's walk extension is not "consistent with the original design intent" which was a very symmetrical vertical feature centered atop a hipped roof. 4. The belvedere and balustrade is a chazacter defining feature of the structure's design. 5. Given the low slope of the roof, the deck extension would have minimal visibility. 6. The SOI Standards do not recommend "Using the same wall plane, roof line, cornice height, materials, siding lap or window type to make additions appear to be a part of the historic building." The proposal slightly recesses the new railing and posts from the original railing and posts. 7. The SOI Standards recommend "Locating the attached exterior addition at the rear or on an inconspicuous side of a historic building; and limiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic building." 8. The redesigned flashing and method of support appears to be less obtrusive to the structure and will blend with the existing feature. WIiEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Legislative Code § 73.06, neighbors from 12 Summit Court and ll Summit Court duly filed an appeal from the deternrination made by the HPC and requested a hearing before the City Council far the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and r' z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 oZ. ��s � W��REAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 73.06, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on September 25, 2002, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; 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, entertained a motion to deny the appeal; and WIIEREAS, the said morion failed on a 3 to 3 vote; and WHEREAS, no motion to grant the appeal was made; now, therefore BE IT RESOLVED, the findings of the Heritage Preservation Commission stand based upon the Council's failed motion to deny; and be it FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Council secretary shall mail a copy of this resolution to the Zoning Administrator, the Heritage Preservation Commission and to Commonwealth Properties. Requested by Department of: By: Form Approv d by City Attorney sy: �-Ns�. �NNVY+v� �!� (S- 0 2 by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Mayor:. By' Adopted by Council: Date \\�. \\ 3f��' _ 1 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary o �-��s � Bos,�om � °"'� tz?b�io2 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET No � � �7j $ �,,,�„�.� �� ❑ �.,.� ❑ �„� _ ❑..�.�,�. ❑.,�,�,,,,�.a ❑.,,��..�.M, ❑ (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) �i�uvneuuesieu. . . Memorializing the public heaiing held by the City Council on September 25, 2002, regarding the applicafion of Commonwealth Properties to construct a deck to the e�sting widow's walk circling the belvedere on the building at 432 Sutmnit Avenue. (The underlying determination of the Heritage Preservation Commission , stands,) PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMITiEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (Who, 1`.`I�^T# AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S RSONNLSERVICE GONTRACIS MUSTAfiSWEN THE FOLLOWING QUESiIONS: Has Nis P�Mrm e.MV.rorked undx a crontrxt tar Mis tlePeRmeM? YES NO Haa ihis peisoNfirm evef hcen a city emPbYee4 YES NO Does N� Peiswdfirm D�� a sfdll not namallYP�s.aed q' anY curtetM1 dtY emD�oYee? YES NO Is Mis pe�sd�rm atarB�eC ven�(t � VES NO dain all ves a�mxers m seoarate sheet antl attac� W oreen shnPt COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ON� ACTM7Y NU7IIBER YES NO (IXPWN) CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kelly, Mayor November 19, 2002 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 �Ft" qrt �, � .. �,�.��,� ?ry. � , . ,. ,� Re: Resolution memorializing the public hearing conducted on September 25, 2002, regarding the application of Commonwealth Properties to construct a deck to the existing wi�dow's walk circling the belvedere on the building located at 432 Suimnit Avenue. City Council Acrion Date: September 25, 2002. Dear Nancy: Attached please find the signed Resolution to memorialize the City Council public hearing conducted on the date noted above. As you will recall, there was a 3-3 tie in this matter on a motion to deny the appeal. That motion failed and no motion to grant the appeal was made accordingly pursuant to the City Council's Rules of Procedures. The underlying determination of the Heritage Preservation Commission stands. Notwithstanding this outcome, I thought it appropriate to prepare a Council Resolution memorializing the matter as required under the City Charter. If you haue any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, , ��.c� Gc.m l��' /�" "7 Peter W. Warner ! Assistant City Attomey OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Manuel J. Cerv¢ntes, City Attorney O � .` ` �` � { civitDivision 400CiryHall Telephone:651266-8770 15 Wut Kel[ogg Blvd. Facsimile: 651298-5619 Saint Paul, Minnesoia 55l02 Hand Delivered PWW/rmb Enclosure CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. KelZy, Mayor September 4, 2002 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Peenmu�& ��iG�:l'��,:��`.�7 V�P� �� Q � � I would like to confirxn that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, September 25, 2002 for the following heritage preservation case: Appellant(s): Specific owners/residents of 12 Summit Court, 11 Summit Court, 442 Su�nit File Number: Purpose: Location: 5taff : Commission B02-323 Appeal of a Heritage Preservarion Commission decision approving a building pernut to conshuct a balcony at the widow's walk. 432 Summit, Individually designated site, Burbank-Livingston-Griggs House Recommended approval Approved on a vote of 4 to 2. I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Chris Coleman. 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 have any questions. Sincerely, (.�%}�� Amy Spong Historic Preservarion Specialist CC: Council Member Chris Coleman oi-��s� OFFICE OFLICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROT6CTlON ^ ^ Roger C. Cunis, Director J,J LOYt'RYPROFESSIONALBUILIDNG Telephane:612-266-9001 350 St Peter Street Facsimile: 612-266-9099 Suiie 300 Saint Paul, Minnesota SSIOLI570 � a ;� �r� �� owner/applicant, John Rupp appellants at 11 Suimnit Court, 12 Summit Court, 442 Summit Avenue Roger Curtis, LIEP File • Fmsrauiv • MOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Saii�it Paul GYty Council will con- duct a public heazing on Wednesday, September 25, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. in the� City Councll Chambers, Third Floor City Hali-Courthouse, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Saint Paul. MN, to consider the appeal of specific owners/residents of 12 Sssmmit Coiut, 11 Sumtnit Court and 442 Summit Avenue- to a decision of the Heritage Pieservation Coiumission apprav- Ing a building permit to construct a bal- cony at the widow s walk at 432 Summit Avenue (individually designated site, Burbank-Livingston-Griggs House). Dated: September 9, 2002 NANCY ANDERSON Assistant�city council Secretary ' [septemner 7z] - --_= ST. PAUL IEGAI. LBDGER —'--'_ 02049006 - - C�a_��s� The undersigned neighbors of 432 Summit Avenue wish to appeal the decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission at its August 22 meeting to approve the owner's request for a building permit to construct a 6-1l2 foot deck on the widow's walk on the roof of the house. Our Prounds for�alinQ the decision aze the followin�: 1)The HPC has discussed this matter twice. First, the request for a 10-foot deck at the July 25 meeting was denied on a 5 to 3 vote on a motion to deny, after not a single commission member moved to approve the request. The owner brought back a proposal for the shorter deck on August 22, and it was approved on a 4 to 2 vote, a bare quorum being present. Because of its controversial nature and because over 90% of neighbors originally opposed both versions, we request that the city council either send the matter back to the HPC for a vote at an upcoming meeting when at least three-fourths of the membership is present, or deny the owner's request at a city council meeting. Z)) The proposed deck addition violates the symmetrical chazacter of the cupola and widow's walk, distinguishing architectural feature of this second oldest residence on Summit Avenue. The proposed deck wil] be located on a conspicuous side (the roo� of the house. thus violating Interior Department standards. NAME(prinUsign) �� "7C�1�'�!/� � :��: CITY STATE ZIP PHONE 4`kZ Su� Z� c�'t.�a,,�1� ).�t.0 �S lOZ ZZy-� t�OcJ �,,� ,p,�„c�.r.�.- y�//�1 �u�w�#' Av�" � .�� . �` 6 ° l � C"°'°"�" �%Ua ��..�' C�a-�.��1 " •� ��.�! �t�) �� h � (�Zu��p� �� j��? �� ya �� p�l�l ��e� t S SIO�- oa-��s� The undersigned neighbors of 432 Sucnmit Avenue wish to appeal the decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission at its August 22 meeting to approve the owner's request for a building permit to construct a 6-1l2 foot deck on the widow's walk on the roof of the house. Our �rounds for a�gealinP the decision are the followine: 1)The HPC has discussed this matter twice. First, the request for a 10-foot deck at the July 25 meeting was denied on a 5 to 3 vote on a motion to deny, af[er not a single commission member moved to approve the reguest. The owner brought back a proposal for the shorter deck on August 22, and it was approved on a 4 to 2 vote, a bare quonun being present. Because of its controversial nature and because over 90% of neighbors originally opposed both versions, we request that the city council either send the matter back to the HPC for a vote at an upcoming meeting when at least three-fourths of the membership is present, or deny the owner's request at a city council meeting. Z)) The proposed deck addition violates the symmetrical character of the cupola and widow's walk, distinguishing architectural feature of this second oldest residence on Summit Avenue. The proposed deck will be located on a conspicuous side (the roo� of the house, thus violating Interior Department standazds. NAME(prinUsign) ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PHONE J ��/ � VYT � �� f�� C"i��n�bt�ll �C�- /:� �r.tav;ynt f Cf IL Sti�,�„�' Gt �.St. �'��f ��/�; �- Sf . �'�(1 ssCo�. (U°al.��'.�';�y t� Si °zzS-� t�i: oa _��s� The undersigned neighbors of 432 Suinmit Avenue wish to appeal the decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission at its August 22 meeting to approve the owner's request for a building permit to construct a 6-1/2 foot deck on the widow's walk on the roof of the house. Our grounds for �alin� the decision are the followine: 1)The HPC has discussed this matter twice. First, the request for a 10-foot deck at the July 25 meeting was denied on a 5 to 3 vote on a motion to deny, after not a single commission member moved to approve the request. The owner brought back a proposal for the shorter deck on August 22, and it was approved on a 4 to 2 vote, a bare quorum being present. Because of its controversial nature and because over 90% of neighbors originally opposed both versions, we request that the city council either send the matter back to the HPC far a vote at an upcoming meeting when at least three-fourths of the membership is present, or deny the owner's request at a city council meeting. 2)) The proposed deck addition violates the symmetrical character of the cupola and widow's walk, distinguishing architectural feature of this second oldest residence on Summit Avenue. The proposed deck will be located on a conspicuous side (the root) of the house, thus violating Interior Department standazds. NAME(printlsign) ADDRESS CTTY STATE ZIP PHONE .,`en�,��es- W,'r�elso� II Sttw-tm�'�- C�f S-t.Pu-u-�- frni �bs/��atf-3'7��' � �e�- (.�-�i.�H�t- ssio2 �-. �olv��f �i il��,� JI Surn,�i �t,�i� ��t,P�-/ww�G��)�9>-��T �i`n+�v� �.�,�=�'2an�� S�to�- �c�Y2i� ��sr�� t' ��nif f�"�� Sf ��l M�J le��)aa��'��t2 �� '' �st�z r � s v�'�. k�—�c�ai-�16 sT ��T �� l.�i. � c� s� G�S �• �S'!o Z.. 6S'! �7�� F4 G e t7 �.v R.E d o- m � �-� }-} �. N ZE ( 1 SJrv�rr�L j C�i "� �� ST, f f1�L l»K� GS(- z2 �� .~r `�—�,�-..�c, ��*��*��** -COMM.JOURNRL- ******�*��****�** DATE SEP-09-2002 ***** TIME 17:44 *** P.01 MODE = MEMORY TRRNSMISSION FILE NO.= 049 N0. COM RBBRiIJTIJK STRTION hqMFi TELEPHONE N0. �1 DK C01> LEGRL LEDGER STRRT=SEP-09 17:43 END=SEP-09 17:44 PRGES PRG.ND. PROGRPII NRME C%YII.I.P.7 -Citg of Savnt Paul - '�a"k*a°k'a�°u�ka°ro�a��acwx�� -City Council - �� - 651 266 8574- �� >.+` � a � � CTTY OF SAINT PAUL OFFICE OF Tf� CT1'Y COUNCII. FACSIIYIILE TR4NSMTSBION COVER SX3EET TO: c FROM: FAX #: RE: _ P..��.. dL. __a�._ � DATE: S� °�� ap0�_ Note: Faaimile operator, plexse deliver this trausmission to the above addressee. If you did not receive atl of the pagas in good condition, please advise Jaaie Latrenz at(651) 266-&560 at your esrliestcouvenience. Thank you. NIJMBER OF PAGES (INCLUbTNG THIS PAGE): �`�.., aTY HAI'I' THtRD fLOOR S.41NT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 � O� '03.�\�� Page 1 of 1 Nancy Anderson - Publish Public Hrg. Notice. pa_\\5, From: Nancy Anderson To: Moore, Shari Date: 9/9/2002 534 PM Subject: Publish Public Hrg. Notice. CC: Johnson, Lucilie Shari/Lucille: I have faxed the attached public hearing notice to the Legal Ledger (speafic owners/residents) regarding 432 Summit Avenue. file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}OOOlO.HTM 9/9/2002 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kelly, Mayor September 4, 2002 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTTONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTTON Roger C. Curtis, Director ��' '�` LOWRYPROFESSIONALBUILlDNG TeZephone:672-266-9001 350 St Peter Street Facsimile: 672-266-9099 Suite 300 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-I510 I would hke to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, September 25, 2002 for the following heritage preservation case: Appellant(s): File Number: Purpose: Location: Staff : Commission Specific owners/residents of ll Summit Court, 442 Summit Avenue B02-323 Appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision approving a building permit to construct a balcony at the widow's walk. 432 Summit, Individually designated site, Burbank-Livingston-Griggs House Recommended approval Approved on a vote of 4 to 2. I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Chris Coleman. 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 notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9078 if you have any questions. Sincerely, �� Amy Spon Historic Preservation Specialist CC: Council Member Chris Coleman owner/applicant, John Rupp appellants at 11 Summit Court, 12 Summit Court, 442 Summit Avenue Roger Curtis, LIEP File CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Rarsdy G Ke[ly, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: CC: FROM: RE: DATE: OFFICE OF LICENSE, IIJSPECTIONS AND srrvixorrrasxrai, Pxo�cTTON o a-�� s 1 Roger G Curtis, Dirutor LOWRYPROFESSIONALBUlLDING Telephone:657-266-9090 350 St. Peter Street Facsimile:651-266-9099 Suite 300 Saint Paul, Minnuota 55702-I510 City Councilmembers Peter Warner, CAO Roger Curtis, LIEP Amy Spong, HPC staf�. HPC appeal for 432 Summit Avenue, Individual Site (B-L-G House) September 18, 2002 The following attachments highlight the events that have taken place and relate to HPC review of the permit application to construct a balcony/deck at the widow's walkon the Burbank-Livingston- Griggs House, an Individually designated historic site.• ATTACHMENT 1(pages Al-1 to A1-13) The application materials were submitted and include: 1) HPC design review application, 2)Construction drawings, 3)Photoshop images showing each elevation with before and after images of the proposed extension. ATTACHMENT 2(pages A2-14 to A2-17) The HPC written order to the applicant is attached. The staff report highlighted the main findings and recommended approval of the application (attached). On August 22, 2002 the HPC held a public hearing and voted 4-2 to approve the revised application. This decision was based on the public testimony, staff findings and the revisions the owner made from the first proposal. The owner/applicanY s first proposal was reviewed by the HPC at the July 25, 2002 public hearing and was denied based on the Commission's discussion at public hearing and public testimony. ATTACHMENT 3(pages A3-18 to A3-19) The approved minutes of the August 22, 2002 public hearing meeting that addresses the hearing for 432 Summit Avenue. ATTACHMENT 4(pages A4-20 to A4-22 ) The request for an appeal by specific owners of 12 Summit Ct, 11 Suuunit Ct, and 442 Suminit Avenue. Since this appeal notice, the owners of12 Summit Ct. have withdrawn their appeal as they no longer are against the proposal. ATTACHMENT 5(pages AS-23 to AS-29 ) Testimonies received in writing for the August 22 and July 25 HPC meetings to supplement oral testimony. CITY OF ST. PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION GOOiFlCE OF LlCEYSE hSPEClIOVS bYD ENIRONMEMAL PROTECIION J50 Si. PEfER STItEEI.SUfiE 300 $T PAUI.ML�R:ESOTA55103-I510 WW W CLSTPAl1LM�I.US/LIEP �- oi-��s� BUILDING PER111IT APPLICATION This application must be completed in addrtion to the basic building permrt application if the affected property is an individually designz;ed landmark or located within an historic district. 7'his apptication must be accompanied by threc copies of plans, plus one reduced to S]/2" � 71" and photographs shorving alI affecied facades of the building (no Polaroid pictures). Plans shall include a site plan, floor pl2ns, 2nd e�tcri� elevations which note details for replacement of historic materials. For applications which must be reciewed by the Heritage Preservatior, Commission refer to the HPC Meeting schedule for meeting dates and deadlines. ADDRESS OF AFFECTED PROPERTY: ARCHTTECT AND/OR CON TO • Nameoffirm: C�D1rl/7JIlI�d��Fi01-ty %l2�/�� Address (mcluding zip): 3 i /� CF/J� j� �� Contact person�� J � Daytimephone: ( j/��-��—J��) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �Vill any federa] money be used in this project? YES IQO Are you applyinJ for Investment Tax credus? YES_I�'O� Briefly describe the overall changes to be made to the structure: �G,D/.J//�� `I u>//�I�l�J'S Gi/�G��, Please describe leo�v each ofthefolloxi��, bui7ding elements ivill be nffected by theproject. IfOaere i�ill be no change, please ir,drerre Use picttmes to illiesh n(e the changes iudtcated beloiv. (Attach additional sl:eets ifnecessary.) �Vmdows: �v Entrances/doors: /'{� Exterior wall: {�V � Porches: �� Roof: /}?1 J%/��'Ci Foundation: � Z� Dzcoratice fzatures: y�S ��c��✓bi�� s��r�� /2�>��h� ��s��/�/ Other (].e.additions, new construction): I, the undersi�ned, understand that thz Building Permit Application is limited to the aforementioned work to the affected propzrty. I further understand that an}� additional exterior work to be done under my ownership must be submitted b} application to the St. P�ul-I�e��'�P�n Commission. Any unauthorized work ��'ill be required to be remo� zd Signature of app Signature of o«�ner: `-� 1'°�c: AI- �s o� ��-� ��w� �- ae r.w rs,�r.o-m..�w.a nax,;w,�E� � =^$ �urv n�x r,a uvww s�nu.,r.wzzim k� ��zY �� s � �� ' � I �� oa�-�� s \ f��' �i aa-��s� � �� a� � � DI� �� r� �y I �fi� �� .4�. ��..� n:wewnu�ue 5(PNL NNSY.M 9iVAPR1 �� /��-3 a��i � � �� I h ,t ii u�`o.,��n. ()a-\\S\ .4�. z�� —�-� r-s�• I I I �� I €� 'S� �� Iv �4�� _,�. a,�w� �.c i mxn �«a-�,.w;+r rnvr,.wrnw+� ,yip� ry�¢ aXOYW NPNL.MV55YJ3 _ nnie D� x �} �y k R:VkqJ i # x 4 8 ` t O� �1fN'3.4�YT AI— y a:� � Ny�� - -��5 \ Y. _ FRODi EAST, STA�'DING ON ROOF: EXISTI\ G STATE FROM EAST, STANDING O� ROOF: AFTER ALTERATIO� S . � �=,;,,,._ ,..,_ _�,� . • r da.-��.s \ FROM WEST, STA\DI�TG 01� ROOI': E�iISTING STATE FROM WEST, STANDIl��'G ON ROOF: AFTER ALTERATIO\ S �t � - 9 oa-��s\ N�R(11�T C(1TT�PAWF,CR�• F.XTCTTN(� CrPAmT�i. �� , � •` _ / l �'�, = k � :,.z �,Y Y � .fi" , � : � < c �fr— � , i �\� ,'i 0 �� ° � � < .n � i#t—c, � 1 j 1�� ' � �� . t -. �y t '!y s a �,:• � ♦� ,t ' i <.� k ' � i � < i Y r.5 "�� :, ��G -.: � �.. ty '� rt, :a, ' �?r.� 1 � A /L t - . a ` ,�`�iFv�� \ P1'� a �� J �\�� ' � t 'L�. � i• � �' _ .....� . t ��±-- s ' . . f. .: fi,.�. . .-a r '. A ��.. � Y� ` a � _ . F: � c� / .!:' M ..( ��.'� .� ._': � p ��`�,� - � � .. - �. r� : �. lr - � S` �� i :��.. . .. . �ip; p - r. ��{- ` ' _ �' :�. _ .-' �'�. -`'f`. ,.-,.� : . . - i ^ ' a ' : . .l� . . ' .._ � � :.—'... -s�, >}. . - _ ' - _ .<:'} �'� � t O , J � `. � :`.• Z'. 'Sx `v � v� f v "w �. • ^"� y, es� �. � F �i l�d � � ,``�� : � �`"� �` �'/ �3 � K � a� J� x � 7° i � { :" fi x. .♦ t �. /1 � :� � .��. }> �L f .. % � �- j J * S ��i � �` �-. , (r • �n £. F - , � �r_, � �,� ' ` �r � ,,r�` i s � � � , � ._ r � �t A",� H- � i " x P't ' 1 ��3".: �.+� � ''.. �Ji . � � � •"2 \ Y� t- •� y ._"tp�' /QP` `. . � '�.�VSA� '..i � Y `� f A n { � �. '�" L• . '•(� � ,_ i M �t° '� , �. t i ��! �. . �� i '., r. �� k� i{ }� � ' � , � 4 > � `� � � v�! t ° f • N). � �} ��- � � ' '' t N V � �� 1.�1 -, • +�� • � : � . �� ".. 5 /� ` �j i .'�•� �•. � C � 1 5 f 3' j '� . i�. � 4 r t F.;. � � N. a • � . �., � . _ '+ . ' : ' . p �f t�� : . � 4� r �� .•'� - � f �,: �� i ♦�1 ' " - .. b1 _ . ��,� { ' • • ' � �, � ' • � y' ` � . I l. P � L '1_ . .. � � ' i'-� .! �. _ „ � - � . : ... �. —..t' - "Y�`� -.. f � • � , : r a � � {,'. . ,c � , ',� j . ' `, ��t�'�'�.1:��. � . � r . � � �.�� RK7�..� . ... . . . ... . . .... .. _. o- - T . . _ . . . I' 1...{ ) .'. .�.. .. .�.. . _. . ..._.._ ._.. ' �. �� ' ;. - . _ �`__ ` -_"_ —_ _z�� ♦ y t ... _ , s [; �'�; R�� R�` ,I i .;. �3t� :.;'+� . '� �<'. .:._ --��'' , r r �,. �,' � . �.. ^ '� . . . ^ ' "° e � I I . '� A ' , .' ' ; !, 3 :'1 . � .rJ. w �. � �: , � . ` _. , ' , .. 1 � f e �� - `__ �.. . .._. ♦ ' � . t� ��',. " � _ ;� t � a� 1 �. . 1 � . .. ' t��,�� OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Roger C. G�rtes, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kelly, Mayor LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUILD/NG S+eite 300 350 St Peter Street Snint Paul, Minnesotn SJ 102-/J l 0 Telephone: 657-266-909G Facsimile: 65/-266-9099 August 23, 2002 John Rupp Commonwealth Properties 340 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: 432 Summit Avenue (Burbank-Livingston-Griggs House), Individual Site File #B02-323, building permit Dear Mr. Rupp: As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) considered at its' August 22, 2002 meeting your application to construct a balcony at the widow's walk to the property listed above. The commission voted 4 to 2 to approve your revised application. This decision was based on the discussion at the public hearing meeting, the staff findings and public testimony. You or any aggrieved party has the right to appeal the Commission's decision to ihe Saint Paul Ciry Counci] under Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Such an appeal must be filed within 14 days of the date of the HPC's order and decision. Chapter 73 states: h) Appeal to city cotmcil The perneit applicnnt or any party aggrreved by the decision of the heritage preservation commissia� shal� within fow�teen (14) days of the tlate of the heritage preservation commission's order arzd decision, have a right to appeal such orrler and decision to the ciry co«ncil. The appeal shall be deemed perfected upon receipt by the division ofplanning [LIEP} of two (2J copies ofa notice of appeal ar:d statement setting forth the gromids for the appeal. The division ofplanning [LIEP] shall transmit one copy of the notice ofappeal and statement to the ciry council and one copy to the heritage preservation commission. The commission, in any tivritten order denying a permit application, shnll advise the applicant oflhe right to appeal to t1�e ciry council and inchrde this paragraph in all stech or ders. Please note, an HPC approval or conditional approval does not obviate the need for meeting applicable building and zoning code requirements, nor is it a permit to allow for Fvork to commence. If revisions to the approved plans are made, be aware that additional HPC and/or staff review will be required. Please fee] free to call me at 6S I.266.9078 if you have any questions. An HPC decision will expire after one year if no permit is issued. Also, the permit and plans for this project will be forwarded to LIEP plan revie�v for further review and processing of your permit. Sincerely L� Amy Spong Historic Preservation Specialist cc: Steve Ubl, building inspector File AZ `� �{9�,da CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: 432 Summit Avenue DATE OF APPLICATION: August 5, 2002 APPLICANT: owner DATE OF HEARING: August 22, 2002 HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Individual Site (The Burbank-Livingston-Griggs House) CATEGORY: Pivotal CLASSIFICATION: building permit STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: Amy Spong � � File #B02-323 oa-n51 DATE: August 14, 2002 A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The Burbank-Livingston-Griggs House at 432 Summit Avenue was constructed in 1862-63 in the Italian Villa style. It is the second oldest home still standing on Summit Avenue and was built for James C. Burbank. Otis Wheelock of Chicago was the designer. Characteristic of the Italian Villa style is the picturesque belvedere atop the wide-eaved, bracketed, low pitched roof. The roofline is accented by the beautifully bracketed cornice complete with pendents. The windows on the first and second floors as well as the first floor doorways are outlined with quoin surrounds. The building is of Mendota limestone with a brick lining. The house is significant and designated for its rare architectural style, its association with many pioneer entrepreneur families and as a design of Otis Wheelock. Each early pioneer family made their mark by adding amenities and styles as the social times changed. The house was occupied by these early families until 1957 when the house was given to the MN Aistorical Society. Currently, the house is privately owned. B. PROPOSED CHANGE5: The applicant is seeking approval for a building permit to construct a deck to the existing widow's walk which circles the belvedere. The commission denied a proposal to extend the deck by 8' at the July 25 public hearing meeting. The cunent proposal has been revised and more measurements have been verified. The deck would be extended 6%i which corresponds to the existing roof ridge that will support the deck. The applicant has also slightly pulled the new railin� and corner posts inward from the original railing and comer posts. The exposed metal post and support beam is no longer being proposed, instead flashing azound the deck will continue in the same manner as existing flashing and a portion under the deck will be `infilled' with roofing material (somewhat like a cricket). The railing design will match the existing and will be painted to match. C. GUIDELINE CITATIONS: Preservation Progra»: The erterior appearance of the Burbank-Livingston-Griggs house shoe�ld be preserved in a manner consistent with the original design intent. Any possible additions or new construction on the lot should not obscure the view of the house from Summit Avenue. �1Z-15 oa-�rs� File #B02-323 Secretary ofthe Interior's Standards for Rel:abilitation New Additioiu to Historic Buildinps Reconzmended: -Placing functions and services required for the new use in non-character defining interior spaces rather than ins[alling a new addition. -Constrz�cting a new addition so that there is the least possible loss of historic materials and so that character-defining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed. -Locating the attached exterior addition at the rear or on an inconspicuous side of a historic building, and Zimiling its size and scale in relationship to the historic building. -Designing new additions in a manner that makes clear what is historic and what is new. -Considering the attached exterior addition both in terms of the new use and the appearance of other buildings in tlse historic district or neighborhood. Design for the new work may be contemporary or may reference design motifs from the historic building. In either case, it should always be clearly_ differentiated from the historic building and be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relationship of sokcls to voada, and color. -Placing new additions sa�ch as balconies and greenhoa�ses on non-character-defining elevations and limiting the size and scale in relationship to the historic building. -Designi�ig additional stories, when reguired for the new use, that are set back from the wall plane and are as inconspicuous as possible when viewed from the street. Nat Recomn:ended: -Expancling the size of the historic building by constructing a new addition when the new use could be met by altering non-character-defining interior spaces. -Attaching a new addilion so that the character-defining features of the historic building are obscured, damaged, or destroyed. -Designing a new addition so that its size and scaZe in relation Zo the historic building are out of proportion, thus diminishing the historic character. -Duplicating the exact fonn, material, style, and detailing of the historic building in the �aew addition so that the new work appears to be part of the historic bui[ding. -Imitating a historic style or period of architecture in new additions, especially for contemporary uses such as drive-in banks or garages. -Designing and constn�cting new additions that result in the diminution or loss of the historic character of the resource, including its design, materials, workmanshfp, location, or setting. -Using tlie same wall plane, roof Zine, eornice height, materials, siding lap or window type to make additions appear to be a part of the historic building. �kZ-lf� File #B02-323 -Designing new additions such as multistory greenhouse additions that obscure, damage, or destroy character-defining features of the historic building. -Constructing additional stories so that the historic appearance of the building is radically changed. E. FINDINGS: 1. The property is considered pivotal, is individually listed on the National Register of Historical Places and listed as a St. Paul Heritage Preservation Site. 2. Because of the building's site and prominence, the north (front) elevation and the east (side) elevation are both visible from Summit as it curves. Staff views both elevations as primary elevations. 3. The widow's walk extension is not "consistent with the original design intent" which was a very symmetrical vertical feature centered atop a hipped roof. 4. The belvedere and balustrade is a character defining feature of the structure's design. 5. Given the low slope of the roof, the deck extension would have minimal visibility. 6. The SOI Standards do not recommend "Using the same wa11 plane, roof line, cornice height, materials, siding lap or window type to make additions appear to be a part of the historic building. " The proposal slightly recesses the new railing and posts from the original railing and posts. 7. The SOI Standards recommend "Locating the attached exterior addition at the rear or on an inconspicuous side of a historic building; and Zimiting its size and scale in relationship to the historic building." 8. The redesigned flashing and method of support appears to be less obtrusive to the structure and will blend with the existing feature. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of the building permit application as proposed. �}Z"1�' �I� V�V� � MINUTES OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION °a -�� 5 i CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Room 40, I.ower Level, City Ha1UCourt House August 22, 2002 Present: James Bellus (chair), Judith Benton, Susan Bartlett Foote, Lee Meyer, Ray Meyer, Dan Scott, Shari Taylor Wilsey Members Absent: Excused: Joseph Errigo, Gar Hargens, Paul Larson, Richard Murphy, Dudley Younkin Staff Present: Julie Hoff, John Sla�adsld and Amy Spong L CALL TO ORDER: 5:15 p.m. by James Bellus. II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA - The agenda was approved as presented. III. PERMIT REVIEW/PUBLIC HEARING 432 Summit Avenue - for a building permit to construct a 6 foot balcony at the widow's walk on the roof. • Spong reviewed her staff report. • John Rupp, owner, presented. He reviewed the history of the project and stated that the HPC had denied a similar request on July 25, 2002, but that this proposal is new and revised from the previous. He stated that the following changes have been made: • The deck is reduced to 6 feet. • The proposal will not affect the belvedere on the north side. • On the south side, the deck will be pulled out 6 feet and there will be flashing materials added to the south, west and east sides. Rupp showed the east and west elevations. Rupp showed elevation drawings for the east and west and some 1860's photos which had been altered with Photoshop to portray the impact of the proposed deck He stated that the photos demonstrate that the addition will not significantly alter the building. • Rupp then addressed some of the concerns raised by nearby residents. • Benton questioned if the deck will impact the building's use. Rupp stated that it will not affect the use. • Paul Motu 442 Summit, spoke in opposition to the proposed deck. Mohrbacher questioned the proposed use of the deck and its impact on the historic character of the building. • Jennifer Windsor, 11 Summit Ct., spoke in opposition to the proposed deck. She stated that heritage preservation is the most critical issue, but that she will be affected by any activity that takes place on the deck. She stated that Summit Avenue is considered the best preserved Victorian street in the counh and that it is critical to preserve it. • Matt Watters wrote in favor of the proposed deck. • Tom Spence wrote in opposition to the proposal. • Allen and Sue Campbell, 12 Summit Court, wrote in opposition to the proposal. • Carol Barseness, wrote in opposition to the proposal. • The public hearing was closed. • Lee Meyer made a motion to approve the staff recommendation. Wilsey offered a second. • Foote spoke in opposition to the motion. She stated the home represents the Italian-villa ��_� � oa-ii5� style of architecture, of which there are only three remaining on Summit Avenue. The style of this home is fragile on Summit Avenue. She further stated that the features'synunehy is a crirical feature and that it doesn't matter if it can't be seen, it still alters the home's architecture. She stated that she can find no compelling reason to support the motion. • L. Meyer stated that the proposal is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and that the use is not the issue. • The motion carried 4-2. (Bellus abstained). • 255 East $ixth Street - for a sign permit to install two interior, lighted signs and one non-illuminated sign. • Spong reviewed her staff report. • Benton questioned if the HPC had previously reviewed the proposal. Spong stated that the HPC did review a proposal about 1%z years ago, that was presented by different Avis representatives. That proposal was laid-over so that the applicants could w�ork with staff, but they never came back. • Helen 7elinek, Arrow Sign, presented on behalf of the applicant. She stated that a Philadelphia company designed the sign and Arrow has been contracted to apply for the permit and install the sign. • Jelinek described the location and stated that customer's have a hard time finding Avis. She stated that the signs in the windows will be illuminated and have red backgrounds with white lettering. • The owner of the local Avis branch, Omar, stated that his customer's cannot find his location easily and that the illuminated sign will stand-out. • Commissioners discussed the street location and the locations of the signs and where customers go to pick up and drop-off cars. • Scott questioned if the HPC has jwisdiction on signs placed in the interior of the building. • Spong read a letter into the record from John Manillo, Capital River Council and building owner, opposing any translucent, back-lit sings. He stated that PED is working on a new sign ordinance that would oppose all back-lit signage, but that it is still in draft form. • Scott made a motion to approve the permit with no conditions. Foote offered a second. He stated that he does not believe the HPC has jurisdiction over the interior signs. • Benton stated that the sign is past where people enter, so it will not help customer's find it. • L. Meyer stated that he is opposed to the motion because he thinks the owner could install a front lighted sign easily. • Bellus stated that the ordinance is clear; back-lit signs are not allowed and there are ather options for this property o�vner. • Spong read the portion of the Lowertown Design Review Guidelines that relates to signs and lighting. • The motion failed 2-5. • Wilsey made a motion to approve the staff recommendation. Foote offered a second. • L. Meyer stated that he still opposes the back-lit sign. He stated that the sign could be perpendicular to the building and lighted from the front instead. • The motion carried 4-3. • 316 Maria Avenue - For a building permit to construct a second floor balcony and stairs at the rear (this work was completed ��ithout HPC approval or a building permit. Spong reviewed her staff report which recommended approval with conditions. Benton asked if the back stairs are cedar decking materials. Spong stated tnat she does not �43-19 oa-�►s1 The undersigned neighbors of 432 Summit Avenue wish to appeal the decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission at its August 22 meeting to approve the owner's request for a building permit to construct a 6-1/2 foot deck on the widow's walk on the roof of the house. Our �rounds for a�pealinQ che decision are the followin�: 1)The HPC has discussed this matter twice. First, the request for a 10-foot deck at the July 25 meeting was denied on a 5 to 3 vote on a motion to deny, after not a single commission member moved to approve the request. The owner brought back a proposal for the shorter deck on August 22, and it was approved on a 4 to 2 vote, a bare quorum being present. Because of its conuoversial nature and because over 90% of neighbors originally opposed both versions, we request that the city council either send the matter back to the F3PC for a vote at an upcoming meeting when at least three-fourths of the membership is present, or deny the owner's request at a city council meeting. 2)) The proposed deck addition violates the symmetrical character of the cupola and widow's walk, distinguishing architectural feature of this second oldest residence on Summit Avenue. The proposed deck will be located on a conspicuous side (the roo� of the house, thus violating Interior Department standards. NAME(prinUsign) ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PHONE J�f�- � �rr�J�- �' I �� " i/ /�( C°t��hell �C�=�c /.� ��a�.vr� CC� tL �a,n�•�,�� C�f `.5�. ��c�f� ��/� �- 5�.. ��I' 5s/�Z �� 51. � � 5 (FSI �'Y` ��- zo E oa-1�5� The undersigned neighbors of 432 Summit Avenue wish to appea] the decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission at its August 22 meeting to approve the owner's request for a building permif to construct a 6-1/2 foot deck on the widow's walk on the roof of the house. �ur �rounds for appealin�the decision are the followine: 1)The HPC has discussed this matter twice. First, the request for a 10-foat deck at the July 25 meeting was denied on a 5 to 3 vote on a motion to deny, after not a single commission member moved to approve the request. The owner brought back a proposal for the shorter deck on August 22, and it was approved on a 4 to 2 vote, a baze quorum being present. Because of its controversial nature and because over 90% of neighbors originally opgosed both versions, we request that the city council either send the matter back to the HPC for a vote at an upcoming meetin� when at least three-fourths of the membership is present, or deny the owner's request at a city council meeting. 2)) The proposed deck addition violates the symmetrical character of the cupola and widow's walk, distinguishing architectural feature of this second oldest residence on Summit Avenue. The proposed deck will be located on a conspicuous side (the root) of the house, thus violating Interior Department standards. NAME(print/sign) i/ ,iCr�r� i -�e.i W��n e1so� ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP PHONE II Su1+am�'f G7"� #!� 5'-{.Pt�-..�1� /1A! �/o ^/,,�/ 0 (�, 55IO2 �(' fi�V �� Lc Q.I-- / �' � (/ _ ��Y V f� "V � I��j1�I' b� �i'in� GUv�2�2Gvrr� C/ �c�Y�✓� � �'so� ��,�, �u'��, �dc.��s �' • 11 Surnrr�t' 8�1,-�/� ��f�pd,un.-1w�.�G.�1�=�9/-��/� S�lo� �,r S�tc�tr�f C�f"�9 Sf ��I MW �65�)a�� 9� �51 ��Z rt sv�K��ovR�-�16 s�� 9�� r,�i. Ss/o z.. 6S! �-z�e- � � � n ��.E � � � � ��A t��.NZ� �� 5��,�,��, �� #i3 S�. �'��m� �s(- zz�t ��--- f tt�l -Z� oa �� The undersigned neighbors of 432 Summit Avenue wish to appeal the decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission at its August 22 meeting to approve the owner's request for a buIIding permit to construct a 6-1/2 foot deck on the �vidow's walk on the roof of fhe house. Our erounds for appealinQ the decision are the followine: 1)The HPC has discussed this matter twice. First, the request for a 10-foot deck at the July 25 meeting was denied on a 5 to 3 vote on a motion to deny, after not a single commission member moved to approve the request. The owner brought back a proposal for the shorter deck on August 22, and it was approved on a 4 to 2 vote, a bare quorum being present. Because of its controversial nature and because over 90% of neighbors originally opposed both versions, we request that the city council either send the matter back to the HPC for a vote at an upcoming meeting when at least three-fourths of the membership is present, or deny the owner's request at a city council meetin�. Z)) The proposed deck addition violates the symmetrical character of the cupola and widow's walk, distinguishing architectura] feature of this second oldest residence on Summit Avenue. The proposed deck will be located on a conspicuous side (the roo� of the house, thus violating Interior Department standazds. NAME(prinUsign) ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP `i jl�'j/ln '�(�1(�,'c�1/� � �`fZSu� Z� �•� �1J PHONE � S 10� ZZy -- t�0� y.�,��, ��"�'^- �/a �.�.�'A ..� •P�� .s�ma �` .-� Cl�.,>-e.�7 �� '� ��r �r� � u � -4. �' yua �� , __ � �v� IrL�v P �� ,�� y a �.�.�--�� r�l � ��1� l S sra�- �� - ZZ oa-li5i HUgUSt 1%, LVUL � �� 12 Summit Court � Q,/� ✓� � S �� St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 U.)i'r'�ld✓QalJ✓1 �� f�?�'1�, � S. "rieri'tage rreservations i,ommission Chair City of St. Paul vince oi iir,r 350 St. Peter Street — Suite 300 S't.i�aui,ivi{v 55iu2-i51u Gentiemen: We are writing this letter since we are unable to attend the August 22 public heazing. The suoject oi the hearing, File No. B�Z-323, is for a baicony/decx at 4>2 Summit Avenue. i�ur nome, iocaied at i 2 5ummi't Couri is iocaied adjaceni and soutn oi ine Buroank- Livingston-Cmggs House. This e�ctreme historical and heritaged monarc� of our City has stood ior over i0v years. Our nome nas done tne same. In the past many nears we nave spent hours with the HPC to make improvements that are consistent with the historical consideraiion of our districi. We nave soent iong and meiicuious hours improving our home and as part ofthat process spent time with our adjacent neighbors reviewing our pians and asking ior tneir ieedback anci suppon. I am pieased to say tnat today with tne HPC and neighborhood support we have contributed to the great historical and arcniiecturai iradiiion tnat nas made tnis pari oi St. raui a gem oi ine Ciry. in this perspective we write to you about tne 4s2 Summit ouiiding permit request. !�s an adjacent neighbor w�e aze appalled that the addition of a balcony/deck at the widow's waik on ine rooi is oeing considered. � ne signiiicance and integriiy ofine isuroank Livingston Crriggs House should be maintained and this addition w•ould absolutely compromise Yhe bui:3ing's architeeture. In addition, as the southem r.eighbor, �ve can't imagine this addition. �S- Z3 oa-��s� w e were unaoie to aitend tne first nearing and fmd tne continuing request uniortunate. We are very supportive of the improvements that have been made to the BLG house. i ney are done in great iaste and sensitivity to ine properiy and neignoornood. i-Iowever, this request is totally inconsistent with the neighborhood, the historical architectural integrity and we strongiy oppose inis request. W e strongly q est the HPC to deny �.� � � H�ian �. ooeii G. permit request. �� L� residents of 12 Summit Court, St. Paul, MN. �! 5- Z� Amy Spong - File No. Bo2-285 From: <CBarsn9053@aoi.com> To: <Amy.Spong@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 7121 /02 2:42PM Subject: File No. Bo2-285 I am in receipt of the public hearing notice for the property at 432 Summit Ave. This hearing is for balcony/deck at the widow's walk. I reside across the street from the property , and feel the balcony/deck would change the character of the house. One of the focal points of the house is the widow's walk, and it would be shame to alter from orginal. I would not support moving forxard with this request. Another item I would like to surface, is the green house on this same property. The green house was erected for a movie filming several years ago. I inquiried at the time, and was told it would be there for the movie filming only and would be taken down after the filming was complete. It has been several years since the filming has been completed, and the green house is still there. The green house seems to be currently used as a storage unit. I don't believe there was any building permit granted for this green house. Thus, it seems to have falfen through the cracks. Please advise what might be the status of this violation. Thank you for your cooperation. Carole Barsness �{5 - ZS Page ' - . .� �� <��u_puoncmeeting.aoc Augast 19, 2002 Hencage Preseroation Comcnission Chair City of Saint Paul Office of License, Inspecdons and Environmental Prorecxion 350 St. Peter Sueet Suite 300 Saint Paul, I��N 55102-1510 Re: Revised proposal to consrruct a balcony/deck a2 432 Suizunit Avenue (File I`TO.: B02-323) Dear Corsunittee Members: I am writing to once again state my strong opposi2ion to the construcuon of a deck (of any size) on the roof of 432 Siurunit Avenue, the Burbank-Livingston-Griggs House I appreciate that in typical circumstances, even in a historic district, a properry owner's msh to change the fa�ade of the building he/she owns should be respected and given due considerauon. However, the Griggs House is far from being a typical circumstance. It is a point of pride in Minnesota [hat Summit Avenue is refened to as the best-preserved Victorian boulevard in the United States. Not the best modem-day facsimile, not even necessanly the bes� looking, but [he bes[ preserved. In other words, it is that rarity-- the rea] thing. Thz Gribgs H��e u a central and incrinsicallyvaluable feature of Sumtnit Avenue, and the �vidow's wallc unmistakablyis the real thing. The Gnggs House is listed on the Nauonal Registzr of Historic Places not because it is a beauuful building (which of cou�e it is) but becaase it has a disr_inctive sense of tune, character, and architectural integntythat strengthens contemporarylife. Whether or not a deck on the Griggs House could be seen from Summit Avenue, there is no quescion that it would be abundantly visible from Sununit Courc. Moreover, whether an individual could easily see any altention would not affect the irrevocable namm of rhe change. For thore of us who can see the widow's walk, it is a gif[. It seems disquietingly uneven to rhink that any iirunediate value a deck could bring to the renter(s) of one apanment in the Griggs House coild weigh more heavily than the loss of a unique historical feamre. I have surprised myself a little in the strength of my feelings about preserving the �idow's walk as it is. What confounds and confuses me is the possibility that members of the Heritage Preservauon Committee, who are chaiged with [he protection and promotion of Saint Pau1's heatage, would not feel as strongly about this particular piece of architecmral history. Sincerely, Jennifer �mdsor 11 Surrunit Court, # 15 Saint Pau1, 'vLr155102 (�vindsa�a umn.edu/651-224-3775) Page ,'_I I_$ ( �5 '� G.10 oa-��5� August 21, 2002 Amy Spong Heritage Preservation Commission 3�0 St. Peter Street #300 St. Paul, MN 55102 Deaz Amy Spong: The Summit Court Homeowners Association, of which I serve as the president, is located at 442 Summit Avenue and 11 Summit Court. I have polled the membership and once again we register our opposition to the second request by the owner of the Burbank-Livingston-Griggs House at 432 Summit Avenue to construct a balcony/deck at the widow's walk on the roof. The question asked by one of the HPC members at the July 25 meeting when the first proposal — was denied goes to the heart of the matter: "What is this for?" Whether the deck is 10 feet or 6- 1/2 feet or four feet, this balcony/deck is for the recreational use of a single renter. How does that purpose justify altering the architectural integrity of this unique feature of the second oldest residence on Summit Avenue? A widow's walk is not a widow's deck or a widow's balcony, no matter how it is stretched. Renters come and go. The building remains. It should be protected against the vagaries of taste and trends. The proposed alteration would be quite visible from Summit Avenue. If one stands across the street from 442 Sumrnit Avenue, looking at the cupola, the west balustrade of the widow's walk is clearly visible. If it is extended to the south, the extension will be visible. To cite a comparable example, the comtnission recently voted to ensure that the French doors in the interior of the Sumrnit-facing balconies of our own building remain intact, even thought they do not immediately strike the eye of the passerby. An altered widow's walk will be visible, even if it does not immediately strike the eye. The widow's walk is something to be admired from all sides, from Summit Court as well as from the University Club. I also assume the proposed extension of the balustrade will require a metal railing to bring it up to height code, as was demanded of the renovated balustrade on the fourth floor Summit-facing balcony of our building. That railing will be visible from Summit Avenue. Finally, the sound issue. This will not be a deck added on the ground at the rear elevation of a home. This is four stories up in the air, where there are no trees or fences, and the sound travels cleaz as a bzll. Future renters may not feel constrained to respect neighbors' privacy. Sin y. "' ��z�l�� Paul Mohrbacher, President, Summit Court Homeowners Association I�S Z�- oa-�i 5� July 20, 2002 St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission Re B02-285 (432 Suinmit Av) Deaz Chairperson: Thomas W Spence #3 442 Summit Av St Paul, MN 55102 I am the owner of #3, 442 Simunit Av. I am writing to object to the conshuction of an exterior deck on the roof of 432 Simuiut Av, at the widows walk Whether the deck is facing Siunmit Av and/or Summit Court, or facing the rear of the house, I feel it is not appropriate. It certainly is not in keeping with the concept of the preservation of the cities historically significant homes. I would urge the Commission to reject any change that is this significant to the exterior of the Griggs —Livingston Home. Sincerely, -�/v"' /�/ c�'.,,°'nGe� Thomas W Spence ............................ fE5 - 2� / f,,.t,pos� � Amy Spong - File No. B02-285 Burbank-Livingston-Griggs House �� ' C Page_ From: <MattMinn@aol.com> To: <amy.Spong@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 7/21 /02 10:40AM Subject: File No. 602-285 Burbank-Livingston-Griggs House Amy, I hope you can accept my e-mail comment vs a"written comment" to the Heritage Preservation Commission Chair, St. Paul MN. I am.unable to attend the July 25, 2002, meeting, but, as a nearby home owner, I would like to add my comments. I think it is wonderful to see owners, of all properties, plan constructive ways for improving their properties. As one drives, or walks down Summit Avenue, it is simply wonderful to see how the newly built, remodeled and or historic properties all blend in, so well. !t speaks weA for our community, and other communities, that also support the value of, and the importance of the historic home concept, as true treasures, to our community. I hope we never become so restrictive, however, that either group suffers. I have watched my properties, and others, increase in value, as a result of good real estate building laws, and good economic times. I know it is often a delicate balancing act. Now, more than at any time, home owners should be encouraged and supported, to complete their remodeling dreams. I applaud your work in this area, and wholeheartedly support this building permit. As a recent widower, I can think of no better improvement than what they are asking for, in B02-285, "To construct a widow's walk on the rooF' Just maybe�??? Any questions please call or e-maii me. Sincerely, Matt Waters �s- z9 l Sf f'H'n°�-°