The URL can be used to link to this page

02-120� — —'� e ' ' . � � . . i: . . , , . i... Presented By Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MIlVNESOTA Council File # � :1 -+ � e1 0 Green Sheet # ti \3 � � � � Committee: Date 2 Whereas, LHB Engineers & Architects, in Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) File 3 B02-043, made application for a building permit for the purpose of constructing a four-unit town 4 house structure on properiy commonly lrnown as 66X Euclid Street (located within the Dayton's 5 Bluff Historic District) and legally described as contained in the said HPC file; and 7 Whereas, The HPC conducted a public hearing on the applicarion on November 15, 2001, 8 after hauing provided notice to affected property owners. At the close of the public hearing, the 9 HPC moved unanimously to deny the application; and 10 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 39 Whereas, the decision of the HPC was communicated to Mr. Gary Findell of LHB Engineers & Architects in a letter dated November 16, 2001 which set forth the basis for the HPC denial of the building permit as "a concern of the massing of the structure given the size of the lot and the relationship of this site to the bluff, the rhythxn and directional emphasis of the elevation facing Euclid and not relating to nearby homes, and the historical context of the bluff with respect to nearby historic homes" and which further notified LHB Engineers & Architects that it had a right to appeal the HPC's decision to the City Council; and Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 73.06, Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services duly filed with the City Council an appeal from the determination made by the HPC and requested a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the HPC; and Whereas, Acting pursuant to Sections 73.06, and upon notice to affected parties a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on December 19, 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 resolurion of the Commission, does hereby Resolve, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby reverse the HPC's decision in this matter, based upon the foliowing findings of the Council: 1. The Council finds that the HPC erred in its findings and conclusions about the massing and scale of the proposed building. The Council finds that the mass and scale of the building is consistent with the "eclectic" nature of the various building scales in the sunounding neighborhood. The mass and scale of the proposed building is not out of character with the existing buildings in the neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Y 2. Some deference is appropriate with regard to the buiidings proposed in this �� }� development. The buildings are all "new"construction and the buiiding materials are appropriate for the development. Further Resolved, That the appeal of Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services be and is hereby granted; and, be it Finally Resolved, That the Council Secretary shall mail a copy of this resolution to Dayton's B1uffNeighborhood Housing Services, LHB Engineers & Architects, the Zoning Admiuistrator and the Heritage Preservarion Commission. Requested by Department of: By: Form Approved by City Attorney BY: i/-o*a^ ��c✓N+i-� /— �LI— O�L. Adoption By: _ Approve By: ied by Council Secretary Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY: Adopted by Council: Date � � .�� oi - �ao c�ty coun��i MITACT PERSON 8 PFIO�� IST BE ON COUNCILAGBiM BY ASAP �� Feb. 4, 2002 -m*:Tr_:`� TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET o�.��. �� No 113694 crtrmuca ❑ p1YAif01bEY ❑ CRYCLiR[ ❑ w�epcw�aFavrFaooc ❑ qNxW�aomKCrc � r�vatNn�sasr�xry ❑ (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Memorializing City Council action granting the appeal of the Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services from the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision denying a permit application to construct a four-unit townhome structure at 663 Euclid Street. (Public hearing held on December 19, 2001). PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IFAPPROVED � Hes this persoMrm e+er v.arked under a con6act ta fhis departmeM? VES NO Fias thia P�rm ever been a dtY emWcY�? YES NO Dces this persaUfim possess a sldll no[ �armallYP� N' any wrrent crty empbyee? YES NO is this persorufiun a tar8�tl oentloYl YES � COST/REVENUE BUDGEfID (qRCLE ONE) 266-8670 YES NO SOURCE ACTNRYNUMBFR OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY Manuel J. Cervanfu, Ciry Attorney � - i CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Randy C. Kelly. Mayo� Civil Division 400 Ciry Hall IS WertKelloggBlvd. Saint P¢ssl, Minnesota i5102 Telephone: 651266-87! 0 Facsimile: 65I 298-5679 January 28, 2002 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Hand Delivered Re: Appeal by Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services of an HPC decision in HPC File No. B02-043 City Council Action Date: December 19, 2001 Dear Nancy: Enclosed please find the signed original Resolution memorializing the City CounciPs decision to grant Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services' appeal from HPC File No. B02-043. Please place this matter on the City Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. V ery truly yours, � �r�'.,� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure oa-� �-a CITY OF SAINT PAUL Narm Co[eman, M¢yor November 26, 2001 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OFLICENS$ INSPECT70NSAND ENVIRONMENTiII PROTECTTON Roger Curtis, Directar LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUILIDNG 350 St Peter Street Suite 3!0 Saint Paul, Minnesofa SSIO2-I510 Telephone: 61?-2669001 F¢csimile: 6l2-266-9099 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, December 19, 2001 for the following heritage preservation case: Appellant(s): Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services File Number: B02-043 Purpose: Location: Staff : Commission Appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision denying a pernut application to construct a four unit townhome structure. 663 Euclid Street, Dayton's Bluff Historic District Recommended approval with conditions. Denied on a vote of 11 to 0. I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Kathy Lantry. 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 nublish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul I.egal Ledger. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9078 if you have any quesrions. Sincerely, Amy Spong Historic Preservation Specialist CC: Council Member Kathy Lantry Jim Erchul, DBNHS Peter Wamer, CAO Roger Curtis, LIEP File • FmsrxuN • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAItING . The Saint Pavl City Councff wi71 con- duct a-public hearing on, Wednesday, December 19, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Tlvrd Floor City Hall-Courthouse, 15 West - Kellogg Boulevazd, Saint Paui, MN, to consider the appeal of the Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services to a decision of the FIeritage Preservation Commission denying a permit application to conshvct a foar- i�ni townhome siructure at 663 Euclid Street. Dated: November 27, 2001 NANCYANDERSON - Assistant City Councll secretary � - - (Decem6er 3) - --'—= Sf F9fiL TEGAL IEDGER — _— 02030528 oa-�a� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, December 19, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall-Courthouse, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Saint Paul, MN, to consider the appeal of the Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services to a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission denying a permit application to construct a four-unit townhome structure at 663 Euclid Street. Dated: November 27, 2001 Nancy Anderson Assistant City Council Secretary �*��*��**��* -CDMM.JOURNRL- ******�**�+��**��* DRTE NOU-29-2001 ****� TIME 14=12 �* P.01 Oa_I � MODE = MEIIORY TRf1N5MIS5I0N FILE hpl.= 210 N0. CDM RBBWNTWK STRTION NPt�i TELFPHONE N0. 0H1 0!C <01) LEG:aL LEDGER STPRT=NW-29 14�11 QJD=NW 14�12 •e _ �� -�n-.• • i "�'�'„'' -City of Saint Pau1 - �xou��ao�w:aor,wioto��aaa:,u {ity Council - x�* - 651 2'06 8574- �M: � '�' e, �o CITY OF SAINT PA.UL OFFICE OF THE CTfY COUNCIL FACSIMILE TRANSMTSSION COVERSHEET To: �J � .. ��_ .r — FROM: FAX #: RE: �.�:..� �I.�J_ , � � . �� - nn,x�: (�.,�_�.q Nofe: Facsimile operator, pleue detiver this transmission fo tfie above addressee. if you did not receive all ot the pages i¢ good condition, please sdvise Janie Lafrenz at (651) 2b6-85G0 at your earliest convenieuce. Thank you. NUMBER OF PACES (INCLUDING THIS YAGE): � C1tY HALL THIRD fLOOR SAAIT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 � ylmtea on reryc�e0pepe. oa-i� OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND E�4'VIRO.\;LfENTAL PROTECTIO.�' Roger Curtis, Direc[or • • CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[emm�, hlnyror I�TOVember 26, 2001 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: LO�VRYPROFESSlONAL BUILID:VG 3i0 St PeterSareet Sui�e 310 SainlPoul,hlinnesotn 5510?-li/0 Telephone: 67?-?G6-900/ Fncsimile. 6/?-266-9099 I would like to confirm that a public hearing be£ore the City Council is scheduled for �Vednesday, December 19, 2001 for the following heritage preservation case: Appellant(s): File Number: Purpose: Location: Staff : Commission Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services B02-043 Appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision denying a permit application to conshuct a four unit townhome struchire. 663 Euclid Street, Dayton's Bluff Historic District Reconunended approaal with conditions. Denied on a vote of 11 to 0. I have confirmed this date with the office of Councll Member Kathy Lantry. My understanding is that this public hearing request �vill 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 Led�er. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9078 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Amy Spong Historic Preservation Specialist • CC: Council Member Kathy Lantry Jim Erchul, DBNHS Peter Warner, CAO Roger Curtis, LIEP File� OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECT[ONS AND ENVIItONMENTAL PROTECT[ON Roger Curlis, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemars, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: City Councilmembers CC: Peter Warner, CAO Roger Curtis, LIEP FROM: Amy Spong, HPC staff RE; HPC appeal for 663 Euclid Street DATE: December 12, 2001 LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUILDING Suite 300 350 St. Peter Siree! Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-I510 Te(ephone: 651-266-9090 � Facsimi[e: 65l-266-9099 The following attachments highlight the events that have taken place and relate to HPC review of the pemut application to construct a four unit townhome structure at 663 Euclid Sueet, which is located in the Dayton's Bluff Historic District: ATTACHMENT 1(pages 1 to 8) Final application materials and drawings (submitted October 31, 2001) ATTACHMENT 2(pages 9 to 12) Staff report presented at the HPC public heazing meeting on November 15, 2001 and the decision letter sent to the appiicant, denying the permit to construct the townhome str¢cture. _ -- When the Public hearing meeting was conducted, there were nvo public fesfimonfes both against t e townhome structure. The commission unanimously denied the permit application to construct the townhome structure for several reasons. Refer to the unapproved minutes for reasons. ATTAC�IMENT 3(pages 13 to 15� An excerpt of the unapproved minutes from November 15, 2001 which include minutes of all four new construction projects reviewed by the HPC and submitted by Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services (DBNHS). ATTACHNIENT 4(pages 16 to 18) Appeal letter by the applicant DBNHS. • ATTACHMENT 5 (page 19) A�hlic testim qn��etter sent in resvonse to this ap�eal to Ciry CouncIl. ATTACFIMENT 6(pages 20 to 24) The first design submitted to the commission for the April 12 concept review and meeting minutes. Two concept reviews were conducted on April 12 and September 6, 2001. The commission does not • approve, deny or make any formal votes during a concept review. Public nodces are not sent out for concept reviews; it is a time for the HPC to be introduced to a project and to ask questions and give informal feedback to an applicant. oa.-�ao • During the first concept review on Apri112 the eommission onZy had one elevarion drawing to review and that was the elevarion facing Euclid Street. The commission stated they felt they did not have enough information to comment on the project and did not understand the context or the site in which the applicant was proposing the building. AT"PACFIlI4EENT 7(pages 25 to 31) The second design submitted to the commission for the September 6 concept review and meeting minutes. There were still questions regarding the context of the area and the siting of the buiZding. � LJ l J SA[NT I'AUL � CITY OF ST. PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION dOOFFICEOF LICEYSE, QiSPECROxS AND ENVQtONMINTN-PROTCCTION 350 SC. PEf Eit SI'REEC. S�RE 300 ST. PAUL, MCINFSOTA SSIbL�S t0 W WN'.CLSiPAN..hM.US/L@P BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION r> This application must be completed in addition to the basic building permif application if the affected property is an individually design� landmark or located within an historic district. This application must be accompanied by three copies of pians, plus one reduced to 8 l/2" x 11" and photographs showing all affected facades of the building (no Polaroid pictures). Plans shall inciude a site plan, floor plans, and extcrior elevations which note details for replacement of historic materials. For applications which must be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission refer to the HPC Meeting schedule for meeting dates and deadlines. F� l� � �Z C�� 3 ADDRESS OF AFFECTED PROPERTY: �[ �� ( i� c��- ARCHITECT: Name of firm: Address (including zip): Contact person: r. '�`�t� ' - l � Daytime phone: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Will any federal money be used in this project? YES x NO Are you applying for Investment Tax credits? YE�A'O_ Briefly describe the overall changes to be made to the structwe: Please describe how each of the following building elemenu will be affected by the project. If there ivill be no change, please ind� Use piciures to illustrate the changes indicated below. (Attach additianal sheets if necessary.) Windows: Entrances/doors: Exterior walli Porches: Roof: Foundation: Decorative features: Other (i.e.Additions): �,Q (�_b�l/�'!�� U� — s-v- c� �.�� I, the undersigned, understand that the Building Permit Application is limited to the aforementioned work to the affected property. I further understand that any additional exterior work to be done under my ownership must be submitted by application to the St. Pau Heritage P eservation Commission. Any unauthorized work will be required to be removed.• � Signature of applicant: � Date: l0 —3� `� � Signature of owner: Date: � � � oa-�a� � �� s �� ia �? �, °za �_ 0 a� N v'`" m$ 0 \ a� s >$ y § '�� S \ �y$ �g m 2 Z $ Z W �� s � � �z$`�n' �� Q OF � 8�p� � � �� ! U g!W-W 6�i �4> 4 � �a a wN aw W a�se�� a a • r� LJ .-. �. -� • 3 �! � �� o �� 3 a �� eC 0 6 v �s N �, g \ 1Y: Q 1 s � �og J s \ � s LL� � � w J W m � N �6w � y � m ��¢W �� d V d a 022tn �� Wt _ 0 H U W � CS Z 3 p J �m r_ _ � aal `i o ��3�� Q � �� ' �I m Y � �� a�� 0 N � s �� \ s� >� �� 4 \ d� �$ � M 3 m S 'J � ¢ � � Z�z � �� s s <W W � @ a �Z2c7J � F Z °+ o a a � �a �o $OF- �§ WN �¢ E a ; �_� °; c"> ` 9'> 4 � E$ae�� 3 Q • • • � ' �%� l J W 7 'E fI Y A ~ �z ' 3 ,{ O QZ 6.�6i "� �s g? I =` # N�o ��$ a aS � , ie u-S J � d �� e� 4: do ° �� s ' y O� 's ° —� 5 =5 s a� °a � ffaa �.� _ e'3� � �� g �a��a �s� � .m's �$,�� '�� - �.� �W �=' g �� "s�� $sx S's°y:.e�� _�sa s�e_ � _ � `' '� o � d 9 ��- - z '�- .� ° � � z y- s aap o � � � a ii e a ° 9 ii� �:., . �� $ � a g � � � �1��1��\ �� I � \ s�oN` , \ I� �c \.=: �� q .. \/\/ � � .../ . '`e , . J-=. ' \ � � W `S �.� � O � 1 �. � < . . , �. i �`' """ 0 / 4 . �. p M � S �� Z C � _ � � � .e � � � < 1 ° � ��2V m �Q L �y5 ` r s = Q� �nS� [ -`�O W �- �� .:i 4#€� �W ¢O £ f � 0l - 41� € � Ch @ r a ozx�n �o� s�cv, dm d=a_�z� � J IF I iI Q . g.lE� c 3 � � - - I � g � ,' ,g�e �$ � > . � �� . .'.�� ay - .. �� I� °z a � .�� g� � u � 0 w z U � � ¢ � w � � � � � ��- z � pl eg � $ g a 3�$ � � �e�S � � � �� 3y 5� m�� 9 � 0 .� p Y �� 3�� § � � y �G� ` 3 � �& °�A� " � � � �� O a'� H � _ � am� s � � e e � _ � � �� 4 ° � ��, �� p J# ��a �� 8 3�� 5 2 a F 4�g Z� a � �� g�$@ € �� 'c �� ? ! � � �J 7 '� 6 W ❑ � S � �� r�. p �B �- \ �� a �� J � ��' �� `w a 9� �� oa -� zo � N e� s� �� I m 3 � y� a 8° EL 0 �'. �� s 6i� �o$ U G \ � Z �� $ � � 2 � �d]�OJ � tA� � g i e ��5 �o� �d �y2 $� 9i 4 0 QW�W 6 � �1- ��J €30a � T ?� �22m �o $ wN 3ua 6Sae@� B Q �J �� • � 0 � o , �� : �� . �- � � � oa-iaa s W � � �4 �a �� I �' � � �F �a �� 1 a� \ N� o O \ a Z s dg 6a� � °�� 0 6 \ � �e LLD �g � � z�ZW @ �� a OZ2fA �� N� $ +� �� o C � E�F � Wf � o , � y f e g LL �4j `; N Ey2 �` d I 9 4 0 �LL6 �¢SSEK � Q r }�-�'-f Z. File #B02-043 CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: 663 Euclid Street DATE OF APPLICATION: October 31, 2001 APPLICANT: LHB Engineers & Architects DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING/PERMIT REVIEW: November 15, 2001 HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Dayton's Bluff Historic District CATEGORY: new construction CLASSIFICATION: building permit STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: Amy Spong DATE: November 8, 2001 A. SITE DESCRiPTION: The site proposed for development is vacant and was purchased by the Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services. This site is located at the edge of the bluff and is quite visible from I94 and Mounds Boulevazd. Euclid street dead ends at this parcel. Our files do not indicate that a structure was located at this site. S. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant is proposin� a four unit townhome structure. The proposed structure is two stories high with a gabled roof, has individual entrances to each unit and personal gara�es attached to the structure at the rear. The unit that faces Euclid and the bluff is a one story accessible unit. Wood double-hung windows are proposed with 4" trim. Four inch lap siding was noted on the plans with corner boards, however, the material was not specified. Simple entry porches with - _ 2x2 inch spindles and top and bottom rails are proposed. The commission conducted two concept reviews and responded favorably. Some general comments related to roof forms, needing more elevation views and understanding the context or the area that the proposed development is in. C. GUIDELINE CITATIONS Davton's BluffDesign Revierv Ga�idelines General Principles: 6. New constn�ction shoadd be compatible with the historic and architectural character of the district. Massing and scale. New consti-uction should conform to the massing, volt�me, height, facade proportions and scale of surrounding structures. The gross volz�me of an�� new structure should be visa�ally compatible with the buildings and elements within the sc�rrounding area. New dwellings and commercial builclings should be compatible with the height of existing adjacent buildings. � r� U • � oa- � a.� File #B02-043 • 2. Materials, and Details. Materials and details should relate to those of existing nearby buildings: Wood or masonry construction is typical for existing residential building in the district, while masonry is typical of commercial building. 7Tiese materials are preferable to vinyl, metal, or hardboard siding. Imitative materials such as artificial stone or brick veneer should not be used. Materials wi11 be reviewed to determine their appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure. The use of vinyl, metal, or hardboard siding will be considered by the Commission on a case-by-case basis. These materials may be permissible in new construction ofprincipal buildings if appropriately detailed. BuiZding Elements: 1. Roofs: The gable and the hip roof are the primary historic roofforms in the District, with many variations and combinations. In new construction, the skyline or roofprofile shouZd relate to the predominant roof shape of nearby buildings. Highly visible secondary strc�cture roofs should match the roof pitch of the main structure. Roofing materials used on new ba�ildings should be appropriate to the design of the building and the visibility of the roof. Roof hardware such as skylights, vents, ancl metal pipe chimneys shoa�ld not be placed on the front roof plane. 2. Windows and Entries. Yertically-orienterl, single or double-hung sash are the predominant historic window type in the District. The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windows and entries should be compatible with that of existing nearby buildings. The rhythm of solids • to voids created by openings in the facade of the new stra�cture should be visually compatible with surrounding structzcres. 3. Porches and Decks. The front entry shoadd be ttrticulated with a design element such as n porch, porticq or landing which provides a transitional zone between the semi public and public exterior zones and the private interior zone. This design element should be appropriately detniled and compatible with the size and scale of the building. Decks shoadd be constructed at the rear of the building and should be integrated into the overall design. Decks should be appropriately detailed and should not be raised in a manner which makes them conspicz�ous. Accessory Buildings: Garages and other accessory buildings should be compatible with the overnll design and materials of the existing buildings orz the lot. Nerov gnrages shoccld be locatecl off rear alleys wherever possible. Garages should not be attached to the front of the building and should only be attached if not visible from the pa�blic way. Site Considerations in New Construction: 1. Setback and Siting. The setback of new bz�ildings in most residential and commercial areas should be compatible with the setback of existing adjacent areas. 2. Parking. Residential parking areas shoa�ld be confinecl to the rear of e.risting or new • ba�ildings. Parking spaces shocdd be screened from view from the public street by landscaping such as hedges, grade changes, or low fences. 3. Fences. Fences tivhich allow some vistial penetration of front yard space are preferable to �� File #B02-043 complete.enclosure. Fences of wrought iron or wood which enclose the front yard shouZd be no higher than 3-1/2 feet. Cyclone fences shoulcl not be used to enclose front yards or the front half • of side yards. 4. Retaining walls. Stone, brick, and split face concrete block are preferable to landscape timber for the construction of retaining walls. Masonry retaining waZls should be fznished with caps or other appropriate details. S. Public Improvements. New street and landscape improvements, lighting, street furniture, and signs should be compatible with the character of the historic district. The historic urban pattern of grid plan streets should be retained and enhancecl in improvement projects. D. FINDINGS 1. The gabled roof form and pitch relate to neazby residential single family homes. 2. The entries aze "articulated" with porches help to define public from semi-public spaces. 3. Garaging may be visible from the public way, which would not conform to the guideline that states garaging should only be attached if not visible from the public way. 4. The use of wood trim, siding and windows would comply with the guidelines which state "Materials and details shoz�ld relate to those of existing nearby buiZdings. " 5. The overall massing is much larger than neazby single family residential buildings with detached garages and the orientation of the building is facing the bluff and not the street (Euclid). This development, however, is located at the edge of the historic district and at the end of a dead • end street. 6. The one story unit that faces Euclid street does not relate to the directional emphasis and rhythm that the other two story units do and the rivo and one half story historic houses. The lazge �able end is also not of a scale that relates to existing structures. E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings, staff recommends approval of the building permit provided the following condition(s) be met: 1. The horizontal massing and directional emphasis of the one story unit should be altered to relate to the scale and rhythm of existing buildings. 2. Exterior siding and trim must be painted wood. 3. Final material selections will be submitted to HPC staff for review and approval. • �� t�a-r aa CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[emm�, Mn} m' November 16, 2001 Gary Findell LAB Engineers & Architects 250 Third Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 OFFICE OF LICENSE, NSPECTIO?1S AND E\ V IROVM ENTAL PROTECTIO\ Roger Cur(is, Direclor LOWRYPROFESSlO.'�AL BUlLDGVG S«ite 300 350 St. Peter Street Saint Pa�e{ Mirtnesota 5�IO2-l�l0 Telephare: 6� l-?66-9090 Fncsin�ile: 6i!-? 66-9099 Re: 663 Euclid Street, Dayton's Bluff Historic District File #B02-043, building permit Dear Mr. Findell: As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) considered at its November 15, • 2001 meeting your application to construct a four unit to�vnhome structure at the propert}� listed above. The commission voted 11 to 0 to deny your application. This decision was based mainly on public comment heard at the meetma, a concern of the massing of the structure given the size of the lot and the relationship of this site to the bluff, the rhythm and directional emphasis of the elevation facing Euclid and not relating to nearby homes, and the historica] context of the bluff with respect to nearby historic homes. You or any aggrieved party has the right to appzal the Commission's decision to the Saint Paul City Council under Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Such an appeal must be filed within 14 days of the date of the APC's order and decision. Chapter 73 states: (h) Appeal to city cot�ncil. The permit applicmit or any parry aggrieved by the decision of tlie heritage preservation con:mission sha(l, u ithin fourteen (!4) days of t{:e date ofthe heritnge preservatiat commissiat's order and decisiat, knve a right to appeal seeck order ancl decision to the city council. The appea[ shal! be deemed perjected upoa receipt by the davision of plamting [LIEP] of bvo (2) copies oja notice of nppenl and statemeat settiitg fort/i the grotnvds for� the appeal. The d�vision ofplmv:ing [LIEP] sl�al7 h�ansmit one copy of t1:e notice ofappeal nnd statement to the c�ty council and one cop}' to the heritage preservahon commissiorr. The coramission, in any written order den}ing a permit appltcntion, shall advise the applicm�t ojdie right ta appeal to the ciry council and indurle this paragraph in n!! such orders. Please feel free to call me at 651.266.9078 if you have any questions. Sincerely, � �„a�� Amy Spon� Historic Preservation Specialist cc: Jim Erchul, DBNHS lZ File C Ur�o„pp�DV�ed 1 t C � NOTES OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION CONIlI�IISSION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Room 4Q Lower Level, City HalUCourt House November 15, 2001 Present: Judith Benton, Susan Bartlett Foote, Joseph Errigo, Gar Hazgens, Paul Lazson, Lee Meyer, Ray Meyer, Dan Scott, Shari Taylor Wilsey, Richard Wolfgramm, Dudley Younldn Members Absent: James Bellus (chair)(excused) and Richard Murphy (unexcused) Staff Present: Julie Hoff, Amy Spong and Drew Kempsld I. II� CALL TO ORDER: 5:05 p.m. by Gar Hargens. ANNOiTNCEMEN'I'S - Spong announced that the brick alley appeal will be before the city council on Nov. 28. Dan Scott will represent the HPC at the appeal. III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA - The agenda was amended to include discussions regarding 1524 Summit and 698 Stewart Avenue. Lazson will give a brief report regarding the Historic Saint Paul annual meering during the staff report. The agenda was approved as amended. V. PUBLIC HEARING/PERMIT REVIEW B. 207 Bates Avenue - building permit to construct a six -unit townhome building. Spong reviewed the staff report. LHB architects explained the project in more detail. Larson stated that the drawings show a large foundation. He quesfioned if that will be "bermed" up. The applicant said that it would and that the elevarion drawing is more accurate. He stated that computer simularions have some limitations. Hargens sated that he is concerned about the appearance of sepazation betvreen the units and_change in material. The applicant stated that he considered Hargens comments from the previous concept review, but that he and the client prefer it as shown. Larson stated that he agrees with Hazgens but that he has seen this look on other historic rowhouses. Larson asked if the applicant can make the bdck stucco contrast more subtle. Wilsey made a motion to approve the staff recommendation and conditions. Errigo offered a second. The motion carried unanimously. C. 212 Bates Avenue - building permit to construct a three-unit townhome building. Spong reviewed the staff report. LHB architects explained the project in more detail. on the same plane. The are three corbeled courses. The applicant stated the lot is 80 feet wide not 40 feet as noted in the staff report. Hazgens stated the base and post proportions weren't right and the posts should be wider. The applicant agreed. Page 1 of 3 le�tucl�rnr2r�'{ 3 • • • f3 �. . a Wolfgramm moved the staff recommendation. Foote offered a second. The motion carried • unanimously. D. 66s Euclid Street - building permit to construct a four-unit townhome building. Spong reviewed the staff report. LHB azchitects explained the proj ect in more detail. Spong stated that the applicant intends to use vinyl siding on this structure, but that this was not reviewed during the concept review and the plans presented to the commission did not specify. Spong questioned if the one-level unit (must have at least one accessible unit), could be on the other side of the building, where it would be less visible. The applicant stated that it is not possible. Larson asked if the pitch on the accessible unit is the same. The applicant stated that it is. Kim Metier, 247 Maria, stated that tha structure will abut her back yard. She stated that she is opposed to the pemut because the site is too small. She believes that if the new residents have children, that the kids will come onto her yard. She would support a smaller, owner-occupied structure. She also asked if the proposed structure will be Section 8. She stated that she looked into buying this property and was told there was a gas station there and the site was contaminated as the tanks were not removed. Diane May, 243 Maria, stated that the structure will obstruct her view and change the facade of the bluff. May stated that in her research she has done, she did not find that there was a large structure there. She asked the commission to consider preserving the history of the bluff and deny the permit. • Jim Erchul, Dayton's Bluff NFIS, stated that the site is not contaminated and an environmental review was completed. The public heazing was closed. Larson stated that he is concerned about the density of the development on a most visible and visual landmark for St. Paul—the bluffls. He surveyed the houses along Maria Avenue which has a wonderful collection of 18`" and 19`� Century homes and the consiruction of the highways has already desecreted parts of this neighborhood and bluf£ To cover the large building with vinyl is a poor way to look at Dayton's Bluff Historic District. The horizontal proifle at the one end is also a detriment. Larson moved to deny the permit. Younkin offered a second. The motion carried unanimously. E. 664-668 Surrey - building permit to construct a three-unit townhome building. Spong reviewed the staff report. LHB architects explained the project in more detail. Errigo asked if the home could be painted wood instead of vinyl. LHB explained that all the projects are low-income, tax-credit financing projects with very tight budgets. Wood with paint is three times more expensive and requires ongoing maintenance. The projects are already 18 percent over the average budget and the added cost would make the project not feasible. Wolfgramm asked if the applicant has considered using cement board. The applicant stated that cement • board is rivo times more expensive and still requires some ongoing maintenance. The total number of units between the four buildings is 16. The construction cost per unit is $232,000 or $125 per quare foot. Dennis Guptil, general contractor, stated that he understands that the HPC does consider financial issues. I � Page 2 of 3 He stated that vinyl siding is cost effective and can look better if it is done right. While he does install wood products, and even prefers them, they aze difficult from a cost perspective. Kim Merier stated that since residents are required to preserve the existing wood siding, contractors should be required to, also. She quesrioned where the driveway to the home will be posirioned. Errigo asked if similar issues to Metier's elcist with other neazby residents regarding the driveway. Guptil stated that they exist to some degree, but in Metier's case, the proposed structure directly abuts her property. Findell stated that the home meets all of the city's setback requirements. Younkin moved approval of the staff recommendation. Wilsey offered a second. In further discussion, Lazson stated that this sh fits the site better than the 66x Euclid proposal and is in a less visible area. Foote stated that she is concemed about requiring wood because it might be cost prohibirive. She is more troubled by vinyl siding for the Euclid proposal becuase of the visibility but she would be in favor of vinyl for this proposal because it fits better with the neighborhood overall. Wilsey agreed. Spong stated that in this proposal, wood h is still used on comer boards and windows. Guptil stated that he uses Rolex vinyl siding and that a triple three would look better. Younkin stated that he is concerned about allowing vinyl, but that he will accept a friendly amendment. Errigo stated that he is conflicted about the use of vinyl, but he could agree with it if vinyl is used on the siding only. Errigo offered an amendment to allow vinyl on the siding only, and using wood trim on the windows and corner boards, porches, soffit and fascia. The amendment was accepted by Younkin. - - _... . . . _ _.--- -._. -- - _....-- - -- -_.- --------- -_ ------------ - Lee Meyer questioned why the commission denied the previous proposal, if it is going to allow vinyl on this one. Lazson stated that the other proposal is located on a corner, on the bluff, where it is much more visible. It also is much larger and has a different end unit, which makes it more conspicuous. The proposat in front of them now relates better to the existing homes. Lazson stated that he believes the other site might be best served by a house or two. The amended motion was approved unanimously. Wolfgramm expressed concem that the other proposal was approved during the concept review and now denied by the commission. Spong stated that the purpose of concept reviews aze to inform the commission and give the applicant informal feedback, the commission does not approve or deny during concept reviews. A formal application, public no6ces and review process are still required. Lazson stated that the biggest change wa being able to see the context of the homes - three fit, one Shari Pemberton asked to speak and informed the commission that they will appeal the item that was denied. She stated that the city has approved $3.7 million for 16 units. The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m Submitted by: Julie Hoff, Staff • • • I� Pa�e 3 of 3 ��,-/aO /��cl�mer�i � ' � Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services, inc. 823 East Seventh Street • Sair.t Paul, MN 55106 (6� 7) 7746995 • Fax: (6� 1) 77�1-044j November 21, 2001 Mc Roger Curtis, Director Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection Lowry P.ofessioaal Buildir:�, Suite 3C0 350 St. Peter Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-I510 Dear Mc Curtis: I am writing on behalf of Dayton's BluffNeighborhood Housing Services to appeal to the City Council, the Heritage Preservation Commission's November 15, 2001 decision to deny our application for a building permit to construct a four unit townhouse structure at 663 Euclid Street (File #B02-043). Dayton's Bluff Neis hborhood Housing Services is filing this appeal based on the followin� grounds: • l. The four-unit townhouse building we are proposing to build is very similar in massing and scale to existing four unit historic townhouse/row house buildinas and large double houses, often built in a row, located throughout the district The buildin� also patterns the massing scale and orientation ofthe mansions and buildinQs located alona the bluff line and alo��g Mounds Boulevard south of the freeway. Additionally, our buildin� site is actually sli�htly larger in area than the lots upon which existin� historic four unit fownhouse(ro4v house buildin�s in the district are built. Put in this context our design does conform to the massing and scale requirements of the Dayton's Bluff Herita�e Preservation District Guidelines for new construction. In fact the HeritaQe Preservation Commission, at its same November 15, 2001 meeting, approved building permits for three other buildinas, similar in massing and scale on sites with fewer sauare feet of area per unit than the buildin� they denied. One of the buildinos approved by the Commission (66S Surrey Avenue) is nearly identical in design to 663 Euclid Street escept for the fact that it does not have a single story wheelchair accessible unit in it. We believe the Commission erred by denyina our buildina permit based on concerns about its massin� and scnle relative to the size of the lot. • 2. Our plans have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and a special conditional use permit for a cluster Itousin� development �vas �ranted for the b�iilding on November 2, 2001. The Plannina Commission found that our buildin� at 663 Euclid Street wi(I not be detrimental to the existin� character of development in the immediate neighborhood; that it will not impede normal and orderly development and improvement of the sun�oundin� properties for uses permitted in the district and in all other respects that it will conform to the 2pplicable reQulations of the district in which it is located. Given the Plannina Commission's findin�s we believe the Heritaee Preservation Commission erred when it detennined that our proposed townhouse building does not relate �vell with the nearby homes and the eclectic historical context of the Dayton's Bluff district. �CVi1 n�z��a� l� 3. The public comments made by the rivo individuals who testified at the Heritage Preservation Commission's public hearing, which are referenced as the primary basis for the Commission's decision, had little to do with the building's design. Instead they primarily focused on these two individuals' concerns about rental housing in general and the characteristics and behaviors they assumed families that lived in the building would exhibit. The few relevant design issues that were raised by these [wo individuals all have been considered in the design process and to the best of our ability they were addressed in our final desi�n. Their testimony was not about the impact the buildin� would have on the historic character of the district. We believe the Herita�e Preservation Commission erred in allowing most ofthis testimony to be heard at all and erred fuRher when it gave credence to it when making its decision. Community residents have been involved in the development and design of this building from the get go. In fact it was a neighborhood task force, which included many residents that live near this site that provided the impetus for the development of this project in the first place. Several Board Members of the Dayton's Bluff District 4 Community Council also have been intimately involved in the design process for this building. The fuil District 4 Board reviewed the buiiding's desi�n on two occasions and extended its unanimous support to the project. 4. The rhythm and directional emphasis of the elevation facing Euclid Street, while it may not be ideal, relates better to the nearby homes than the two existing �aranes that front Euclid Street These rivo garages are the only buildings fronting Eudid Street on this block. Additionally, the Herita�e Preseivation Commission failed to adequately take into accoimt the fact that the rhythm and directional emphasis that it found to be inappropriate is in large paR due to the fact that the housing unit nearest to Euclid Street is desi�ned to be an accessible unit, which necessitates that it be one story in hei�ht and wheelchair accessible. This unit is required as 1 condition of our projecYs financino �nd applicabie Iocal, state and federal requirements. To be frank, we are deeply caicerned by the Heritage Preservation Commission's failure to acknowledge ours and • its obligations under applicable local, state and federl( la�vs which require us to affirmatively promote the development of accessible housin� and by the fact that they choose not to work witli us to improve our design, if they found fault with it, given these obligations. We betieve the Commission erred in not takin� these requirements into acconntlnd mayeven have violated tlre law by denyin� our building permit for this buildin, while it approved a permit for a building directly adjacent to it almost identical in design, except for the fact that it did not have a handicapped accessible unit in it. 5. The final findings of the Herita�e Preservation Commission are inwnsistent with its findin�s in rivo previous concept reviews of the project. On both of these occasions, the Commission responded favorably to our project's overall design and encouraged us to proceed to the fin11 desi�n staQe. The Herita�e Preservation Commission staff recommended approval of the building permit in her final staff repoR based on the previous findings of the Commission and her own final review of the project. 6. Finally, if the Herita�e Preservation Commission's decision to deny us a building permit for this project is allowed to stand it will cause severe economic hardship for Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services. �Ve have invested thousands of dollars and coundess hours, of stafT and volunteer time, desi�ning this building based in large paR on the HeritaQe Preservation Commission's encouragement and the previously favorable reviews it provided us over the course of ei�ht months. � Not bein� allowed to build this building puts the financing for our total project in jeoplydy. This building is one of four buildinas bein� financed with Lo�� Income Housing Tax Credits and funds from many other public and private sources. Taking this buildin� and its four units out of our 16-unit scattered site projeM totally changes the • economics of the whole project and it could result in us loosin� the financing commitments we already have in place. � } oa-i ac At the very minimum we will be required to redesign one of the existin� buildin�s to provide an accessible unit and • then we will have to go through the whole permitting process a�ain. We believe the Commission erred when it failed to �ive adequate wei�ht to the degree of economic hardship its action would inflict on Dayton's BluffNeiQhborhood Housing Services and given the pressin� need in our neighborhood and the City as a whole for affordabfe housin� it erred fuRher by not takin� into acwunt the economic hardship its decision would inflict on the families who would benefit from the opportunity to live in this quality affordable housin�. Thank you in advance for allowina us to file tliis appeal and please feel free to contact me at your convenience should you require any additional information related to this matter. Sincerely, � ��,�� Jim Erchul Executive Director Cc: Sheri Pemberton Hoiby Kathy Lantry Amy Spai� • • i ��- 5 �� Dayton's Bluff � � District 4 Community Council� /■■ ` 798 E. 7th Street, Saint Paul, MN 55106 • Phone 651-772-2075 • Pas 651-774-3510 .. Visit our web site at www.daytonsbluff.org November 26, 2001 Mr. Roger Curtis, LIEP Director Lowry Professional Building, Suite 300 350 St. Peter Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Dear Mr. Curtis: Please attach this letter to the materials related to Dayton's BluffNeighborhood Housing Services (DBNHS) appeal to the City Councii of the Heritage Preservation Commission's (HPC) misguided actions on November 15, 2001 in regards to the denial of a building permit for construction of four townhouses at 663 Euclid Street (File #B02-043). We have worked hard as a St. Paul district council to be consistent and to make decisions based on relevant issues. DBNHS made several full presentations about 663 Euclid to local residents and our board. We were concerned with: 1) appropriate design (including • mass, scale, and orientation), 2) quality construction, and 3) competent management. DBl\�IIS more than satisfied us on al( counts. Consequently, and unanimously, we made positive recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council. To reverse our direction at the last moment would have been irresponsible. _ _.. _ Therefore, we are taken aback that the HPC would shepard DBNHS's plan along and then reverse itself — on such apparently thin and non-germane, grounds, and despite staff approval. DBNHS's design clearly fits with nearby housing. The massing and scale is proportionate. We fully understand that accessibility is needed and support DBNHS's efforts in that respect. We are left perplexed and concerned by the HPC's action. Fortunately, the City Council can compensate for the HPC's shortcomings. It is our sincere hope that the final barriers to this project are removed and that construction begins. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, � �. V 'b'n% Cc Sheri PembeROn-Hoiby Amy Spong Kathy Lantry n LJ � Creatiyig a sense of place a�d a place that mnkes sense �� I� �c,,rd � � � 30 • ol .i � , a i � � , • � • • I' i� � _- - - � —� '— -- — —�-- ,� � � � , l� �-L. f < > w Z� � I l _ _' _ . '" ' ' _-�i _ -- - --�-� 1 ; ` p t. ' \ 1 �� ' \�� _, � �_� �� , ,� r E`� ) \ � � S �\ `\ l� ' �� ,.` , ,, � \ � \ 1 � �` .1 �� .._-� _ � ' � `� � � � � � �� ,�,� � � ,� , , �� :�,, � `v-� —� -�_ � : Y�C '� �� '!I. ' e ' �_ �.._ . _ \.\�.:\\�.� �� -� �� : �� ai�� Z) oa-�� _,_ ,_,_' f�_=/ f� / �� ---1 ��i� '��' � �'�0 D- Q�� ` ooD_ �I � � .. �;,- . 0 i L r I� II � L L_ � �� 1 � � �� : � ^ � � � � L_ � cn � � � w 0 � � � _� � o� � �� W Q� � itS � � � 1 1 1 / � � � � � o � 0 � �-�- U' � J W W ,�, J �� ZZ Minutes of the Public Hearing ° Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission April 12, 2001 • Members Present: James Bellus, Judith Benton, Joseph Emgo, Susan Bartlett Foote, Paul Larson, Lee Meyer, Ray Meyer, Daniel Scott, Shari Taylor Wilsey, Richazd Wolfgramm Members Absent: Gar Hargens (excused), Richard Murphy (excused), Dudley Younkin (excused) Staff Present: Julie Hoff, John SlQadski, Amy Spong 1. Call to Order: Bellus called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Spong in�oduced Ray Meyer as a new HPC Commissioner. 2. Approval of the Agenda: Spong asked that approval of the March 22 minutes be removed from the agenda. The agenda was approved as amended. 3. Approval of the Minutes: The minutes of March 8, 2001 were approved as presented. 4. Concept Reviews • 207 and 212-214 Bates Avenue - Concept review for new construction of five-unit and three-unit townhome structures Spong presented her staff report. The applicant showed maps of the site location and surrounding • structures. There are many 2-3 story buildings and commercial masonry structures in the azea. The applicant stated that they want the townhomes to blend in with scale and materials, but they are really still in the concept phase. The applicant continued to describe the buildings based on a prospecrive of the sites. The five-unit building would have individual enhies for each unit, front gate entrances, a deck on the back and awnings over the windows. The units will be 2.5 stories tall with split-entries and the exterior will be stucco with a stone base. The three-unit building will be across the street and since there is no back access, the access must be from the street. The building will be constructed From masonry or stucco and each unit will have a different look - so it will not be a solid block of homes. There may be a portico on the main entry and the garage spaces will be 1. 5 spaces. Discussion: Meyer questioned if there was a site plan of the three-unit, but there is not one yet. Meyer also quesrioned if the concept for the five-unit lacks details because it is a concept. The applicant agreed and said that they plan to carry over some of the details from the three-unit proposal. azson commente e is no a conceme a o - � cornice is important to tying the building into the rest of the neighborhood. He believes the comices needs work and that the entries really need to be pronounced. Right now, the focus is on the second story windows. He'd like to see a pazapeted-look. • Bellus commented that garages off the front are generally not allowed, but he understands there is no Page 1 of 5 Z3 oa-ra� back access. The architect confirmed that there is no back access. . Larson suggested recessing the gazage entry and reducing the omamentation to draw less attention to the garage. Meyer stated that this suggestion would apply to only tv✓o of the gazages because one is on the end. Bellus said that the consensus is to minimize the look of the garages. Larson suggested articulating the individual units - instead of the columns - so that it looks like there are only three uniu, not six. He believes that this will help minimize the look of the garages. Applicant questioned if the commissioners liked the use of mixed materials - concrete foundarion, stucco, etc. The commissioners said that they do. Meyer said that the applicant does not need to worry about maldng the buildings look like each other. The applicant stated that they will try to carry over some of the materials. 663 Euclid and 662-668 5urrey - Concept review for new construction of two four- unit townhome structures Spong reviewed her staff report. The applicant stated that there is only one sh remaining on the Surrey site, although their application stated that there were two. The applicant demonstrated the location of the site with a map and described the surrounding homes as square, older homes, some with hip, gabled and pitched roofs, porches and band runs across the bottom of the gable. The proposed concept features a wrap-around porch facing Euclid, view of downtown, four units on the south end and four units on the north end, a pitched roof, bands, comer treatments, articulated front enhy (portico-look), two-car garages, decks, and some have living areas above the garage. The applicant stated that he is trying to maximize the views of downfown. • Discussion: Benton questioned how much square footage is in each unit. There is approximately 1400- 1500 square feet per unit. Bellus asked what the exterior material will be. The applicant stated either wood siding or aluminum or vinyl. Ray Meyer questioned if the units aze very visible from Mounds Boulevard. The applicant stated that the individual gables make it look like four different units, not just one big roof. Lee Meyer stated that he feels that the proposed structure does not fit in with the neighborhood, perhaps it is due to all the gables. The applicant stated that there are 3-4 houses nearby that are connected with one large porch (double-houses). Larson said that he does not believe that the roof line will allow for proper drainage. The applicant said that these are concept reviews and have a lot of work to be done. Bellus asked if the access to the homes is off of Mounds Boulevard. The applicant said no, that the houses are at the end of the bluff, but there is alley access in back. Benton questioned if the new structures block the view of any of the existing homes. The applicant said he would check into it. Several commissioners felt that another concept review should be conducted on this property. An • elevation of the structure along the bluff really needs to be submitted for the next concept review. There was missing information. Page 2 of 5 2� �r-��-f- � � %�_� �. _ _- --� � :l� 0 _ � a _ � � � 0 _ , J 7 w ] :� lll��-n :� :� ;�� .� _� � 0 �� == �_ � == -- - � • • • ZS oa- iaa _ � � � � � Zc� � � r1� � �) � � I��/ � �� 6`�� - i-' i.� . ,.. i�.� � � l � � ' 11T1 �E� -�d _ - -- -- �� V Eev �`o � Ja`� W`�� rmm �W o U� ��g � �ia�< � � -- 1 -- T � i � • 2�- ba-ia.�, � n u � � ��,ovbd 10 • �{ , d ( MINUTES OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Room 4Q Lower Level, City HalUCourt House September 6, 2001 Present: Judith Benton, Joseph Errigo, Gar Hargens, Paul Larson, Lee Meyer, Ray Meyer, Richard Murphy, Dan Scott, Shari Taylor Wilsey, Richard Wolfgramm Dudley Younkin, Absent: James Bellus (chair) (excused), Susan Bartlett Foote (excused) Staff Present: Julie Hoff, John Sla�adski and Amy Spong I. II. IlI. IV V. CALL TO ORDER: 5:03 p.m. by Gar Hargens, vice chair ANNOL7NCEMENTS - There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA - The agenda was approved as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - The minutes of July 12, July 26, August 9 and August 23 were approved as presented. PERMIT REVIEW/PUBLIC HEARING A. 261-271 East Keltogg Boulevard - Demolition permit to raze the �Vells Fargo Building and an adjacent one-story storage building in order to construct a parking ramp with housing. Spong summarized the Commission's discussion from the public hearing meeting and stated that each commissioner had also received a supplement from the projecYs architect. _ Terri Cermak, Cermak Rhoades Architects, asked if commissioners had any questions. Younkin questioned if there is any other parking possibilities in the 311 block area and specifically, the azea immediately west of the Wells Fargo Building (WFB). Cermak stated that there is not and that the area immediately west of the WFB is occupied by a stable business. Plus, the location is too far away and would be considered a greatly devalued pazldng space. Younkin followed up by asking about the area diagonal to and southeast of the WFB and east of Broadway and Kellogg. Cermak stated that in addition to being too far away, taking that for parking �vould displace a significant amount of exisring parldng. • • 'f-cia�c - �-vi-� :as��-esrA�-13a-ased-€er-tke-�es�effic�-- anciperhaps parking for residents could be provided at the post office site. Cermak stated that the post office paridng would be undesirable because Kellogg is a such a busy street and would be undesirable to residents to cross it regularly. Page 1 of 6 • �� • B. 207 and 212/214 Bates Avenue - concept review of construction of rivo townhome buildings Spong reviewed the comments from the first concept review meeting for this project. Gary Findell, LHB Engineers and Architects, reviewed the project. The 212 Bates building, has hvo pazcels of vacant land, where he wants to construct a 3-unit building. In response to the commission's previous remarks he has: • Inset the garage 3-4 feet • Emphasized the front enhy • Used brick facade elements on the end units and sides, stucco on the middle unit and stucco on the rear of the building. The building at 207 Bates Ave. will have six units and three entrance areas. The garages will be accessed from the rear of the building and are walk-out like. This building also has a stucco and brick facade and a fairly simple comice. Hargens commented that he is still troubled by the offset vertical and horizontal elements and that he prefers to see the brick wrap on the upper portion of the building, too. He prefers the units to have subtle differences - these are too distinct. Larson echoed Hargens comments and stated that the in/out, high/low comice doesn't finish well. He prefers the look of 207 Bates and that the ends have more massing. However, Larson • commented that now that he understands how the units lay out - that he likes the way the units are separated - he believes iYs rather clever. Spong suggested that the front porches need to be emphasized more. Findell stated that the porches will have wrought iron gates and fencing to separate the units. Hargens suggested adding a canopy. Findell stated that there is a small one. Larson added that the entries could have more of a portico. C. 663 Euclid and 662 Surrey - concept review of construction of rivo townhome buildings Spong reviewed the prior concept review meeting and stated that the applicant will also need a demolition permit to construct the townhomes. (The applicant later clarified that they are not proposing to demolish one remaining house on the site and will build on vacant property) Benton asked that the applicant comment on whether or not the existing residents will have their views blocked. Findell stated that these units have no basements and that each building has four units with a porch and one-car garage. There is no access from Mounds Blvd., so the garages will face the backs of the homes on Maria. • Hargens stated that he is having trouble placing the context of these buildings. He would like to see the site plans of surrounding homes. Page 5 of 6 30 R. Meyer stated that he likes the view from Mounds Blvd. Larson questioned if the roof line extends - the applicant stated that it does. Benton asked if this obliterates the neighbor's views. The applicant stated that anything built on the site will affect the views, but that a small view comdor does remain. Larson commented that there is a trade-off between filling an empty lot and blocking existing views. Benton questioned whether or not the architect tried to capture the views. He replied that the main living azeas all caphue the views. Findell commented that they �ied to make the units affordable and that there is one unit that is accessible. Spong commented that she liked the wrap-around porch at Euclid that Findell presented at the first concept review but the new proposal removes part of it. Hargens suggested covering the porch. VII. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS Spong announced that Councilmember Lantry presented a motion supporting the HPC decision regarding 728 Euclid. The council voted a 3-3 tie. The city attome�i is double- checking, but he thinks in this case, the HPC decision will stand. � Spong announced that the bus tour of historic properties is scheduled for October 9 from 2-5 • p.m. Spong also stated that the sign grant has been signed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. - Submitted by: Julie Hoff Staff • Page 6 of 6 3i oa-� a.a ��5 Dayton's Bluff _ Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. 823 East Seventh Street • Saint Paul. MN » 106 (651)7746995 • Fax:(651)774-0445 December 13, 2001 St. Paul City Council 3` Floar City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Council members: Enclosed for your review are plans, photos and other documentation Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services would like you to consider in reaching your decision regarding our appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to deny our application for a building permit to construct a four unit townhome structure at 663 Euclid Street. The public hearing by the City Council to consider our appeal is scheduled for Wednesday, December 19, 2001 at 530 pm. As you are aware DBNHS' townhouse project has been in front o£the City Council and the HRA Board on several occasions prior to this, when the City Council and the HRA acquired land for the project and awarded the project STAR Program funding, HOME Program funding and most recently Low Income Housing TaY Credits. DBNHS' project has also been awarded funding from the Ranisey County Housing Endowment Fund, Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, two private foundations and our equity investor the National Equity Fund. In fact all of the financing necessary to begin construction is in place. DBNHS would have been ready to start befare the end of 2001 were it not for the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission to deny us a building permit. Since the proposed building design had been in front of the Heritage Preservation Commission on two occasions, prior to the Commission's final review, during which we received generally favorable reviews, the Commission's denial of the building permit came as quite a surprise. Because the Heritage Preservatiou Commission approved a building of similar design at 664-668 Surrey Avenue, except for the fact that it did not have a single story wheelchair accessible unit in it, we aze quite perplexed by their decisaon to deny the building permit at 663 Euclid Street and the Commission's unwillingness to propose other reasoi�able accommodations. While we agree it would be more aesthetically pleasing for the building to have two stories throughout, this is simply not possible with the wheelchair accessible unit. However, DBNHS is willing to do whatever is necessary to work with the HPC staff to improve the directional emphasis of the wheelchair accessible uniPs elevation facing ELiclid Street. Given this consideration DBNHS respectfully requests that you vote to overturn the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision and grant us a building permit for 663 Euclid Street. If you or your staffhave any questions regarding our appeal or the project in general, please feel free to contact me at the above address at your convenience. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, • ��'=✓G�.✓c � Jim Erchul Executive Director cc. Nancy Anderson Roger Curtis Sheri Pemberton Hoiby Amy Spong oa-t ao � Dayton's Bluff _ Neighborhood Housing Services, inc. 823 East Sevenih Street • Samt Paul. MN 55106 (651) 7746995 • Fax: (651) 774-0'+4i December li, 2001 St. Paul City Council 3` Floor Ciry Ha11 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Council memhers: Enclosed for your review are plans, photos and other documentation Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services would like you to consider in reaching your decision reaazding our appeal of the Herita�e Preservation Coirunission s decision to deny our application for a building permit to construct • a four unit townhome srivcture at 663 Euclid Street. The public heazing by the City Council to consider our appeal is scheduled for Wednesday, December 19, 2001 at 5:30 pm. As you are aware DBNHS' townhouse project has been in front of the City Council and the HRA Board on several occasions prior to this, when the City Council and the H12A acquired land for the project and awarded the project STAR Program funding, HOME Program funding and most recently Low Income Housing Tax Credits. DBNHS' project has also been awarded funding from the Ramsey County Housing Endowment Fund, Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, the Local Tnitiatives Support Corporation, two private foundations and otu equity investor the National Equity Fund. In fact all of the financing necessary to begin constniction is in place. DBNHS would have been ready to start before the end of 2001 were it not for the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission to deny us a building permit. Since the proposed building design had been in front of the Heritage Preservation Commission on two occasions, prior to the Conunission's final review, during which we received generally favorable reviews, the Commission's denial of the building permit came as quite a surprise. Because the Herita�e Preservation Commission approved a building of similar design at 664-668 Sturey Avenue, except for the fact that it did not have a sin�le story wheelchair accessible unit in it, we aze quite perplexed by their decision to deny the building permit at 663 Euclid Street and the Coinmission's unwillin�ness to propose other reasonable accommodations. While we agree it would be more aesthetically pleasing for the building to have two stories throughout, • this is simply not possible with the wheelchair accessible unit. However, DBNHS is willing to do whatever is necessaay to work with the HPC staff to iinprove the directional einphasis of the wheelchair accessible unit's elevation facing Euclid Street. �• - • Given this consideration DBNHS respectfully requests that you vote to overtuni the Heritage • Preservation Commission's decision and grant us a building permit for 663 Euclid Street. If you or your staff have any questions re�arding our appeal or the pzoject in �eneral, please feel free to contact me at the above address at your convenience. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, .�� Jim Erchul Executive Director cc. Nancy Anderson Roger Curtis Sheri Pemberton Hoiby Amy Spong • �J e �= �y �� :�. ��- -�- • L� „�`v �.*vice�:°` w� va-� �,� Letter appealin� the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to deny a buildin� permit at 663 Euclid Street (File #B02-043) Letter from Herita�e Preservation Commission denying the buildin� permit for 663 Euclid Street Plans for 663 Euclid Street denied by the Heritage Preservation Commission Site Location Map Photo's of existing historic double houses and townhouse/row house buildin�s in the Dayton's Bluff Historic District Conditional approval letter from the Heritage Preservation Commission for the 668 Surrey Avenue townhome Lot Area per Housing Unit Comparison Planning Commission Resolution and findings Letter of support from the Dayton's Bluff District 4 Community Council Attomey's conclusions regarding Fair Housing and the Americans with Disabilities Act Photo's of 663 Euclid lot and surrounding homes Heritage Preservation Commission Staff Report and Relevant Excerpts from the Dayton's Bluff Heritage Preservation Disffict Guidelines flGi��.3v :;y3�.� � e'�,�cXIn�G �'f�','=PsS Exterior Elevations for 668 Surrey Avenue I � (located directly north of 663 Euclid Streef) • approved by t(�e HPC on November 15, 2001 v� . ....� • • r � oa- ia� � Dayton's Biuff Neighborhood Housing Services, inc. 323 East Seaen[h Straet • Sam[ Paul. JI\ 5j 106 (651)773-6995 • Fa�:f65 U 77=-0�=� November 21, 2001 Vir. Roeer Curtis. Director Office of License, Inspections and Em�ironmental Protection Lowry Professional Buildino. Suite 300 3�0 St. Peter Street Saint Paul, Minnesota �5102-li 10 Dear Mr. Curtis: t am writing on behalf of Dayton's BluffNeiahborhood Housin� Services to appeal to the City Council, the Heritaee Preservation Commission's November I5, 2001 decision to deny our application for a buildin� permit to construct a four unit townhouse structure at 663 Euclid Street (File �B02-043). Dayton's BluffNeiahborhood Housin� Services is filino this appeal based on the followinq �rounds: • l. The four-imit townhouse buildin� �ve are proposine to build is very similar in massine and sca(e to esistins four unit historic townhouse/ro�v ho�ise buildines and large do«ble houses, oftea built in a rotiv, Iocated throuahout the district. The buildin� also patterns the massine, scale and orientation of the mansions and buildings located alon� the bluff line and along Mounds Boulevard south of the freeway. Additioaa!!y, our buildine site is actually slightly lar�er in area than the lots upon which esistin� historic four emit townhouse/row house buildings in the district are built. Put in this context our desi�n does conform to the massinQ and scale requirements of the Dayton's Bluff Herita�e Preservation District Guidelines for new construction. � In fact the Heritaoe Preservatton Commission, at its same November 15, 200i meeting, approved buildina permits for three other buildings, similar in massin� and scale on sites with fewer square feet of area per m�it than the buildins they denied. One of the buildines approved by the Commission (668 Surrey Avenue) is nearly identical in desidn to 663 Euclid Street escept for the fact that it does not have a sin�le story wheelchair accessible unit in it. We believe the Coinmission erred by denyine our buildin� permit based on concerns about its massinP and scale relative to the size of the lot. � 2. Our plans have been revieeved and approved by the Plannina Commission and a special conditional use permit for a cluster housin� development �vas granted fo� the buildin� on November 2, 2001. The Plannin� Commission found that our buildin� at 663 Euclid Street will not be detrimental to the existing character of development in tiie inunediate neishbort�ood; that it wiil not impede normal and order[y development and improvement of the surroundin� properties for uses permitted in the district and in all other respects that it will conform to the applicable re�ulations of the district in which it is located. � Given the Piannins Commission's findings we believe theHeritage Preservation Commission erred wf�en it determined that our proposed townhouse buildins does not relate �vell with the nearby homes and the eclectic Iiistorical context of the Dayton's Bluff district. Oa- �,° 3. "Ihe pub�ic corrmens made by the t��o ii�dividuals wLo testified at the HeritaQ: Przservation Commission's • public hea:ina. ��,hich are referznced as the primary basis for dte Commission's decision, had little to do ��ith the buildins�s desiQn. Instzad tite; primarily foaued on these tl�o individuals` concerns about ren[al housi�to in Qeneral and the characteristics and behaviors they a;s�med fantilies tliat liced in the buildino «ould eshibit. The few relevant design issues that �vere raised by these mo individuals all have been considered in the desien proces; and [o the best of our abilih'they werz addressed in our final desian. Their testimom� was not about the imp�ct the buildins �vould have on the historic character of the district. We belie��e the Heri[ase Presercation Commission en�ed in allowins most of this testimony to be heard at all and erred fuRher when it �ave credence to i[ when makine its dzcision. Community resident; have beei� im•oh ed in tlie developmen: and desien of tl�is buildino from the Qet so. In fact it was a neishborhood task force, which included many residents tltat live near this site that provided the impetus for the dzvelopment of this project in the first place. Severa! Board �iembers ofthe Dayton's Bluff Di;t�ict �' Community Couneil also ha�e 62en intimatzh ircolced in the desien process for this buildino. Tl;e full District 4 Board reviewed the building's desisn on mo occasions and extended its unanimous support to the project. 4. The r(iytlim and directiona[ emphasis of the efevation facin� Euctid Street, ��hile it may not be ideal, relate, better to the nearby homes than the two existino garages that front Euclid Street. These two sarases are the only buildinas frontin� Euclid Street on this b(ock. V Additionally, the Herita�e PreservaYion Commission failed to adequately take into accoimt die fact that the rhythm and directional emphasis that it found to be inappropriatz is in Iar�e paR due to the fact that the housino unit nearest to Euclid Street is desi�ned to be an accessible unit, which necessitates that it be one story in heivht and wheelchair accessible. "this unit is required as a condition of our project's financina and applicable local, state and federal requirements. � To be frank. we are deep(y concerned by the Herita�e Preservation Commission's failure to acknowfedge ours and its ob(iQations under applicable local, state and federll laws wltich require us to affirmatively promote the development of accessible housino and by the fact that they choose not to work with us to improve our desi�n, if they found fault with it, �iven these obliaations. We believe the Commission erred in not takine these requirements into account and may even have violated the la�v by denying our buildin� permit for this buildins while it approved a permit for a buildin� directly adjacent to it ahnost identical in desisn, except for t(ie fact that it did not (iave a handicapped accessible unit in it. 5: The final findinos of the Herita�e Preservation Commission are inconsistent with its findinss in rivo previous concept reviews of the project. On bott� of these occasions, the Commission responded favorably to our project's overal! desi�n and encoi�raoed as to proceed to the final desi�n staoe. The Herita�e Preservation Commission staff recommended approvaf of the building permit in her final staff report based on the previous fii�din�s of the Commission and her own final review of the project. 6. Finally, if the HeritaQe Preservation Commission's decision to deny us a buildin� permit for this project is allowed to stand it will cause severe economic hardship for Dayton's BluffNeishborhood Housing Services. We have invested thousands of dollars and countless hours. of staff and volunteer time, desisnina this building based in large part on the Heritave'Preservation Commission's encouragement and the previously favorable reviews it provided us over the wurse of eiQht months. Not beine allowed to build this buiiding puts the fi�ancina for our total project in jeopardy. This buildin� is one of four buildinas beina financed with Lo�v Incotne Housing Tax Credits and funds from mam� other public and private • sources. Takins this building and iu four units out of our l6-unit scattered site project totally chanoes the economics oftiie whole project and it cou(d resuit in us foosin� the financing convnrtments we already tiave in place. da-�ao At the very minimum we �cill be required to redesion one of the exi;tin� buildin�s to provide an accessibfe u�iit and . then �c-e wilf have to �o through die whole permittine process aQain. �Ve believe the Commission erred �vhen it failed to sive adequate �veisht to the dearze of economic hard;hip its action ��ould inflict on Da�'ton's Bluff\ei_hborhood Housin� Services and gi�-en the pressina need ir. our neivhborhood and the City as a«hole for affordable housing it erred €urther b; not takin� into account the economic hard�fiip its decision ��ould inflict on t(ie families «'ho wou[d benefit from the oppor[unity to (ive in this quafin afiordable housins. Thank you in advance for allo« ina us to file this appeal and please feel free to contact me at �nur conveniznce should you require any additional informaron re(ated to this matter. Sincerely, � ��2,� Jim Erchui Executive Director Cc: Sheri PembeROn Hoibv Kathy Lantry Amy Spong � • � � � ..J �a �� CITY OF SAL��T PAtJ'i Norm Cofenmrz, :ifay�or November16,2001 Gary Findell LHB Engineers & Architects 2�0 Third Avenue IQorth Minneapolis, MN 55401 OFFICE OF LICEtiSE, INSPECTIO\S AND ESVIRO\1f ENT.4L PROTECTIO\ Roge� Qvtrs, Director LO%'v'?.YPROFcSS70.�'dL BU/LDLVG Suie 3GP 350 St. Perer S.rzet Sr.ir.t Pr.:d..ilinrizsatn SJ/0?-!5/0 Telzplmnz. d51-?66-9090 Facsimile' 65l-266-9099 Re: 663 Euclid Street, Dayton's Bluff H�storic District File #B02-043, building permit Dear Mr. Findell: As you lmow, the Herita�e Presen�ation Commission (HPC) considered at its November 1�, � 2001 meeting your application to construct a four unit townhome structure at the propzrty ]isted above. The commission voted 11 to 0 to deny� your appiication. This decision was based mainly on public comment heard at the meeting, a concem of the massing of the structure given the size of the lot and the relationship of this site to the bluff, the rhythm and directional emphasis of the elevation facing Euclid and not relatmg to nearby homes, and the historical context of the bluff with respect to nearby historic homes. You or any aggrieved party has the right to appeal thz Commission's decision to the Saint Paul City Council under Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Le�islative Code. Such an appeal must bz filed within 14 days of ihe date of the HPC's order and dzcisioa. Chapter 73 states: (h) Appeal to city council. The permit applicant or an}• party aggrieved by the decision of the herita�e preservation commission sha1L .vithi�afourteen (14) days of the date of the herita�e preservation commissiai's order and decrsion, hnve a right to appeal such order and decisio�t to tive ciry coio:cil. The appea[ sha[1 be dee»�ed pe�fected upon receipt by the d�vision ofplariiti�tg [LIEP] of bvo (?� copies of a notice of nppeal mtd stntement setnng forth the groz�nds for the appeaL The dtvisio�v ojplamting [LIEP] shall (ransn�ir one ropy ofthe notice ofappenl nr�d statement to the city council and one cop} to the heritage presenation comn:issiorz The commission, in any written orcler denyi�ag a permit appltcatio�t, shall advise the applicaiit ojthe right to appeal to the ci�y council and irtclude thu paragraph i�z a!! sa�cle orders. Please feel free to call me at 651.266.9075 if you have any questions. Smcerely, � �„�� Amy Spong Historic Preservation Specialist cc: Jim Erchul, DBI�'F3S File c� a- 1 0.V � �� . _ §� 0 1 - g� jo ;e �_� y ��6 £R N _ �J..O _ s " g 'z � y m° . _ Z ag � J Z v� ��`a ` � I I LL � � LL O �� m ¢ Z m Z W i O=� V � �� 022�v `a 3 v �y � e m� t �O a : ° 3oi �a -�Q 8 '=_�- F Bi3 BU� `F� pe^:4 +a0 = �ti �x� €$,. ° F M t��- = wcn dww fi?a2:'e `s Q � ^ Q , 1 v Y J � �( S 9� 7 O � z n oa-r a� � � + � � _� . J ly� m � � � � � � � � � � � e � = $�: '-- $@` �� $ ��`r�§a"s_� _ � � � , �- LL _°�= _ ��I o s$' Jo� Q�� O a�. �� _- �, UW$ ZN� �€�€ is mx LL - `: a �i.b Ub b_ s�p � 3 � �m Z � N�` `G a�y� I 9 ZOC7w min —°� z e �� Q �'��' =1�d€ I �' �iv� io' U� 3 "a�: ' ° ' � �� ' �� € �� ioz w¢ ;a . �a xc Z a $� g a I_¢wOW ..�3 p �d g .ceEv� ¢ C a�g'€$E �i � a c �Z2N g p� $<oV gy �_�` q t " . - a3z?$='s — s x ' ° a` �a� � „�s s ��i �a�� ss� s : ��y �§ eeo p g� : r��`� �?a � e; � i 'a§W�_'�xc a�e� 0�3 $�g T i ' � �L, ti-` . � i—'il ` i I : i -�� w d sL� � T � ; a 7 � � � F I i �� f` �- � z � �� a�� o j ! i � , � a � �i 4 � ¢ g= �W �II gR � 0 �i � i �n ° p /' �,9 a . �5 3 g�"si� I ¢ � ° _ - - w i a.�E� 9 �_� a:' w C S j $� I Y3 `3.a ��,,yjj�'a�u � ¢� r ` ¢� �' _ �� '^ N "��'i ,., �'^ O z � N i � �` W ` � - �J ••a � x l • .4 p a�a �� Q— � E I � ff» s ¢ x% I � y �� I � I 7 1 �\ � � a —I�_ � Q I'7 � Il � , �, -I '°� � ; -_+ a- i- / i ° \ � -°. v � e a - �� pgg � �t / � �;'� `-��- § � ` �a�: -� -, S �ON1W�� 9 (� Y 9�� 4� g � � � ��§ $ s q Z �� v g , � �� gza. � A 'a i \�` � z.� ;,�� y �°-_�g � � � � o a-=' -�a C� ``�;,;. ,.�pF�? a ¢ � �� / aI �� w Y8 o y6 s�� . o e = y I I ' 3' � O �' 5a:� 3 � @ = � � ' 8 �: . a ° z 4 ':�� ' ' S a� ? � ; i —' � I — � _ rl, \ ' � w �� ` "a;� 8 p g gg e = ; i � �x �� 3 9 ° � F° '" d 9 $ � I � �, � �� `� �g e��`s� 3 ' -�� . � � � ' _ aeQ a � e� �n s - 1. ¢ d � $° s�€° f$i Q p �� Z 3 n � ' w � �� g Q � - a _ � - q � . ti �^� pY y Z I . AO .rn . W d�i ��evSB d eo �� W g 2] i � - ' i / �/�/� % ' S 1'1pC7 . _ .. ... U' .._, � � ��i, � /.: ' ;;, 1 �; �= yJ �' I ; � I % T �,�„ �� a � ,ij% ,� " I /. �` �; �� ° � j � 1; � � � � !I f O � j `_ � �- ; � � �; ,,,.� �r , ,,i� �Im� '.II �� J/' ��. Ie� �� ° l ;�i ( � ^� v � ��%/:,^ 43 s `a 9 - - p � � � g � �°; � � .��:::: � �. �-� - '�i - ' �'�' - .' _ — ��, : � - , � t ' : � R�1_ � u�lJ _ .. ,J ��i; - -. :,:. - no , �. ° �'W q � � �' � : - �� // � a � _. `l'�i . w � 's �� \ sa fr °� �a : = `, � V �/, � z ° . �%%%%�%%';/%�� , ' `' < ., �� i ' ,. , a / �� , � C!_ ti , — , ti ,, _ ', , � .,, � oa-i a.,o I - £� �, _ 3� 0 a=$ N�a �o Q O \ Z s 2�,s �ob J 1 �Z I � LL � � Is m�x �� ZQ�w � i O = N U I � � 5 I_ Q W � W � � � OZS4] �� ;� LL � � w O m'v� � J O I z� ' o p� u ^; :.T�i `U2 =�Z 6 .�2:4'e9� x °�o F ��r p �S ``' ._? ° W(O eLL2 8L0.'F� 5 Q oa-1 a.o - _ - �; �; ma za y � � �29 �� u- o 1 =i o, J Q7� Z ,� LZ G u�� ` d� i i "° LL O I = 4 m O � ��W Z m Z I� � �� f I �� e : ¢wOw t � a a OZS(4 � Q s -, ;� K �w F O O e y7 (nJ J o � � r zi p� LL £4� °° N '�i a c�ia =yz : e32s"s s o •a0 " �F = :` .._ Y $o� x wu� aLLa aCo:€e s` Q � Q �a-la.o ,�_ U oL / ocv . � J � .J Da-laa • Wood Siding vs. Vinyl Sidittg Dayton's Bluff is proposin� to use appropriately detailed vinyl siding with painted wood trim corner boards, fascia, railin�s and porches on the exterior of 663 Euclid Street identical (except for color) to what was approved by the Herita�e Preservation Commission for use on the exterior of DBNHS' townhouse building at 664-668 Surrey Avenue. While the initial cost of using wood siding on the Euclid building is nearly three times the cost of vinyl siding, $59,000 vs. $21,000, it is not the installation cost that is problematic, but the on�oin� cost of maintaining it. Over the 30-yeaz term of our initial operaring projection painting the wood siding on this one building would add approximately $199,877 to our operating expenses. These additional maintenance costs would severely deplete the building operating reserves for the whole project (all four buildings). By year 15, due to our painting expenses, the project's operating reserve would be oniy $4,2.i3. It would remain near this level for the next 5 years until year 20, when the cost of painting the Euclid building would push the project into the red cvith a building reserve end balance at ($31,718). • Because the cost of painting wood siding has such a negative impact on the long term economics of an affordable housing project, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's 2002 Housing Tax Credit Design Standards do not allow wood exterior siding to be used on Low Income Housing Tax Credit buildings. After looking at the economic impact these painting costs have on our project we believe the MHFA is right in not allowing it. � � U `o U m � L • L O L � U C V • 00 � � � ��e rc � a w � m x 3 � °°mh o ,, � i � i � V F � V ' > � UU � Srv W `n � � p � � 0.� 2 '� � 3 p W ^ O LL W $mm � 'BnNm y eo O � > C �m��. o ' m c '' 4 n v u�i - o ' �w` �rc>" oa—�ao _ �S� m� �� m _ o�m°$ � � � � ao� �� , � �;` w w w°� � ��., � �_ � � o�o �� n � � m �s d � �a � e� "�� - a � ��- �, m~e e a � m �"�o ' « � . ^ „°; � ,^-' ro � � � � � ' N c c �mm m ,� h m � h �°$ n$rv ' N a v N _ w „ r ro �� n n in u� in �n � �� m '� Q Q Q�� N no $�� mm nOn P - w �dmw w h w � .� Q a ° nqtl mOntv � ° ° m�o �" e � m � ' ° � - m � a � ` � � w n w o� NpiN � a __ o- N _ o� 4°�° ° g e v o I o m � c N � C m E" �e � G� G� � f Z - ' � � � � � v vEi.� L = c� � � c £ J a° u f _ f' .. -` �� ai8 du �] m c' n" a a o , c E c E c �,7 ° E c i � W A-_ c•` - � ` " �-' ' E u�wwnm a 0� rs�E �°°'c� �� °�yrc a0v�� l?�d� Wm _ °u� aza �.f i� Cp c£ � -E � �c �u�raw =�� ¢at Ec �vw � 'g "_$=' _uum uc� T; v - �OIiNNF 20U �=2 a2Q?�I.� V1=£ m6a`�u Y.06�W d^9Q�IJ d0d06L1 oa.-ia.o � U 0 a � 0 x 3 a = w E � - o ,� � U 2 � d V pa� o � ..an U o za n" .�-. L ' r � . - W q 3 � r ; • � ' a ' S - z -�-. � _ � . - � p 3 � - 0 q e0 W � f U _ ? � (n - o > a i i� �I� - �� _ _ " � aj� m1� � m � �m �� o �_ « vo md� N N�o � �a � =�$ • � - � o ¢w` ��> 0 _ � " - � q „ � " < < � o � _ � - - _ -_ - ��;��- w � N w _�- w �� _� ��{�__ �� y � y � � d � �:� � ��P _ - w ��w �N�� m � m � m = � � �� J� mm� � - m� � "' _ _ � m m �c�,.m m _ �8 O ry N � V �v b v ^ m n in in m � W nl� � f � �h w om c a ' �;,� — O m � � < b n O N N �• � n0.� n m in N 0 ut � w '- - ' onm - .� m � h °' ` °' �"' _ .. f`o^ m m �, c,ie � � "' w « e e N�° o -� p f� w�'um� m � � h a m n r y ` � ��n� �� i nm�w$ m .� o m I � a � �.°�� E�m W z � � � `O = � c � v W n N m E J ana do � c EcE �� c Ec> c u�w cA ° �n - ww a '� �� N �c> �' E„°$cE qom� c'^'� s.v ��c o 0 oaq �z c' � cf v � Tdn `ci m `-'� >'cz E'`m c�' c`m a m E e¢ w c` d = E c r E c m_ - �- u a� u � a e - c °- vw 2 _ c o _` E o.0 °e � ci,A �� o z"o�M �Si acc`n_w �n:i go<`d_u+ `�i�"a¢�G c'o¢`�w ae"n'o<u: � V •m u V G L z a U w ¢ N 3' o> w° Vo o ' - " ^' 1 � @ J jN � U � C �/�� 0 C l� a " u ` i3 V �a o C_ 0 aq 3 J< C e O_ w„ � � U `_ LLY � 7 n m O a O ��o i� p�o c�o Co n � f . � � g� a .o e f � • ` _- o � � rcw a ¢">' oa-«o �� - �o" � � �, ., Q �: f; � a a��o" - �;�-- -� w°� � � ., N �_� �� n � w ��meq � � ., "� � -. ��o � m �� ° � -- � o � m m .� � N r I w w 0 � � � �o -� .o � h .� N o w w o� on me � N �- V � a� n N u� � - � e e ^"° ` � ° w 'D"n$rw m m0 vi N W w W �i 0 � � r ry n n v N t � � H om k ' va N � n �0 n� n �. ` �'+� 0�D rv 0� n ao v v - � ;, ° - ry� N v f � '� � �m� N n m v v `� O qmomy n�dw N ° ° �^ a a ' mlm � � ° � � o � � � N q �� n �o� v e � � N `` � o� � °° o e I ° � " �� e � i � � » � r p � S UN qne �� v dN6C1 � � s E� � - _ � � aW - viw'3m`acy <i 9 � o�> �-� i�:: M�62 pm_� qma� �� _u y�j C[�ioc E a a 4.' 'CR �C£�CC q'C4 c P£U _� cT V T �' = z �w � � Ec ' Ec �c c do dv ��aF p= `� f "im� ` � r, a 'v4o z"c� ri5° .�<`�c�+ �Vi $�'c`a_w u �m¢Bu a � oa -� ax, � w 0 � N 3 0 , � _ w _ o � ' � N � U �= � c ,�, � " ` za` � U m � 3 - �°. � = O = M '"� 3 � = ' o a � � r _ �� _ _ . = - � � _ w � � - , � o m �;, = o = _ U � m N , O Q O � - °o �� --- � o � � w � m� a.o =d� � � - _�o � � _ _ p � � � g � ° < < e � - - - - _ - - _o �o --- � "� �- �a �� m _-_ � - --- �m om - - � � � _ ��.�$mm - ��-�� m ___ �m �M --- N rv �. ... 0 n _ _ �� r q m n t� N _ _ '' � y m o o _'' N N `��`n m°m i+m� _ _ Hr� � � � � m _ _ _ ° mo� m� - -_ N N `. `. e � � ° n '�. � ..� ..� n � � " - =g g' ' m�e $a �o � � _ - �p p N � m � � _ --.. m � m -- °m� � m o � � _ _ oM_ m�� ° M � � - --- - ��m " - --- o. m � � � - - �°� � � � � _ --_ ` w � ___ u�+ c� ��`nmmn � r�'n e � ^ � �j ^ m n v� `. �. ' N ... ,. f�NnCm mm`� e>� �n u�i� v� v v m m ! rv _ 0 b m p 0 m � v v ^ I � w f q q m„ Ih N mlc �.- w� �, w �"' mn � I � �" P � v - 5 c" N a � ° �a a e � � g � e �T�E ° t � � ., v F' ., F - > �� < < � _ � am a �� oza"e uo c Ec� < c E = 'O- �- �.E c..E �� E c E W �� 2 � wc3= ooa �- �� ' q" �'aa,�, a��E� °�n�E� �m" _ �« =� „��-�.. 3 > E°Fd ` 9„� =fa _ s€ rsa = �_ -A `�caw ce= �ar � a'�c E` uo'Gcm ��m�o w`` °m x" '"Nr� �'�¢ r=` -- <" _ 'o'e .aa'.q` wo r z"oca w.5z �<s_� �=f Rmc`�cLL uc¢9w e'm<9w a �� m� rv N I N a N � �e � = o • ' �w ��> �.� .vv . . 1 \J Si1-a l.;ocations oa.-la.o �' ; ,.•--�.�: • • �•••`•d •�XiStii'!C� � � t�U � •��1 ��• �.Y(-V`��G. : ;; --------� yvnt�ome �tes 393- . �t' ; �, ., . �� C� C�.—..� # �o ��.� �._...---- r, �Tar�t��;5 ;ernvaN � a C�D �,,�, i� i ��` -, � BQl�1 4.---� r � � lt ' � �a ; ' � J t_._r �. o � � _M�ltpattet � �� ' � �' � `---° 'E. SIx1h "'� ► 'y� /� �� E.Flfth� �� y'4 ��6 � � i [—� �`��/ � `� �c � L�.Fo�� h.._J !�� % O Fnmon _ y,�`�`' � a 0 d L_,.�J �\ Q � • �a�cs ��' ��`� n D Q , 1 � � �� '�s�—♦ � ` ,�t� '� Q ( Conway 334 Mour�4s ��` . � ? �� t ��.�.++�+ �o E�}thST �c� E 4�Sr ��n�� a`1a� • _� �•-- ' ��j;� 1 6t�8 E4m Fi,:qid 1 �, c �o5c� e 31 -6� 284 Mou� 6�z Cnnwny �v5to Con'Wn� / lc�il Convdt.�� 7��-`5 A�ictrr'q . 25, �'t�r;9 . 247 t1artq 2q� �ta�-rq 243 P9ariq � \ a�'`'�< �� S . �t....t t�.J ��t�� . , , . � . 237 MGViG � �I`f4 �230 1 {oUY+cfS �12v ��tes ��I I�`tuunds � ,24�c �aric� � 2421�1ar iq --Z38 Mar �q -212 'Sal'e5 Zo�7 r3ates Patk und � �J /� � �'+�`� � � A �� i�eu�ds5t f s�Cc�vieYvf Mct�� J _ J 1 � � � _� � �//' � � . . --� :: �, ' � -�� -�il. c- ' �— ;; I -�—+ � ' ; � �� . i: . < . + . !: �r S �+ �1 �. � � 8. l� � ..�° # .. �. • i.�'. �.$F ; �z `« F: . t'.; 3 `F F �Y � •� . � � i� �� ' �' ! � � `� Y t � � � (' ..�_. � ' ' �� .�', . � � x �� ; � , �� 3` �- j" t ° i c "' ; �,._ ,._ ... '2-' 'fa '3 ,:� � �� 4 � � . � € r � 34n �` � Ni 8 3' s � 5� � �? . Y ✓ �'' � � _ ;„ � � �_._. - i # .� . �. • �e ; i ��.� � T - a— y� « " �S !: Y � "'� . '. . . , - �> L` '_' . .- -_" :- �. � ! .. .�_._.':.� : i 7 s —_.�.-....� __ ur„z �` s m, � i �� 7 n �' � ��„s s �' JC `'I R 2 F_ y�" xa ,q�. � ; � a ��q V � � , .. . .q�- � i s �� ' � ...s�+r�_ s � ��, t �� .. �.. (. � . �. [ � � ��' , �� ! � � S .! P t i t .� � C�� a .. _ .. ,. ��` _. z��:; �.", {� I ' '4� �S F p, �s � "] 9j$ i L ��f � 1 7 A ' �� ) �' - L' �*� µS2W : � � v;��`3`� � �'. �� < ,"��+ � �t,€ r �,�'��, ,� , ��N � 1d� ___ I� �� w-x ��,_` . , �_- �� 4 � _ � �� ``�<�� ` t �_ s :� �r�� _ �� .z,� _- � i '. � .r ,y .e�^' •.:x.� a ., � 5 ^ �I'T " � . _ �,� � . �� i� � � 1 _.�A � t, �. 3 � . . _. . r__� � Y � _ 1 � � r.� ' � ��. S.'. +��,, � �� 1T �` Y i7 - � .: . � � "s ,: __ . i �. � `i ' o .� ; �7� � � � 1 r � �� , � '� ' �� , �. � _ . /r `: _ h . a: � , � , z s�w y . . . _ .. : . � � � , j �. i '^�r� � a� .1� 7 _ �"`L�b."I '�� . � �, � � �� v � t.�� ' `"'z'�a�,..��e�" q . _.�_.��.�� T'�.�.. ,� _ ` ��lF�` � � �' ' � .� > .e{- � ��>�' ; _ Y- y ; ..... ._=:..'-�.�, '_ H> : . �� '_I _ � y v _ � r z . s "-j _. . � __.._.. ! . � � 1 _. _. —_ _._-. < �y�" � , _ 4-E . . .. . _. :'�ti'A+�. . j j4 ( } } y " ` "Y� � �v 'h � � r� ° ; r � � b � —a '� � ...__ ._ -- . .s . .� i �rv �� — ; - � �� €. � �'�'��'3 � � � � � x"z � ! � � .� � � :f � � „ M � �� § , [ i 5A � #. � 5.�4> _.. j�y` S � � � � i � � `.`�� . �� a ��:; `_'..�•��. . �� ` E�.. . ;�= �.��.fiG'i'� t_.l - a �'� .�. -.! ' i !£,�'r:. � s � � �.-'£� :.i r ,t. +,+ � . .. '� � t�� ' . � g p �� . r 6 L �� i _� Qr'�t�l . . i � Fi . �� \~�.� `�i � � R _ t : _. 2 � . . � . ,{ 3 '_. t � . � 0 1 �, 2 Y V '._,�, ,a- ec _ � � �.. � . S . �"c �; � . . � -. . �L. '` � t r _ ° �`-'r t '� P � '> _ �F� � � � 'S � 's<cir. �c�" _ '._— ' ''.' . _ . ' _ . �.. , . .--_ f� v� Z'�� „ +t�y �?� F. �,{ � �� ax ry� ic -�F �" ' -� ° >��n Fs�'C'� }�uce�c t i - ``i5'l � ��} � ,� �� . ��d � �-E'tr.+��``�g� ��§Nd�',. ��'� ��.„�a�'� T � + �� -tro ��?�`� . . %� , ��: z + �� -,�� s�� a� ��.��?a ��" �� - ��3 � �. �. � F �� Qae � w- � a , � 8 °�,. . >� �� :�m �s��j.�� ,��.�� y �4a �� `-�.�x� �+P {��A �a^A7.9.y4s$�y`�,:.F 'yr �•C�� a 6� � a�> � r� ��r ; ;��C�� ' ' f 3 Et ' C} �F .' � � ! t ,� f � �� # 'r� 3 � Y � �� ,( '�� F {� v 1 �� .' �_. � � ' ' " � � $ � ^�iy�c� �8� �� _._ j� . �� '� �r}y '� � i �� . � - . t �. �� t _ ��3 . f ! , � ��'�� ,. � � �, s�� , , .� � H�� : �� ,� ' _ ��, '�v._ � � ,� ` � �.. �� , H � f � F ��_. ' ; � °� _� � ��,� � � ; �= 4 ° - h, � 1 R�43 �.t � , . � �� i.,.; � h _) �` a . �: A � �� y4 �'�" � � r fi ' , p7: .kl� �t ' _ �� ; �,�. k :, ;�� ! F f � '$£�� ` �:{ �.�'j � � . � � —_ ��C i� �y � � �. � '4. � 1 � �. �'. ` i � ,� F � .. '1 � .�; �,> �e �,�. ',T� F `t 0 ') '�z i ,�, . _ �- V � Fr �c�.';� � � � i g � r �° , c ' -e i� � . " � � :: �� ° , � 3 x�"�� 4 � �ry ; ��a. ��- � �'�`S� � ` 4; p � ��. � ;d . f ..n+� - .�u�� 3"'* � ., .. .7 , �' n. ' i .a��^ � ' � V .- � . ir.� f �� f � � � � �'"�5.� ; .. � ; .. � n � � � _ � rt � ; � 3 rs = 3 . r �� — -- � � �� . � z� - � _ s. �,�� ,. , . � ,�� . �;_ �� a=� � �� G .�s —. � ��,: .a�--' . - ` �; � . % , : r�e t � � � t �-' c � a.a:�s: {`i ; --..—... i f � �� . . = a �i � � a � t � � R �i: I • � _ 3�� 3 � 'ta� �� fb � . �' � , -,� �. _ �_= - � � r 4 ��i � . �: ,� _' } ��- ' �; � , `t�'- < = � �,`�'`�' , '. E ^��"� ' � �- �,�._= F � t .. Y { �� 4 � y� i f _-._ - � __-- -�. f � . �. � s [ � _�� °� .. � ! °`:� _ _ _ — s , �.. - ` ,_ " �° t�,��-. ��; � � � < f � ! t !� ~';.� ! . . . � . � � i � r � �� @� . --`� i � F�< 1 �; _� � i •� ' � . ti �E ( f- , :� i=.�� t.�.� �> , y � � �a � 3 �. �-�:. �-.�@ t , ` V i \ �� 3�a34 i� ��@ �� `� y 5�� :� � ��. � �_ `^ —+- v_ _ _ . . E1 � � '��f ,�� — � �� 1 $ ��-.�.,��, -� . . - _ ; , i '-- \t. � � . � � — . . . � �_`' _- . . , t . . � �-.� - ° ":�. - r� �; t2��, � �: '� , t � 4 � �; I , < < { . �� i�� , � f � , � r � �� c= v �; � �� ` � ;� . ��`� _ �� j , ''� ,_ :'• ti e r , � .�� V��- � -.-: �. w .' -,g +a� � {g �. � y� � .�?8�� e � s . � � T i' �• f � � y <'�[ } ,� . l% 'A. L✓' � �� ,l f 1r'. �`� t .,-�"�' ,� F}� €� � �� d,Ee L3` ' �F�� i�� t . �§;�� P `� 3a26 �... G/'I 4 }� : x � � , �s��"�� y� 4 � 'j_ � i �� . .#� !`�"t ° ��9'.�.��s��d/�� . .,. �f��'�i��t"a � ta ;�, �.y,��_ ;+ . . . -..- ._ � f . . ' : �_ �}'4s � [��. =�? ; . - ; / .� i . --' rt� �y� � F � ': . ', ' � . �` 1_ i " � ; �� . � `��. 1 �` { . � . ) i � `rit 5 � q F 4� - '"_ � �<' �� c. i L��O�?L '' ay .' ,..c. �' t � - �@�f',�? t i �� \ . � ` �' ♦ x a �_" - e��d �!�� a � . i� � j � "'��C �� ... .. - b� � >> � >. � .- . ¢ ^� �%: f P "l � �� , *.f '�� . . �. � Y � �' y � w �� a �V'� i _ 1� d'�..'�5�� ^y-,�'. i� � ._ �_.... - . �- � . � .� � _.. � � ) � " \ � ' # � �� , � ��.��. iit�ti� � � r �� ~ ) . r F� i�t � . q s #��p t'�� :, �: . I � . �\ � �' ��,, . � � x, . } i + ' [. /y � � � e l � �s ��. t � .. �.' k �.. g . '�-. . q. i!1`*��, r y�.\'� ��. �i.:�"' '.. �( . �1 ' _ � '` � ,-. '�,� , �F ' 1 _ j� aa `` !� :�� ,` .. , � s .R � �� ,. � �� P � � t. -�> '' .P�_ f .e�i � ,j '° � �� - O ' � .. � �: � - f S _ '� t ; � � � �� v .: ' i ��. .� : . . ,� ..�� ,3 a a. ? ' `3 . ,x 9 � v� ?i � T�� ` . . . � , �,�; � .:�e #.� 1 t -. 1 �i ' � .:` � . + � ; k i L _ JM �' _ ' S� P \ . � j y ��,,' �;�t � � ? . �:' �� i �� _ � �� x � �� "� .�" � = ' '.a3te +'*a5^:.� . t`c � q _ ))) L� � i �� ' . a � . .. _ . , d , � �a � li� �� , � � s � � � �, �'� � � �; r � � _ ' _ . � � �' - ; f� � � � {5Y �� k � `* �{ 4 �° 4� ` "�u �� ` • . ( � t ` . Y S � '� �• ': . . ...1 __ . , ^r�S �' � � � �.. # # F '� .. � �. R . +F 3 b I ' 3 p y S ► � ¢ S ' .� � � 9 � � t _ . . �<<.' � . s �: � e�" c '��S '�". . . . .. ,' .� ' . ,�..� ". .. _ �_�:... . . { � ` $ � `a°° ` v �`� ° . � a . . `: ��X�= � � x.. F: � .,` .- ; .. _ � � � . "� B' sliw_. r, : S ... . _s� ,,. , .; � . . -.� ,r'€'� .: � 3� - . Y � � � ', f.� � f t � —, �.r ' �ya 3 _� .�—r' f � ; ,� = �' j ,�`� `°_ �` _-, , , �s �8 , ��`- ' � : d: , �'� a, , r � � ' ' s � �'.v' � ; � `' � � ��j��. � � 'd's"�<� ,;� , � } �1 � � ' � t � , � � j� �.;;. r �, . � �,� _a� ` �.�� .. . '��\��.. � �y �6 \ � �6�.�,��, �°� �,�� _r � �� . g �. � r""� '�;' � a� �� t t� ♦ a 4r ` � ' 3 T. �. 9 .s��a � °�� °' .. tel yy � _ �- a � : .._ �`�:_ - . � �� E�� '� � � � : 3 ��`'"c � � —�" ��. � -�.� . i ��. .�� ' � � k � . � � � „� ��`�°;�ai'rd�'.iii�� 1� ��` '�� t 3 'a` ��`wr' ,. r ' # +'e�s�LT L`a �� t ,�� *t, �a.- . , • �. �� - .��j 4 , s ..' ,. i al t � ��, �' �i �` � �' '� 3 l . � - � � `- � x,. �_ � z �� ' � ,' � - -� �.:! , J � -f F .Y� �y] _ f i� � � # � t �1� �.g L ' i �i 2 y IE { )i � � `• �_ .- �� I f � < 'ti� R � 5 ♦ � f I` � �� . !i, I�S .1 �� .� . � �� 1 � � Ij�. � f��. �• f `� . n 4 � � t�s �) � / � 1 , x �. �'� �/ £ — �� ("�' � w- 3 i � � � � , �'� z�.� , �. '�e. �. `�� !7 i. L , . s_ � � � 7 �> • � t. �� ) l ..ki ��. _ ! � � f Y � �l .� _ _ _ K ��. � . p F r, �"�+.��.: � $r �� << � � ��: : � �\� t 3°i Lj � � t . i x '- s-, , _� � � �{ � . � �� ;- '�t� i � � !' .. . �� •� - ,��,.�� - � � �x � j i s_ _ � — � �iP r � �� :.�l�. ... � � , - . . . _ ,� � + . . . . .. _.�. - r -- i� a� �� la .:'� z� . ' T'... � . �"z> � � � �� '. i :: S. ;�.. - � . h�� =f f ^ � f �. . / ��i- . � � � } �_ �� aj' � _ �� ;F �� ` : t � � �� v nA�� `',` s �' _ a�ar, � , � ' � { ; ��,.�*�.�� - - � c..-�,,.�s. _ � _ . � - . �` , . .. � . �} ...`... . . � � _ � � � xi i, { • V \ s ..;Y: r ...T � � �� .L'l"' ! . '�V::�.�.�C� • �"s'`.�'+� b: e /r 5� '� : /. i .:k� �-`� � � _ _-_.. - . / ^- �� ;� .1 ^�? � �r .� �� y; � . . . , _ �`. .� � � _.. .�... � :� � _ � t. Y - s�� , �.� � ti� _. 4_-" $ - _ �.. � �`: { � I eY . ty�� 3 —� � � z�, -�� < � '2' A :. R S °a7�•+�� . �� 4+�' i . '^t:. - _',.-�% '' ?-.._... �. �. . \'"�, '_.�� . ._... F' `� —'� . t' �— --.. F ? � 4 ,;�f�f'._ " 'Tr . � . .. - . .�._t'.. :_. - ` . I� � � � t �, � � a � � �. s �� ' i . . . � � � _ � �#��.� \�� ^ � j �� a _ 1 -'� � ' l , ' z : � � � � / � ' � �� 5 �'' ;-� __' ' - -, � : � � _� � � , ;�,�� ; �� .`-�'� - _ `��=�, = ,i,, �. � � � .-�- �' � � "` "i� i . . . . .,. . . - .a�x . ._, > .. . . � i � .. . 1t �.. � � � r _ _ ,: � r "._ k.. ' - � � i l.: � :�� _! . �s-� '� �- , � r . � . . - �.. n ` � r ",�. y � o% a . . � , : ; . �:;: . .' .:. i 1 :. f �.: �� . u � _,�. ' �. _ g "'�.�,;;� �_ ��.+, -„�� ---- � �, x t �. r�, ' y ,, �, . � � `�� ._. _, }. � � r. t � , s�� _ a�� . ,� ` � -�- �� , �" �� r�. . �*� 1' � � �`:_ � . .. . � -.. ^ ., : Y E x ..��s, a . :x .._ ... ;. . �:` '.' � r ". +..s .:: � . �.._. ... ��. � � �� a -`, - ecr e ` `: : , ' f �. r � `��':r — : -� '-- r _ r ' 3; �- � �`�"��-.�--'�� - - _ _ " ��,:; �� a�; � �' �� %#��3,a:: � .. ,, ��:�� i i -~ � �< � �j ,� � - •. i � � t a , . _ .._, � � �� e �� i�! i'7`S . . G'. - � �� ' ��` . � . . � � � N �.. .- ' — '�.� ��:� L � . . - .. � - .� � '�� ,� n �, �� —.-. .� � ' _ _ .. . , a � ,,, . � � . __ ; . _ � ' - � �� ` �� .c:.�i �' :� _ . . �. �.. : : : i _ 2 . . .� . ! 1' � ' � � j �4� i � ♦ ; :$y�f.h i� �... '� i �, I __� � > { �� }� p i F� i . ��-�� .1 � .� � � � � . � �� ' : � v � 4 . . . . � , �:��. . . � �—��, T �� .� . � . . .. . . � . .. ..__� :'� �. � � h—� ;� �� `'��. �_._ � � � �': -� �: �--� � � . . . �€ ,w _ �"�-� — -. . __ ` ,_. �, � �.: �� z�s�� ,'� S a � �i@� �_— _ � � -` a ' � � �- > � - � - ��; — e � '�`� y+ . -- . k . ct:`�,4" ..i� � � (�"`?�'{ � �� ( ,�: � 6- � .__ ��"'^^^-----"�.� � ' ` .,�, t .« '�u.. 5�� ! � � ,;, �_, _• ) � � 1`� i`f � � ' — � .� ... _ �, �'•'S w� ,`�,� �_� �� . � �� 1 1 _ n� ` f �� x : �l. l � R \ y — � k ` � .!D/+ _ _ �. r � j � � , � . � � j '- � — - � �� iY' �n� � ��! n 4 � iL � %�� . � ��"�' m" �'�� g � " i ' l�� °`s`�� . � � � Lt i k"a. �� 6 Y��+"' � ��. � } �u . « ' s �,�r �a . ' ' � � �,?" '. �. -,..: . i t^ e � �''�� S �� $' / � �y ''P � `�`': € � ° � °?- � .� �. � �� `� ? tl � ' ` � � n ... . � +} � 'z%�,s,?,'��,`r • , � �. � � r�,.er4 ��r, : �.xt . � : . � $; -�.� ��+t r . -n m - �.�c , . � .rz P ' � _ � s� ._ l. . . �� F.,,.. ' �- � � q � �e, �' 3�'{f �iid__ -"' �T5.�.'aa�b�`._`m�� ,'�. °t j � ; $. Kaz � � .. . ._ '1.` � p , . y. ' .' ^ ' ^ „ ° , �.,,?�J' .�>- _..s _ . _ �... .. . ., � . . aq a�� '_ s:. � -� � _.. _ _— _ - ;. � � � � /��`�" - ` .�" - .�s �, � �. ��, �� ,,,, b �� ...Si[q..,�.'� L ��'4+dc•��"�1a�z�' �� t �� '1.��.3LR.�:3 � �� . � q. tF"�� = O Y � Y.'4�7 4- v 4��1 ♦ ' �r�� : �� . � � . � \ � � ¢ � s c�y�S�� , " .fo-� � �� . .�y,� .�� X � � ^—% . �I. ��..-+.�'3r '"�.�i�'-��-�� .�?v$ ,a ` . r �eca�--v Y��j:. � � r av .� c� i s� . g� � � g� N _ ' . a . y # . � � aY• �� `` ��: & � .s � �. � � . � a �`* � .� � ! � � .. � � �'-� H �`£� � . . 4 Ri44�•y�-G_ 3 -�� 9 i: _ ....�.��: �. �� { r ' � _ �,":<.' i': �' F Tt _. , " �� L r �i� � � � . � aoew�++^a... ti�:� Tf� � Y( -_^_ � s� -�i.:.ns�=�' � � � - ' :; � . �- . , - :�� .2 �9 i . i.p �.,t.i+�.."� L �_ cr' �! .:-_-er �" ' :_ .� .�. cc _ _ „ -.p� . . . _ ' �_ . �: . . � ' �, � :' — _._._ >.: : '. p � a ��: .._ f 3 , -_' _ i�_'� � _.. � ' .-s �a, \ + _>i` � � � . � l ''. . - ..__ � $� LL �� .. � _ _ _ z: �' .( �. i <-� � j � [ � � �� ' � � , i�� —� �— , _. . q. _ ,� t � - '�% : - ��. € �. � �' 5 � � �� i k . �, �': }� i 4� j "-. 4 �` . � . � � .. . � : � . �. � t t ir� � • • °;-�`��_:;::.�._ :.�_ . " ;z ` '�y __ _ oa- � a.o � � ii�� ! • � . _._ :_;<;, � ,_ .. yr_�a..�... _ 6 _ S [ � �� , � � _ . � P � ' ' . � � ��" '-,:� :��` -: � - _. s �� ... . _ � F�c'. .._... ,. �tY�� S_. [ �i _ . ..:�.�.. .��-�� - • • - ,�. . :. - �: �.. :�,� �. ` - � _ ` _ �.. .. -�:= � . =_:��- �:.: _ _ �� . - �� . . _ � � ;._ � � �` � �: ` ,. _ _. �� z f- _ , . J � , :� �- � . � � i �-� 3 _� _ '� �- ' . �- �:� -;: ` _ �� _ . ,' . . . � , - . . .. P e ; ,.. ��'v , _� � � . .. . � . " . �-�# . '�,�� ;r r � _ _ � �` � �_ � .� ��: � ��1 � 1 - r e� ��`3 .�►. . ��. _' � - ` � ,•;`� � . �i ¢.. . . � � 4 �- . _ d +. � . �� - . . - " . £ }�,' yys�;?_ _ S f k � k�� . t., �� . -- ; dY� '�` . � .; �. �_ - , ._ .z " . _ . _ . - '. ir�s - . _ _ . - .. ' -..r�` . � . �._- _ _ .�s,� �. _ _ . - . _ _ $.^ � � . . � �c ;.� . . , . . - � .- . y;, .. •;, :; �r i � .. '� r. _ ' . - _ . . _ :r - a„ - r � §K ; x � � c. , � . .. �� . .� . . c . .� t�'�,��•ae ` �^,+ � � s� .,c�'r5 gi� �s�� .. . _ _ t ti: y, � • � � . . � � . . ai f' { s�'�y � �i '' . �r � ��€ , . �. � ' � _ r ' ._ . . . _ �w � -�,. �'r R� � . L r �� ""4H'."� .s i � r ` har - s � i' �� x.'� �^�'n� 5 �. _ "t �� y, � �` ' ,.,.. ; c� t z' ,�'� r ' 7-; �� - ' �` r''�` a . 3ti.� � � � aT �� :�. . . � h ��r µ��._ �� . � 4 3 . .. . ... �� 3�SJ � �� v �'��' � , , ` �� r ��k� �� ' K� � r 4 � ,- `,� ` , �� ` �' � � � � �- � "`�� E i `*s Y ��# t � Z � 5 �� rP � ?"+�`�' . � �� k P � x� � �� . � �� .� : , ' � :� �` .;s „� � �� $ ; � � �� Od-! �o } � t j ! Y' -" �� ',.-�' � -: t .T ; : r � �: . _�� - � , _ ��. ' .� - _�`� , , - �- _ ;� � : z: �,�� : j � 6 �� : �: _ �: -:;� ---'t _ f __ 's �� e,� _ ` -�;_ � i , - � - ,� �-: � F . � � _ �. � .. �- �T • '_ F.�:� � � . L r � , �� . �%. M .. _ .. s.°a . '�'a"'?.E�'" �,. '.S"a �� _ . _ . �, � ' f ` � 4a '+'� � .. T'� _ Af} ' $ ; � °i y. •. . .� , , .. �. � �. z �- s.. �°. *� �� i � � 8� �: � -: �� _ ' -- � _ " � - " . _ -_: _ _.�� .. _ . ., . _ _ � • ° �., _ $ = � ��- � . , � � � ' � ,� + "- � � f � ,� ;' � x� e - x : � , s � � e- � � _ � �� t�� - _ �' - - - � r �� . _ , t_� Y � � . �� } � _ - �.. � � �_ 3 , � ; � j � � ` , �`�'� � £" � z ,� .' • �� - � �.,€ 3 �� #4-" : �� ;�. �� - : � . ., : - . .,. . k �� 3 - �� .�. _ �-� �- � ti . # . ,� t . '�` s : � ,� 'a .. s � _ ' �,.a ' _ �� e . ` � � _ _ _ . _� � ° �' ' � � � �, , � 4 � ' � � � � � _ � � `_ �° � � �"'' *�•;" "`. ?> � ,.�_ � � , x � _ a _ .. , , : E _ � � �' �`�''� . _ _� , � t s t �� ,��t �. � =_- �� -. '� �� j 1 . i __Y . � � # � �: :s p i � � � t :. �; � j.. { . . � .. -. . � � � � a 1�. t y ji � � t : � � . � . F E � i i � � � � A. £ 3 � � — _ , � , � i; _ � � � { a � � ''. . . . � � ' � �: � � :: . . . . . . . 'n . � � � # . . � . � . . .. . . � �`. . � '-_. . � �. .. . , ...- .. � � . � . �� .. . S . � � �: o . 4 ' � .w': � * � .� ) [ ( � 4 f � i' S .: - � % . � �+ t � '�. � � � � � �� :�� t r�.,, . s� � �� ; _ . �_: F � n ! Y � �� r � � i > '4? P r ' �s _� 4 F \ .,� " t c su� � _ ' c "�� _ . .. - . . �� b-�. _ " , ...�-- � ,�� $ ,. �r� � �� _ � `. ' �� v�� _ _. — �.��'�s�. , -- .� - � �u,..� - � ,_ _.. . . . . s � . . . _. . .., . . � .. .. `: � ... . ... . _. . ti � . ` _ '._ ' '"c:: . , . .,,r- ,•,'� ,, ;,.-.. . ....... Wi�g3`z ` . � - : �.p� _ . � . . , `�,. _' a:>...--`:__. . . . .. J av� � ._. e ` - : e4 , � ` F � � (s-. . �'� '. � " ! ? i £ _ GS��: �s �Vn F � ,�� ' z _ �' R F r.?". ,(F '' . . .. . . . . . . .. a. �r �. ��';. .? _. . _ '{ `W° �_ - �bJ ✓ l.� y ' S 5 , � . �f$, i d . t T9 i3 1 �_� . �. � �-. .� � 1 .� � 2a�., i �� icZP� -.�p' . _. . _ . . _ .\ � , 4 } � � �� S� � �� + l t� , - t� a r� £� f� '' � _ 4 = � ) �.` . . .... . � _� `�: � ! � � 1� % � 1 �� : m � R 1 � � �� 5 � � y� ;�", � 3� J � J.i �� $- � i . �. HI �� i2:- ..� � . :. ..�- ;. . " ='� � . y JI_ 4 # �"f. t �-'�R � � . .5� ��''. _ . ____..., �� _ �S'.. - � •� 3J7 i y �Lr�J il� � ,.. � � � +_ . ,. 1� ` � ,' �- �- � �� : _ _: �� : � � =_z=_ � :�`. �.:.,. = :. �.._= �� - = »� _ __n _ :. E::, .. ; sw �� r�"�A� � � a ��`��•� '�` �. r"..'�, " .. .....� Jf' . � �.� + • ,r • �;,� , �lo;_. - * a' . � . �� .� � . �. .. S + �. . �.,♦ � ' ` -� 2 . :,.,.� , „ . "- ;�- • _ � , r ---�. .� , �� _ �> , �. ,:� � � � .# � �� :��'� _ . .: - e ��a ?, -�. ., — � '- � _ � � ',` �� = - °{' �� f ��:.=. -- } -_ {: _ . . ;#-s .4 _ ., � _ =_ � . ; ; ; � :�� - - , � 3 .:��t� �' � � <�� & �.,�� - -� ;,. � ' � � t = � ,� x ` �v"�F .� . �.� # : � ? _-, �,i e � - =a`-�. �; ' _ ti - �+��E �. , �_. �� ..� ` a � 4 �� — � ,. � �; �' � ; ; �� a�m��1�M1�1� � � 1 . . � � � � £ t f - { s � ' ��' 3 f � y' � . �' i ; �"�4.. � � ��. '''",�a }'�. �� # � � . ,� � �>. �, � ; �:;� �.� : c�,,,�vf_°�: " � �� a , ` f'�' w � �a, e 3 �� ±„ . *.' s �` . � *: �� ``� �. ; i' .� 1 �.,:- � '��, J -' . . �s �-_ .:? ;: a . _ -: � `- .. . �c_ ..:s+v,.....°{.."""�Y+-,_ ^..,,,.. � � ' � � � - �, - - - � _ A ` 1 �� ,�.. ,� ,:� i� � � � �'.. � Y ► � .. ",�. 4s+E�.';y;k-,. } � � � :�� . � } �� ; Y� � ! < �; � �� . :... ��_. � , _+�, �� . -, p .'� .��:: �.'-.. L � . .a.�..�1 x . �.�_ . . � • �� . - '�,.`�� , �► '" �� : ` - s , .�,,,� � ►�� • �� y � I�- � -� . � � :: �� '� # _ , �� '..� V ,. -�, _ ,sw: ��' �;, s� •�__ '� +� � � � � � � � �� .: a h �� ..� } � € � �a � � � � � �;;'� " � 4 � � ► L` L� t � �� : J a _ , z _ /; � _ � - -�t�� ° l,°', � I ,_ f � = ; : — � , �.� ,� � _ � : " �� — � „ , � ��_ .i�� , � � � � , ! 1 ��i�� u : � _ �' � /� ��l�,I- ,,, „ • � ��'-`' °�� _" ,� ;��;� "�`-yt�°`� ��; ; ; � �f � , : ,/ �' , , 9 '� _ �t � � J l .,�` i , "."7 ts , Y 4 1 � `�s-'� . . . .�:�+'.v��^�.+��' ..� � �`1 � .. .� }�• - 1 � - . ,� _'.. ` �"'\, : � ,.___ . . � l , w ' �� ,�� ._ � L .. �+�1'�. � �`. '' -._ ��R �_'1 r - � � �=��. ': � . _- i >r�, "�� /( � �R''°` 1 - \ �1yAl�� { - _ e�R � i � �t�e �1 t� } ��%- ^ ��'fCy� . � __ JSb ��,� - f i / � �� . f i �� F ��-:��\\� - 1 t� I: � - �� . S� .- � }. . . � � 'ra�^'1 3 '� 1 � - � j ,�l J � � : L. ' � .. � . __y i � 1 ..,�. �1 ( y� � � ` . . r I { .� _ � l �i�.c �'� � ss�� j /��i' j -- � � �ii ?� a� ,,• ;t� a'.V� � _ �'j� a yp,^] �/r� ��lA�� j \ _} £ . 4 t � j S S R ` _ i}l . ) t � ' �� 9 �� -� .�.+ -, � �ki i� , � j � :. j <�,. � f z . : � � � r � ` ' �� ,� a� �;�— i : @j - - i � � i ' :a � �,..:� � 4 ° . , . , - � ,. - ., . � . �- �. ��. , �:.9�:��.�'_i . �, . 1 ' ° . 'a- ' ` r� , : . � f� � �� .. . a � �1 _ a��=��ac<wro�.,l� ti ��`, t �'�' . � t, 1 � ` � �� '� �� ' � � ,. � �w1�� . �17�\; _ . t _ � � ,_ � _ � � "" � " � v\ �*•> '� � ,s„a ' t \ . 1 � l �-. � .. .. s� . � Z> �� 1 ` � �. ' �- �.. � �.:� . i "� — _ =zj ; �. ��'' +1+ .�, i .� ... __< ''� - �`?I�J�IG'..�I� -- �tl�'��..�e'° � . � - -Y°*. ` - ; E �. -� �. y � 3 r P ' 3: �y� J11� � 4 � jF ��`��_°� E i� i � � � �t t i , �' '; ` _ ' i � s; _ : � ` '' ._ _ hn,.�e�...+.�3 :: �� 3 � j Y � �� a � S � ' �� _,� � 5 �� . � �. . _ � F . i i.. � �� :� �:�.. . � :1 � ! oa -� �o � � � � �� . ,� � � ' �.s ` �`i' �i-i+.i ' a ,.. ,-.' ��+�.� "+' 'i�4F �1` . . 'L' y � � . � � S'r . �i - � -s'�"-3` �'� r v+,,,bsp> � ��.>� ' � qyt•-� ,`� �� - � �.+ , �y.� - -1 - ,, . �.' g� - � N �'�r 2F€ - c �'R�-�i�ti 'S' a s ._+., .9L�F'.: '- . . . - � �` Y _� J . .. � F � � ,� �r i �� #� ��? tq .•� '' �� • � � F ` . _ «..� � � - : a -, .�e!`� ""4 �" � .: �� P� -�av'. ��. / '. � '_ �.. _t.'_"�i'�-,�. `. � ( - � •^�.� . .' z � S .� . _ ' �� . . ' W :IF��. . i i��ye ° / � Y`}a�.✓ � __ . . - � . S_ �. �?�y � �. "' f �°'; � � �c. . . � � �� . � � � � � 4 d. � ��' � � = v � � ��5!�r 2 , F ��i t .: �v _ .. -Gd p �� ',y J _ ��. �� Yr �l� fLSf s�� _ : �. !�� - . � �%. � �.� �hL �'. �'��i.�� { , e � `�.� � . . � �� ..��Y ��j.`+'+r+. . . . '� r A � .- g '�. . . �� °� .4'rt�� _ '� � .-. _-- : � + -�2 .,`_�/ . _.. � � `'' tt �s5�4s y , s �1 ! . _ � � t � �� i a -. r � � �.:. -� � ' �� ': � �- �� ,� ' - �6f � ��, � � �� - / � �� n � t e��..+i" ' �' 1�'r'Sb.. '� . . � � �'� . .. � i �. �_� �i f- +,�"• r } r � �''. ( •-'�¢ �� `� � �( � T • F � 4� � aryY% � Y'� 6��" � F +� r �� 9 � �� f v- � �+, y , f "� �e �, . . �� ,+.,�, � _ y � ,- ^s �'S>/_ t -Y•9 � - .�s � �+3mi _ .. ��3, x ->� }.; - ..�a''�: - . . � � ., � �� L � ; _ . - _. .. 'F"�� .a�� ' . �� . • . , � . _ .. ..: � - �y . _ .., ' � . �T' l j - \ a _ ?a._ -�3 « a� - � � � � - �� ffi � v i � t - �''� 3��?�1"9�! ,,, �': �°`- ' �> � .�� .,, :�•�'�-�� _' � . °'y '� ` , '`�` _ - `. � �_ �� x �� , �, , � .�a � � �° - s � �� ' o -� � < 1 � -- _ ,{ '' . �y 6 L v; yyy yyy s �^�, � � j � ��.� �� y�� , A ek• �pr y .. �� . . '� ` �� : x! , ..:_�t'� ,-` r 4a, t � ! 3; { Z � ?��.�53 i i �� , �.. �� , f'' r;S t { , � ,�g _ ._ .. � G �� , � , ,§�._ _9!. ��' �` `<-��1 . � i _ _e'u$ �i � , � � � At �� : � � . � 3 �� • F � i�-- ' � t � � ` �; . 1� `' - .# ` "y`� _ � x ' � ` w.: ' �`' $�. - F � . 3 '` s�_ � i 3° .: � . � ��.. � : :_ a '• E � — � < ��-�; :� . . . ^ :-- �, t�, r �' a' v , 'tk'�`Y� .�.'c� i°' � t S F t�i7� `� � i ' �'4 \ ' � - ` £� � ; Y � �'��:�' Y . � _ .'a'J � �1R� _, ��1. a4y♦ a� �� -.. 'Z\ .ry+wk�t�'� : � ..<��. o-. i f t' � � • ► i �. -- � � � . � � �� . �_.,�t ! � � � F . � � . � � � ` v �� o ;_� r ��- �.-- � � i � � cr� � � � � Da-�a.o . � � _ �� ►� � � � _� ' _ �. , �:; -��,3'� - - _ �� .��,: * � ' 3 r «� xz�� Y ✓ �-4y:y } - �§ ♦ �.- yC'� r . . � sa+'�.i ro.<� ��i � �-. � s - t.'.. �-""' - ` .. . ' - ' `.? r. t --}� r � i �i j� �. _ i.' .' i_.-__ - r` FI �`"" � " : ,� �•-�'� ,��;-�� I � ., ;: �� / �t � � �x' ' -�� l 1 ��',`,.._�—°'� � � -'` � >�� -.s "� �� , _,-. , y ,: ' � *� � I; � . - `x� '�:. — - � . . . . . :Y . 3 »;} . .-.-- ...._ � . : �";'.� - � ', ��"- � - $X � ` �,E. , •.s : , . r. �'..F� ' . .� --'_- r =��; _ `� +f : � =?'� � � .�� s -"�- � `� F �� . \ �:--�-`,�� t . � s: 1 ��c °��.. a �✓ � �,' �= � � .:�_ 4 �� . . � � . Jy 1� 5+v. � �� . �-� � � } '�Y�. � ;x`'� �► 'Yw 1 'R �LCe \� #, F-` � � ' . ... K � : n _ —' �2 �'�' . .. �--�..� .�e ,_: �_z :, i s'd{+�Y k��'�. � � � - �; �; °zz �e 's o = ��g �� y ; s N yd � Ub 0 � s a = �� s�: aa- ° 0 0 � �I �� o JO �s m= 1'� `-"oc7w z m Z i, o � �� -QwOw s " QZ=(q 3� LL � N _ mm ¢ �p y � ?� O_ e , " y�2 WQ �KQ F�: :.:, . o � aa =�+!> .�Scss e o t,f �e0 L �F- �X� ;`_ _ � �or YVJ(n 5WW 3c3ei�8Q 0 �� a _< � � oa-�;Ze r `-�,— � J �� m � � 4 0 s � � o o N � � � � d p1 � � � � � � d � J � o Q �.J v � � 3 � �\ � V � ' Q 7� � � � � d � � � 2 � � �9 y e S� � a Ees F� �? ��? vu. � oa,v � � �� •_ . a � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nornt Co(elnan, h7a�'or November 16, 2001 Gary Findell LHB Enginecrs & Architccts 250 Third Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 OPIICE OT LICENSt, INSPECfiONS AVU [NVIRONMGNTALPROTECTION Roger' Cvr(rs, Direclor LO{f'RYPROFESS/OA'dL BUILD/A'G Suile 300 350 St. Pe(er Sb�eet Snint Pmd, A1i�vresotn Si101-ISIO Telephane G51-266-9090 Fncsimile� GS!-2GG-9019 Re: 664-668 Suirey Avenue, Dayton's Bluff Historic District File #B02-044, building peni�it Dear Mr. P'indell: As you know, the Heritage Prescrvation Commission (HPC) considered at its Novcmber I5, 2001 meeting your application to construct a three unit townhome structure at the property listed above. The commission voted 11 to 0 to conditionally approce your application. T}iis decision was based on the findings in the staff report. The building permit will be approved prov�ded the following condition(s) be met: 1. The vinyl siding must be appropriately detailed and can ouly be install as siding. All window and door trim, comer boards, detailed trim, railings, porches and soffits and fascia must be painted wood. 2. Final material selections and colors will be submitted to HPC staff for final review and approval. • You or any aogrieved party has the right to appeal the Commission's decision to the Saint Paul C�ty Council 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 dec�sion. Chapter 73 states: (h) Aypecrl to city council. Tl�e per�mit applicmat or airy party aggrieved by tlie decisioit of tlte heritage p� conmerss�oit slrall, tvithin fourteen (14J days of d:e dale of dte l:eritage preservatia2 comntission's order anrl decision, have n right to appeal such order and decisiort to tlte city co�mcil. The appeal shall be deemed pe� jected upat receipt by tl:e clivisiat of pla�:l�ing of ttivo (2) copies of a r:otice of appeal aiad slatemeitt setting forth the gro�u�ds jw� the appeal. The division ofplmining sJrall lransmit one copy of the notice of nppeal and s�ntenterrt to die ciry council and one cop�� to the Ireritage preservatioir cor�rn�isa'iorc Tlre commrssion, in airy titrittea order� denying a c�a-i ao Page 2 . File #B02-042 November 16, 2001 permi[ upplica[ion, sha11 udvise the applicunt of tl:e rigkt [o appeaL to !he cit�� council a��d irzclude Zleis pm�agr•apl: in all sucle orders. Please note, an HPC approval or conditional approval does not obviate the need for mceting applicable building and zoning code requirements, nor is it a permit to allow for �r�ork to cotnmence. If revisions to tlie approved plans are made, be aware that additional HPC and/or staffreview may be required. Please feel free to call me at 651.2669078 if you have any questions. Our files indicated that a general building permit application was filled out in addition to the HPC application, however, three copies of the plans were not submitted. Upon receipt of three copies of building plans, the plan reviewers can further review and process the building permit. Sincerely, Amy Spong Historic Preservation Specialist cc: Jim Erchul, DBNHS � Jim West, Building Inspector File . � � � oa-� � N .� 3 � — N N � N 7 O — t w 3 U O' � � Q � C C (6 O N � m � � � o �n S � N 0.. C r�` O � N m L N y Q � � o O U Q C � � r � � C .- N � 0 2 � � �v — � L Q 0 J N .� � � � Q O � O � � a N �I' � '�i' P') G � a � v rn � M � � w � a � � tn N N ch c� m � M O N � I� M N N (") C`) CO � s � 0 �' � � a � 0 O � � w � N n N � � T I� cn �C��X X :� � O �t O N M O � ��' J. � O� , � r N 1� LO Q_ '� � A �+ T > U p � O� O� O Q2� �Ur �U�,�t�� > > > � a� � o=� o=� o= � � � � � Q � � � Z� o Q:� oQ� oQ � o N � � � � Q O J � d N O O a` N S Z m � a U � W M c9 � � N � � � � � � � � N � ti m V N N N � � � m � ��ww�� a��a� tA N tn (n fD fq N N N tA N !� tf) N O O O 1� tf� !.D O O m O N O Cfl V O CO CO r d' V N N M CO d' V N r � O W O� I� (O r7 N N N N N N N � r ��- � N N N V�t N� N N� CO � w w a-� � � � � � a»� � � � �n s�a�aa`� �a�sa � �n v> �n �n �n w o �n u� �n �n rnc�ornoo�rn00000 N O N i� O 7 N C� o� � N c .j N', 6) N N f� M �(9 CO CO I� �� V�Y 07 00 ��- M M O� 6J N _ _ N� c- O 6) O o.7 '� �[fl ' N i0 � N N r N O� N O O O M r r a- N � � � W D� e- r X X X X X x,X X X'�,X',X X °� - - - O c') � � O � 6� O CO,CO�O N �� V'V V' CO�.M N V'�(' �'�I� � � 3 C N U a W a W N ca c4 'o �1 c� crs c� 3�.� 3.� .� ci� � � (�6 N (6 O �t„ � O c6 (6 � O ch � � � C� � � U � � V � M M N o� N o� O� I� � �� CO � V V'V tf) CO M� tt) tn LCJ � M N N N CO CO N(O N N CO � � • • Oa—/ � See. ��s 3 �,.�d �-I -�-'�.�. �G.� Cornnn.°SS��s�S t�:.�cl,'.�S R2��n-c1:�5 � city of saint paul �"�'�b"'l�l-~`� �e5��`�S �� c�; +h -}'l.2 Sci.(�.t2du.�,cL �•s� nie.� �.,loc�.�.l..oa� planning commission resolution file number ol-9� date November 2, 20C1 WHEREAS, Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services, File �01-227-374, has applied for a Special Condition Use Permit under the provisions of §60.413(13) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for cluster housing development and variances from fhe schedule of regulations on property located at 4 sites: (Parcel 1)212 Bates Avenue; (Parcel 2) 207 Bates Avenue; (Parcel 3) xYx Euclid Avenue; (Parcel 4) xxY Surrey Avenue, Parcei Identification Number (PIN) 1. PINs 33-29-22-32-0142 & 33-29-22-32-0143; 2. PINs 33-29-22-32-0154, 33- 29-22-32-0155, & 32-29-22-41-Q155 ; 3. PIN 32-29-22-41-0178; 4. PINs 32-29-22-41-0090 & 32-29-22-41-0091, legally described as (see file); and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on October 25, 2001, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said appiication in accordance with the requirements of §64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and _ WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its � Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantialiy reflected in the minutes, made the foliowing findings of fact: The appiicant is proposing to construct cluster housing developments on four parceis in a seven-block area south of Surrey and west of Maple streets. There will be a totai of � 6 units, including 4 2-bedroom units; 9 3-bedroom units, and 3 4-bedroom units. These units are intended to provide affordable housing for families and assist in stabilizing families whose chiidren attend Dayton's bluff Elementary Achievement Plus School. 2. All of the uniYs wiil be aftordable at 50% of the regional median income, and 31 % ot the units will be affordable at 30% of inedian. The units will be rental and will be managed by Garsten Perennial. Rents will range between $453 and $939 per month. The f1'GrB!'YIOS NJIII t)° Q°CU�� by a .`�.Q-y@3� f?lOfi�?C�° ?hat v req��ire ownership by Da;�ten Bluff NHS and wili ensure continued affordability of the units. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority is participating in the financing of this development. moved by Kramer seconded by in favor Unanimous � against aa � a� . Zoning File �01-227-374 Planning Commission Resolution Page 2 3. Cluster development permits housing units with common walis while retaining 4he density standard for of the underlying zoning district. In tfie RT-1 Zoning District, the minimum lot size is 50a0 sq. ft. per unit. 4. The conditions that must be met are as follows: a. There sha1/6e a minimum of two units. This condition is met. Parcel 1 contains 3 units; parcel 2 contains 6 units; parcel 3 contains 4 units, and parcel 4 contains 3 units. b. The units sha/l be attached, common �rall, sing/e-fami/y, with no unit intruding on the vertica/ airspace of any other unit. The plans submitted with the application show that this condition is met. c. The parcel shall meet the lot area required per unit in fhe zoning district. The lot area requirements are as follows: .• 1. Parcei 1. 3 units proposed; lot area needed is 15,000 sq. ft.; lot area available is 8,800 sq. ft. The condition is not met and must be modified. 2. Parcel 2. 6 units proposed; lot area needed is 30,000 sq. ft.; lot area available is 16,217 sq. ft. The condition is not met and must be modified. 3. Parcei 3. 4 units proposed; lot area needed is 20,000 sq. ft.; lot area "� available is 13,894 sq. ft. The condition is not met and must be modified. • 4. Parcel 4. 3 units proposed; lot area needed is 15,000 sq. ft.; lot area availabie is 9,000 sq. ft. The condition is nof inet and must be modified. d. The parce/ shal! have a minrmum frontage of 80 feet on an improved street. The frontages for the parcels are as follows: 1. Parcel 1. Frontage is 75.08 ft. This condition is not met and must be modified. 2. Parcel 2. Frontage on Bates is 150.26 ft. and over 150 ft. on Hudson Road. This condition is met. 3. Parcel 3. Lot width is 50.76 ft. along the Euclid right-of-way. This condition is met. 4. Parcei 4. Lot width is SO ft. This condition is met. e. The structure shal/ conform to the schedule of regulations for height, !ot coverage, setbacks and parking. The schedule of regulations in the RT-1 district requires that the structures meet R-4 standards: maximum heighf of sfructures of 3 stories and 40 ft.; maximum lot coverage of 30%; setbacks of the average of the block face for front yards, 25 ft. for rear yards and 4 tt. on each side. Parking is required at a rate of 1.5 spaces per unit. The conformity to the schedule of regulations is as follows: 1. Parcel 1. Structure height is 3 stories along Bates (31.8 ft.) and 2 stories (23 ft.) in the rear. Lot coverage is 25%. A front yard setback of 5 ft. is proposed, with a rear yard of 76 ft. and side yards of 7 ft. each. The average front yard for this bfock is 0' (all buildings are at the sidewalk). Parking is provided at 1 space per unit (3 total spaces), while 4 spaces are required. This condition is not met. A Variance for parking (1 space) is required. . 2. Parcel 2. Structure height is 2 stories in front (26.8 ft.) and 3 stories in back •. .. . Zoning File �01-227-374 - Planning Commission Resolution Page 3 (30.4 ft.). Lot area covered is 25.2%. A front yard setback of 6 ft. is proposed, with a rear yard of 30.6 ft. and side yards of 18.9 ft. and 9 ft. When the existing building is demolished, a front yard of 25 ft. will be �• required. Six parking spaces are provided, 9 are required. This condition is not met. Variances of front yard (19 tt) and parking (3 spaces) are required. 3. Parcel 3. Structure height is 2 stories (23 ft.). Lot area covered is 27%. A front yard setback of 20 ft. is proposed, with a rear yard of 31 ft. and side yards of 9.1 and 23.1 ft. Four parking spaces are provided, 6 are required. This condition is not met. Variances of front yard (5 ft.) and parking (2 spaces) are rsquired. � g. Individual lots, buildings, street anci parking areas shall be designed and situated to minimize alteration of the natural feature"s and topography. This condition is met. The individual sites are vacant lots and parceis surrounded by urban development with minimal natural features. Where stopes are present, the buildings are designed to make use of them. h. Applications for cluster deve/opment shal/ include site plans, including landscaping and e/evations and other information the planning commission may request This condition is met as this information was submitted with the application. F. S0Gfl0!1 64.�QQ �� IS±S general standards that the Planr.ing Commission musi find are met prior to approval of a conditional use permit: a. The extent, location and intensity of the use will be in substantial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive P/an and any applicable subarea pians...app�oved by fhe city council. Thi's condition is met. The Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Pian recommends good design solutions for housing that meets newer market .. needs and complements existing Saint Paul neighborhoods...(policy 52) and encourages the production of rental housing (policy 5.3). Policy 5.4 recommends a diversity of building and unit types to meet the diversity of the market. Policy 6.2 states theat the City shouid work with its partners to preserve and construct affordable housing. The Lower Dayton's B/uff Small Area Plan goais include developineni inai is arcPiiiecturally compatibfe lViifl EkiS:l g h�storic structures cCla . providing homes for families of various incomes. 4. Parce! 4. Struc2ure height is 2 siories (26.5 ft.). Lot area covered is 30%. A front yard of 10.3 ft. is proposed, with a rear yard of 41.4 ft. and side yards of 12 ft. and 9 ft. A front yard of 10 ft. is required. Four parking spaces are provided, 4 are required. This condition is met. oa: �a� • Zoning File n01-227-374 Planning Commission Resolution Page 4 c. b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize fraffic congestion in the public streets. This condition is met. Ingress and egress for Parcel 1 will be onto Bates Avenue. Bates is a residential street, so the addition oi three garage doors wilt not impact traffic congestion. Parcel2 has garages that exit onto the lot ands need only one access point on Hudson Road. Parcels 3 and 4 share access from Euclid, with all manewering of vehicles taking piace on site. of or existinp character of the area. The pubiic health, safety and be endangered by this development � at d. The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of e. The use shall, in a1l other respecfs, conform to the applicabte regulatrons of the � district in which it is locafed. Modifications of conditions and variances of the schedule of regulations are required for this condition to be met. 6. Section 64.300 (f) permits the planning commission, after public hearing, to "modify any or all speciai conditions when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of property...and would result in exceptionai undue hardship to the owner...; provided, that such modification will not impair the infent and purpose of such special condition and is consistent with heaith, morals and general welfare of the community and is consistent avith reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property. The planning commission may act as the board of zoning appeals and grant variances from the regulations of the code related to permits.... The commission shali grant the variances in accordance with section 64.203(b), (c), and (d):' 7. Condition "c:' of Section 60.413(13) requires modification for all of the parceis. Since cluster development is first permitted in the R-1 to R-4 single family districts, the ciuster development must meat the standards of the R-4 District, just as new single family homes would need to meet R-4 standards. The parceis identified for this development ., are infill lots and parcels in a historic, compactly developed neighborhood. The designs of the huiidings are consistent with the neighborhood and give the appearance of large single family homes and mixed use buildings. The Heritage Preservafion Commission has approved the general e�erior designs of these buildings. The quality of the design increases the cost of development. The denser level of development offsets these audiiional costs an:; enGbles tn� urits !o remain affordable. For these reasons, strict • application of the lot area condition would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of these properties and would result in exceptional undue hardship to the owner. This modification will not impair the intent and purpose of the condition, which is to allow �. _ . • Zoning File �01-227-374 Planning Commission Resolution Page 5 residential development that is consistent with the surrounding area a�hile preserving as much open space as possible. Because of the design amenities, granting the modification is consistent with the health, morals and general welfare of the community and is Consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property. 8. Parcei 1 at 212 Bates, does not meet condition d, which requires 30 feet of frontage. Since this property is infill between two existing buildings, it is not possibie to meet this standard. In addition, the site slopes up from the street, making it more difficult to develop. The applicant needs to provide additional density in order to offset the higher costs of development, such as the brick and stucco exterior, as well as the topographical limitations of the site. The design of the building will also create a uniform stre=t face for the block. For these reasons, strict appiication of the lot frontage condition would unreasonably limit or prevent othervvise lawiul use of the property and wouid result in exceptionai undue hardship to the owner. This modification will not • impair the intent and purpose of the condition and granting the modification is consistent with the health, morals and general welfare of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property. 9. Condition e is not met for Parcels 1, 2, and 3 unless variances are granted from the " strict enforcement of tfie provisions of the code. Six findings must be made: . (1) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provision of the code; (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and tAese circumstances were nof created by the landowner. _ (3) The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistenf with the health, safefy, comfort, morals_ and welfare of the inhabitanfs of the City of Saint Paul; (4) The proposed variance will not impair an adequafe supply oflrght and air to adjacent property, not will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding � area; (5) The variance, if granted, wou/d not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the districf where, the affecfed land is locafed, nor would it a/ter or change the zoning district classification of the property; and (6) The request for variance is not based primari/y on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. 10. Parcel 1 requires a variance of 1 parking space. � (1) The property in question cannot be put fo a reasonab(e use under the strict provision of the code. Reasonable use of this property includes the ability to design a compatible structure in the neighborhood. The extraordinary costs of development on the slope mean that this property cannot be put to a reasonable use under iha s`rici provision oi the parking regulatic�s. • (2) The plighf of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner. Because the property is sloped in the rear and there is no alley, access to ofi-street parking is needed +. . • • Zoning File #01-227-374 . Planning Commission Resolution Page 6 from Bates. This is a small infili site, and the piight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to this property and wer.e not created by the landowner. (3) The proposed variance is in keeping with tne spirit and intent of the code, and is ••consistent wifh the hea/th, safe� , comfort, mora(s and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Saint PauL The intent of the parking requirement is to provide adequate off-street parking. The units will be occupied by low and moderate income people; there is transit service nearby, and on-street parking is available in the area. Therefore the proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and is consistent with the health, safely, comfort, morals and �ielfare of the inhabitants of the City. (4) The proposed variance wil/ not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent preperty, nor will if alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surroundiny area. Providing one less off-street parking space than the code requires will not affect the supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish estabiished property values. (5) The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the drstrict where the affected land-is" located, nor wouid it alter or change the zoning district c/assification of the � property. Approval of the parking variance will not permit a use not permitted in the RT-1 district, nor wili it alter the zoning district ciassification of the property. (6) The request for variance is not based primari/y on a desire fo increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Providing the additionai parking space would involve extensive site work and would impact the design of the buiiding, which is compatible with the neighborhood. The request is based on the topographical conditions on the site and tfie extraordinary development costs associated with the proposed structure, not on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the land. _ 11. Parcel 2 requires a front yard variance of 19 ft. and a parking variance of 3 spaces. (i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonab/e use under the strict provision of the code. Redevelopment of this parcel for housing is consistent with the current zoning. The consrrainis on this property mea� thaY it car,r.ot be put to reasonable residential use without variance of the front yard and parking requirements. (2) The plight of fhe landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were nof created by the landowner. The property is a ,_ former commercial lot that is constrained by the existing street layout and the construction of I-94 many years ago. The parcel has frontage on both Bates and Old Hudson Road. The existing pattern of development has no setback from the street and very little off-street parking provided. These circumstances are unique to this property and were not created by the landowner. (3) Tl�e proposed var;ance is in Ueeping �!�it,h the sprrit �nd in�ert c,` ins code, and is consistent wifh the hea/th, safety, comfort, mora/s and welfare of the inhabitants • of the City of Saint Paul. Surrounding property is built to the property line. The existing structure, which will be demolished, is built to the property line. �I � � • Zoning File �01-227-374 • Planning Commission Resolution Page 7 Requiring a 25 ft. front yard would be inconsistentwith the pattern of development in the surrounding area. Further, the property has street frontage on tvdo streets, creating an ample supply of on-street pa�king. Therefore, the ' variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and are consistent with the heaith, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City. (4) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supp/y of light and air to adjacent property, nor wi!l it a/ter fhe essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property va/ues Niithin fhe surrounding area. The front yard and parking variances will have no effect on the supply of light and air to adjacent property and will cause the development to be consistent with the essentiai character of the surrounding area. Creating a development - compa?ibl� with the surrounding area will nct dimin;sh property values. (5) The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the p�ovisions of the code for the property in the district whe�e the affected land is . located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. Approvai of front yard and parking variances will not affect the residential zoning or use of the property. (6) The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potentia! of the parcel of land. The request is based on the locatian'of the property and site cfiaracteristics, not on a desire to increase the value or • income potential of the land. 12. Parcel 3 requires a front yarcl variance of 5 ft. and a parking variance of 2 spaces. (i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonab/e use under the strict provision of the code. The parcel frontage is constrained by the alignment of Mounds Boulevard. Most of the front yard meets or exceeds the minimum requirement; however the curve in Mounds shortens the front yard at the south end. A consistent building facade requires the variance of 5 ft., and the rear of the parcel will be used for access to the property to the north, so additionai parKing cannot be provided in the rear yard. The parcel cannot be put to a ' reasonable use under the strict provision of the code. (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is due to the location of Mounds Blvd. and the cui de sac at the end of Euclid, which has no access to Mounds. These circumsfances are unique to this property and were not created by the landowner. (3) The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morais and welfare of the inhabitants .. of the City of Saint Paul. Most of the front yard meets and exceeds the 25 ft. requirement. If additional spaces are to be required in the rear yard, the front yard variance would need to be larger. Therefore, the front yard and parking variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and are consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City. (4) Tne proposeo veriar;ca will no� impai; an aa'2quara supply o; Iry,hi and ai; to � adjacent property, not will it a/ter the essentra/ character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values wifhin the surrounding area. The variance for the front yard is next to street frontage with no immediate .. . , � � Zoning File �01-227-374 Planning Commission Resolution Page 8 neighbors. The parking spaces needed would require more paving of the existing yards. The variance will not impair adequate light and air to adjacent property nor will it alter fhe 3essentiai character of tne surrounding area or '�unreasonably diminish established property values in the surrounding area. (5) The variance, if granted, wou/d not permit any use thaf is not permitfed under the provisions of fhe code for the property in tAe district where the afrected land is located, nor would it alfer or change the zoning district c/assification of the properfy. Front yard and parking variances will not affect the residentiai use of the property permitted under the provisions of the code for property in the RT-1 district, nor wiil it change the zoning district classification of the property. (6) The request for variance is not based primariiy on a desire to increase the va/ue or ir:come potentia! of the parcel of land. The request is based on the configuration of the site, not on a desire to increase the value or incoma pc:ential of the land. • ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, that the application of Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services for a Special Condition Use Permit for cluster housing development and variances from the schedule of regulations at 4 sites: (Parcel 1)212 Bates Avenue; (Parcel 2) � 207 Bates Avenue; (Parcei 3) xxx Euclid Avenue; (Parcel 4) �ocx Surrey Avenue, is hereby approved. . ' CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT ZONING FILE NO: • APPLICANT: PURPOSE: LOCATION: 01-227-374 Dayton's Biuff Neighborhood Housing Services �_ . � Special Condition Use Permit underihe provisions ot §60.413(13) of the Saint Pau! Legislative Code, forcluster housing development and variancesfrom the schedule of regulations. (Parcei 1)212 Bates Avenue; (Parcel 2) 207 Bates Avenue; (Parcel 3) xxx Euclid Avenue; (Parcel4) xux SurreyAvenue, Parcel identification Number (PIN)1. PINs 3349-22-32-OT42 & 33-29-2232-Ot43; 2. P(Ns 33-29-22-32-0154,33-29-22-32- 0155, & 32-29-22-41-0155 ;3. PIN 32-29-22-41-0�78; 4. PINs 32-29-22-41-0090 & 32-29-22-41-0091. _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1) 212 Bates Ave, PIN 3249-22-32-0142- AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION N0. 20 ST. PAUL, MtNN. LOT 7. PIN 32-29-22-32-0143, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 20 ST. PAUI., MINN. 2. LOT 8. 2) 2078atesAve.,PiN33-29-22-32-0154-WILLIUSSUBDIVISIONOFBLOCK570FLYMANDAYTONSADDITIONTOST.PAULSUBJ TO ESMTS AND EX SWLY 10 FT FOR ALLEY; NWLY 73.91 FT OF LOTS 1 THRU LOT 3 BLK 57. PIN 33-29-22-32-0155-WILLIUS SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 57 OF LYMAN DAYTONS ADDITION TO ST, PAUL EX HUDSON RD AND EX SWLY 10 FT FOR ALLEY THE SELY 75 5/i 0 FT OF LOTS 7 THRU LOT 3 BLK 57. PIN 32-29-22-47 -0755 - WlLIIMS'SUBD! VISION AND BLOCK 57, LYMAN DAYTON'S ADDITION EXCEPT PLOT CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ST PAUL FOR HASTINGS AVENUE, LOT 4. 3) �oc x Euclid Avenue, PIN 32-29•22-41-0178-LYMAN DAYTON ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ST. PAUL ALL OF LOTS 4 8 5 BLK 50 AND EX PART TO THE CITY OF ST PAUL THOSE PARTS OF LOTS 6& 7 BLK 50 LYING NELY OF THE FOL DESC L; BEG AT A PT ON TH E NWLY L OF LOT 7 SD PT BEING 25 FT SWLY OF THE MOST NLY CORNER THEREOF THEN RUN SELY TO A PT ON THE SELY L OF SD LOT 6 TO A PT 5 FT SW LY OF THE MOST ELY CORNER THEREOF AND TERMINATING. 4) xxx Surrey Avenue- PIN 32-29-22-41-0090-LYMAN DAYTON ADDITION TO THE CfTY OF ST. PAUL LOT 21 BLK 50, Pf N 32-29-22-41- 0091-LYMAN DAYTON ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ST, PAUL LOT 20 BLK 50. ZONING COMMIl ACTION: � PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: CONDITiONS OF THIS PERMIT: i APPROVED BY: Approval Approval None Giadys Morton, Commission Chairperson I, the undersigned Secretary to the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission for City of Saint Paui, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record i� my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said originai and of the whole thereof, as based on minutes of the Saint Paul Planning Commission meeting held on November 2, 2001, and on record in the Saint Paul Pianning Office, 25 West Fourth Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. This permit will expire one year from the date of approval if the use herein permitted is not established. The decision to g rant this permit by the Planning Commission is an administrative action subject to appeal to the Cify Council. Anyone affected by this action may appeal this decision by filing the appropriate aoplication and fee at the Zoning Office, 1400 City Hall Annex, 25 West Fourth Street. Any such appeal must befiied within 15 calendar days of the mailing date noted below. Violation of the conditions of this permit may result in its revocation. (''� q , �J��i NU�LC Carol A. Martineau Secrefary to the Sainf Paul Zoning Committee Copies to: Applicant Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services File No. 01-227-374 Zoning Administrator Wendy Lane License Inspector Christine Rozek District Council 4 Mailed: 11/9/01 J I �� _� � v a-� ao ! \,I' � � � %��\ �� Dayton's Bluff District 4 Communi 798 E. 7th Street, Saint Paul,1VIN 5� 106 • Phone 651-772-2075 • Fas 651-774-3510 Visit our web site at www.daytonsbluff.org Coun November 26, 2001 Mr. Roger Curtis, LIEP Director Lowry Professional Building, Suite 300 350 St. Peter Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Dear Mr. Curtis: Please attach this letter to the materials related to Dayton's B]uffNeighborhood Housing Services (DBNHS) appeal to the City Council of the Heritage Preservation Commission's (HPC) misguided actions on November 15, 2001 in regazds to the denial of a building pernut for construction of four townhouses at 663 Euclid Street (File #B02-043). � We have worked hard as a St. Paul district council to be consistent and to make decisions based on relevant issues. DBNHS made several full presentations about 663 Euclid to local residents and our board. We were concerned with: 1) appropriate design (including mass, scale, and orientation), 2) quality construction, and 3) competent management. DBN'riS more than satisfied us on al[ counts. Consequently, and unanimously, we made positive recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council. To reverse our direction at the last moment would have been irresponsible. Therefore, we are taken aback that the HI'C would shepard DBNHS's plan along and then reverse itself — on such apparently thin and non-germane, grounds, and despite staff approval. DBNHS's design cleariy fits with nearby housing. The massing and scale is proportionate. We fully understand that accessibility is needed and support DBNHS's efforts in that respect. We are left perplexed and concerned by the HPC's action. Fortunately, the City Council can compensate for the HPC's shortcomings. It is our sincere hope that the final barriers to this project are removed and that construction begins. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, / ^.—� r John Vaughn, Community Organizer � Cc Sheri Pemberton-Hoiby Amy Spong Kathy Lantry #� Creating a sense of pince and a place that makes serzse #� � `J � oa-iao cz�1� �EONaRD STABET A1D DE?PIA_RD (MON)11. 26' 01 16:45/ST. 15:a�/N0. 426ii=!:;83' F 1 � LBONARD, STRBET AND DEINARD CO`IFIDENrLALITY NOTE The i�formaaan contained � thu ufecopp message u f,�ng tran�utced to a�id is incmded only for the use of the iadividiu7 narned helow, Ifthe resder of ihis is not the intended redpient, yw� are hereby advised that any dissm�itaation, disQibuuon � apy of this telecopy is stricriy prohibiud, t£you luve recei�ed rk�is trla»py in error, ptease immediarety nodfy uc by tdephone and desrroy chis telecopy message 150SOUTg�SCxF�iSL�rCe2300 M�EaPOi]S,Mmr�arorn 55442 T�.612335-1500 F..x 6t2-335-1657 IAW qFFICFS LU MlNNFs1p0(:S, SALYL PAIJf� ANll:.UH41T0 ��7W�#��t:7!`a(.9SI�r . arf al:� C J LYdte o{TransIDitt21: Recipient: Firm/Company: City: Facsiuule Number: Telephone Number. Sender's Name. Sender's Number: BSI]1IIg KIlIDbeI: GliendMatter I4um6ers: rxor�ox.v. nssocunox November l6, £001 Txm Erchul Dayton s B1uffNeighborhood Housing Services, Inc. 651-774-0445 65F-i74-6995 Shaun C. McElhatton, Esq. 61�S8�i084 245 G4983-2 Totai number ofpages: (Including transmittal letter) immedsate notificauon of transmittal: � � No ('AbII�1�ETS: Memorandum rc Outlinc of Ilaycon's Btuff Fair Howin� Iuv�. IF YOU ARE BAVIIdG PF20BLEbSS RECFS�ING OR FKANSMT271NG, PI.E�SE CAT.I.: 614-135-'f084 Original will not follow by mail Return origix�al: Dawn Haruer✓Pat Baughman Date= Seni by: - � 'Cime: 1�ce Notified sender: Se� �'�� - �'c , �� o � ��J e � �v2 oua �.�'�+....se.y S c�..�c..��.�.S�o.J 5 � r R2��'n.c��vS f'ra �`tuw5%�F ati c� 1 V �f�C ��M'P2: Cq,�15 w �'�� .�. i S4jji �i-�Y ('�� l'YG�. F=:�'d i50tVA3D S13EE� AND DEINn°D � T0: F12QM: SUBJECT: DATE: oa -i ao (u��)11.26'U1. ?5:48/Si.16:^7/?10.4250433837 ? 't MEMORANDUM Juu Erchul Shaun McBlhatton and Sean Fredricks Outline of Dayton's Bluff Fair Housing Issues Wednesday November 2I, 2001 is � 1) To discriminate in the sale or xental, or to otherivise makc unavailable or deny, a dwe}ling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of— : . * .� � ,� B} a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwzlling after it is so sold..,or made available. • � : a * 2) To dascriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling...becausc of A handicap of— � * * a� x a B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling aRer it is so sold...or made availabie. � W + � � 3) For purposes of this sabsectioa, discriminatian inclrides— a * � r x� A) a refusal to pemut, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modificatians of e�cisting premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford s�ich person full enjoyment of the premises... B) a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, po&cies, gtactices, or sezvices, when such aceommodarions may be necessary to afford such person equal opparfuniry to use and enjoy a dweIling... The tmlawful di�**�+**Ation prohibited by sectioa 3604(� requires reasonable accommodations for people with a`�andicap," as defined in section 3602(h): l_�_J "Flandicap" means, with respect to a perso� 1) a physical oI IIlental imgairmant which 5ubstantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities.,. 2153536v1 memarandum focus�s on Section 3604, the aaalysis under the ADA is essentially the same. Section 3604(fj provides in relevant part that it shatl be unlawful: oa-!a� �P,OM i EONA3D STFcEET AND DEiNAAD � (MC�) i1. 26' 0� 16:48/ST. 15:�'.7/N0. �260�33837 F 3 Under scction 3604(#)(B)(3), a city cannot enforce zoniag ordinances thaT have a disparate impact oa pa5ons with disabitities. See United States v City ofPhiladelphia, Pennsylmnia, 838 F.Sttpp. 223 (E.D.Pa,1993). Tn Philadelphia, the court found that the city had not acted reasonably imder the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow a homeless shelter to substilute a side yard, rather th� thc required back yazd, for purposes of grivaoy and other treatment related reasans. 83& F.Supp, at 228_ The court stated that an accommodation is not reasonable if: 1) it would require a fitndamental alteration in the nature of a program, or 2) if it woutd impose undue financial or a +*++�+T^�ve burdens on the defendant. See id. Similarly, deveiopmentslly disabled adults iiving in a group home successful }y chailenged tIis eaforcemeat of a neighborhood association's restrictive covenant prohibiting non-residential purposes in Martin v. Constance, 843 F.Supp. 1321 (E.D.Mo. 1994). The court in Martin found that a glai.ntiffneed aot show that her handicapped status was the sole factor of the defendant's enforcemcnt of the covenant 843 F.Supp. at 1325. Ultimately, the court held thst the neighborhood 2ssociation's attempt to enforce the res�ictive covenant to bai the operarion of the group home amounted to refusal to make reasonable accommodation, as required by the Fair Housing Act See id_ at 1326. Martin is important since the defendants were private citizens, as opposed to a pub&c entity, as in most zoning cases. That means that in our case, whether the Aeritage Freservation Committee is a sublime or a prinate entity does not matter. The facts in Trovato v. Ci�y ofManchester, New Hampshire, 992 F.Supp. 493 (ll.I�I.H. 1997), are � vcry similar to the present situation. Tn Trovato, the plaintiffs were residents with muscular dyslrophy who sought an exemption from a zaning setback requirement so they could construct a driveway to make access to their home easier. 992 F.Supp. at 495. The court found that the city's rafusal of the exemptian was discriminatory since it had failed to make `�easonabie accommodarions in rules, policies, practices, or services that were necessary to afford (people) with a han3icap an cqual ogportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." See id, at 497. T'he plsintiffs in Trovaro were not literally buying or renting their home, as the Act might appeaz to require on its face, but rather owned their home. See id. However, parking was deemed a "service ar facility in connection with" the plaintiffs' property affecting their use and enjoyment. - See id. The Fact that they were not involved in a transaction or in the process of renting or buying was not important, whicti would be helpful in the present case as well. The plainriffs successfuIly demonstra#ed that, in light of their disabiliries, they would bene5t from tbe desired parking space. See id CJ Tfte court found that granting the exemptian was not a"fundamenta] alteration in the nature of a program" nor would it unpose `�ndue financial and administrative burdens" on the city. See Trovato, 992 F.Supp. at 497. ?Fus reasoning is signi8cant Ybr the piainriffs in the present case since the construction of the desired addition would not appear fundaznentally to after the Heritago Presetvation Committee's specifications to the paint where its general scheme would hc niin The Committee would not suffer any financial or administrative burdens, and the benefits to the disabled resident(s) wouid far outweigh the aesthetic dehiment to the community. Under the reasoning in Trovato, the addirion would likely be deemed a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. 2k53�36vt oa-e ac� F:.OM I.EONARD STREET AND DEINA�D (?�Cti;11. 26' O1 16:49/ST. 15:47/N0. �25f^;3837 "^ S In Trovato, the court indicated that it would have considered other fomis of reasonable accamaiodation if any had been proposed by the City. In our case, we would be wise to ask the HPC to reconsidec its decision sn light of the ADA aad Fair I�ousing Act requirements and to give the F�C an opportunity to propose other reasonable accommodation. � � 2753536v1 3 rRG?� 1,;ONA�D "ai.°,�eT AN� DEiNARD 992 F.S`app. 493 • 7 A.D. Caees 326,11 NDL$ P 382 cc�te �: ss2 F.s,��. �va> . <SeyCite YeIlow Flag> IJmted �ates 7Jistrict Coux'E, D. New Hampahise. S�lvia TROVATO and 8haaleen Dnrost, Plaintiffs, v . CITY OF bLda1�TCHE3TEZt, NEW HAAZPSI�IEE, Defendan� Givil No. 96-71-M Sept. 30, I997. r� U Individusls with dissbilft3es bxoup�xt action for i�iunciive sad declaratory relief againet r+tY, claimin8 city's denial of Pexmiss+on to build Paved par�ng sPace in froat of ]�.iV1d17818� �f0�10 V1018� �1C3! 27�t8 IIIIC�B1' Fair He Amezulme*+±a Act �'HAA1. A�A, and x�ror;i;tfltive Act. On i�dividuals' moti0n for suuimarY ludgment, the District Crnat> McAuliffe, J., held that city failed to reasonab�y accommadate iadividuals wittt diBabilitie8. ' .. ,:.,_ WesG Headnotss r1 U Ei7 GYvll Riglats � 131 7&k1311Yiost Gited Cases City that devied zonuig varianee failed to zeasonably accommodate 4adividusls with disabilitias wbo requested petmfssion tq build accessible P�'�S ePace in front of theiz home, and thus vinlsted FAir Housuig AmPn >�rs Act (FHAAI; isldividusle demanstrated tbab givea tbeir disabilities they vtould derive great benefit fram P��B � and that ]ack thereef wonld adverselY affecE their use and en.ioYmeut of theiu home, reguest was reasonable as it was most simple and lesst a�rQ*ve option far individuals, c3ty did net slww that pai�kiag epace would di�upt character of neighborhaod or that city would suffer a�qy finanCial or ot�leT a•niniairstiVe burden, aad city did not suggeet aqv reasoaable altern&tiv& to aCCOInmodation. Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, $ oa-� � (MO�i; ll. 26' O1 1.5:^9/Si. 15:^1/M0. 42b0433831 r; 804(fl(2), 42 U.S.C.A. $ 3604(fl(2). [27 Civil RightS � 132 78k132 MosE Cited Cases Page 1 Rair Housing Amead.'nents Act (FIiAtll claim Dremised on theory of failure to make r08sonable acwmmodation dces not require showiug of discriminatozy intent. Civil Rights Aet of 1968, as A*++�++��, § 804(1x2), 42 i7.S.C.A � 36Q4(f)(2). [3I��g�� 78k1S1 Most Cited Cases Paz3aag was "aervice ar facility in connecbon with" property affeetin8 use and e�joqme� Lt18t'Cpf, bl7Gh tl]flt t}18C1'�minah0ll iII pI0Y3630x1 of parl¢ng on basis of handicap would be actinnable under Fair Housing Amendments ACt (FHAl�. Civil Rights Aet of 19(i2i, as �ended, $ gp4(fl(2), 42 U.S.C.A. § 3604(f)(2). [47 Cfvll B.ights � 131 �skisi ma� c�+.�a c�6 Under Fair Eiousing Ameadments Act �iAAl, aecoa+modatian is "neceseary" ta afford "equal oppartunity" when per5ons with disabilities Lave shown tbat but foz aeeommodation. t3sey will be denied eqn21 opportunity to enjoy hovsng of their choice. Civil Rights Act of 1368, as amended, § 804(n, 4a U.S.C_A. § 3644ff?. (5j GYvil Efghts G7131 78kI31 Most Ciked Cases Under Fair Housing Amendments Acc �`HA�il, accommodatioa requizemeat to assist pe1'sons with disabilities with equal oppaa�kunity to enjoy houaing of their choice is reasonable unless it requires funds�mental alteration in nature of piogram or imposes undue financial aad at�inistrative burdens on defendant. Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, § 804(fl, 42 U.S.C.A. § 3604(4?. [6] GYvil Rights � 181 78ki81 Moet Cited Caiscs C,pps, a WesE 2001 No Claim to Otig. U.S. Govt. Works FkOM I�ONAAD SiP,E�T AND DEINARD � � . 992 F.Shpp. 493 (Clf.e as 992 R:Snpp. 49� Fair H9usix� Amrsnri�a .4ct's (�HAr� goal af sa�sting pe.reoas witl� disabilities sh�u}.d be wei�hed agaivst costs or burdens of tomPlisnce im�osed oa local Snverning body. Civil $ights Act af 1968, as amended, g SQ4(�, 42 U.S.C.A 4 3604(fl. L'IJ GYvil Eights � 131 78kF31 Most Cited Casea fte86ona61e accommodatiaa requixement of �' S1I �OiISl7]$ a�aIIlCA.dID6IIt6 ftv`t rn' � c821 apply to zo�ng o:diasnces. Civil RighLs Aet of 1968, as amended, $ 804(fl, 42 U.S.C_A � 3&04(f). [Sl Clvil $ights � 131 78k131 Mest Cited Cases Crivea b�road remediel nbjectivea of Fair Housiag tlmendments Act (F'BAA), statutory ezeemptfons shonld be ' construed rutrrawiy. Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, � 802 eL seq., 42 V.$.C.A. $ 3601 et saq. Fair Aousix� Amendmeats Act's �HAA) esemgiion for �ingle fami�jr homes was intended to protact ownere of siagle family hemes &om being subject ta requixeuients of F Fp?� and not to purotect local gov� W}S06C O�1B8DCQS H78 8Qp�lEC1 ]Il II7Annnr �gt d18Q'Imll]A�88 �H1n8t pE3'89218 �VI}]1 disabilities. Civil Rights Act of 2968, as amended, § 803(b). 42 U_S_C_A $ 36U3(b). [91 Civil $fghts � 131 78k18I Most Cited Gases tio� civu aige,ss � ima� 78k10?(1) Moat Cited Gases City which is both public entity and recipient af federal funds is regulated bp both ADA aad R�e�abiliEation ' Act. Be�ahilitation AcL of I973, $�04, 29 U.S.C.A. $ 794; Amerieasu .pith Disabilities Act of 1990> $ 202, 42 II.S.C.A $ 12152. [11] Civ�2 Eights � 130 78k130 Moat Cited Cases City's zozning quslifiec} aa "activity" of public oa -la.o (MON)11.26'O1 16:49/ST.16:�7/N0.4260�33837 P b Page 2 evtity within meaning af ADA. Amenoans with Dieabilities Act of 1990, � 202, 42 U.S.C.A. $ 72132. I1ZJ Civil ftights a 130 78k].30 Mast Cited Cases City's faillue to reasonably accommodate individvals with disabilities with variance to wn;�u ozdinance, which would perau{ individua]s to truild �a1.1 PaTking spaCe near £�eil �0� ontrawa� 8nd 1ffi �8711II'8 tA 8�10W how �ng individuals varis.nce would {undamentallp alter or subvert purposes o£ mning oxdinance auzounLed to discrimination, and th�s, violated individusla' rights under both ADA and Reha.bilitalioa Act. Civit Rights Act o£ 19fi8, as amended. $ 504� 29 IJ.S.C.A. § 794; Amezicans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 4� 241• 204 42 u.s.c.�. g4 I2131 •I2134. �43b Lynne J. Zygawnt� I?issbilities Rights Center, Inc., Coaeozd, NH, for Flaintiffs. Themsa L Amoid, III, Gity of MancbESter SoIicitor's O&'ice, Manchester, biH, Keria hI. .9t, pnge, Lindabuay, McCormick & Estnbsook PC, Wesf,field, NJ, faz Def'eadant. ORDER ON SUMM.4RY ]UDGMENI'AND p&RhfAN.ENT IlVJUIVCTlON 1VTcAULIFE'E, Districb Judbre. �aznti$g �y1viH Z10VStA 94d �]L'Y d8lig�lt2.2', �arleea Durost, bring this action for i�junetive and declsratory relief againsf Aefendant City of Manchester, New Hampsilire. Plaintaffs filed theis complaint sftes the cit9 refured to giant them permission Lo biuId a paved p��ng space in the front of their home. Both piaintiffs suffer from muscu]sr �sfaophy and claim that the city's refi�sal violated tlxeir rights under 1�tle II of the Ameriaans with Diaabilities Act ("?,T?A"), 42 U.S.C.A. §$ 12131-12134 (West 1995); Section 504 of the Rehahilital:ion Act, 29 U.S.C.A $ 794 (Weat Supp.199�; aud the Fair FIousing Amendments Act of 1988 ("FHAA"1, 42 U.S.C.A. § 36Q4(fXWest 1994). Before tl� court are croas motions far Copr. ° West 2001 No Cla;m to Orig. U.6. Govl. Works oa- i �o : r,Otv: ? EONA3D S 1 REFT AND DE j NA�tD 992 F.Supp. 493 � fCitE as 9S2 F.SIIPP. 493, =495) �� =ud�nenL For tl�e reasons aet out belaw, defenda�'s motian is denied and plaintiffa' motion is gtauted. FACTS � � Mts. 74nvato walks with difficulty but caa get alang fnr sbort dibrtances u�tinS a walker. She 5p�vetiu�Eg 1'equjr6s S WhePlehair. Sharleen wears a braca, bsa di$'ieultiy walking, and relias on h� stepfather for help tn go frrom the slreat up the walk and into the hause. Mrs. Tz�ovata cam Sti71 drive a car. Berauae her gait is setiously impaired b9 the disease, Mrs. Tmvato tends to wallc ves9 cautionBly and wit�wut raising her feet too far off 4he gsuund- zeminiecent of s slow shuffle. She walks at her peril over SulfaCes t1]at are noL �ooth, aot cleared, or thst are incline� She also ca�uw� waik very far aad has diScultiss ciimbing stairs that are not built with a low riae. The defendant City of 1�TvnnSiactpr does not diaputE tbst botJl women xuffer fivm musculaz clygtcophy, por can it reasonably dispute that both walk tentatively and with eatreme difFiculty. �9111t1$8 WBILE tA j3UC 8 PP.1&f1vP1y Bl'lO16 p8o2d P�'�B gP8� ia fxaat of their hnuse, aeaz the &ont steps, in order to facilitats their ability t0 18A98 SY7d BIIt2I theCiY hOUF38 Blld gCt into �0ir c8s. �By p['2f2! t0 U9E �18 f10IIt entraar.e of t�.ir home becauee the steps Iesd'u� Lo the bsck door are Rign;fi�9•+xty mare �tteep. For scrme time the 1Yovatos fiave been pullfng their car up o�a the fioat lawn to park but with wiakes weather (and rain and New Hampahira's mud sessoxil the grouffii becomes nitted, iced, snow Covazed, sud impassable for plaintiffs. Towazd that end, Mr. 'tYrovato applied for a building Peratit to construct the paved space. The pezaiit wss denied becavae ihe zonin�a prAinnnro�s 6Et�1dCkl2Qt1�2ER1EII�,S CAtlld ASIt. t12 met. Mr. 1Yovato was directed by the Bzrilding Commissionncr to the Zoning Board af �ius�ent f"ZBA"? where he p�usued sn appeai. The 2BA gsve notice of a public hem�ing oa 1VIr. '14�ova4o's aPpesl, simply (MGN;1l. 2c' UI 15:5U/ST. 16:47/N0. �260�'.33831 ?? Page 3 noting s496 tbat tbe egpeBF related to the following maLLer: "T`O: �xte a paved parlang spsce in elxeet yaxd, where mt allowed, as per plan submitted 6/5/96, at 36 Rand St" The ZBA alsa notified all abutters of the hearing, �ne of whom actually ggpeared to oppose, or ath21'Wise ogposed the reqnest. Reoiew of the transcript of the ZBA hearing Slsa bY defendant reveals that the ZSA members conatrusd the appeal ae a request far a zoning vaz'ian�, which tbe ZBA denied. The ZBA also seems W have cons;dered in passing Yhe possibility of �axsting s special eaception, which m.iHht have permitted a "eircular �'+veway," but abandoFed the idea either betause the matter before the ZBA was co n�;�Pm� to be a varisace aPPlieaEinn or becsuse the lot size and builcling location did zwt qualifY, or twth. 1`he $pand eapzESSed genuine sympsthy for the Plairniffs' situation, 6ut feh legally Constraiaed to de�P tke appeal. Understaud�bly disnppoinEed, Mr. '15rovato eought and obtained legal help from the Disabilities Rights Center. Inc. On Juiy 27 199b Lynne Zpgmont Esq., wrote to the ZBA on behalf af the 1�ovatos to request tz rehearing far the P�se of presenting evidence and arg�msent rclatad to plaintzffs' erititl8meat undBt fedeZ81 i8W tA S T8880na1718 BCCOxnmodstion uader the mmng oid'uuusce sugicienb to pezmit tham 4o pave the pa�lcin8 8725 SlC][t t0 �}1837 f2'OIlt St2pS. �BIId3ri'� Clty considered the request on Atiigust 16, 1995, and a review ot'the txanr.cript of thst meeting, filed by defendant, shows thaL the ZBA denied the reqnest without ax�y wnsideratian of the ciLy's zespon�bility under agplicablc federal law to ; � disabled persons are not subjected to discriatination. The ZBA did not con6ider the need for a hearing in order ta, nor did the ZBA on its own, Isalance the interests of end beaefits to these disabled individusls &gainst the interest of and burden to the municipalit9 in malan6 accommodations uvder the zoning ordinaace based on the facts of this particular case. Rather, the ZSA r�ems to have denied the request for rehearing b2C87]68 it 2rronCOUSly ConGluded that state 1Sm applie&b1E to v8ri�nc�+ precluded its graniing any form of relief: One Board Copr. ° West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Gavt. Works .► _ _ � �30;�F _.BC^iA�D STREEi A�D D� iNAAD i . • Sg2 R.S��}.sp. d93 (Cite as: 992 F�.Supp- 493, s496 3 . ... - � : - .:. - .� . :.. , . ... , _ ..._ - � • � . 4' � 11 � � �.� � � - • � J ' _ : � • : • � - _. •r:+a : .- - ♦ �s•' n �' �: -_ n � •c - .� - J• ' �• - �� J :. . � - •.- _ - -• "' '• " DLSCUSSIOPT L Standard of Review �TY 7�'� is proper "if tl�e Pleadings, depositions, anxwexs to intarrogatories, and admissfons on ffie, together with the affdavits, if any, ehow that tbese is no geaufne iseus ss tA ar�y material fect and that the movix�g party is entitled to judgment as a matter of Iaw." Fed.R.Civ.P. b6(c). A material fact "is one "that miglrt affecE 4hc outcome 6f the suit undet' th8 goveraing ]aw.' " United Skues v. One Parce1 of Rrat Property witil 81dgs.> 960 F.2d 200, 204 (ist Cir.1892) �4nfft+n8 Andason v. IlbcrlY Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1386)). The moving party bss the bui"den of demonstratiag the abaence of a genuine iasue of matstial fact for trial. Andersae, 477 U.S. ai 266. The party oppos�ng the motion muat set forth speciSc faets showin6 that theze remains a genuine issue fOT �'C18Y. dCIIlOI1S1�Y8,�Ilg ° 60II'1� fACtu91 disa�ceement eu'ffici�nt to deflecE brevis disppeitipb" Mesnick v. General' EltCt7ic Co.. 960 F.2d SI6, 822 (lst Cir.1991), cerr. denied, 504 U.S. 985, 112 S.Ct_ 2965, 119 L.Ed.2d 586 (1992). `lhat burdsn is dfec2�siged onl� if the e3ted disBgTeemeat zelates to a genuine issue nf materisl faet. iYynrse v. Tufu Universiry schoo! of Medicine, 976 F.2d 791, 494 (lst Oir.1992), Cert. denied, 507 II.S. 1030, 113 S.Ct. 1845, 123 L.Ed2d 470 (1993?. . u. The Fsaa cigim ue:e. - .• u � .- Y 31 � �O• ¢N - • : � � _ .� � • (MOV) 11. 25' U1 1b:50/S?. ?5:^7/N0. 4260"33837 P 8 Page 4 spaces in certain re�dential areas be not le�s thsti foui' feet frvm the pYinciFal buildin�• Manchest�' Zoning Ordinance '497 § 7.a3(sXal(u). Pisinti$s contena tbat by dgnyjng ttlEir zequest for pernxiasioa to bsvld su aceess;bie pari�ng epace in the front of },�yyu hO)IIIc� �18 C1L3' �lRCC�minaLaci 8g8]]]SC C }hem on the 7sasis of Yheir disability. [2] The Fair Houeing Amendments Act of 1988 IDake6 it unl&wful tA dic�r�?�^ina� gg�i2Lq� ° SI�p PEi'50it ZIl L}12 �1'II76� COY7�1t101}S, or �'ivilegea of sale ax rental of a dwelling, or in the provision 6f &21'V10E6 or facilities in connection with such dwellin�" on ihe ba� of tbat petson's bsadicap• 42 U.S.C.A $ 3$04(tX2). ��on is defined to iaclude refusin8 ta *+�akE reasonable accommodations in "rules. Policies, Practiees. or service8" when necessar9 to afford a person with a handicaP "e4t�a1 opportunit9 to use and e.njoy a dwelting". 42 U.S.C.A $ 3604(fl(3XB). A FF�IA c1&� prgmised on a Lheory oF Failure bo ms1cE reaeo,u,ble secomrrwdation does not require a showing of discriminatorY intent. See, e.g. Smish & Lee Assocs. v. Ciry oJTaylor, 102 F.3d 781, 794•96 tBth Cir.1996). I31 The cowt finds, as the pazties agi�ee, t.�at plaiatiffa ars indeed °handicaPP�" within the me_*} *� of the FF3AA, 42 U.S.C.A $ 3602(�il. aad that plaintiffa' musculat dYs�P�'Y ubs4a••s:otto limits their abi3ity to w8llc. Although, literall9. Plaintiffs wese :mt discriininated aga'tnst regaxdixtg the sale or rentat nf l�usng, Par�x�g ie dearly a"service or faci]aty in connection with" their P='oP�Y affecting theiz use and ex�joyme� thereof aad ya covered by }.he Acl. See, e.g. Shapiro v. Cadman Towers, Inc., 51 F.3d 328, 333-335 (2nd Cir.199�. Q�'i�T'Nl] �'1N1. ffi additio0. the FHAA a7so maYes it unlawful t0 btheiwiSe mafce available or deay" a dweIling w any buyu or renter becauce of handicaP. 42 U.S.C.A. ¢ 360d(fl(i). This phrase "encomPasses x wide arrcy of housin8 P�actices" and'°d�ates ti�ac the FfIAA proscn�Ees acts by persoac 'who ate *P;tt,r. sel3ezs noc lessots of pmpenY•� Casa Marie. Inc. V. Superior Court of Pucno Rico. 988 F.?.d 252, 257 p. 6 (lst Cir1993). co�. � w�t 2ooi xo ci� m orig. u.s. ca•rcc. w�� -lao FRO:`�` ��ONA�D S1R3c1 AND r� ,, - JLl��HJ • • • � F.s�. a9:� (CiYe as: 992 F:Snpp. 493, •48� I41 Under t�e FHAA, an sccommodation is "necessary" to aff'aa�d 'eqval oPPa�t9" when plain{iffs have slwwn t�at but for the srmmIDUdsbD� t278Y "Will be deniad 8A 9qu81 opportnniLy tn e�joy the hou�ng of their choice." Synith � Lee ,ds.socs., 182 F.3d at 796. $ere, plaintiffs bave demonsfrsted tbat, given +�+P;� disabiiities, thay would derive great benefit from a gar�ng a-p:u;e in their froat yard and the lack thereof has adveisely affected their "use or enjayment" of theu hnme. See, e.g. Shapim, 51 F.3d at 3S5 (seco�iang tbat availabilitp of conveni.evY P�'�8 � affected disabled cooperative agartmeat ownaYs "use and e�joymeut" of dwelling within the mesx�ing of the FHAt�. [5](6) Giveu that tI�e plaintiffs a�re entitled to an accammodafion by the cit9, t}�e IIe%t guestioa is wheUier the citp fulfilled its dutY t4 provide sa acCpmmodation thaL was reasanable. Aa accnmmodation is reasonable IInless it T2qUires "8 fi�'1 w AIt2z'ation in the natare of a prograw. or imposes vndue fissacial and adminie�ative burdens [on the defexu3antl" �th &�e Assocs.. 102 F.3d at T96 (quotations omitte�. The F'FTAA's goal of ssaisting persona with disa�iliLies should be weighed against the costs or burdena of compliance imposed on the local gover7ling �dY• [71C8][91 The rassonable accomazalai3on req of Lhe F'HAA clearly can apply to raning mdinttnces. Ser Casa lfarie, Inc, v. Suptriar Courf nf Puer10 Riro, 988 F.2d Zb2, 257 a 6(let Cir_1993). "Courts inter�seting the reasonable accommodation provision of the IFHAAJ bave ruied t1�at muxncipatities ... must change, waive, cr make escept:ions in their wning rules to afford people with disahilities th,e sawe oppartuaitq Lo 2w"� as thasa who are without dieabilities." . Hm�sanr, Inc. v. Townriup o,f Brick, 89 F.3d 1096, 1103 t�a cu.isssxq,�no� o��c�c�ml�s that towsLShip grent variance in oider to sccommodate needs nf elder�v disabled whn haped to live in nursing home in residential aone}. See alrn SmiUt .k Lee Assocs., 1�2 F.3d at 79S �oldin8 under similau' facts that city 2tad to accommodats disabled residex�ts, deagit�e restrictions impoaed by �oeutra! mnusg wde� (MON)11.2o'r�1 ?6:5?/ST.16:a7/�;0.^25rS33337 < 9 Page 5 b4oyer v. Lowe� Osfard Township, 19J3 WL 5489, at'"2 �.D.Pa January 6, 1993}. �'!32I FN2. 7'�e muxc disagrees with defeadant th�t § 3603(D) of the FFLAA, whicL exemps singie family homes. applies w die iasiant siau[ioa. Csivcn tLe broad remedial objcctives of thc F-HAA, samrory exemptons should be construed nan'owly. See Ciry. pf Fdmonds v, Qiford H[�urt. Int.. 514 U.S. 725. L15 S.Ci. I776, F31 L.Ed.?d 2i01 (1945); Ho,qar Agua y Yrda en el Desieno, Inc. v. Suaret-Medina, 36 A3d 177, I81 (Ist Cir-1994). T6e c7ause quite ctearly was iatended [o pro�ct owffirs of siagle fam�y homes ftom bei¢g 5ubject ro the cequiremencs of the FFL4A, aad ao4 as defeada� argues, m p[otxt bcal governmentc whose ordia�aces aze applied ia a manner that discr�inates against perso� w;rh aisat�7ihes. • 4yg 1`he plaintiffs here made a reasonable requeat. 1`hey simP�' wanted permission to build a small parldng space near their firont entcavte. They also gave the city smple OppOZCIIY11tjT fA ACCOII3IIlOdRLC U72II3 befbIE see7ang SOIief in a judiciEl foriun� cf. Osford House v. Ciry oJ Universiry Ciry, 87 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (8th C�r.1996Xcautioniesg tl�at plainLiffe mvst gioe a local governing body tha chance to aecommodate them b9 adjusting the zoning code before challenging a voaing deciffion in caurtl. In contrast, the city has responded unressoasl�ly, stbeit without malice or bad faitti It }zas no� ahown that the requestsd par�ng spaee would have disrupted tha clfsrecter of plaintiffs' neighboihood (certainly � neighlwrs objected) or that the citp would have a�ffered aay finaaczal ez a�her adalinixtcative btuden if plaintiffs were acwmmodated Nor has the «ty suggested any reasoyahie altarnative accommDdation (pininLiff'a would glad�' have accePted ZBA membeT McQuaid'8 reasonable suggestion relai:ive to an "as needed" permit)• The city's attorney argued t�at ths eity gave the plairniffs valia options short of a variance, such as suggesting tt�at the pisintiffs park their car in their eide or rear yard and then install either a ramp or ekevator (at wmpardtively great expense). Defendant concedes, however, that a front-9� P�� space would shorken the distanee tbe plttintifr's co�. � w�� 2ooi xa ci� � orig. u.s. coac. wo�xs FnOPf i FONA3� STAE',;i AND D� iVAi�D �J � J . 992 F.Sapp. 493 (Clte as: 892 F.S�pg. 493, •498) would 2iave to wal&. A fxont-yard Parldn8 spsce also undaubted�y wonid he Yhe moat e�mple and least espenffive ogtiou for the plaintiffs. Accordingly, it is plain th2t, as a matt� of law, the city failed to reasonably aabmmodate the p7sintiffi as requu�ed hy t�e F'HAA. Cf. Jankawski Lee & Assors. v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891, 891•96 (7th Cir.199&Xaffizating HLTD's det�s'alination that under FHAA private aparEment comples had to rassonabLy accaaunodate disabled tenant b9 Pm�� P�'k�ag sPace as cioae as poasible to main huilditsg)- �`N37 FN3. Comts are dividW abonc wberLet We plam6ff or me eeteadaa[ beus tLe burden oa the ressouatrie acco�odadnn isana. Compase Hovsons. Inc.. 89 F.3d az 1103 (koiding that under FHAA detendant musc prove ma[ rhe plainriffs pmposed aCCO�rion is uiueasonablc) witlt Elderi�avcn, Inc. v. LFry of Zubbot:�c, 98 F.3d 115, 178 (Sth Ca.199Q(plsiwiff beazs biudea of proof wider FFlAA aad 3tehabaitadon Act). Even ass�ing that p� bear the burden of shawmg tha[ defendanc has not pmvide8 a rea¢onatile accommodatioa, thc plainuffs have satisEed tbeir obligation. III. The ADA, and Rehabilitation Ae! Claims t10] 'rbe analYxis under the ADA and the 2iehabilitation Aet is vezy �milar to tbat under the FFIA/i 'I1tla II af the ADA gPphibits a pUZJIzC enlif:y fT�IIl diurrim;na inc againat an individual on the basis of disability or from axelndinS sacti aa individual from public services, paagrams, or activities. 42 U.S.C.A $ 12132. [FN4J SecEioa b04 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits the same type of �;d.• : by a recfpient of fedsral filnds. 29 U.S.C.A. 4 794. The 3efendant city is both a publie entity and a zecipie� of federal fvnds ead is tberefoze regtalated by both.statutes. In addition, the parties agree that plaintiffs are "disabled" and "handicapped" as the terms are de5a9d in tlie ADA, 42 U.S.C. � I2102, and in the Rehabilitatian Act, 29 U.S.C.A $ 786a, respei.�tively. FN4. Titis pmvisi0n SpeciGcally provides: Subject w the pmvisioas of dvs subcLapter, uo qualificd individual with a disability shall, by reason oa-►� (MCNi1?. 25' U1 16:5i/S�. ib:^:=l/iv�. �26!�^3�3:1 :' iC� Page 6 of sucL diaa6�1@y, be �uluded &om pazucipatioa in or be demed tLe benefas of sIle services, programs, or srrirrties of a public entiry. or be subject�d w discrimivarioa by any snc6 enaty. 42 U.S.C. § 12I32. [I1II1 'S`he plaintiffs maintain t�at zoning 1lA�lT as an "acfavity" of a public enti.ty wi{hi.n the mEan+no of the ADA and that thQy were denied the benefits of this activity when the citp failed to sccommodste their request foI a Yar:.ance. Althou6h "activify" is not •499 e�plicitly defined in Title II of the ADA, it has been held to include aoninE deci�ons by a ciLy "beesuae malang such deciraons is a nozmal funehon of a governmental entitq." See Inrtotnlive Kea11h S)'s. v. City of White Plairzt, i17 F_3d 3?, 44 (2nd C9z.199'n. But ree RobIttsan v. Ciry of FriauLrwood, 890 F.Supp. 616, 620 (S.A.Tec199�. Tlte conclusion tUat 'l�tle II of the ADA applies to ru n?n deciaions ie also eapport.ed by the impleme�3ng regulations issued by the Deparp�ueaE of Tvstice and its Technical Aesistance Manu81. Under the regulationa, a eity must reasonably modii9 its policies when "r��ary tA avoid discrimination an the haffis of disability," unless it caa show that the modit'ications ^ wauld fundamaatal�y alber !hs nB�uYE Of the 8E79iCE �IY7�'8II1 6T BCtiViLj�." Z8 CF.R § 35.130(bX7X199�. 7`he Justice DePmr�ment Prorades an examP2e that hears remsrkable similarity to the situation presented in ttus ease: II.LUS"t'Ett,TION 1: A municipal zoni�a o:dinance mquirea a set•back of 12 feet from the c�b in the een1sa16usiness dis In arder to instsIl a ramp to the fro� e�tranae of a pharmacy, the owner must encroech on the set-back by three fest. Gzanting a variance in the waing requs.rement xnay bc a reasonahle modification of town policy. 't`he AuyezioAVS with Disabilitiee Act: 2�tla II Technical Assistance Manual � II-3.6100. AgR_,n for the reasons given above under the FgAA seMion, defendant not aniy failed to reasonably xccommodate plaintiffs' disability, but it has also failed to show how granting plainti.ffs an eaception would fundamentally coPr. � w�c zooi xo ci� s� orig. v.s. ��, worx� FF,Ohf I.EONASD ST?EE! AND DEiNAP,� 992 F.Sugp. 493 � CGYte es: 992 R.SnPP.'E83, �489) alter nr subvext the ptu'poses of its mnix� Mslinanro, �gj1y{y�g $[� }�EYB{OIC 8II�7.t�'FA �mary judgineat on their claims under the ADA affii Rehahilifiatian Act. u The courL has y r -y eviewed y � d _ e � fen L d � ant t ' - s ] AiTi�TO �}T]t$� ULLy � y{ypya W W UAj�IgpB$1,VC. �'iOIItYffi'y �A dE{8A�9�'S �gument, the ADA and Eiehabilitatian Act claims sre not govezs�ed by 8 80-day limitations peziod, but by the three 9ear IimitaLions period set forth iu New gampaisire°s pezsonal i�yjury statuts. See Doukas v. Maropolitan Life bu. Co.. 882 F.Supp. 119't, 1199-1201 CD.N.H.188�. � ��n, given that both glaintiffs wera uliured b9 the citq's conduct and their iajurp is sedressable by the ix�uncti0n they aeek, they bot3i have standing. See Yaitey Forge G7:ristiars Coilege v. Amenca�s Unired for Separation of Church de State. 464 ZT.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L_Ed2d 700 (19827; Innovative Health Sys., 117 F.3d at 47(bolding that standing Pa'ovisions of Rehabilitation Act aad 'i�tie II of the ADA eatend as bscadly as pesmitted by Art. III of the Constittztiox�. CONCLFSION � For the foregofng reasons, the court denies defendBnY's motion for summary judgmeat and grants glsintitE's' motion for summery jnd�BIIL The d0fendani 3s eu3oine.d. &om e.nfo�iag ita zo ni�a code in S mannPr f�hflt in an,y waq restricta or ampedes the Plaiatiffs Sbfifty t0 P$VB 8IId mxinhQin 8 p�r]nng BpacB isa thQir firont yard. Thi6 iA1��0A Sh811 termiaste if end when the plaintiffe move &nm thaiz gresent re�denae. SO ORDEB,ED. END OF DOCUMENT oa- iaa (MCN)11.-26' O1 ? 6: �2/ST. 16:47/N0. 4260�33837 F! 1 Page 7 Capc. o West 2001 No Claim tq Oxig. U.S. Govt. Woz'ke � � '� � t � c� -.. �x - t. ' s:- i.� � � ^S.. ~ i1' . _ J� c S' �� - , s -'v� '. a s _ i_, i � � _ `;.� 3 _ �< i { _ i ', �.. .... _. . . . _. . :si ¢ ' w ' � __ � �' � ' � 3 _ c � � � 4 � ;t � .i.: S' ' F.: � ._ p,��. � _ }:. t -'i _ �� _ ` "5 i ' � , � Y ,"i :�.'�. � }`. :• S c.i i; . � _ � . ' ! y. -� t .� £ t ' � ��' �,' r';�. }� s Y vi �K` 4 � � I ' vY F �. .: . � . : � _ • • : X: a°�"o+ev�/1w'-'C'; s ` _ _ >' - 7- i �I � �� _ _ -+?, ,; " s- - � �! Y � <•:a . _ - n.��: . - `s s<+! `. ' ' f. � '-? a � � : �r_ � � �.�':ti �' tr _ ;; 4 3, � h� � Y � ., } ". }Gf: - 'Y� � � �J':a ' . '.f Y �� c .v. m ., • _. . .3 '�' 3 � �"1 � }� � � �' , _ 4 � �' � :� i � � . 3 . .� `. �� . i � .i � �; �,� ya�,: -�f` . ? »� � w��s ��, a� '} $"2 �5 k � 4 : ++`. �l .,� rr 4 z �" ' ^9 � 5 z�� .. fi `ti- �.� �7t.. g�s i�:�, :;� - } F � : i<- " '�~ � i � e �.s-,.�" � ,�.�-._ - . � ._..._ . . 3 a6;:: ` - s�,. i ; ~ r . _ ,:E �T7 - !.� . f �' � ' _ '��'` �, 'Y f' �t \,. .. y r` y1 � �.. S � . y s : �� F � i �� ! � �Gih S . ,� �Y �.:��: r ° ?34 3 � .`. � i b' .. , �� 3 �. . .�;.". v ':_'., j` .-' �1 � � � � . � . . " + F �s � � ,. � � . � ,. �= <r .> _ �.- ..�. _ � �� .� _ �� i � � Y 2 � �� : f' . . . . - . .. g�� . . . . . - r'��._ ( . .. � . _ .. . . .. � � � .. . . .t��. �.'� 1 � . , . - �.. � - . . � u� x �€ ,� ;. � . . � . > � ��_ i '�` ��3� _ �.,71 iF��': �� _... t � f � . � � � a s "" _ � � - - ;;� -. � ' T-°�? � y / � � ° �Cp� . y i�a ., � � i'. . . � ¢.�..�_ .. � . . � . . � . . s v W r � y_ i�� _ .. .. �y . . . . . ... _ . . . . " . . - ... . � . �.� ��_+�q � ..��__.. . . . - - . .a'� - �� -~� � t E � ' . � � _ . � ` �3. �.� _ .. �.� � f ' J ti ; . 3 . - � l�— b . F." .£ �+.f . . . .. . .�� . '2.Y ;� ar� . � .. ,. . . F - t 'ss 3 � , � �� .• �u.�Fr_t .. . . . . � -S��i? 3i :.r.S �µ- �� : � . _��.i 9 - . ?p : - p a� � � � � t r - r "� r � t - . + . . '_ ��'j S � � f F i� .s G 5„cy, .d � i 1 . : . �%K� Y'iTI i�'�Ry.Ti�� /.zl � . . . ' t . iY4 N } �� v .a�� . _ t � i . . � � ! ai..�: . .. dr s Y � ; � — � � . �� N : . . _ . .:��`' _. �.�. . .. - � , � ^'O � = S 1 : . . ' � � � � Y . � �.� �7�� ' � - , - � . -:�� -� " � �. .. .. . . .,... . _ : � . . .. ._ . . � �---�� ..... , : . . ,., .. � . .. .. _ .. . _ ... � � -. ' �:r -� � . .. . . � � �t !A "�-.�.� _.. . .. ... . . - . . . .. . - _ _ "�� ' � � . �� .�` ' . - . . . � .. � .. t a �S�Y , . ' . - . r. - .�- . . � � . .. - � � . �. _ . . � . � 2' • . .. � � . . . '�6�'i�' � � � . .. . � ^ i.• .F. . � . . . . .. -, }.' . t �. . .. .. . . _..�.� -.. e .��. .. ,.....� .. . . .. . . ' .. .. . 1 r.� �. - I � .= . . . . . � ��. . . . ' . . ._.-.. .. . � .. � � , . . . �� : +� _ , r.ae ��tp - g . . . . � . . � . ____ _� . t . . . � . 4 � � :f. �'aF � � : . . . .. .. . : _. _ r-� . . � ' Hc.�.. � .. . N � � . .. . , . . . ° ,� .�- � . � . . . .� . . . . � j � S '..+ . � . ,. . . ..: .. . *`��.: . . . , . . v 3 . - . . - �. .. � .. . . �..1 � _.. . . �� - . .. Y _ .. . . . i� �. _ . �+�° . - y � y , � _ l �� .6� ..'�y � . S: . �+?�i�°' '�'' 8` _.;_z ; �'s �f"++� � � # � .. >� . ��i. t� r� 3' ;, � � 8 v - � .,� �ws yy � y �$ � � � .qf/ y �� `%� � � " . �' �.� .�.s� '�+;�� - � �ff - � �--- � ?'r � �3 '?; ��s - i'i��4t ' �� - ' c �- \ �►,; �, . �� ,. }. , r ; �±a,��?a ��i � .�".a - �_ _a _ i�r+� €g'�.-arc�,�' - - . . :. . . .. . . . . . •..a+. @i .�n. _.,�..-'" ._ . _ . . � e.r .. ss- '� �wf . . �� :2,, � < . - "��,e�� ' - c<s d' ��°�7/ �� , � x`�„ � • � ,�'��.£ A � J �� ^ _ . � ' . �is � � � _ , � J ' i � � _ ..� .. . " . . . '� . _ . 1 } - �.�� y �. . . � . . . �'.�� .. . .. . a� �..E?� . ,. � . . — ;•�*�r?� � . — - � � ,. . . s �;�,� �,�qJ � � �;��!_ -� •.= �. �� • �� ` ti '� �•; � � - �- � �; `.: : n . � � � 1 5�� . . . _ . . . . 4 ' ��. - � y ' ' - � . . . ..,.�. _ ti� . . � . � � �' R ' . . . . . , - 3 � u,� e � _ . L � . . ' . � � ..� , � - ry . 1► ` � �� : � � �< � ; _.�� - - � + • i--. — � '� / / � n t �, 1b, � . � .. 1 � . . �E _ tw� �"�. `� ; �'�� , � - - I '�,��.•�- , � �.� . � -- �—a� :: � : 3 -, ' ` �. :: , ,�,. � �� .� � K � �� _ � �� a � • `'-�;�+° � � � ,' � � � �� r = `.w'¢.' � -' � s „ �+'��l��+; �'-_ A��',�"��,��, �` 4 ? . �� . . . ' . �� " ° � �'- � ;� �7 3 ' � � c._� � t 5 ' �., . . . . _ � '' s� �� ° �$ fi . . � ,. _ . � �. �.: �� c, �� a � � _ .__ � � . ,r �. .��, . � °��ta� ... � � _ � � . . � \ }� � t� i� � l� _ ' 9 ��. } .•. � � i f . 1 � ; � `.�. �L �i % J .M1, . . .. .. S . { 1 � � � 1 �. � � f.R4 3 ' ' . -' ^ �=. � �9 i . " . . F � . Z� .. . � - � '�4. , ~ �� J � . e�� t.s .. . � • . ` .r� -� � . _ � �� . . `'i�`YS"�"r �: � � - � . , r ._.�F` �: � �� '� _ � : � � :� ::' �'' . � . : . _: � .. •. _. a ��' "` _ .`: _ . ..- . _ , _ baaay� :,- . v .�- �. , _ _ � x. : x: > iC _ a'Y � _. . - ./ =� y �:._' � . _ � , � ._ .9W.>�3��?�� - . . .. : 3 � _��$��R. \"'��r � . l. M . �- . � � �� yc d ,. � 1;s' Vs�CA� �� 1.�: ; . . ; � µ��$�( . `�� ' ' _ 'F -. �e35�'��¢�� 4 s7�- � ` • M. � $ � w �qs Lf \ y f � „' s �� v- i a � _ _ � . . � '�.. -;, � �° ' v4 �� y ��'� 9 " : . '" � . . � :_ �> a 4 a� �d : .� L � � '-' s{ : _ efi ,' j ' - ,"-`�€ ,. , � _ 3� .s 1 t°(D.�� "' . - f � �; `� `;'� �; %`' t� > �1 ssti- . a �+ ° �s d `` � � a•v � ' ` g`a� t m � ��'a r � t .__�," �.'��' {� � � � . � � �� : '�aU .. � i � �sy - � �-?�� S �',E'� '�„ � e ��". �. . � �� €�� - � . �s�r� . t � Se �� s � �� GAs2„� .�. . ' . ` .s? > .9�� ...�,�f'��' ,� � -. ' �..� � �� :�� 3 �� , «; �`��-�� ,.` �-.`_ �,�.� � �:<< � �� a��'�.�►�- �,�' ;� �� `��' �, �,�. '�' qf i ^ i ��' '��`' s"� � . �'3� ��,�"°l�,y '� ? � c a �`� � �" . . .,,� �- s; � �° r�.<�r" �� q � a � y � �� ;��e � �� r. � � � � . \'j.4 .�tl€''" Y} �K . A`� �. I (P't'�e 1 �� bw+.z� p V� "�� c�a. r n.E�'� . ' � • � .��+�,'�� . �w`'�s3' ' ' a " x ' , ' - ' ,� . . ` .:. : , 3 d s �. :` : ._ a' . ��'- > �._ a' . �' � 4YS �,'.:. � ..�_ry ' ; `_ ` .. LL ., �. �''a � .:i = y � , ° _ .s- � 4-� _ ,��a ,R .s� � ° . •,> ''�> " , .. . " 3 � : �` t� t �.. ; � .. �, . � y t . ' � S. uz. �.. .,�, < 5, , E> x . a��,.f'�� . - s� � _ T _..� ., s .�,. � � - . . _ -- s � ��:z qa '� _ . ( c � . [ _ , �.. . " .. . . . ... . ... - . .. . . : _ . .. - 2 : � . � . . ::� :.- � .._.} . .. . .. , . . - ... � . ' . . . .. � � _.. , .: .. ..:: . . :. , - .� . � - . � � 3:�> .. � . . -� .C... . � ._ '. ' . . . - ' � _ ' f . . . . . . ' .. .. .. . . i � ... _ - - . " � . t ., . _ i : _ - , z ..� , �� ,. . . . . . .. , , �. . - . . . � � . ' . " . _ . < , 3 � �,�a� `- . � J �' s-, . f: . -x i�8 "�, � ; �.._',y � } .. _ - , ... � . c.. y �� >� e - _ .. . �.. ... _. , -... , ' ' 4urt . - . . . . � . _ .- ` �.-:= . ,� :..: ..—�..: -. .� . _ ,. . . `.` �. _. � � ' _' , n . - .. � . , . �� . - � .. . .r� - .. . - : '� : 3: ; ? . _ . - .. . . .. - z l �'� . . . . [ . _ � - �� ' ' � s � � ':- �� ' 4 _ -- � �� rt ' . . �' � + .. l '€ -ny ".. � �-. � �'3 1 r .: f � . -S� .� � � : ' Y a+" ��i� n £ C . ' 4(��i�� ..`� � , � 4 � � - �� 1 _ f . � s � �'j"',�v._. .. ._ _" . ��i.�'F � 4" , ' ^^! S 13 '. a% � - j . � 0 ° i@ �� '`� Y � a ;. - � t T$�93v�cal�`,g - o � � . . �� . 't � �' � � a a `�"e•}�P��'�."�'s"�"�.. . . s�'; Ly`aa� n� 2 4��.� � �� ' �A l' ��.��y� � � . T .,L�'�3 ° 3 'CL� .r��` � � .. � � J �2-_Rl�'.°IA4K�:�� . .. . . , i w.: � �� . � � . - . . �P'f .�� . � �� .� a ^ ml �� ` y�:4� �,- . � � . �� > �`,� �` ; .s4��a��'��' .. .. ¢�`?<.S 4V �� R � J �� ". ' __ . � ��t� -c 2 �� .i��X� . . .. _ ` �S�`�#�\4a?'S,�+� �� ;� �.. � � � � . :.. V,Y��' '. . . � }: _:� 1 s_ :c 7 • ' € ��i�a`��.a.. . .z. .._ _. �. :,.' . =-�� , �9.�� 5 � � , � _ ... 4 . . . h . , 1 ♦ �i�I �J'�� 1 . . .. �. . - �e ' �n�'J. i � �' f , { ,y� s �: � `� ' �' =� ��;. .� m��s,l�; ,7� . � _ y i � . ��1. . }. . .. #. �,. � . Y Ldb�/��t �' : �1 .. . . b . � § yy �`� y !i�" 'S �-A a`>Y j 'i �� '. s — y g '�i ,. L , � �� W . � �3 �'� � ��1 i i � r? �. �. : y ��. " wf ��i sA + y 3 =� ' iii�;,' z��-':`; � "� � � ,{ .y ,---. d . v i R� � . : � �s�.�? 4vcm3 �3dii .�: ri k ��`-,, 'C.. �< � a ,.�,- F �,., ;� 3 3 �' a � ? � �-.�l i c ' �" y ,� a�� s � `' � saAr w �� .3 � �y� . � �. � �J� �€{,�� ` '�� t- �a,. - �i �-- �� i.S��Y��'>`,i ��' ,` - _ i . r� -.K'T. y c 9 �� Z �� r � � ' _ � . �" , �� 3 � � � �.� ' . +! :..� �� Y'��i'� ` � '�-� � �Yyi. � ,. 5!-# Y��l1?, f . i 3 J t ? 'i % Y �� - . ...�{ �SL� . � .. . � �' ..f R f� , � [ .�a = y ! � _ t �. (_ 1 �.�.L '. � a , — i �� ` � � e ' ' ��' _ �scr.- : �=�-t,. - �-„' 25��"i�; � i . i" -x�.t'.$e±.ix"'_`-: ... - ` „ .t ,� :.. . ... � . . ,:: l s '- 3 4 s e t t 1 ` �. — F t _`. �-- -- - - � .. r `°�,n_ � � 9 { � � '� �� J '� .J oa-� a� �GEND z�t .D • File rB02-043 CITY OF SAI\T PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COVIb1I5SI0\ STAFF REPORT • FILE lv'A �vIE: 663 Euclid Street DaTE OF APPLICATIO�i: October 31, 2001 APPLICANT: LHB En� neers & Architects D�TE OF PUBLIC HEARING/PERVIIT REVIE�V: Nocember 1�, 2001 HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Dayton's Bluff Historic District CATEGORY: new construction CLASSIFICATION: buildin� permit STAFF NVESTIGATION AND REPORT: Amy Spong DATE: November 8, 2001 A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The site proposed for development is vacant and was purchased by the Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housin� Services. This site is located at the ed�e of the bluff and is quite visiblz from I94 and Mounds Boulevard. Euclid street dead ends at this parcel. Our files do not indicate that a struchire was located at this site. B. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant is proposin� a four unit townhome structure. The proposed structure is two stories high with a gabled roof, has individual entrances to each unit and personal �ara�es attached to the structure at the rear. The unit that faces Euclid and the bluff is a one story accessible unit. 6Vood doubie-hung windows are proposed with 4° trim. Four inch lap sidin� «�as noted on the plans with comer boards, however, the material was not specified. Simple entry porches with 2t2 inch spindles and top and bottom rails are proposed. rivo conceot reviews and comments related to roof forms, needin� more the area that the proposed development is in. ;ponded_ fav�_rablv. Some general views and understandin� the context or C. GUIDELIrE CITATIOrS Darton's Bk�ffDesign Review Gzridelines Gerieral Principles: 6. Nex� construrtiort sho�dd be eompatible with the historic and architectural character of the dislricl. " Pri�:cipal Bt�ildings: 1. blassing and scale. Neti� catstrz�ctior: shoc�ld connform to the massirtg, voleir�ie, height, facade • proportions arid sca[e of surroundin� structures. The gr rolunte of any neror stn�cture shoz�ld be vis«ally� coinpatible tivith the bi�ildiftgs and elen�ents tivithi�: the sur area. Neu• dtivellittgs anct conurtercia! buildings shorrld be co»ipnrible ivirh rhe height of existing adjaceru buildings. oa- � ao Fite fB02-043 • 2. �Llaterials and Details. ��faterials and details should relate to those of e.risting nearby bz�ilcfings. GYood or masonry� constre�ctiort is rypical for e.risting residential be�ilding in the district, while masonry is typical of cortmercial building. These materials are preferable to vinyl, metal, or hardboa�d siding. Imitative materials st�ch as artificial ston2 or brick venee shoz�ld not be z�sed. !lfaterials tivill be reviewed to determine their appropric�te z�se in relation to the overall design oj the structt�re. Thz t�se of vinyl, metal. or ha�dboard siding ivill bz consider2d by the Comntission on a case-by-case basis. These mate�ials may be perritissible in netiv constraction of pr bi�ildings if appropriately detailed. B«ilcfing Elements: 1. Roofs: The gable and the hip roojare the printciry historic roof forms if: the District, with many var and combinations. In new constrztction, the skyline or roofprofile should relate to the predominant roof shape of nearby bi�ildings. Highly visible secondary strt�cture roofs shou[d nu�tch the roof pitch of the main structure. Roofing ntaterials used on new buildings should be appropriate to the design of the building and the visibility of the roof. Roof hardrvare such cis s�ylights, vents, and n�etal pipe chimneys should not be p!aced on th.e front roof plarie. 2. GViridotivs a�td Entries. Vertically-oriented, sin�le or double-hi�ng sash are the predomiriant historic tivinclotiv type in the District. The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windovcs r�ncf entries shoc�ld be compatible with that of existing nearby buildings. The rhy7hm of solids . to voids createct by openings in the facade of the new structure should be vist�ally cornpatible with surrourzcfing structures. 3. Porches and Decks. The front entry shocdd be articc�lated tivith a clesign elentent such as a porch, pot'tico, or larzding tivhich provides a transitional zone beriveen t{:e serrti public and public exterior zones and the private interior zorie. This design element should be appropriatefy detailed and compatible rovith the si_>e and scale of the bc�ilding. Decks shoirld be co�tstrz�cted at the rear ofthe buildin� and shoi�ld be integrated into the overall design. Decks should be appropriately detailed and shoi�ld not be raised iri a rrrar�ner wltich makes therrc carupicuous. � Accesso�ti� &�ildirtgs: Gar�tges and othef� c�ecesson be�ildings skould be con�patible ticid� the over design and matef of the e.ristirig bc�ildiii�s oft tlie lot. Nevv gcira,;es should be located offrear alleys i�hereie� Gara�es s)tould riot be attached to the frortt of the bcrild�rig and shozrld only� be attachecl ifrtot visiblefront t1�e pc�blic tivay. Site Co�tsiderations in 1�'eec Co��structiof�: 1. Setback attd Sitii:g. The setback of new be�ildifigs in niost residential and conrrnercial areas should be contpatible xith the setback oje.ristirtg adjacent areas. ?. Parking. Residerttial parkin� areas should be confirred to the rear of existirt� or• netic • EJIRILICi1J5. PQYlilftj spaces shoidd be screened frorrt rietic fronz the pc�blic street by� lartdscapirtg suc{: as hedges, grade chan�es, or lotir ferrces. 3. Fences. Fenres which allox� son�e visual penetratiort offront y�ard space are preferable to File rB02-043 • complete enclosz�re. Fences of wrot�ght iron or tivood which enclose the front yard should be no higher than 3-1/2 feet. Cyclone fences shozcld not be usecf to enclose front yards or the front half ofside yards. 4. Retaining tivalls. Stone, brick, and split face concrete block are preferable to landscape timber for the consrruction ofretaining rovalls. Masonry retaining tivalls shor�ld be finished tivith caps or other appropriate details. �. Pzrblic Improvements. Netiv street and landscape improvements, lighting, street fc�rnih�re, and signs shot�ld be compatible with the character of the historic district. The historic urban pattern of grid plan streets shoc�ld be retained and enhanced in improvement projects. D. FINDINGS 1. The gabled roof form and pitch relate to neazby residential sin�le family homes. 2. The entries are "articulated" with porches help to define public from semi-public spaces. 3. Garagin� may be visible from the public way, which would not conform to the guideline that states gaza�in� should only be attached if not visible from the public way. 4. The use of �vood trim, siding and windows would comply with the �uidelines �vhich state "Materials and details shoidd relate to those of e,risting nearby bt�ildings. " 5. The overall massin� is much larger than nearby sin�le family residential buildin�s with • detached �ara�es and the orientation of the building is facin� the bluff and not the street (Euclid). This development, however, is located at the ed�e of the historic district and at the end of a dcad end street. 6. The one story unit that faces Euclid street does not relate to the directional emphasis and rhythm that the other two story units do and the two and one half story historic houses. The lar�e gable end is also not of a scale that relates to existin� structures. E. STAFF RECOM�IENDATION Based on t he findings, staff recommends approval of the buildin� pe rmit provided the follotiving ) be met: 1. The horizontal massin; and directional emphasis of the one story unit should be altered to relate to the scale and rhythm of existin� buildin�s. 2. Exterior sidin� and trim must be painted wood. 3. Finai material selections will be submitted to HPC staff for review and approval. • �' . ��1 e vaa� `.xc-e(Z�f"5 - �2ow1 �"�.e. l5'( � cl e ��( 2.5 / �lw�-� ��aa � �i/To �t 5 COL'.^.Ci1 F:le # Orc'iaaZCe r Gree:� S :ee: r ORDINANCE CITY OF SA[NT FAUL, MINNESOTA ?rese^te� Ev ne:erred :o �� I � ` ~ �"�` p Cor,.nitte_: Dzte An ordinance desi�atir.g the Da;2on's Bluff Heritage Preservation District and settina forth a preservation pro� for the district The Council o: the City of Saint Pau1 dozs Ordain: Section 1 • • Pursuant to the authority contained in Chapter 73 oi the Saint Paul Le�siative Code, upon the recommendation of the Herita�e Preservation Conunission of the Ciry of Saint Paul, ar.d after havin� duly considered the matter at a public hearLzg held in accordance with Chapter 73 o: the Legsla:ive Code, the area generally bounded by Mounds Boulevard on tne south, Mapl�, Arcade and Hope Streets on the east, Bee:h Street, G:eenbrier Street, Maury• Stree[, Bates Avenue, horth Street, and Foentain Place on the north, and Ei�hth Street, Batzs Avenue, Si�h Street and Mounds Boulevard on the wesi is designated for heritaee presen�ation as the Dayton's Biuff He:itaee Prese:c�ation District. The arez is more specificaliy descrbed as follo� y Aeditor's Subdivision ho. 13: I.o:s 3-13; Audi:or's Subdivision lv'o. 14: Lots i-7; Auditor's Subdivision Iro. 19: Block 1, I.ots 1, 10-12; Auditor's Svbdivision ho. 20: I,ots 1-18; Auditor's Subdivision No. 69: Block 2, Lots 4-12, 14-18; Auditor's Subdivision No. 72: Lots 1-13, 16-18; Belmont Addition: Z.ots 1-13; R. Broanson's Subdivision: Lots 1-;; L. Daytoa's Addition: Biock 2; Biock 7; Block 8; Block 18, Lots 1-10, SEh� 50 Y. of Lots 26•28, SEly 40 fr. of the Iv'SL1y 100 8. of Lots 27 and 28; Block 19, I.ots 1-16; Block 20; BIock 24, I.ocs 4-26; Block 25; Block 26; Block 32, Lou 16-2�; Block 33; Block 34; BIock 37; Block 38; Block 46; Block 49; Block 50, I.o:s 1-6, 17-24; Block 54, I.ots 22- 24; BIock 5�; Dayton's Place A"ddition: Lots 1-13; - A. Gotzian's Sub3ivision of Block 74 of Lyr.ian Dayto;�'s Additior.: Block 74, I.ots 1-3; G:eenleaf Clark's Subdivision of Block 69 of Lyman D2;rton's Addition: Block 69, I,ots 10-16; Highland Addition: Block 1, Lots 6-22; Block 2, L.ots 8, 11-28; Block 3; Block 4; Irvine's 2nd Addition: Block 10; Block 11, Lo:s 1-12, 19; Block 12, Lots 6-13, 17; Keller's Subdivision: Block 1, Locs 3-12; Block 2, Lots 1-22; C. A. Mann's Subdivision of Block 8 of Lyman Dayton's Addi*.ion: L.ots 1-9, 13-19; oa-tao • Nell's Subdivision of BIock 2i of Lyman Da}�ton's Additior.: BIock Zl, Lots 1-21; • Registered Land Survey I`TO. 54: Tracts A and B; Ro�er's Subdivision: Lots 1-6; Rolfer's Subdivision of BIock 75 of Lynan Dayton's Additior.: Block 75, I.ots 5-10; Schurmier and Evans Addition: Block 2, Lots 6-3Q; B. Sinnen's Subdivision of BIocks 10 and 22 of Lyman Dayton's Addition: Block 10, Lou 15-23; Stinson's Rearraneement oi L, „ an Dayton's Addition Block 4�: Block 4�, Lots 1-11, 18-3�; Stinson's Subdivisioa of Block 83 of Lyman Day2on's Addicion: Biock 83, Lots 14-16; Subdivision of BIock S, Lyman D2yrtoa Addition: Lots 18-23, NEIy 10 ft. of Lot 5 and all of Lots 3 and 4; Subdivision of Block 68, Lyman Dayton's Addition (Boardman Sub.): Lots 1-12, 15-23; �Valther and Schnittoer's Subdivision of Block 90 of Lynan Dayton's Addition: Biock 90, Lou 1, 28; � WIlder and Dodae's Subdivision: Block 2; Willius' Subdivision of Blod: 57 of Ly7nan Dayton's Additioa: Block 57, I.ots 1-3, 16-23; Wirth Place: Block A; Secfion 2 Pursuant to the authority contained in Chapter 73.05 (� oi the Sain*. Paul L.e�s1a*.ive Code, upon the recommendation af the Heritage Preservation Commission, znd after havin� duly considered the matter at a pubiic hearing held in accordance with Chapter 73 of the I.egisiative . Code, the preservation proaram for the Dayton's B1uff Heritage Presercation District hereby reads as follows: Dayton's B1uYr' Heritage Preservation District Guidelines for Desi� Review I. Intent and Purpose The followi-�g Guidelines for Desi� Review serve as the basis for the Heri:a�e Preservation Coinmission's permit review decisions in the D2yrton's Bluff Heri:ase '� Preservation District. The guidelines identify the key visuai and architectural � characteristics of the district to ensure that they are preserved and enhanced in rehabilitation or new construction. The guidelines provide standards for coasidering the impad of exterior alterations on the individaal buflding as wzll as on the surroundins dstrict. � The guidelines are intended fo be flexible, and the permst review will be conducted on 2 factors which The general objective of the Dayton's Btuff Herita�e Preservation Dis:rict Desi�i Review Guidelines is Lo maintain ihe architectural and visual quaiities of eacistine historic buildin�s and streets:.apes and to encoura�e architecturally compau'bie new desi�. The • guidelines are based on the Secrztary of the Intenor's StancL�rds for Rehabilitation zs w'eL as on an analysis of the specific characteristics of the district. oa ► a� • 'Fhe follo��in� Geaeral Principles are derived fron tne Standards and study and znalysis ' o; the area. They provide a broad framework for evaluztino most rehabili[ation work as weII as new constnzction. The Ci:y of Saint Pau1, as a Certified Local Government in the 23ational Historic Preservation Pro�am, conducts desi� review of locaIly desi�aced heri:aQe preservation sices 2nd districts acc.o:din� to the Secretary of tY.e Fr.:erior's . S:andards. The D2yton's B1uff E3erita�e Preservation District Design Review• Guid�L+'nes ha�e been review by the Minnesota State Historic Presetvation Ofncer persuanc to Minnesota State Statute 471.193 Subd.6 and Chapter 73 of the Saint Pau1 Leeislative Code. General Principles 1. AlI work should be of a character and quality that maintains the distinQuishino features o: the buiidin� and the envi�onment. The removal or alteration of distinctive architectural features shouId be avoided as should alce:ations t'r.a[ have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance. The restoration of alcered oriainal features, if documentable, is encouraeed. 2. _ Chanees which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired si�ni&cance in their own right, and this sienificance shalI be recognized and respected. • 3. Deteriorated architectural features should be repaired rather than replaced whenever possible. In the eyent of replacenent, r.ew materials should match [he ori�nal in co.;iposition, desi� includin� consideration of proportion, tex znd detail, color, and overali appea: ance. New additions or alterations to structures should be constructed in such a mznner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the form and integriry of the ori�zial structure would be unimpai; ed. 5. The impact of alterztions or addi:ions on individual buHdings as well zs on the � surrounding streetscape will be considered; major alterations to bufldings which occupy a corner lot or are otherwise prominendy sited should be avoided. 6. i�'ew constn:ction should be compatible with the his IIv�'RODUCTION The Dayton's'BIufYHeritage Preservation District The following guidelines reco�ize the contn'bution of architectural styles as well as certzin vernacular building types and forms to the visual character of the district. Tne district contains appro�mately 500 residential, commercial, and institutional buildin�s, most constructed between ca. 1878 and ca. 1910. Some properties are good exampies of • cenain architecturat sryles, and some are the work of prominent Saint Paul architects. A great cariety of omamental trim details and other desi�n elements remain on ihese buIldings and their conservation is important to the historic character of the area. oa- � a� The commercial buildings within the D'utrict cre oj m�sonry cons.7uction and d�te • _, from the I880s thraugh tF.e 1920s. Fach bui?dusg has a specral style or character that belor.gs to is per.'od oj� con.smcction Althoug'r. each buildir.g is unique, mo;t share a r,vo pan horizontal divisior. rvith g?a�ed (or once g12=zd) storefrorts ar the ftrst story. TF,e storefror.ts--tNz faccde.s oj ind'vi.d:wl shops--us;�Zly support a ban3 cf uniformly-si=ed windows and a decoramz com:ce cbove. 1. Conservation. Tne ori�nal appezrance of comme:ciai buudinas and storefronts shouId be conserced. Decorative features such as colunas or brackets should be retained i� repair 2nd renovation projz:.ts. Sto:e�ronu should not obscure the basic architectural frameu•ork of the buiIdinos which they occupy. .Storefront desi�n shouId not reproduce stytes of a period earlier than tne buildin� they occupy. 4. Roofs and Paraoets. The ori�nal roofline--including cornice, parapet, and other elements--should be maintained. • 5. Si�Qns. Si�s should be compatlbte with the character of the buildino and surrounding area. Si?ns should be appropria[ely sized and complement the buIldin� ez�cerior; rooi-top si�s are inapp:opriate. They should not conceal architecturai details or features. Sien materials should be compatible with the materiaLs of the buIlding io which they are attach:d. Iv'o part of ihe historic facade should be damaged in the ins:alIation of the sien. _ 6. Awnin�s. Awnings should be sized to fit the windows and sto; efront(s) behind them. Aw•ning materials and details shouId be compatble F�ich the architectural char2cter of the building. No part of the historic facade shou?d be irreve:sibly das,aged or altered duria� the instaliatioa of tne awnin�. 2. Mzsonrv Surfaces. Masonry and other ori�izial surfaces should be conserved. Brick shoi:ld not be covered with stucco, shakes, or othe: veneer. Unpainted masonry surfaces should not be painted. 3. Windows. Windows should not be filled in with wood, brick, or any othe; material. Window sizes and shapes should be maintained if removal of original uni[s is necessary. B. NE«' CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIO\S • (l�ew construction 2nd addi[ions on sinle or multi-block los; see also the following sections for additiona: East Third ar,d East Seventh Street euidelines.) 1�'ew cors*ruction--whetF.er in the form of an ac'd!ion to an easting building or con.struction of a new dweZling, garage, or commercial buildng--shoulcl be compatible with the histaric character of Dayton's Blufj: The�e ir a great diversitv of builctinp rir. However, rhe development oj 11 oa-�ao • every proposal for new design murt involve care�.d assessment of the architecr.�ra1 "-- character of nearby buildngs and streztscapes. The objective of guidelines for new construction in the Dzy �on's Bluff IIis:oric District is to encoe:aae a high s:andard of histo;iczLy conpatibie new desi�:. ?�ew' buildin�s and structures should be compatiole wi.h tae s:ze, s:a1e, nassino, height, rhy setbacic, color, material, building elements, site desi�, and � characte: of surroundliz� struc[ures as weII 2s the broad con[ext oi the D;strict. The foIlowin� guidelines are divided into three sections. General guidelines are provided for the review of new construction on most parcels and additions to existing buildings. Specific guidelines for East Seventn and East Third Streets have also been developed to address the special characteristics of these two arzzs. These guidelines are compauble ��ith existine Iand use and zoning in the district. Applicable zonin� reQulations 2s well as current planning studies such 2s the Lower Dayton's Bluff Small Area Plan (1990) shouid be consulted before plannin� new construction. General Guidelines: New Construction 1. Site Evzluation. Existing historic buildin�s and landscape features should be retained and rehabiiitated in pians for redevelopmeni. • 2. General Character. New construction.should reinforce the historic architwtural and visual character of the a;ea; specificaLy, it should re:er to the tradicional two- and three-story dwelling and commerciai building module, and typical setbacks already established in the district and in the adjacen: 2rea. 3. Pedestrian Circula*.ion and Parkinv. Iv'ew construction should be o:iented tow�a;d streets w;uch are invi.in� environments for pedestrians. Parkin� ai shouId be placed at the rear of buildin�s wherever possble, or ' screened with lands;apin�, low walls, or appropriateIy detaIled fences. 4. Views and Vistas. Exceptional views from the gublic w�av shou�t be ot structure I�ew Construction: Principal Buildings; Additions 1. "Massine and Scale. New • to and also compl�wi:h existina zonine rePUlations. The gross volume of any new structu:e should be visually compatible R�ith the buIlduzgs and eIer,ients within the surrounding area. New dw•ellings and commercial buildings should be compatibte with the hei�ht of existin� adjacen*. buIldinas. 12 �- , s • 2• Materials and DetzIIs. Materials znd detaIls should reIate to those o; - existing nearby buildincs. Wood or masonry construction is typiczl for existing residential buildin�s in the district, while masonry is tSpiczl oi comme:cial bui:din¢s. Thzse materials zre preferable to vinyl, metal, or ha:d'ooard siding. Ir,iitztive mate:izls such as ar:i.icial stoae or b:ick veneer snoeId not be nsed. Mate:ials c,�iII be reviec:ed to de.ers.i�� taei- appropriate use in relation to the overall desi� of the siructure. lne use of viny!, metal, or hardboard sidane will be considered bv the commission on a Building Elements mac be 1. Roofs. Tne gable and hip roof or thec variants are the primary histo;ic roof forns in the district, with may variations and combinations. In new construction, the skyiine or roof profile shouId reIate to the predomina;�t roof shape of nearby buildin�s. Hi�hIy visiole secondary structure roofs should be compatible with the roof pitch, color, and ma[erial of the main structure. The roo: n� materiaLs used on new buiIdings should be appropriate to tne desi� of the beildin� and the visibility of the roof. • Roof h2rdware such as s}.yliglzts, vents, znd meta! pipe chimneys should not be placed on tne front roof p:ane. 2. WindoR•s and Entries. Vertically oriented, doubie-hun� sash are the predominant historic window type ir the district. T'he propo::ion, size, rhy7hn, and detailing of windows and entries should be compatibie witn tnat of existing nearby buIldin�s. The rhythm o: solids to voids c:ezted by� openines in the facade of the new structure shoutd be visualIy compztbie with surrounding structures. 3. Porches and Decks. Porches are a standard feature of manv historic houses in the dstrict and whether enclosed or unenclosed they are zn important part of the streetscape. In new wnstruction, tne front entry shouId be zrticulate3 k�ith a desi� element sucn 2s a porch, potico, o: Ianding which provides a transitional zone between the semi-public znd public exterior zones and tne private interior zone. Tnis desi� ele:,ient should be appropriately detailed and compatible with the size znd s:.a1e of the building. Decks sho;ild be constructed at the rear o; the buIldin� and should be inte�ated i�zto the overall desi�. Decks should be appropriately detailed and should not be raised in 2 manner which r.iakes thzm conspicuous. • Accessory BuiIdinrs Garaees and other accessory buildings should be compatble with the overall 13 . +'v � 4 a - ¢ ' � � i� I >- � i�. ��.�✓j .. \V'f^ �N � � 6 3P ..` /± A�s.; . I..._ 1 L spJS'aF F �. � P � �.� � b '�j " �e� � � �� '� � � �' �� <�''�r.� ,�� ,�. -- � , _ "- - ,�, -'�:, - � �� ; - . _ _ ., � - _ _ - �� - , , __ �_- � _ �;�, � � �� , ` ' ir '�i"_ �" ±�' , �.: � I �I � �� ,�.� . _3� �! �r � _� � � � � .� � C — � � � 7I O �� -� � W � t! ��b►��5 J X � � d t r d � v � .� � � ,O 6 t� O i� � � • ��r� �s >`� 3i� s+II �� _. � �ty� H� iP _� �R�i;'j � � � �. � ,,, � r�_ ' ..,�� . � r i�, �.. �PF dt t. t � ,_ ��,r o ,,,_ � � � J � � � � �' � � � � D � � 0 � � � � � � � � � ci � � � � 0 s � . � .a d J 0 � .� � � - � �-�;�,- > _ �°� J _ � � ; � �,: � � - _ �.� _.. �� . : "'�'`� � — - - _,. . ��_ a�, _:: . ��;= _ ��=' - `J �� V 7 �.L .a L d � 0 _� � � � � � > Q � ; I� ._ W � � �� 7^d � � d .� � x � � � � � .� •� 0 ._ � � �, � : r� ; � _� �,, ; �� i ,. _, ; _; ., � , 3 . ^' fd: i s __ S+ > V * � :" ! ��.°{'+^ `" . o,:�s& 4 _ .� *. —. .. a . _. �- . "'E�i-r:r�w.i,w.yr� ,.-_ � ,�,ND I'��R.��'. � � �, ��Iilti!i< �� ..�,.m. � �,r�;; �� ;�'; i,:P' . _....._ i-. � � J �t � � � � rrn�.iL,�, r. i;� ; ::. *�-� i „ c,r �/ / � / t i ] . _�_ � �' v. - -- A.\. `\ r 1 �� :��¢�� S ,f , �" �� `>- _ - ',as ' — —_' �_ 1�. � I� �,� � �v,, __ ��_. ;. ,-, __ � _ � ;,, . - � _ ,. , � Z � � � ip !OAY�*��l.Y� � . . � Y' e� ❑ �` _� � _ ; ` - �� ' ,; �. � ❑ � �... � �s a,�:rk e; ��t { � : i��7 il � g1� =\ �\`�-� g -� .� c � <._ _ .r -- � �, fa��1��' � _ — _ y �r�� .. �. . ai` �¢�3� ,+¢: _ 4,, '��:;ia . � : s'e ,s� �� .��`a� '. �-�- � ��. ': "� _. . m � — —'� e ' ' . � � . . i: . . , , . i... Presented By Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MIlVNESOTA Council File # � :1 -+ � e1 0 Green Sheet # ti \3 � � � � Committee: Date 2 Whereas, LHB Engineers & Architects, in Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) File 3 B02-043, made application for a building permit for the purpose of constructing a four-unit town 4 house structure on properiy commonly lrnown as 66X Euclid Street (located within the Dayton's 5 Bluff Historic District) and legally described as contained in the said HPC file; and 7 Whereas, The HPC conducted a public hearing on the applicarion on November 15, 2001, 8 after hauing provided notice to affected property owners. At the close of the public hearing, the 9 HPC moved unanimously to deny the application; and 10 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 39 Whereas, the decision of the HPC was communicated to Mr. Gary Findell of LHB Engineers & Architects in a letter dated November 16, 2001 which set forth the basis for the HPC denial of the building permit as "a concern of the massing of the structure given the size of the lot and the relationship of this site to the bluff, the rhythxn and directional emphasis of the elevation facing Euclid and not relating to nearby homes, and the historical context of the bluff with respect to nearby historic homes" and which further notified LHB Engineers & Architects that it had a right to appeal the HPC's decision to the City Council; and Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 73.06, Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services duly filed with the City Council an appeal from the determination made by the HPC and requested a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the HPC; and Whereas, Acting pursuant to Sections 73.06, and upon notice to affected parties a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on December 19, 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 resolurion of the Commission, does hereby Resolve, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby reverse the HPC's decision in this matter, based upon the foliowing findings of the Council: 1. The Council finds that the HPC erred in its findings and conclusions about the massing and scale of the proposed building. The Council finds that the mass and scale of the building is consistent with the "eclectic" nature of the various building scales in the sunounding neighborhood. The mass and scale of the proposed building is not out of character with the existing buildings in the neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Y 2. Some deference is appropriate with regard to the buiidings proposed in this �� }� development. The buildings are all "new"construction and the buiiding materials are appropriate for the development. Further Resolved, That the appeal of Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services be and is hereby granted; and, be it Finally Resolved, That the Council Secretary shall mail a copy of this resolution to Dayton's B1uffNeighborhood Housing Services, LHB Engineers & Architects, the Zoning Admiuistrator and the Heritage Preservarion Commission. Requested by Department of: By: Form Approved by City Attorney BY: i/-o*a^ ��c✓N+i-� /— �LI— O�L. Adoption By: _ Approve By: ied by Council Secretary Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY: Adopted by Council: Date � � .�� oi - �ao c�ty coun��i MITACT PERSON 8 PFIO�� IST BE ON COUNCILAGBiM BY ASAP �� Feb. 4, 2002 -m*:Tr_:`� TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET o�.��. �� No 113694 crtrmuca ❑ p1YAif01bEY ❑ CRYCLiR[ ❑ w�epcw�aFavrFaooc ❑ qNxW�aomKCrc � r�vatNn�sasr�xry ❑ (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Memorializing City Council action granting the appeal of the Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services from the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision denying a permit application to construct a four-unit townhome structure at 663 Euclid Street. (Public hearing held on December 19, 2001). PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IFAPPROVED � Hes this persoMrm e+er v.arked under a con6act ta fhis departmeM? VES NO Fias thia P�rm ever been a dtY emWcY�? YES NO Dces this persaUfim possess a sldll no[ �armallYP� N' any wrrent crty empbyee? YES NO is this persorufiun a tar8�tl oentloYl YES � COST/REVENUE BUDGEfID (qRCLE ONE) 266-8670 YES NO SOURCE ACTNRYNUMBFR OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY Manuel J. Cervanfu, Ciry Attorney � - i CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Randy C. Kelly. Mayo� Civil Division 400 Ciry Hall IS WertKelloggBlvd. Saint P¢ssl, Minnesota i5102 Telephone: 651266-87! 0 Facsimile: 65I 298-5679 January 28, 2002 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Hand Delivered Re: Appeal by Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services of an HPC decision in HPC File No. B02-043 City Council Action Date: December 19, 2001 Dear Nancy: Enclosed please find the signed original Resolution memorializing the City CounciPs decision to grant Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services' appeal from HPC File No. B02-043. Please place this matter on the City Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. V ery truly yours, � �r�'.,� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure oa-� �-a CITY OF SAINT PAUL Narm Co[eman, M¢yor November 26, 2001 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OFLICENS$ INSPECT70NSAND ENVIRONMENTiII PROTECTTON Roger Curtis, Directar LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUILIDNG 350 St Peter Street Suite 3!0 Saint Paul, Minnesofa SSIO2-I510 Telephone: 61?-2669001 F¢csimile: 6l2-266-9099 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, December 19, 2001 for the following heritage preservation case: Appellant(s): Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services File Number: B02-043 Purpose: Location: Staff : Commission Appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision denying a pernut application to construct a four unit townhome structure. 663 Euclid Street, Dayton's Bluff Historic District Recommended approval with conditions. Denied on a vote of 11 to 0. I have confirmed this date with the office of Council Member Kathy Lantry. 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 nublish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul I.egal Ledger. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9078 if you have any quesrions. Sincerely, Amy Spong Historic Preservation Specialist CC: Council Member Kathy Lantry Jim Erchul, DBNHS Peter Wamer, CAO Roger Curtis, LIEP File • FmsrxuN • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAItING . The Saint Pavl City Councff wi71 con- duct a-public hearing on, Wednesday, December 19, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Tlvrd Floor City Hall-Courthouse, 15 West - Kellogg Boulevazd, Saint Paui, MN, to consider the appeal of the Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services to a decision of the FIeritage Preservation Commission denying a permit application to conshvct a foar- i�ni townhome siructure at 663 Euclid Street. Dated: November 27, 2001 NANCYANDERSON - Assistant City Councll secretary � - - (Decem6er 3) - --'—= Sf F9fiL TEGAL IEDGER — _— 02030528 oa-�a� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, December 19, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall-Courthouse, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Saint Paul, MN, to consider the appeal of the Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services to a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission denying a permit application to construct a four-unit townhome structure at 663 Euclid Street. Dated: November 27, 2001 Nancy Anderson Assistant City Council Secretary �*��*��**��* -CDMM.JOURNRL- ******�**�+��**��* DRTE NOU-29-2001 ****� TIME 14=12 �* P.01 Oa_I � MODE = MEIIORY TRf1N5MIS5I0N FILE hpl.= 210 N0. CDM RBBWNTWK STRTION NPt�i TELFPHONE N0. 0H1 0!C <01) LEG:aL LEDGER STPRT=NW-29 14�11 QJD=NW 14�12 •e _ �� -�n-.• • i "�'�'„'' -City of Saint Pau1 - �xou��ao�w:aor,wioto��aaa:,u {ity Council - x�* - 651 2'06 8574- �M: � '�' e, �o CITY OF SAINT PA.UL OFFICE OF THE CTfY COUNCIL FACSIMILE TRANSMTSSION COVERSHEET To: �J � .. ��_ .r — FROM: FAX #: RE: �.�:..� �I.�J_ , � � . �� - nn,x�: (�.,�_�.q Nofe: Facsimile operator, pleue detiver this transmission fo tfie above addressee. if you did not receive all ot the pages i¢ good condition, please sdvise Janie Lafrenz at (651) 2b6-85G0 at your earliest convenieuce. Thank you. NUMBER OF PACES (INCLUDING THIS YAGE): � C1tY HALL THIRD fLOOR SAAIT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 � ylmtea on reryc�e0pepe. oa-i� OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND E�4'VIRO.\;LfENTAL PROTECTIO.�' Roger Curtis, Direc[or • • CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[emm�, hlnyror I�TOVember 26, 2001 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: LO�VRYPROFESSlONAL BUILID:VG 3i0 St PeterSareet Sui�e 310 SainlPoul,hlinnesotn 5510?-li/0 Telephone: 67?-?G6-900/ Fncsimile. 6/?-266-9099 I would like to confirm that a public hearing be£ore the City Council is scheduled for �Vednesday, December 19, 2001 for the following heritage preservation case: Appellant(s): File Number: Purpose: Location: Staff : Commission Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services B02-043 Appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision denying a permit application to conshuct a four unit townhome struchire. 663 Euclid Street, Dayton's Bluff Historic District Reconunended approaal with conditions. Denied on a vote of 11 to 0. I have confirmed this date with the office of Councll Member Kathy Lantry. My understanding is that this public hearing request �vill 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 Led�er. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9078 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Amy Spong Historic Preservation Specialist • CC: Council Member Kathy Lantry Jim Erchul, DBNHS Peter Warner, CAO Roger Curtis, LIEP File� OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECT[ONS AND ENVIItONMENTAL PROTECT[ON Roger Curlis, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemars, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: City Councilmembers CC: Peter Warner, CAO Roger Curtis, LIEP FROM: Amy Spong, HPC staff RE; HPC appeal for 663 Euclid Street DATE: December 12, 2001 LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUILDING Suite 300 350 St. Peter Siree! Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-I510 Te(ephone: 651-266-9090 � Facsimi[e: 65l-266-9099 The following attachments highlight the events that have taken place and relate to HPC review of the pemut application to construct a four unit townhome structure at 663 Euclid Sueet, which is located in the Dayton's Bluff Historic District: ATTACHMENT 1(pages 1 to 8) Final application materials and drawings (submitted October 31, 2001) ATTACHMENT 2(pages 9 to 12) Staff report presented at the HPC public heazing meeting on November 15, 2001 and the decision letter sent to the appiicant, denying the permit to construct the townhome str¢cture. _ -- When the Public hearing meeting was conducted, there were nvo public fesfimonfes both against t e townhome structure. The commission unanimously denied the permit application to construct the townhome structure for several reasons. Refer to the unapproved minutes for reasons. ATTAC�IMENT 3(pages 13 to 15� An excerpt of the unapproved minutes from November 15, 2001 which include minutes of all four new construction projects reviewed by the HPC and submitted by Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services (DBNHS). ATTACHNIENT 4(pages 16 to 18) Appeal letter by the applicant DBNHS. • ATTACHMENT 5 (page 19) A�hlic testim qn��etter sent in resvonse to this ap�eal to Ciry CouncIl. ATTACFIMENT 6(pages 20 to 24) The first design submitted to the commission for the April 12 concept review and meeting minutes. Two concept reviews were conducted on April 12 and September 6, 2001. The commission does not • approve, deny or make any formal votes during a concept review. Public nodces are not sent out for concept reviews; it is a time for the HPC to be introduced to a project and to ask questions and give informal feedback to an applicant. oa.-�ao • During the first concept review on Apri112 the eommission onZy had one elevarion drawing to review and that was the elevarion facing Euclid Street. The commission stated they felt they did not have enough information to comment on the project and did not understand the context or the site in which the applicant was proposing the building. AT"PACFIlI4EENT 7(pages 25 to 31) The second design submitted to the commission for the September 6 concept review and meeting minutes. There were still questions regarding the context of the area and the siting of the buiZding. � LJ l J SA[NT I'AUL � CITY OF ST. PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION dOOFFICEOF LICEYSE, QiSPECROxS AND ENVQtONMINTN-PROTCCTION 350 SC. PEf Eit SI'REEC. S�RE 300 ST. PAUL, MCINFSOTA SSIbL�S t0 W WN'.CLSiPAN..hM.US/L@P BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION r> This application must be completed in addition to the basic building permif application if the affected property is an individually design� landmark or located within an historic district. This application must be accompanied by three copies of pians, plus one reduced to 8 l/2" x 11" and photographs showing all affected facades of the building (no Polaroid pictures). Plans shall inciude a site plan, floor plans, and extcrior elevations which note details for replacement of historic materials. For applications which must be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission refer to the HPC Meeting schedule for meeting dates and deadlines. F� l� � �Z C�� 3 ADDRESS OF AFFECTED PROPERTY: �[ �� ( i� c��- ARCHITECT: Name of firm: Address (including zip): Contact person: r. '�`�t� ' - l � Daytime phone: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Will any federal money be used in this project? YES x NO Are you applying for Investment Tax credits? YE�A'O_ Briefly describe the overall changes to be made to the structwe: Please describe how each of the following building elemenu will be affected by the project. If there ivill be no change, please ind� Use piciures to illustrate the changes indicated below. (Attach additianal sheets if necessary.) Windows: Entrances/doors: Exterior walli Porches: Roof: Foundation: Decorative features: Other (i.e.Additions): �,Q (�_b�l/�'!�� U� — s-v- c� �.�� I, the undersigned, understand that the Building Permit Application is limited to the aforementioned work to the affected property. I further understand that any additional exterior work to be done under my ownership must be submitted by application to the St. Pau Heritage P eservation Commission. Any unauthorized work will be required to be removed.• � Signature of applicant: � Date: l0 —3� `� � Signature of owner: Date: � � � oa-�a� � �� s �� ia �? �, °za �_ 0 a� N v'`" m$ 0 \ a� s >$ y § '�� S \ �y$ �g m 2 Z $ Z W �� s � � �z$`�n' �� Q OF � 8�p� � � �� ! U g!W-W 6�i �4> 4 � �a a wN aw W a�se�� a a • r� LJ .-. �. -� • 3 �! � �� o �� 3 a �� eC 0 6 v �s N �, g \ 1Y: Q 1 s � �og J s \ � s LL� � � w J W m � N �6w � y � m ��¢W �� d V d a 022tn �� Wt _ 0 H U W � CS Z 3 p J �m r_ _ � aal `i o ��3�� Q � �� ' �I m Y � �� a�� 0 N � s �� \ s� >� �� 4 \ d� �$ � M 3 m S 'J � ¢ � � Z�z � �� s s <W W � @ a �Z2c7J � F Z °+ o a a � �a �o $OF- �§ WN �¢ E a ; �_� °; c"> ` 9'> 4 � E$ae�� 3 Q • • • � ' �%� l J W 7 'E fI Y A ~ �z ' 3 ,{ O QZ 6.�6i "� �s g? I =` # N�o ��$ a aS � , ie u-S J � d �� e� 4: do ° �� s ' y O� 's ° —� 5 =5 s a� °a � ffaa �.� _ e'3� � �� g �a��a �s� � .m's �$,�� '�� - �.� �W �=' g �� "s�� $sx S's°y:.e�� _�sa s�e_ � _ � `' '� o � d 9 ��- - z '�- .� ° � � z y- s aap o � � � a ii e a ° 9 ii� �:., . �� $ � a g � � � �1��1��\ �� I � \ s�oN` , \ I� �c \.=: �� q .. \/\/ � � .../ . '`e , . J-=. ' \ � � W `S �.� � O � 1 �. � < . . , �. i �`' """ 0 / 4 . �. p M � S �� Z C � _ � � � .e � � � < 1 ° � ��2V m �Q L �y5 ` r s = Q� �nS� [ -`�O W �- �� .:i 4#€� �W ¢O £ f � 0l - 41� € � Ch @ r a ozx�n �o� s�cv, dm d=a_�z� � J IF I iI Q . g.lE� c 3 � � - - I � g � ,' ,g�e �$ � > . � �� . .'.�� ay - .. �� I� °z a � .�� g� � u � 0 w z U � � ¢ � w � � � � � ��- z � pl eg � $ g a 3�$ � � �e�S � � � �� 3y 5� m�� 9 � 0 .� p Y �� 3�� § � � y �G� ` 3 � �& °�A� " � � � �� O a'� H � _ � am� s � � e e � _ � � �� 4 ° � ��, �� p J# ��a �� 8 3�� 5 2 a F 4�g Z� a � �� g�$@ € �� 'c �� ? ! � � �J 7 '� 6 W ❑ � S � �� r�. p �B �- \ �� a �� J � ��' �� `w a 9� �� oa -� zo � N e� s� �� I m 3 � y� a 8° EL 0 �'. �� s 6i� �o$ U G \ � Z �� $ � � 2 � �d]�OJ � tA� � g i e ��5 �o� �d �y2 $� 9i 4 0 QW�W 6 � �1- ��J €30a � T ?� �22m �o $ wN 3ua 6Sae@� B Q �J �� • � 0 � o , �� : �� . �- � � � oa-iaa s W � � �4 �a �� I �' � � �F �a �� 1 a� \ N� o O \ a Z s dg 6a� � °�� 0 6 \ � �e LLD �g � � z�ZW @ �� a OZ2fA �� N� $ +� �� o C � E�F � Wf � o , � y f e g LL �4j `; N Ey2 �` d I 9 4 0 �LL6 �¢SSEK � Q r }�-�'-f Z. File #B02-043 CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: 663 Euclid Street DATE OF APPLICATION: October 31, 2001 APPLICANT: LHB Engineers & Architects DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING/PERMIT REVIEW: November 15, 2001 HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Dayton's Bluff Historic District CATEGORY: new construction CLASSIFICATION: building permit STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: Amy Spong DATE: November 8, 2001 A. SITE DESCRiPTION: The site proposed for development is vacant and was purchased by the Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services. This site is located at the edge of the bluff and is quite visible from I94 and Mounds Boulevazd. Euclid street dead ends at this parcel. Our files do not indicate that a structure was located at this site. S. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant is proposin� a four unit townhome structure. The proposed structure is two stories high with a gabled roof, has individual entrances to each unit and personal gara�es attached to the structure at the rear. The unit that faces Euclid and the bluff is a one story accessible unit. Wood double-hung windows are proposed with 4" trim. Four inch lap siding was noted on the plans with corner boards, however, the material was not specified. Simple entry porches with - _ 2x2 inch spindles and top and bottom rails are proposed. The commission conducted two concept reviews and responded favorably. Some general comments related to roof forms, needing more elevation views and understanding the context or the area that the proposed development is in. C. GUIDELINE CITATIONS Davton's BluffDesign Revierv Ga�idelines General Principles: 6. New constn�ction shoadd be compatible with the historic and architectural character of the district. Massing and scale. New consti-uction should conform to the massing, volt�me, height, facade proportions and scale of surrounding structures. The gross volz�me of an�� new structure should be visa�ally compatible with the buildings and elements within the sc�rrounding area. New dwellings and commercial builclings should be compatible with the height of existing adjacent buildings. � r� U • � oa- � a.� File #B02-043 • 2. Materials, and Details. Materials and details should relate to those of existing nearby buildings: Wood or masonry construction is typical for existing residential building in the district, while masonry is typical of commercial building. 7Tiese materials are preferable to vinyl, metal, or hardboard siding. Imitative materials such as artificial stone or brick veneer should not be used. Materials wi11 be reviewed to determine their appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure. The use of vinyl, metal, or hardboard siding will be considered by the Commission on a case-by-case basis. These materials may be permissible in new construction ofprincipal buildings if appropriately detailed. BuiZding Elements: 1. Roofs: The gable and the hip roof are the primary historic roofforms in the District, with many variations and combinations. In new construction, the skyline or roofprofile shouZd relate to the predominant roof shape of nearby buildings. Highly visible secondary strc�cture roofs should match the roof pitch of the main structure. Roofing materials used on new ba�ildings should be appropriate to the design of the building and the visibility of the roof. Roof hardware such as skylights, vents, ancl metal pipe chimneys shoa�ld not be placed on the front roof plane. 2. Windows and Entries. Yertically-orienterl, single or double-hung sash are the predominant historic window type in the District. The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windows and entries should be compatible with that of existing nearby buildings. The rhythm of solids • to voids created by openings in the facade of the new stra�cture should be visually compatible with surrounding structzcres. 3. Porches and Decks. The front entry shoadd be ttrticulated with a design element such as n porch, porticq or landing which provides a transitional zone between the semi public and public exterior zones and the private interior zone. This design element should be appropriately detniled and compatible with the size and scale of the building. Decks shoadd be constructed at the rear of the building and should be integrated into the overall design. Decks should be appropriately detailed and should not be raised in a manner which makes them conspicz�ous. Accessory Buildings: Garages and other accessory buildings should be compatible with the overnll design and materials of the existing buildings orz the lot. Nerov gnrages shoccld be locatecl off rear alleys wherever possible. Garages should not be attached to the front of the building and should only be attached if not visible from the pa�blic way. Site Considerations in New Construction: 1. Setback and Siting. The setback of new bz�ildings in most residential and commercial areas should be compatible with the setback of existing adjacent areas. 2. Parking. Residential parking areas shoa�ld be confinecl to the rear of e.risting or new • ba�ildings. Parking spaces shocdd be screened from view from the public street by landscaping such as hedges, grade changes, or low fences. 3. Fences. Fences tivhich allow some vistial penetration of front yard space are preferable to �� File #B02-043 complete.enclosure. Fences of wrought iron or wood which enclose the front yard shouZd be no higher than 3-1/2 feet. Cyclone fences shoulcl not be used to enclose front yards or the front half • of side yards. 4. Retaining walls. Stone, brick, and split face concrete block are preferable to landscape timber for the construction of retaining walls. Masonry retaining waZls should be fznished with caps or other appropriate details. S. Public Improvements. New street and landscape improvements, lighting, street furniture, and signs should be compatible with the character of the historic district. The historic urban pattern of grid plan streets should be retained and enhancecl in improvement projects. D. FINDINGS 1. The gabled roof form and pitch relate to neazby residential single family homes. 2. The entries aze "articulated" with porches help to define public from semi-public spaces. 3. Garaging may be visible from the public way, which would not conform to the guideline that states garaging should only be attached if not visible from the public way. 4. The use of wood trim, siding and windows would comply with the guidelines which state "Materials and details shoz�ld relate to those of existing nearby buiZdings. " 5. The overall massing is much larger than neazby single family residential buildings with detached garages and the orientation of the building is facing the bluff and not the street (Euclid). This development, however, is located at the edge of the historic district and at the end of a dead • end street. 6. The one story unit that faces Euclid street does not relate to the directional emphasis and rhythm that the other two story units do and the rivo and one half story historic houses. The lazge �able end is also not of a scale that relates to existing structures. E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings, staff recommends approval of the building permit provided the following condition(s) be met: 1. The horizontal massing and directional emphasis of the one story unit should be altered to relate to the scale and rhythm of existing buildings. 2. Exterior siding and trim must be painted wood. 3. Final material selections will be submitted to HPC staff for review and approval. • �� t�a-r aa CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[emm�, Mn} m' November 16, 2001 Gary Findell LAB Engineers & Architects 250 Third Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 OFFICE OF LICENSE, NSPECTIO?1S AND E\ V IROVM ENTAL PROTECTIO\ Roger Cur(is, Direclor LOWRYPROFESSlO.'�AL BUlLDGVG S«ite 300 350 St. Peter Street Saint Pa�e{ Mirtnesota 5�IO2-l�l0 Telephare: 6� l-?66-9090 Fncsin�ile: 6i!-? 66-9099 Re: 663 Euclid Street, Dayton's Bluff Historic District File #B02-043, building permit Dear Mr. Findell: As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) considered at its November 15, • 2001 meeting your application to construct a four unit to�vnhome structure at the propert}� listed above. The commission voted 11 to 0 to deny your application. This decision was based mainly on public comment heard at the meetma, a concern of the massing of the structure given the size of the lot and the relationship of this site to the bluff, the rhythm and directional emphasis of the elevation facing Euclid and not relating to nearby homes, and the historica] context of the bluff with respect to nearby historic homes. You or any aggrieved party has the right to appzal the Commission's decision to the Saint Paul City Council under Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Such an appeal must be filed within 14 days of the date of the APC's order and decision. Chapter 73 states: (h) Appeal to city cot�ncil. The permit applicmit or any parry aggrieved by the decision of tlie heritage preservation con:mission sha(l, u ithin fourteen (!4) days of t{:e date ofthe heritnge preservatiat commissiat's order and decisiat, knve a right to appeal seeck order ancl decision to the city council. The appea[ shal! be deemed perjected upoa receipt by the davision of plamting [LIEP] of bvo (2) copies oja notice of nppenl and statemeat settiitg fort/i the grotnvds for� the appeal. The d�vision ofplmv:ing [LIEP] sl�al7 h�ansmit one copy of t1:e notice ofappeal nnd statement to the c�ty council and one cop}' to the heritage preservahon commissiorr. The coramission, in any written order den}ing a permit appltcntion, shall advise the applicm�t ojdie right ta appeal to the ciry council and indurle this paragraph in n!! such orders. Please feel free to call me at 651.266.9078 if you have any questions. Sincerely, � �„a�� Amy Spon� Historic Preservation Specialist cc: Jim Erchul, DBNHS lZ File C Ur�o„pp�DV�ed 1 t C � NOTES OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION CONIlI�IISSION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Room 4Q Lower Level, City HalUCourt House November 15, 2001 Present: Judith Benton, Susan Bartlett Foote, Joseph Errigo, Gar Hazgens, Paul Lazson, Lee Meyer, Ray Meyer, Dan Scott, Shari Taylor Wilsey, Richard Wolfgramm, Dudley Younldn Members Absent: James Bellus (chair)(excused) and Richard Murphy (unexcused) Staff Present: Julie Hoff, Amy Spong and Drew Kempsld I. II� CALL TO ORDER: 5:05 p.m. by Gar Hargens. ANNOiTNCEMEN'I'S - Spong announced that the brick alley appeal will be before the city council on Nov. 28. Dan Scott will represent the HPC at the appeal. III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA - The agenda was amended to include discussions regarding 1524 Summit and 698 Stewart Avenue. Lazson will give a brief report regarding the Historic Saint Paul annual meering during the staff report. The agenda was approved as amended. V. PUBLIC HEARING/PERMIT REVIEW B. 207 Bates Avenue - building permit to construct a six -unit townhome building. Spong reviewed the staff report. LHB architects explained the project in more detail. Larson stated that the drawings show a large foundation. He quesfioned if that will be "bermed" up. The applicant said that it would and that the elevarion drawing is more accurate. He stated that computer simularions have some limitations. Hargens sated that he is concerned about the appearance of sepazation betvreen the units and_change in material. The applicant stated that he considered Hargens comments from the previous concept review, but that he and the client prefer it as shown. Larson stated that he agrees with Hazgens but that he has seen this look on other historic rowhouses. Larson asked if the applicant can make the bdck stucco contrast more subtle. Wilsey made a motion to approve the staff recommendation and conditions. Errigo offered a second. The motion carried unanimously. C. 212 Bates Avenue - building permit to construct a three-unit townhome building. Spong reviewed the staff report. LHB architects explained the project in more detail. on the same plane. The are three corbeled courses. The applicant stated the lot is 80 feet wide not 40 feet as noted in the staff report. Hazgens stated the base and post proportions weren't right and the posts should be wider. The applicant agreed. Page 1 of 3 le�tucl�rnr2r�'{ 3 • • • f3 �. . a Wolfgramm moved the staff recommendation. Foote offered a second. The motion carried • unanimously. D. 66s Euclid Street - building permit to construct a four-unit townhome building. Spong reviewed the staff report. LHB azchitects explained the proj ect in more detail. Spong stated that the applicant intends to use vinyl siding on this structure, but that this was not reviewed during the concept review and the plans presented to the commission did not specify. Spong questioned if the one-level unit (must have at least one accessible unit), could be on the other side of the building, where it would be less visible. The applicant stated that it is not possible. Larson asked if the pitch on the accessible unit is the same. The applicant stated that it is. Kim Metier, 247 Maria, stated that tha structure will abut her back yard. She stated that she is opposed to the pemut because the site is too small. She believes that if the new residents have children, that the kids will come onto her yard. She would support a smaller, owner-occupied structure. She also asked if the proposed structure will be Section 8. She stated that she looked into buying this property and was told there was a gas station there and the site was contaminated as the tanks were not removed. Diane May, 243 Maria, stated that the structure will obstruct her view and change the facade of the bluff. May stated that in her research she has done, she did not find that there was a large structure there. She asked the commission to consider preserving the history of the bluff and deny the permit. • Jim Erchul, Dayton's Bluff NFIS, stated that the site is not contaminated and an environmental review was completed. The public heazing was closed. Larson stated that he is concerned about the density of the development on a most visible and visual landmark for St. Paul—the bluffls. He surveyed the houses along Maria Avenue which has a wonderful collection of 18`" and 19`� Century homes and the consiruction of the highways has already desecreted parts of this neighborhood and bluf£ To cover the large building with vinyl is a poor way to look at Dayton's Bluff Historic District. The horizontal proifle at the one end is also a detriment. Larson moved to deny the permit. Younkin offered a second. The motion carried unanimously. E. 664-668 Surrey - building permit to construct a three-unit townhome building. Spong reviewed the staff report. LHB architects explained the project in more detail. Errigo asked if the home could be painted wood instead of vinyl. LHB explained that all the projects are low-income, tax-credit financing projects with very tight budgets. Wood with paint is three times more expensive and requires ongoing maintenance. The projects are already 18 percent over the average budget and the added cost would make the project not feasible. Wolfgramm asked if the applicant has considered using cement board. The applicant stated that cement • board is rivo times more expensive and still requires some ongoing maintenance. The total number of units between the four buildings is 16. The construction cost per unit is $232,000 or $125 per quare foot. Dennis Guptil, general contractor, stated that he understands that the HPC does consider financial issues. I � Page 2 of 3 He stated that vinyl siding is cost effective and can look better if it is done right. While he does install wood products, and even prefers them, they aze difficult from a cost perspective. Kim Merier stated that since residents are required to preserve the existing wood siding, contractors should be required to, also. She quesrioned where the driveway to the home will be posirioned. Errigo asked if similar issues to Metier's elcist with other neazby residents regarding the driveway. Guptil stated that they exist to some degree, but in Metier's case, the proposed structure directly abuts her property. Findell stated that the home meets all of the city's setback requirements. Younkin moved approval of the staff recommendation. Wilsey offered a second. In further discussion, Lazson stated that this sh fits the site better than the 66x Euclid proposal and is in a less visible area. Foote stated that she is concemed about requiring wood because it might be cost prohibirive. She is more troubled by vinyl siding for the Euclid proposal becuase of the visibility but she would be in favor of vinyl for this proposal because it fits better with the neighborhood overall. Wilsey agreed. Spong stated that in this proposal, wood h is still used on comer boards and windows. Guptil stated that he uses Rolex vinyl siding and that a triple three would look better. Younkin stated that he is concerned about allowing vinyl, but that he will accept a friendly amendment. Errigo stated that he is conflicted about the use of vinyl, but he could agree with it if vinyl is used on the siding only. Errigo offered an amendment to allow vinyl on the siding only, and using wood trim on the windows and corner boards, porches, soffit and fascia. The amendment was accepted by Younkin. - - _... . . . _ _.--- -._. -- - _....-- - -- -_.- --------- -_ ------------ - Lee Meyer questioned why the commission denied the previous proposal, if it is going to allow vinyl on this one. Lazson stated that the other proposal is located on a corner, on the bluff, where it is much more visible. It also is much larger and has a different end unit, which makes it more conspicuous. The proposat in front of them now relates better to the existing homes. Lazson stated that he believes the other site might be best served by a house or two. The amended motion was approved unanimously. Wolfgramm expressed concem that the other proposal was approved during the concept review and now denied by the commission. Spong stated that the purpose of concept reviews aze to inform the commission and give the applicant informal feedback, the commission does not approve or deny during concept reviews. A formal application, public no6ces and review process are still required. Lazson stated that the biggest change wa being able to see the context of the homes - three fit, one Shari Pemberton asked to speak and informed the commission that they will appeal the item that was denied. She stated that the city has approved $3.7 million for 16 units. The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m Submitted by: Julie Hoff, Staff • • • I� Pa�e 3 of 3 ��,-/aO /��cl�mer�i � ' � Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services, inc. 823 East Seventh Street • Sair.t Paul, MN 55106 (6� 7) 7746995 • Fax: (6� 1) 77�1-044j November 21, 2001 Mc Roger Curtis, Director Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection Lowry P.ofessioaal Buildir:�, Suite 3C0 350 St. Peter Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-I510 Dear Mc Curtis: I am writing on behalf of Dayton's BluffNeighborhood Housing Services to appeal to the City Council, the Heritage Preservation Commission's November 15, 2001 decision to deny our application for a building permit to construct a four unit townhouse structure at 663 Euclid Street (File #B02-043). Dayton's Bluff Neis hborhood Housing Services is filing this appeal based on the followin� grounds: • l. The four-unit townhouse building we are proposing to build is very similar in massing and scale to existing four unit historic townhouse/row house buildinas and large double houses, often built in a row, located throughout the district The buildin� also patterns the massing scale and orientation ofthe mansions and buildinQs located alona the bluff line and alo��g Mounds Boulevard south of the freeway. Additionally, our buildin� site is actually sli�htly larger in area than the lots upon which existin� historic four unit fownhouse(ro4v house buildin�s in the district are built. Put in this context our design does conform to the massing and scale requirements of the Dayton's Bluff Herita�e Preservation District Guidelines for new construction. In fact the HeritaQe Preservation Commission, at its same November 15, 2001 meeting, approved building permits for three other buildinas, similar in massing and scale on sites with fewer sauare feet of area per unit than the buildin� they denied. One of the buildinos approved by the Commission (66S Surrey Avenue) is nearly identical in design to 663 Euclid Street escept for the fact that it does not have a single story wheelchair accessible unit in it. We believe the Commission erred by denyina our buildina permit based on concerns about its massin� and scnle relative to the size of the lot. • 2. Our plans have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and a special conditional use permit for a cluster Itousin� development �vas �ranted for the b�iilding on November 2, 2001. The Plannina Commission found that our buildin� at 663 Euclid Street wi(I not be detrimental to the existin� character of development in the immediate neighborhood; that it will not impede normal and orderly development and improvement of the sun�oundin� properties for uses permitted in the district and in all other respects that it will conform to the 2pplicable reQulations of the district in which it is located. Given the Plannina Commission's findin�s we believe the Heritaee Preservation Commission erred when it detennined that our proposed townhouse building does not relate �vell with the nearby homes and the eclectic historical context of the Dayton's Bluff district. �CVi1 n�z��a� l� 3. The public comments made by the rivo individuals who testified at the Heritage Preservation Commission's public hearing, which are referenced as the primary basis for the Commission's decision, had little to do with the building's design. Instead they primarily focused on these two individuals' concerns about rental housing in general and the characteristics and behaviors they assumed families that lived in the building would exhibit. The few relevant design issues that were raised by these [wo individuals all have been considered in the design process and to the best of our ability they were addressed in our final desi�n. Their testimony was not about the impact the buildin� would have on the historic character of the district. We believe the Herita�e Preservation Commission erred in allowing most ofthis testimony to be heard at all and erred fuRher when it gave credence to it when making its decision. Community residents have been involved in the development and design of this building from the get go. In fact it was a neighborhood task force, which included many residents that live near this site that provided the impetus for the development of this project in the first place. Several Board Members of the Dayton's Bluff District 4 Community Council also have been intimately involved in the design process for this building. The fuil District 4 Board reviewed the buiiding's desi�n on two occasions and extended its unanimous support to the project. 4. The rhythm and directional emphasis of the elevation facing Euclid Street, while it may not be ideal, relates better to the nearby homes than the two existing �aranes that front Euclid Street These rivo garages are the only buildings fronting Eudid Street on this block. Additionally, the Herita�e Preseivation Commission failed to adequately take into accoimt the fact that the rhythm and directional emphasis that it found to be inappropriate is in large paR due to the fact that the housing unit nearest to Euclid Street is desi�ned to be an accessible unit, which necessitates that it be one story in hei�ht and wheelchair accessible. This unit is required as 1 condition of our projecYs financino �nd applicabie Iocal, state and federal requirements. To be frank, we are deeply caicerned by the Heritage Preservation Commission's failure to acknowledge ours and • its obligations under applicable local, state and federl( la�vs which require us to affirmatively promote the development of accessible housin� and by the fact that they choose not to work witli us to improve our design, if they found fault with it, given these obligations. We betieve the Commission erred in not takin� these requirements into acconntlnd mayeven have violated tlre law by denyin� our building permit for this buildin, while it approved a permit for a building directly adjacent to it almost identical in design, except for the fact that it did not have a handicapped accessible unit in it. 5. The final findings of the Herita�e Preservation Commission are inwnsistent with its findin�s in rivo previous concept reviews of the project. On both of these occasions, the Commission responded favorably to our project's overall design and encouraged us to proceed to the fin11 desi�n staQe. The Herita�e Preservation Commission staff recommended approval of the building permit in her final staff repoR based on the previous findings of the Commission and her own final review of the project. 6. Finally, if the Herita�e Preservation Commission's decision to deny us a building permit for this project is allowed to stand it will cause severe economic hardship for Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services. �Ve have invested thousands of dollars and coundess hours, of stafT and volunteer time, desi�ning this building based in large paR on the HeritaQe Preservation Commission's encouragement and the previously favorable reviews it provided us over the course of ei�ht months. � Not bein� allowed to build this building puts the financing for our total project in jeoplydy. This building is one of four buildinas bein� financed with Lo�� Income Housing Tax Credits and funds from many other public and private sources. Taking this buildin� and its four units out of our 16-unit scattered site projeM totally changes the • economics of the whole project and it could result in us loosin� the financing commitments we already have in place. � } oa-i ac At the very minimum we will be required to redesign one of the existin� buildin�s to provide an accessible unit and • then we will have to go through the whole permitting process a�ain. We believe the Commission erred when it failed to �ive adequate wei�ht to the degree of economic hardship its action would inflict on Dayton's BluffNeiQhborhood Housing Services and given the pressin� need in our neighborhood and the City as a whole for affordabfe housin� it erred fuRher by not takin� into acwunt the economic hardship its decision would inflict on the families who would benefit from the opportunity to live in this quality affordable housin�. Thank you in advance for allowina us to file tliis appeal and please feel free to contact me at your convenience should you require any additional information related to this matter. Sincerely, � ��,�� Jim Erchul Executive Director Cc: Sheri Pemberton Hoiby Kathy Lantry Amy Spai� • • i ��- 5 �� Dayton's Bluff � � District 4 Community Council� /■■ ` 798 E. 7th Street, Saint Paul, MN 55106 • Phone 651-772-2075 • Pas 651-774-3510 .. Visit our web site at www.daytonsbluff.org November 26, 2001 Mr. Roger Curtis, LIEP Director Lowry Professional Building, Suite 300 350 St. Peter Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Dear Mr. Curtis: Please attach this letter to the materials related to Dayton's BluffNeighborhood Housing Services (DBNHS) appeal to the City Councii of the Heritage Preservation Commission's (HPC) misguided actions on November 15, 2001 in regards to the denial of a building permit for construction of four townhouses at 663 Euclid Street (File #B02-043). We have worked hard as a St. Paul district council to be consistent and to make decisions based on relevant issues. DBNHS made several full presentations about 663 Euclid to local residents and our board. We were concerned with: 1) appropriate design (including • mass, scale, and orientation), 2) quality construction, and 3) competent management. DBl\�IIS more than satisfied us on al( counts. Consequently, and unanimously, we made positive recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council. To reverse our direction at the last moment would have been irresponsible. _ _.. _ Therefore, we are taken aback that the HPC would shepard DBNHS's plan along and then reverse itself — on such apparently thin and non-germane, grounds, and despite staff approval. DBNHS's design clearly fits with nearby housing. The massing and scale is proportionate. We fully understand that accessibility is needed and support DBNHS's efforts in that respect. We are left perplexed and concerned by the HPC's action. Fortunately, the City Council can compensate for the HPC's shortcomings. It is our sincere hope that the final barriers to this project are removed and that construction begins. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, � �. V 'b'n% Cc Sheri PembeROn-Hoiby Amy Spong Kathy Lantry n LJ � Creatiyig a sense of place a�d a place that mnkes sense �� I� �c,,rd � � � 30 • ol .i � , a i � � , • � • • I' i� � _- - - � —� '— -- — —�-- ,� � � � , l� �-L. f < > w Z� � I l _ _' _ . '" ' ' _-�i _ -- - --�-� 1 ; ` p t. ' \ 1 �� ' \�� _, � �_� �� , ,� r E`� ) \ � � S �\ `\ l� ' �� ,.` , ,, � \ � \ 1 � �` .1 �� .._-� _ � ' � `� � � � � � �� ,�,� � � ,� , , �� :�,, � `v-� —� -�_ � : Y�C '� �� '!I. ' e ' �_ �.._ . _ \.\�.:\\�.� �� -� �� : �� ai�� Z) oa-�� _,_ ,_,_' f�_=/ f� / �� ---1 ��i� '��' � �'�0 D- Q�� ` ooD_ �I � � .. �;,- . 0 i L r I� II � L L_ � �� 1 � � �� : � ^ � � � � L_ � cn � � � w 0 � � � _� � o� � �� W Q� � itS � � � 1 1 1 / � � � � � o � 0 � �-�- U' � J W W ,�, J �� ZZ Minutes of the Public Hearing ° Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission April 12, 2001 • Members Present: James Bellus, Judith Benton, Joseph Emgo, Susan Bartlett Foote, Paul Larson, Lee Meyer, Ray Meyer, Daniel Scott, Shari Taylor Wilsey, Richazd Wolfgramm Members Absent: Gar Hargens (excused), Richard Murphy (excused), Dudley Younkin (excused) Staff Present: Julie Hoff, John SlQadski, Amy Spong 1. Call to Order: Bellus called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Spong in�oduced Ray Meyer as a new HPC Commissioner. 2. Approval of the Agenda: Spong asked that approval of the March 22 minutes be removed from the agenda. The agenda was approved as amended. 3. Approval of the Minutes: The minutes of March 8, 2001 were approved as presented. 4. Concept Reviews • 207 and 212-214 Bates Avenue - Concept review for new construction of five-unit and three-unit townhome structures Spong presented her staff report. The applicant showed maps of the site location and surrounding • structures. There are many 2-3 story buildings and commercial masonry structures in the azea. The applicant stated that they want the townhomes to blend in with scale and materials, but they are really still in the concept phase. The applicant continued to describe the buildings based on a prospecrive of the sites. The five-unit building would have individual enhies for each unit, front gate entrances, a deck on the back and awnings over the windows. The units will be 2.5 stories tall with split-entries and the exterior will be stucco with a stone base. The three-unit building will be across the street and since there is no back access, the access must be from the street. The building will be constructed From masonry or stucco and each unit will have a different look - so it will not be a solid block of homes. There may be a portico on the main entry and the garage spaces will be 1. 5 spaces. Discussion: Meyer questioned if there was a site plan of the three-unit, but there is not one yet. Meyer also quesrioned if the concept for the five-unit lacks details because it is a concept. The applicant agreed and said that they plan to carry over some of the details from the three-unit proposal. azson commente e is no a conceme a o - � cornice is important to tying the building into the rest of the neighborhood. He believes the comices needs work and that the entries really need to be pronounced. Right now, the focus is on the second story windows. He'd like to see a pazapeted-look. • Bellus commented that garages off the front are generally not allowed, but he understands there is no Page 1 of 5 Z3 oa-ra� back access. The architect confirmed that there is no back access. . Larson suggested recessing the gazage entry and reducing the omamentation to draw less attention to the garage. Meyer stated that this suggestion would apply to only tv✓o of the gazages because one is on the end. Bellus said that the consensus is to minimize the look of the garages. Larson suggested articulating the individual units - instead of the columns - so that it looks like there are only three uniu, not six. He believes that this will help minimize the look of the garages. Applicant questioned if the commissioners liked the use of mixed materials - concrete foundarion, stucco, etc. The commissioners said that they do. Meyer said that the applicant does not need to worry about maldng the buildings look like each other. The applicant stated that they will try to carry over some of the materials. 663 Euclid and 662-668 5urrey - Concept review for new construction of two four- unit townhome structures Spong reviewed her staff report. The applicant stated that there is only one sh remaining on the Surrey site, although their application stated that there were two. The applicant demonstrated the location of the site with a map and described the surrounding homes as square, older homes, some with hip, gabled and pitched roofs, porches and band runs across the bottom of the gable. The proposed concept features a wrap-around porch facing Euclid, view of downtown, four units on the south end and four units on the north end, a pitched roof, bands, comer treatments, articulated front enhy (portico-look), two-car garages, decks, and some have living areas above the garage. The applicant stated that he is trying to maximize the views of downfown. • Discussion: Benton questioned how much square footage is in each unit. There is approximately 1400- 1500 square feet per unit. Bellus asked what the exterior material will be. The applicant stated either wood siding or aluminum or vinyl. Ray Meyer questioned if the units aze very visible from Mounds Boulevard. The applicant stated that the individual gables make it look like four different units, not just one big roof. Lee Meyer stated that he feels that the proposed structure does not fit in with the neighborhood, perhaps it is due to all the gables. The applicant stated that there are 3-4 houses nearby that are connected with one large porch (double-houses). Larson said that he does not believe that the roof line will allow for proper drainage. The applicant said that these are concept reviews and have a lot of work to be done. Bellus asked if the access to the homes is off of Mounds Boulevard. The applicant said no, that the houses are at the end of the bluff, but there is alley access in back. Benton questioned if the new structures block the view of any of the existing homes. The applicant said he would check into it. Several commissioners felt that another concept review should be conducted on this property. An • elevation of the structure along the bluff really needs to be submitted for the next concept review. There was missing information. Page 2 of 5 2� �r-��-f- � � %�_� �. _ _- --� � :l� 0 _ � a _ � � � 0 _ , J 7 w ] :� lll��-n :� :� ;�� .� _� � 0 �� == �_ � == -- - � • • • ZS oa- iaa _ � � � � � Zc� � � r1� � �) � � I��/ � �� 6`�� - i-' i.� . ,.. i�.� � � l � � ' 11T1 �E� -�d _ - -- -- �� V Eev �`o � Ja`� W`�� rmm �W o U� ��g � �ia�< � � -- 1 -- T � i � • 2�- ba-ia.�, � n u � � ��,ovbd 10 • �{ , d ( MINUTES OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Room 4Q Lower Level, City HalUCourt House September 6, 2001 Present: Judith Benton, Joseph Errigo, Gar Hargens, Paul Larson, Lee Meyer, Ray Meyer, Richard Murphy, Dan Scott, Shari Taylor Wilsey, Richard Wolfgramm Dudley Younkin, Absent: James Bellus (chair) (excused), Susan Bartlett Foote (excused) Staff Present: Julie Hoff, John Sla�adski and Amy Spong I. II. IlI. IV V. CALL TO ORDER: 5:03 p.m. by Gar Hargens, vice chair ANNOL7NCEMENTS - There were no announcements. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA - The agenda was approved as presented. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - The minutes of July 12, July 26, August 9 and August 23 were approved as presented. PERMIT REVIEW/PUBLIC HEARING A. 261-271 East Keltogg Boulevard - Demolition permit to raze the �Vells Fargo Building and an adjacent one-story storage building in order to construct a parking ramp with housing. Spong summarized the Commission's discussion from the public hearing meeting and stated that each commissioner had also received a supplement from the projecYs architect. _ Terri Cermak, Cermak Rhoades Architects, asked if commissioners had any questions. Younkin questioned if there is any other parking possibilities in the 311 block area and specifically, the azea immediately west of the Wells Fargo Building (WFB). Cermak stated that there is not and that the area immediately west of the WFB is occupied by a stable business. Plus, the location is too far away and would be considered a greatly devalued pazldng space. Younkin followed up by asking about the area diagonal to and southeast of the WFB and east of Broadway and Kellogg. Cermak stated that in addition to being too far away, taking that for parking �vould displace a significant amount of exisring parldng. • • 'f-cia�c - �-vi-� :as��-esrA�-13a-ased-€er-tke-�es�effic�-- anciperhaps parking for residents could be provided at the post office site. Cermak stated that the post office paridng would be undesirable because Kellogg is a such a busy street and would be undesirable to residents to cross it regularly. Page 1 of 6 • �� • B. 207 and 212/214 Bates Avenue - concept review of construction of rivo townhome buildings Spong reviewed the comments from the first concept review meeting for this project. Gary Findell, LHB Engineers and Architects, reviewed the project. The 212 Bates building, has hvo pazcels of vacant land, where he wants to construct a 3-unit building. In response to the commission's previous remarks he has: • Inset the garage 3-4 feet • Emphasized the front enhy • Used brick facade elements on the end units and sides, stucco on the middle unit and stucco on the rear of the building. The building at 207 Bates Ave. will have six units and three entrance areas. The garages will be accessed from the rear of the building and are walk-out like. This building also has a stucco and brick facade and a fairly simple comice. Hargens commented that he is still troubled by the offset vertical and horizontal elements and that he prefers to see the brick wrap on the upper portion of the building, too. He prefers the units to have subtle differences - these are too distinct. Larson echoed Hargens comments and stated that the in/out, high/low comice doesn't finish well. He prefers the look of 207 Bates and that the ends have more massing. However, Larson • commented that now that he understands how the units lay out - that he likes the way the units are separated - he believes iYs rather clever. Spong suggested that the front porches need to be emphasized more. Findell stated that the porches will have wrought iron gates and fencing to separate the units. Hargens suggested adding a canopy. Findell stated that there is a small one. Larson added that the entries could have more of a portico. C. 663 Euclid and 662 Surrey - concept review of construction of rivo townhome buildings Spong reviewed the prior concept review meeting and stated that the applicant will also need a demolition permit to construct the townhomes. (The applicant later clarified that they are not proposing to demolish one remaining house on the site and will build on vacant property) Benton asked that the applicant comment on whether or not the existing residents will have their views blocked. Findell stated that these units have no basements and that each building has four units with a porch and one-car garage. There is no access from Mounds Blvd., so the garages will face the backs of the homes on Maria. • Hargens stated that he is having trouble placing the context of these buildings. He would like to see the site plans of surrounding homes. Page 5 of 6 30 R. Meyer stated that he likes the view from Mounds Blvd. Larson questioned if the roof line extends - the applicant stated that it does. Benton asked if this obliterates the neighbor's views. The applicant stated that anything built on the site will affect the views, but that a small view comdor does remain. Larson commented that there is a trade-off between filling an empty lot and blocking existing views. Benton questioned whether or not the architect tried to capture the views. He replied that the main living azeas all caphue the views. Findell commented that they �ied to make the units affordable and that there is one unit that is accessible. Spong commented that she liked the wrap-around porch at Euclid that Findell presented at the first concept review but the new proposal removes part of it. Hargens suggested covering the porch. VII. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS Spong announced that Councilmember Lantry presented a motion supporting the HPC decision regarding 728 Euclid. The council voted a 3-3 tie. The city attome�i is double- checking, but he thinks in this case, the HPC decision will stand. � Spong announced that the bus tour of historic properties is scheduled for October 9 from 2-5 • p.m. Spong also stated that the sign grant has been signed. The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 p.m. - Submitted by: Julie Hoff Staff • Page 6 of 6 3i oa-� a.a ��5 Dayton's Bluff _ Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. 823 East Seventh Street • Saint Paul. MN » 106 (651)7746995 • Fax:(651)774-0445 December 13, 2001 St. Paul City Council 3` Floar City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Council members: Enclosed for your review are plans, photos and other documentation Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services would like you to consider in reaching your decision regarding our appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to deny our application for a building permit to construct a four unit townhome structure at 663 Euclid Street. The public hearing by the City Council to consider our appeal is scheduled for Wednesday, December 19, 2001 at 530 pm. As you are aware DBNHS' townhouse project has been in front o£the City Council and the HRA Board on several occasions prior to this, when the City Council and the HRA acquired land for the project and awarded the project STAR Program funding, HOME Program funding and most recently Low Income Housing TaY Credits. DBNHS' project has also been awarded funding from the Ranisey County Housing Endowment Fund, Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, two private foundations and our equity investor the National Equity Fund. In fact all of the financing necessary to begin construction is in place. DBNHS would have been ready to start befare the end of 2001 were it not for the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission to deny us a building permit. Since the proposed building design had been in front of the Heritage Preservation Commission on two occasions, prior to the Commission's final review, during which we received generally favorable reviews, the Commission's denial of the building permit came as quite a surprise. Because the Heritage Preservatiou Commission approved a building of similar design at 664-668 Surrey Avenue, except for the fact that it did not have a single story wheelchair accessible unit in it, we aze quite perplexed by their decisaon to deny the building permit at 663 Euclid Street and the Commission's unwillingness to propose other reasoi�able accommodations. While we agree it would be more aesthetically pleasing for the building to have two stories throughout, this is simply not possible with the wheelchair accessible unit. However, DBNHS is willing to do whatever is necessary to work with the HPC staff to improve the directional emphasis of the wheelchair accessible uniPs elevation facing ELiclid Street. Given this consideration DBNHS respectfully requests that you vote to overturn the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision and grant us a building permit for 663 Euclid Street. If you or your staffhave any questions regarding our appeal or the project in general, please feel free to contact me at the above address at your convenience. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, • ��'=✓G�.✓c � Jim Erchul Executive Director cc. Nancy Anderson Roger Curtis Sheri Pemberton Hoiby Amy Spong oa-t ao � Dayton's Bluff _ Neighborhood Housing Services, inc. 823 East Sevenih Street • Samt Paul. MN 55106 (651) 7746995 • Fax: (651) 774-0'+4i December li, 2001 St. Paul City Council 3` Floor Ciry Ha11 15 West Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Council memhers: Enclosed for your review are plans, photos and other documentation Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services would like you to consider in reaching your decision reaazding our appeal of the Herita�e Preservation Coirunission s decision to deny our application for a building permit to construct • a four unit townhome srivcture at 663 Euclid Street. The public heazing by the City Council to consider our appeal is scheduled for Wednesday, December 19, 2001 at 5:30 pm. As you are aware DBNHS' townhouse project has been in front of the City Council and the HRA Board on several occasions prior to this, when the City Council and the H12A acquired land for the project and awarded the project STAR Program funding, HOME Program funding and most recently Low Income Housing Tax Credits. DBNHS' project has also been awarded funding from the Ramsey County Housing Endowment Fund, Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, the Local Tnitiatives Support Corporation, two private foundations and otu equity investor the National Equity Fund. In fact all of the financing necessary to begin constniction is in place. DBNHS would have been ready to start before the end of 2001 were it not for the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission to deny us a building permit. Since the proposed building design had been in front of the Heritage Preservation Commission on two occasions, prior to the Conunission's final review, during which we received generally favorable reviews, the Commission's denial of the building permit came as quite a surprise. Because the Herita�e Preservation Commission approved a building of similar design at 664-668 Sturey Avenue, except for the fact that it did not have a sin�le story wheelchair accessible unit in it, we aze quite perplexed by their decision to deny the building permit at 663 Euclid Street and the Coinmission's unwillin�ness to propose other reasonable accommodations. While we agree it would be more aesthetically pleasing for the building to have two stories throughout, • this is simply not possible with the wheelchair accessible unit. However, DBNHS is willing to do whatever is necessaay to work with the HPC staff to iinprove the directional einphasis of the wheelchair accessible unit's elevation facing Euclid Street. �• - • Given this consideration DBNHS respectfully requests that you vote to overtuni the Heritage • Preservation Commission's decision and grant us a building permit for 663 Euclid Street. If you or your staff have any questions re�arding our appeal or the pzoject in �eneral, please feel free to contact me at the above address at your convenience. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, .�� Jim Erchul Executive Director cc. Nancy Anderson Roger Curtis Sheri Pemberton Hoiby Amy Spong • �J e �= �y �� :�. ��- -�- • L� „�`v �.*vice�:°` w� va-� �,� Letter appealin� the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to deny a buildin� permit at 663 Euclid Street (File #B02-043) Letter from Herita�e Preservation Commission denying the buildin� permit for 663 Euclid Street Plans for 663 Euclid Street denied by the Heritage Preservation Commission Site Location Map Photo's of existing historic double houses and townhouse/row house buildin�s in the Dayton's Bluff Historic District Conditional approval letter from the Heritage Preservation Commission for the 668 Surrey Avenue townhome Lot Area per Housing Unit Comparison Planning Commission Resolution and findings Letter of support from the Dayton's Bluff District 4 Community Council Attomey's conclusions regarding Fair Housing and the Americans with Disabilities Act Photo's of 663 Euclid lot and surrounding homes Heritage Preservation Commission Staff Report and Relevant Excerpts from the Dayton's Bluff Heritage Preservation Disffict Guidelines flGi��.3v :;y3�.� � e'�,�cXIn�G �'f�','=PsS Exterior Elevations for 668 Surrey Avenue I � (located directly north of 663 Euclid Streef) • approved by t(�e HPC on November 15, 2001 v� . ....� • • r � oa- ia� � Dayton's Biuff Neighborhood Housing Services, inc. 323 East Seaen[h Straet • Sam[ Paul. JI\ 5j 106 (651)773-6995 • Fa�:f65 U 77=-0�=� November 21, 2001 Vir. Roeer Curtis. Director Office of License, Inspections and Em�ironmental Protection Lowry Professional Buildino. Suite 300 3�0 St. Peter Street Saint Paul, Minnesota �5102-li 10 Dear Mr. Curtis: t am writing on behalf of Dayton's BluffNeiahborhood Housin� Services to appeal to the City Council, the Heritaee Preservation Commission's November I5, 2001 decision to deny our application for a buildin� permit to construct a four unit townhouse structure at 663 Euclid Street (File �B02-043). Dayton's BluffNeiahborhood Housin� Services is filino this appeal based on the followinq �rounds: • l. The four-imit townhouse buildin� �ve are proposine to build is very similar in massine and sca(e to esistins four unit historic townhouse/ro�v ho�ise buildines and large do«ble houses, oftea built in a rotiv, Iocated throuahout the district. The buildin� also patterns the massine, scale and orientation of the mansions and buildings located alon� the bluff line and along Mounds Boulevard south of the freeway. Additioaa!!y, our buildine site is actually slightly lar�er in area than the lots upon which esistin� historic four emit townhouse/row house buildings in the district are built. Put in this context our desi�n does conform to the massinQ and scale requirements of the Dayton's Bluff Herita�e Preservation District Guidelines for new construction. � In fact the Heritaoe Preservatton Commission, at its same November 15, 200i meeting, approved buildina permits for three other buildings, similar in massin� and scale on sites with fewer square feet of area per m�it than the buildins they denied. One of the buildines approved by the Commission (668 Surrey Avenue) is nearly identical in desidn to 663 Euclid Street escept for the fact that it does not have a sin�le story wheelchair accessible unit in it. We believe the Coinmission erred by denyine our buildin� permit based on concerns about its massinP and scale relative to the size of the lot. � 2. Our plans have been revieeved and approved by the Plannina Commission and a special conditional use permit for a cluster housin� development �vas granted fo� the buildin� on November 2, 2001. The Plannin� Commission found that our buildin� at 663 Euclid Street will not be detrimental to the existing character of development in tiie inunediate neishbort�ood; that it wiil not impede normal and order[y development and improvement of the surroundin� properties for uses permitted in the district and in all other respects that it will conform to the applicable re�ulations of the district in which it is located. � Given the Piannins Commission's findings we believe theHeritage Preservation Commission erred wf�en it determined that our proposed townhouse buildins does not relate �vell with the nearby homes and the eclectic Iiistorical context of the Dayton's Bluff district. Oa- �,° 3. "Ihe pub�ic corrmens made by the t��o ii�dividuals wLo testified at the HeritaQ: Przservation Commission's • public hea:ina. ��,hich are referznced as the primary basis for dte Commission's decision, had little to do ��ith the buildins�s desiQn. Instzad tite; primarily foaued on these tl�o individuals` concerns about ren[al housi�to in Qeneral and the characteristics and behaviors they a;s�med fantilies tliat liced in the buildino «ould eshibit. The few relevant design issues that �vere raised by these mo individuals all have been considered in the desien proces; and [o the best of our abilih'they werz addressed in our final desian. Their testimom� was not about the imp�ct the buildins �vould have on the historic character of the district. We belie��e the Heri[ase Presercation Commission en�ed in allowins most of this testimony to be heard at all and erred fuRher when it �ave credence to i[ when makine its dzcision. Community resident; have beei� im•oh ed in tlie developmen: and desien of tl�is buildino from the Qet so. In fact it was a neishborhood task force, which included many residents tltat live near this site that provided the impetus for the dzvelopment of this project in the first place. Severa! Board �iembers ofthe Dayton's Bluff Di;t�ict �' Community Couneil also ha�e 62en intimatzh ircolced in the desien process for this buildino. Tl;e full District 4 Board reviewed the building's desisn on mo occasions and extended its unanimous support to the project. 4. The r(iytlim and directiona[ emphasis of the efevation facin� Euctid Street, ��hile it may not be ideal, relate, better to the nearby homes than the two existino garages that front Euclid Street. These two sarases are the only buildinas frontin� Euclid Street on this b(ock. V Additionally, the Herita�e PreservaYion Commission failed to adequately take into accoimt die fact that the rhythm and directional emphasis that it found to be inappropriatz is in Iar�e paR due to the fact that the housino unit nearest to Euclid Street is desi�ned to be an accessible unit, which necessitates that it be one story in heivht and wheelchair accessible. "this unit is required as a condition of our project's financina and applicable local, state and federal requirements. � To be frank. we are deep(y concerned by the Herita�e Preservation Commission's failure to acknowfedge ours and its ob(iQations under applicable local, state and federll laws wltich require us to affirmatively promote the development of accessible housino and by the fact that they choose not to work with us to improve our desi�n, if they found fault with it, �iven these obliaations. We believe the Commission erred in not takine these requirements into account and may even have violated the la�v by denying our buildin� permit for this buildins while it approved a permit for a buildin� directly adjacent to it ahnost identical in desisn, except for t(ie fact that it did not (iave a handicapped accessible unit in it. 5: The final findinos of the Herita�e Preservation Commission are inconsistent with its findinss in rivo previous concept reviews of the project. On bott� of these occasions, the Commission responded favorably to our project's overal! desi�n and encoi�raoed as to proceed to the final desi�n staoe. The Herita�e Preservation Commission staff recommended approvaf of the building permit in her final staff report based on the previous fii�din�s of the Commission and her own final review of the project. 6. Finally, if the HeritaQe Preservation Commission's decision to deny us a buildin� permit for this project is allowed to stand it will cause severe economic hardship for Dayton's BluffNeishborhood Housing Services. We have invested thousands of dollars and countless hours. of staff and volunteer time, desisnina this building based in large part on the Heritave'Preservation Commission's encouragement and the previously favorable reviews it provided us over the wurse of eiQht months. Not beine allowed to build this buiiding puts the fi�ancina for our total project in jeopardy. This buildin� is one of four buildinas beina financed with Lo�v Incotne Housing Tax Credits and funds from mam� other public and private • sources. Takins this building and iu four units out of our l6-unit scattered site project totally chanoes the economics oftiie whole project and it cou(d resuit in us foosin� the financing convnrtments we already tiave in place. da-�ao At the very minimum we �cill be required to redesion one of the exi;tin� buildin�s to provide an accessibfe u�iit and . then �c-e wilf have to �o through die whole permittine process aQain. �Ve believe the Commission erred �vhen it failed to sive adequate �veisht to the dearze of economic hard;hip its action ��ould inflict on Da�'ton's Bluff\ei_hborhood Housin� Services and gi�-en the pressina need ir. our neivhborhood and the City as a«hole for affordable housing it erred €urther b; not takin� into account the economic hard�fiip its decision ��ould inflict on t(ie families «'ho wou[d benefit from the oppor[unity to (ive in this quafin afiordable housins. Thank you in advance for allo« ina us to file this appeal and please feel free to contact me at �nur conveniznce should you require any additional informaron re(ated to this matter. Sincerely, � ��2,� Jim Erchui Executive Director Cc: Sheri PembeROn Hoibv Kathy Lantry Amy Spong � • � � � ..J �a �� CITY OF SAL��T PAtJ'i Norm Cofenmrz, :ifay�or November16,2001 Gary Findell LHB Engineers & Architects 2�0 Third Avenue IQorth Minneapolis, MN 55401 OFFICE OF LICEtiSE, INSPECTIO\S AND ESVIRO\1f ENT.4L PROTECTIO\ Roge� Qvtrs, Director LO%'v'?.YPROFcSS70.�'dL BU/LDLVG Suie 3GP 350 St. Perer S.rzet Sr.ir.t Pr.:d..ilinrizsatn SJ/0?-!5/0 Telzplmnz. d51-?66-9090 Facsimile' 65l-266-9099 Re: 663 Euclid Street, Dayton's Bluff H�storic District File #B02-043, building permit Dear Mr. Findell: As you lmow, the Herita�e Presen�ation Commission (HPC) considered at its November 1�, � 2001 meeting your application to construct a four unit townhome structure at the propzrty ]isted above. The commission voted 11 to 0 to deny� your appiication. This decision was based mainly on public comment heard at the meeting, a concem of the massing of the structure given the size of the lot and the relationship of this site to the bluff, the rhythm and directional emphasis of the elevation facing Euclid and not relatmg to nearby homes, and the historical context of the bluff with respect to nearby historic homes. You or any aggrieved party has the right to appeal thz Commission's decision to the Saint Paul City Council under Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Le�islative Code. Such an appeal must bz filed within 14 days of ihe date of the HPC's order and dzcisioa. Chapter 73 states: (h) Appeal to city council. The permit applicant or an}• party aggrieved by the decision of the herita�e preservation commission sha1L .vithi�afourteen (14) days of the date of the herita�e preservation commissiai's order and decrsion, hnve a right to appeal such order and decisio�t to tive ciry coio:cil. The appea[ sha[1 be dee»�ed pe�fected upon receipt by the d�vision ofplariiti�tg [LIEP] of bvo (?� copies of a notice of nppeal mtd stntement setnng forth the groz�nds for the appeaL The dtvisio�v ojplamting [LIEP] shall (ransn�ir one ropy ofthe notice ofappenl nr�d statement to the city council and one cop} to the heritage presenation comn:issiorz The commission, in any written orcler denyi�ag a permit appltcatio�t, shall advise the applicaiit ojthe right to appeal to the ci�y council and irtclude thu paragraph i�z a!! sa�cle orders. Please feel free to call me at 651.266.9075 if you have any questions. Smcerely, � �„�� Amy Spong Historic Preservation Specialist cc: Jim Erchul, DBI�'F3S File c� a- 1 0.V � �� . _ §� 0 1 - g� jo ;e �_� y ��6 £R N _ �J..O _ s " g 'z � y m° . _ Z ag � J Z v� ��`a ` � I I LL � � LL O �� m ¢ Z m Z W i O=� V � �� 022�v `a 3 v �y � e m� t �O a : ° 3oi �a -�Q 8 '=_�- F Bi3 BU� `F� pe^:4 +a0 = �ti �x� €$,. ° F M t��- = wcn dww fi?a2:'e `s Q � ^ Q , 1 v Y J � �( S 9� 7 O � z n oa-r a� � � + � � _� . J ly� m � � � � � � � � � � � e � = $�: '-- $@` �� $ ��`r�§a"s_� _ � � � , �- LL _°�= _ ��I o s$' Jo� Q�� O a�. �� _- �, UW$ ZN� �€�€ is mx LL - `: a �i.b Ub b_ s�p � 3 � �m Z � N�` `G a�y� I 9 ZOC7w min —°� z e �� Q �'��' =1�d€ I �' �iv� io' U� 3 "a�: ' ° ' � �� ' �� € �� ioz w¢ ;a . �a xc Z a $� g a I_¢wOW ..�3 p �d g .ceEv� ¢ C a�g'€$E �i � a c �Z2N g p� $<oV gy �_�` q t " . - a3z?$='s — s x ' ° a` �a� � „�s s ��i �a�� ss� s : ��y �§ eeo p g� : r��`� �?a � e; � i 'a§W�_'�xc a�e� 0�3 $�g T i ' � �L, ti-` . � i—'il ` i I : i -�� w d sL� � T � ; a 7 � � � F I i �� f` �- � z � �� a�� o j ! i � , � a � �i 4 � ¢ g= �W �II gR � 0 �i � i �n ° p /' �,9 a . �5 3 g�"si� I ¢ � ° _ - - w i a.�E� 9 �_� a:' w C S j $� I Y3 `3.a ��,,yjj�'a�u � ¢� r ` ¢� �' _ �� '^ N "��'i ,., �'^ O z � N i � �` W ` � - �J ••a � x l • .4 p a�a �� Q— � E I � ff» s ¢ x% I � y �� I � I 7 1 �\ � � a —I�_ � Q I'7 � Il � , �, -I '°� � ; -_+ a- i- / i ° \ � -°. v � e a - �� pgg � �t / � �;'� `-��- § � ` �a�: -� -, S �ON1W�� 9 (� Y 9�� 4� g � � � ��§ $ s q Z �� v g , � �� gza. � A 'a i \�` � z.� ;,�� y �°-_�g � � � � o a-=' -�a C� ``�;,;. ,.�pF�? a ¢ � �� / aI �� w Y8 o y6 s�� . o e = y I I ' 3' � O �' 5a:� 3 � @ = � � ' 8 �: . a ° z 4 ':�� ' ' S a� ? � ; i —' � I — � _ rl, \ ' � w �� ` "a;� 8 p g gg e = ; i � �x �� 3 9 ° � F° '" d 9 $ � I � �, � �� `� �g e��`s� 3 ' -�� . � � � ' _ aeQ a � e� �n s - 1. ¢ d � $° s�€° f$i Q p �� Z 3 n � ' w � �� g Q � - a _ � - q � . ti �^� pY y Z I . AO .rn . W d�i ��evSB d eo �� W g 2] i � - ' i / �/�/� % ' S 1'1pC7 . _ .. ... U' .._, � � ��i, � /.: ' ;;, 1 �; �= yJ �' I ; � I % T �,�„ �� a � ,ij% ,� " I /. �` �; �� ° � j � 1; � � � � !I f O � j `_ � �- ; � � �; ,,,.� �r , ,,i� �Im� '.II �� J/' ��. Ie� �� ° l ;�i ( � ^� v � ��%/:,^ 43 s `a 9 - - p � � � g � �°; � � .��:::: � �. �-� - '�i - ' �'�' - .' _ — ��, : � - , � t ' : � R�1_ � u�lJ _ .. ,J ��i; - -. :,:. - no , �. ° �'W q � � �' � : - �� // � a � _. `l'�i . w � 's �� \ sa fr °� �a : = `, � V �/, � z ° . �%%%%�%%';/%�� , ' `' < ., �� i ' ,. , a / �� , � C!_ ti , — , ti ,, _ ', , � .,, � oa-i a.,o I - £� �, _ 3� 0 a=$ N�a �o Q O \ Z s 2�,s �ob J 1 �Z I � LL � � Is m�x �� ZQ�w � i O = N U I � � 5 I_ Q W � W � � � OZS4] �� ;� LL � � w O m'v� � J O I z� ' o p� u ^; :.T�i `U2 =�Z 6 .�2:4'e9� x °�o F ��r p �S ``' ._? ° W(O eLL2 8L0.'F� 5 Q oa-1 a.o - _ - �; �; ma za y � � �29 �� u- o 1 =i o, J Q7� Z ,� LZ G u�� ` d� i i "° LL O I = 4 m O � ��W Z m Z I� � �� f I �� e : ¢wOw t � a a OZS(4 � Q s -, ;� K �w F O O e y7 (nJ J o � � r zi p� LL £4� °° N '�i a c�ia =yz : e32s"s s o •a0 " �F = :` .._ Y $o� x wu� aLLa aCo:€e s` Q � Q �a-la.o ,�_ U oL / ocv . � J � .J Da-laa • Wood Siding vs. Vinyl Sidittg Dayton's Bluff is proposin� to use appropriately detailed vinyl siding with painted wood trim corner boards, fascia, railin�s and porches on the exterior of 663 Euclid Street identical (except for color) to what was approved by the Herita�e Preservation Commission for use on the exterior of DBNHS' townhouse building at 664-668 Surrey Avenue. While the initial cost of using wood siding on the Euclid building is nearly three times the cost of vinyl siding, $59,000 vs. $21,000, it is not the installation cost that is problematic, but the on�oin� cost of maintaining it. Over the 30-yeaz term of our initial operaring projection painting the wood siding on this one building would add approximately $199,877 to our operating expenses. These additional maintenance costs would severely deplete the building operating reserves for the whole project (all four buildings). By year 15, due to our painting expenses, the project's operating reserve would be oniy $4,2.i3. It would remain near this level for the next 5 years until year 20, when the cost of painting the Euclid building would push the project into the red cvith a building reserve end balance at ($31,718). • Because the cost of painting wood siding has such a negative impact on the long term economics of an affordable housing project, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's 2002 Housing Tax Credit Design Standards do not allow wood exterior siding to be used on Low Income Housing Tax Credit buildings. After looking at the economic impact these painting costs have on our project we believe the MHFA is right in not allowing it. � � U `o U m � L • L O L � U C V • 00 � � � ��e rc � a w � m x 3 � °°mh o ,, � i � i � V F � V ' > � UU � Srv W `n � � p � � 0.� 2 '� � 3 p W ^ O LL W $mm � 'BnNm y eo O � > C �m��. o ' m c '' 4 n v u�i - o ' �w` �rc>" oa—�ao _ �S� m� �� m _ o�m°$ � � � � ao� �� , � �;` w w w°� � ��., � �_ � � o�o �� n � � m �s d � �a � e� "�� - a � ��- �, m~e e a � m �"�o ' « � . ^ „°; � ,^-' ro � � � � � ' N c c �mm m ,� h m � h �°$ n$rv ' N a v N _ w „ r ro �� n n in u� in �n � �� m '� Q Q Q�� N no $�� mm nOn P - w �dmw w h w � .� Q a ° nqtl mOntv � ° ° m�o �" e � m � ' ° � - m � a � ` � � w n w o� NpiN � a __ o- N _ o� 4°�° ° g e v o I o m � c N � C m E" �e � G� G� � f Z - ' � � � � � v vEi.� L = c� � � c £ J a° u f _ f' .. -` �� ai8 du �] m c' n" a a o , c E c E c �,7 ° E c i � W A-_ c•` - � ` " �-' ' E u�wwnm a 0� rs�E �°°'c� �� °�yrc a0v�� l?�d� Wm _ °u� aza �.f i� Cp c£ � -E � �c �u�raw =�� ¢at Ec �vw � 'g "_$=' _uum uc� T; v - �OIiNNF 20U �=2 a2Q?�I.� V1=£ m6a`�u Y.06�W d^9Q�IJ d0d06L1 oa.-ia.o � U 0 a � 0 x 3 a = w E � - o ,� � U 2 � d V pa� o � ..an U o za n" .�-. L ' r � . - W q 3 � r ; • � ' a ' S - z -�-. � _ � . - � p 3 � - 0 q e0 W � f U _ ? � (n - o > a i i� �I� - �� _ _ " � aj� m1� � m � �m �� o �_ « vo md� N N�o � �a � =�$ • � - � o ¢w` ��> 0 _ � " - � q „ � " < < � o � _ � - - _ -_ - ��;��- w � N w _�- w �� _� ��{�__ �� y � y � � d � �:� � ��P _ - w ��w �N�� m � m � m = � � �� J� mm� � - m� � "' _ _ � m m �c�,.m m _ �8 O ry N � V �v b v ^ m n in in m � W nl� � f � �h w om c a ' �;,� — O m � � < b n O N N �• � n0.� n m in N 0 ut � w '- - ' onm - .� m � h °' ` °' �"' _ .. f`o^ m m �, c,ie � � "' w « e e N�° o -� p f� w�'um� m � � h a m n r y ` � ��n� �� i nm�w$ m .� o m I � a � �.°�� E�m W z � � � `O = � c � v W n N m E J ana do � c EcE �� c Ec> c u�w cA ° �n - ww a '� �� N �c> �' E„°$cE qom� c'^'� s.v ��c o 0 oaq �z c' � cf v � Tdn `ci m `-'� >'cz E'`m c�' c`m a m E e¢ w c` d = E c r E c m_ - �- u a� u � a e - c °- vw 2 _ c o _` E o.0 °e � ci,A �� o z"o�M �Si acc`n_w �n:i go<`d_u+ `�i�"a¢�G c'o¢`�w ae"n'o<u: � V •m u V G L z a U w ¢ N 3' o> w° Vo o ' - " ^' 1 � @ J jN � U � C �/�� 0 C l� a " u ` i3 V �a o C_ 0 aq 3 J< C e O_ w„ � � U `_ LLY � 7 n m O a O ��o i� p�o c�o Co n � f . � � g� a .o e f � • ` _- o � � rcw a ¢">' oa-«o �� - �o" � � �, ., Q �: f; � a a��o" - �;�-- -� w°� � � ., N �_� �� n � w ��meq � � ., "� � -. ��o � m �� ° � -- � o � m m .� � N r I w w 0 � � � �o -� .o � h .� N o w w o� on me � N �- V � a� n N u� � - � e e ^"° ` � ° w 'D"n$rw m m0 vi N W w W �i 0 � � r ry n n v N t � � H om k ' va N � n �0 n� n �. ` �'+� 0�D rv 0� n ao v v - � ;, ° - ry� N v f � '� � �m� N n m v v `� O qmomy n�dw N ° ° �^ a a ' mlm � � ° � � o � � � N q �� n �o� v e � � N `` � o� � °° o e I ° � " �� e � i � � » � r p � S UN qne �� v dN6C1 � � s E� � - _ � � aW - viw'3m`acy <i 9 � o�> �-� i�:: M�62 pm_� qma� �� _u y�j C[�ioc E a a 4.' 'CR �C£�CC q'C4 c P£U _� cT V T �' = z �w � � Ec ' Ec �c c do dv ��aF p= `� f "im� ` � r, a 'v4o z"c� ri5° .�<`�c�+ �Vi $�'c`a_w u �m¢Bu a � oa -� ax, � w 0 � N 3 0 , � _ w _ o � ' � N � U �= � c ,�, � " ` za` � U m � 3 - �°. � = O = M '"� 3 � = ' o a � � r _ �� _ _ . = - � � _ w � � - , � o m �;, = o = _ U � m N , O Q O � - °o �� --- � o � � w � m� a.o =d� � � - _�o � � _ _ p � � � g � ° < < e � - - - - _ - - _o �o --- � "� �- �a �� m _-_ � - --- �m om - - � � � _ ��.�$mm - ��-�� m ___ �m �M --- N rv �. ... 0 n _ _ �� r q m n t� N _ _ '' � y m o o _'' N N `��`n m°m i+m� _ _ Hr� � � � � m _ _ _ ° mo� m� - -_ N N `. `. e � � ° n '�. � ..� ..� n � � " - =g g' ' m�e $a �o � � _ - �p p N � m � � _ --.. m � m -- °m� � m o � � _ _ oM_ m�� ° M � � - --- - ��m " - --- o. m � � � - - �°� � � � � _ --_ ` w � ___ u�+ c� ��`nmmn � r�'n e � ^ � �j ^ m n v� `. �. ' N ... ,. f�NnCm mm`� e>� �n u�i� v� v v m m ! rv _ 0 b m p 0 m � v v ^ I � w f q q m„ Ih N mlc �.- w� �, w �"' mn � I � �" P � v - 5 c" N a � ° �a a e � � g � e �T�E ° t � � ., v F' ., F - > �� < < � _ � am a �� oza"e uo c Ec� < c E = 'O- �- �.E c..E �� E c E W �� 2 � wc3= ooa �- �� ' q" �'aa,�, a��E� °�n�E� �m" _ �« =� „��-�.. 3 > E°Fd ` 9„� =fa _ s€ rsa = �_ -A `�caw ce= �ar � a'�c E` uo'Gcm ��m�o w`` °m x" '"Nr� �'�¢ r=` -- <" _ 'o'e .aa'.q` wo r z"oca w.5z �<s_� �=f Rmc`�cLL uc¢9w e'm<9w a �� m� rv N I N a N � �e � = o • ' �w ��> �.� .vv . . 1 \J Si1-a l.;ocations oa.-la.o �' ; ,.•--�.�: • • �•••`•d •�XiStii'!C� � � t�U � •��1 ��• �.Y(-V`��G. : ;; --------� yvnt�ome �tes 393- . �t' ; �, ., . �� C� C�.—..� # �o ��.� �._...---- r, �Tar�t��;5 ;ernvaN � a C�D �,,�, i� i ��` -, � BQl�1 4.---� r � � lt ' � �a ; ' � J t_._r �. o � � _M�ltpattet � �� ' � �' � `---° 'E. SIx1h "'� ► 'y� /� �� E.Flfth� �� y'4 ��6 � � i [—� �`��/ � `� �c � L�.Fo�� h.._J !�� % O Fnmon _ y,�`�`' � a 0 d L_,.�J �\ Q � • �a�cs ��' ��`� n D Q , 1 � � �� '�s�—♦ � ` ,�t� '� Q ( Conway 334 Mour�4s ��` . � ? �� t ��.�.++�+ �o E�}thST �c� E 4�Sr ��n�� a`1a� • _� �•-- ' ��j;� 1 6t�8 E4m Fi,:qid 1 �, c �o5c� e 31 -6� 284 Mou� 6�z Cnnwny �v5to Con'Wn� / lc�il Convdt.�� 7��-`5 A�ictrr'q . 25, �'t�r;9 . 247 t1artq 2q� �ta�-rq 243 P9ariq � \ a�'`'�< �� S . �t....t t�.J ��t�� . , , . � . 237 MGViG � �I`f4 �230 1 {oUY+cfS �12v ��tes ��I I�`tuunds � ,24�c �aric� � 2421�1ar iq --Z38 Mar �q -212 'Sal'e5 Zo�7 r3ates Patk und � �J /� � �'+�`� � � A �� i�eu�ds5t f s�Cc�vieYvf Mct�� J _ J 1 � � � _� � �//' � � . . --� :: �, ' � -�� -�il. c- ' �— ;; I -�—+ � ' ; � �� . i: . < . + . !: �r S �+ �1 �. � � 8. l� � ..�° # .. �. • i.�'. �.$F ; �z `« F: . t'.; 3 `F F �Y � •� . � � i� �� ' �' ! � � `� Y t � � � (' ..�_. � ' ' �� .�', . � � x �� ; � , �� 3` �- j" t ° i c "' ; �,._ ,._ ... '2-' 'fa '3 ,:� � �� 4 � � . � € r � 34n �` � Ni 8 3' s � 5� � �? . Y ✓ �'' � � _ ;„ � � �_._. - i # .� . �. • �e ; i ��.� � T - a— y� « " �S !: Y � "'� . '. . . , - �> L` '_' . .- -_" :- �. � ! .. .�_._.':.� : i 7 s —_.�.-....� __ ur„z �` s m, � i �� 7 n �' � ��„s s �' JC `'I R 2 F_ y�" xa ,q�. � ; � a ��q V � � , .. . .q�- � i s �� ' � ...s�+r�_ s � ��, t �� .. �.. (. � . �. [ � � ��' , �� ! � � S .! P t i t .� � C�� a .. _ .. ,. ��` _. z��:; �.", {� I ' '4� �S F p, �s � "] 9j$ i L ��f � 1 7 A ' �� ) �' - L' �*� µS2W : � � v;��`3`� � �'. �� < ,"��+ � �t,€ r �,�'��, ,� , ��N � 1d� ___ I� �� w-x ��,_` . , �_- �� 4 � _ � �� ``�<�� ` t �_ s :� �r�� _ �� .z,� _- � i '. � .r ,y .e�^' •.:x.� a ., � 5 ^ �I'T " � . _ �,� � . �� i� � � 1 _.�A � t, �. 3 � . . _. . r__� � Y � _ 1 � � r.� ' � ��. S.'. +��,, � �� 1T �` Y i7 - � .: . � � "s ,: __ . i �. � `i ' o .� ; �7� � � � 1 r � �� , � '� ' �� , �. � _ . /r `: _ h . a: � , � , z s�w y . . . _ .. : . � � � , j �. i '^�r� � a� .1� 7 _ �"`L�b."I '�� . � �, � � �� v � t.�� ' `"'z'�a�,..��e�" q . _.�_.��.�� T'�.�.. ,� _ ` ��lF�` � � �' ' � .� > .e{- � ��>�' ; _ Y- y ; ..... ._=:..'-�.�, '_ H> : . �� '_I _ � y v _ � r z . s "-j _. . � __.._.. ! . � � 1 _. _. —_ _._-. < �y�" � , _ 4-E . . .. . _. :'�ti'A+�. . j j4 ( } } y " ` "Y� � �v 'h � � r� ° ; r � � b � —a '� � ...__ ._ -- . .s . .� i �rv �� — ; - � �� €. � �'�'��'3 � � � � � x"z � ! � � .� � � :f � � „ M � �� § , [ i 5A � #. � 5.�4> _.. j�y` S � � � � i � � `.`�� . �� a ��:; `_'..�•��. . �� ` E�.. . ;�= �.��.fiG'i'� t_.l - a �'� .�. -.! ' i !£,�'r:. � s � � �.-'£� :.i r ,t. +,+ � . .. '� � t�� ' . � g p �� . r 6 L �� i _� Qr'�t�l . . i � Fi . �� \~�.� `�i � � R _ t : _. 2 � . . � . ,{ 3 '_. t � . � 0 1 �, 2 Y V '._,�, ,a- ec _ � � �.. � . S . �"c �; � . . � -. . �L. '` � t r _ ° �`-'r t '� P � '> _ �F� � � � 'S � 's<cir. �c�" _ '._— ' ''.' . _ . ' _ . �.. , . .--_ f� v� Z'�� „ +t�y �?� F. �,{ � �� ax ry� ic -�F �" ' -� ° >��n Fs�'C'� }�uce�c t i - ``i5'l � ��} � ,� �� . ��d � �-E'tr.+��``�g� ��§Nd�',. ��'� ��.„�a�'� T � + �� -tro ��?�`� . . %� , ��: z + �� -,�� s�� a� ��.��?a ��" �� - ��3 � �. �. � F �� Qae � w- � a , � 8 °�,. . >� �� :�m �s��j.�� ,��.�� y �4a �� `-�.�x� �+P {��A �a^A7.9.y4s$�y`�,:.F 'yr �•C�� a 6� � a�> � r� ��r ; ;��C�� ' ' f 3 Et ' C} �F .' � � ! t ,� f � �� # 'r� 3 � Y � �� ,( '�� F {� v 1 �� .' �_. � � ' ' " � � $ � ^�iy�c� �8� �� _._ j� . �� '� �r}y '� � i �� . � - . t �. �� t _ ��3 . f ! , � ��'�� ,. � � �, s�� , , .� � H�� : �� ,� ' _ ��, '�v._ � � ,� ` � �.. �� , H � f � F ��_. ' ; � °� _� � ��,� � � ; �= 4 ° - h, � 1 R�43 �.t � , . � �� i.,.; � h _) �` a . �: A � �� y4 �'�" � � r fi ' , p7: .kl� �t ' _ �� ; �,�. k :, ;�� ! F f � '$£�� ` �:{ �.�'j � � . � � —_ ��C i� �y � � �. � '4. � 1 � �. �'. ` i � ,� F � .. '1 � .�; �,> �e �,�. ',T� F `t 0 ') '�z i ,�, . _ �- V � Fr �c�.';� � � � i g � r �° , c ' -e i� � . " � � :: �� ° , � 3 x�"�� 4 � �ry ; ��a. ��- � �'�`S� � ` 4; p � ��. � ;d . f ..n+� - .�u�� 3"'* � ., .. .7 , �' n. ' i .a��^ � ' � V .- � . ir.� f �� f � � � � �'"�5.� ; .. � ; .. � n � � � _ � rt � ; � 3 rs = 3 . r �� — -- � � �� . � z� - � _ s. �,�� ,. , . � ,�� . �;_ �� a=� � �� G .�s —. � ��,: .a�--' . - ` �; � . % , : r�e t � � � t �-' c � a.a:�s: {`i ; --..—... i f � �� . . = a �i � � a � t � � R �i: I • � _ 3�� 3 � 'ta� �� fb � . �' � , -,� �. _ �_= - � � r 4 ��i � . �: ,� _' } ��- ' �; � , `t�'- < = � �,`�'`�' , '. E ^��"� ' � �- �,�._= F � t .. Y { �� 4 � y� i f _-._ - � __-- -�. f � . �. � s [ � _�� °� .. � ! °`:� _ _ _ — s , �.. - ` ,_ " �° t�,��-. ��; � � � < f � ! t !� ~';.� ! . . . � . � � i � r � �� @� . --`� i � F�< 1 �; _� � i •� ' � . ti �E ( f- , :� i=.�� t.�.� �> , y � � �a � 3 �. �-�:. �-.�@ t , ` V i \ �� 3�a34 i� ��@ �� `� y 5�� :� � ��. � �_ `^ —+- v_ _ _ . . E1 � � '��f ,�� — � �� 1 $ ��-.�.,��, -� . . - _ ; , i '-- \t. � � . � � — . . . � �_`' _- . . , t . . � �-.� - ° ":�. - r� �; t2��, � �: '� , t � 4 � �; I , < < { . �� i�� , � f � , � r � �� c= v �; � �� ` � ;� . ��`� _ �� j , ''� ,_ :'• ti e r , � .�� V��- � -.-: �. w .' -,g +a� � {g �. � y� � .�?8�� e � s . � � T i' �• f � � y <'�[ } ,� . l% 'A. L✓' � �� ,l f 1r'. �`� t .,-�"�' ,� F}� €� � �� d,Ee L3` ' �F�� i�� t . �§;�� P `� 3a26 �... G/'I 4 }� : x � � , �s��"�� y� 4 � 'j_ � i �� . .#� !`�"t ° ��9'.�.��s��d/�� . .,. �f��'�i��t"a � ta ;�, �.y,��_ ;+ . . . -..- ._ � f . . ' : �_ �}'4s � [��. =�? ; . - ; / .� i . --' rt� �y� � F � ': . ', ' � . �` 1_ i " � ; �� . � `��. 1 �` { . � . ) i � `rit 5 � q F 4� - '"_ � �<' �� c. i L��O�?L '' ay .' ,..c. �' t � - �@�f',�? t i �� \ . � ` �' ♦ x a �_" - e��d �!�� a � . i� � j � "'��C �� ... .. - b� � >> � >. � .- . ¢ ^� �%: f P "l � �� , *.f '�� . . �. � Y � �' y � w �� a �V'� i _ 1� d'�..'�5�� ^y-,�'. i� � ._ �_.... - . �- � . � .� � _.. � � ) � " \ � ' # � �� , � ��.��. iit�ti� � � r �� ~ ) . r F� i�t � . q s #��p t'�� :, �: . I � . �\ � �' ��,, . � � x, . } i + ' [. /y � � � e l � �s ��. t � .. �.' k �.. g . '�-. . q. i!1`*��, r y�.\'� ��. �i.:�"' '.. �( . �1 ' _ � '` � ,-. '�,� , �F ' 1 _ j� aa `` !� :�� ,` .. , � s .R � �� ,. � �� P � � t. -�> '' .P�_ f .e�i � ,j '° � �� - O ' � .. � �: � - f S _ '� t ; � � � �� v .: ' i ��. .� : . . ,� ..�� ,3 a a. ? ' `3 . ,x 9 � v� ?i � T�� ` . . . � , �,�; � .:�e #.� 1 t -. 1 �i ' � .:` � . + � ; k i L _ JM �' _ ' S� P \ . � j y ��,,' �;�t � � ? . �:' �� i �� _ � �� x � �� "� .�" � = ' '.a3te +'*a5^:.� . t`c � q _ ))) L� � i �� ' . a � . .. _ . , d , � �a � li� �� , � � s � � � �, �'� � � �; r � � _ ' _ . � � �' - ; f� � � � {5Y �� k � `* �{ 4 �° 4� ` "�u �� ` • . ( � t ` . Y S � '� �• ': . . ...1 __ . , ^r�S �' � � � �.. # # F '� .. � �. R . +F 3 b I ' 3 p y S ► � ¢ S ' .� � � 9 � � t _ . . �<<.' � . s �: � e�" c '��S '�". . . . .. ,' .� ' . ,�..� ". .. _ �_�:... . . { � ` $ � `a°° ` v �`� ° . � a . . `: ��X�= � � x.. F: � .,` .- ; .. _ � � � . "� B' sliw_. r, : S ... . _s� ,,. , .; � . . -.� ,r'€'� .: � 3� - . Y � � � ', f.� � f t � —, �.r ' �ya 3 _� .�—r' f � ; ,� = �' j ,�`� `°_ �` _-, , , �s �8 , ��`- ' � : d: , �'� a, , r � � ' ' s � �'.v' � ; � `' � � ��j��. � � 'd's"�<� ,;� , � } �1 � � ' � t � , � � j� �.;;. r �, . � �,� _a� ` �.�� .. . '��\��.. � �y �6 \ � �6�.�,��, �°� �,�� _r � �� . g �. � r""� '�;' � a� �� t t� ♦ a 4r ` � ' 3 T. �. 9 .s��a � °�� °' .. tel yy � _ �- a � : .._ �`�:_ - . � �� E�� '� � � � : 3 ��`'"c � � —�" ��. � -�.� . i ��. .�� ' � � k � . � � � „� ��`�°;�ai'rd�'.iii�� 1� ��` '�� t 3 'a` ��`wr' ,. r ' # +'e�s�LT L`a �� t ,�� *t, �a.- . , • �. �� - .��j 4 , s ..' ,. i al t � ��, �' �i �` � �' '� 3 l . � - � � `- � x,. �_ � z �� ' � ,' � - -� �.:! , J � -f F .Y� �y] _ f i� � � # � t �1� �.g L ' i �i 2 y IE { )i � � `• �_ .- �� I f � < 'ti� R � 5 ♦ � f I` � �� . !i, I�S .1 �� .� . � �� 1 � � Ij�. � f��. �• f `� . n 4 � � t�s �) � / � 1 , x �. �'� �/ £ — �� ("�' � w- 3 i � � � � , �'� z�.� , �. '�e. �. `�� !7 i. L , . s_ � � � 7 �> • � t. �� ) l ..ki ��. _ ! � � f Y � �l .� _ _ _ K ��. � . p F r, �"�+.��.: � $r �� << � � ��: : � �\� t 3°i Lj � � t . i x '- s-, , _� � � �{ � . � �� ;- '�t� i � � !' .. . �� •� - ,��,.�� - � � �x � j i s_ _ � — � �iP r � �� :.�l�. ... � � , - . . . _ ,� � + . . . . .. _.�. - r -- i� a� �� la .:'� z� . ' T'... � . �"z> � � � �� '. i :: S. ;�.. - � . h�� =f f ^ � f �. . / ��i- . � � � } �_ �� aj' � _ �� ;F �� ` : t � � �� v nA�� `',` s �' _ a�ar, � , � ' � { ; ��,.�*�.�� - - � c..-�,,.�s. _ � _ . � - . �` , . .. � . �} ...`... . . � � _ � � � xi i, { • V \ s ..;Y: r ...T � � �� .L'l"' ! . '�V::�.�.�C� • �"s'`.�'+� b: e /r 5� '� : /. i .:k� �-`� � � _ _-_.. - . / ^- �� ;� .1 ^�? � �r .� �� y; � . . . , _ �`. .� � � _.. .�... � :� � _ � t. Y - s�� , �.� � ti� _. 4_-" $ - _ �.. � �`: { � I eY . ty�� 3 —� � � z�, -�� < � '2' A :. R S °a7�•+�� . �� 4+�' i . '^t:. - _',.-�% '' ?-.._... �. �. . \'"�, '_.�� . ._... F' `� —'� . t' �— --.. F ? � 4 ,;�f�f'._ " 'Tr . � . .. - . .�._t'.. :_. - ` . I� � � � t �, � � a � � �. s �� ' i . . . � � � _ � �#��.� \�� ^ � j �� a _ 1 -'� � ' l , ' z : � � � � / � ' � �� 5 �'' ;-� __' ' - -, � : � � _� � � , ;�,�� ; �� .`-�'� - _ `��=�, = ,i,, �. � � � .-�- �' � � "` "i� i . . . . .,. . . - .a�x . ._, > .. . . � i � .. . 1t �.. � � � r _ _ ,: � r "._ k.. ' - � � i l.: � :�� _! . �s-� '� �- , � r . � . . - �.. n ` � r ",�. y � o% a . . � , : ; . �:;: . .' .:. i 1 :. f �.: �� . u � _,�. ' �. _ g "'�.�,;;� �_ ��.+, -„�� ---- � �, x t �. r�, ' y ,, �, . � � `�� ._. _, }. � � r. t � , s�� _ a�� . ,� ` � -�- �� , �" �� r�. . �*� 1' � � �`:_ � . .. . � -.. ^ ., : Y E x ..��s, a . :x .._ ... ;. . �:` '.' � r ". +..s .:: � . �.._. ... ��. � � �� a -`, - ecr e ` `: : , ' f �. r � `��':r — : -� '-- r _ r ' 3; �- � �`�"��-.�--'�� - - _ _ " ��,:; �� a�; � �' �� %#��3,a:: � .. ,, ��:�� i i -~ � �< � �j ,� � - •. i � � t a , . _ .._, � � �� e �� i�! i'7`S . . G'. - � �� ' ��` . � . . � � � N �.. .- ' — '�.� ��:� L � . . - .. � - .� � '�� ,� n �, �� —.-. .� � ' _ _ .. . , a � ,,, . � � . __ ; . _ � ' - � �� ` �� .c:.�i �' :� _ . . �. �.. : : : i _ 2 . . .� . ! 1' � ' � � j �4� i � ♦ ; :$y�f.h i� �... '� i �, I __� � > { �� }� p i F� i . ��-�� .1 � .� � � � � . � �� ' : � v � 4 . . . . � , �:��. . . � �—��, T �� .� . � . . .. . . � . .. ..__� :'� �. � � h—� ;� �� `'��. �_._ � � � �': -� �: �--� � � . . . �€ ,w _ �"�-� — -. . __ ` ,_. �, � �.: �� z�s�� ,'� S a � �i@� �_— _ � � -` a ' � � �- > � - � - ��; — e � '�`� y+ . -- . k . ct:`�,4" ..i� � � (�"`?�'{ � �� ( ,�: � 6- � .__ ��"'^^^-----"�.� � ' ` .,�, t .« '�u.. 5�� ! � � ,;, �_, _• ) � � 1`� i`f � � ' — � .� ... _ �, �'•'S w� ,`�,� �_� �� . � �� 1 1 _ n� ` f �� x : �l. l � R \ y — � k ` � .!D/+ _ _ �. r � j � � , � . � � j '- � — - � �� iY' �n� � ��! n 4 � iL � %�� . � ��"�' m" �'�� g � " i ' l�� °`s`�� . � � � Lt i k"a. �� 6 Y��+"' � ��. � } �u . « ' s �,�r �a . ' ' � � �,?" '. �. -,..: . i t^ e � �''�� S �� $' / � �y ''P � `�`': € � ° � °?- � .� �. � �� `� ? tl � ' ` � � n ... . � +} � 'z%�,s,?,'��,`r • , � �. � � r�,.er4 ��r, : �.xt . � : . � $; -�.� ��+t r . -n m - �.�c , . � .rz P ' � _ � s� ._ l. . . �� F.,,.. ' �- � � q � �e, �' 3�'{f �iid__ -"' �T5.�.'aa�b�`._`m�� ,'�. °t j � ; $. Kaz � � .. . ._ '1.` � p , . y. ' .' ^ ' ^ „ ° , �.,,?�J' .�>- _..s _ . _ �... .. . ., � . . aq a�� '_ s:. � -� � _.. _ _— _ - ;. � � � � /��`�" - ` .�" - .�s �, � �. ��, �� ,,,, b �� ...Si[q..,�.'� L ��'4+dc•��"�1a�z�' �� t �� '1.��.3LR.�:3 � �� . � q. tF"�� = O Y � Y.'4�7 4- v 4��1 ♦ ' �r�� : �� . � � . � \ � � ¢ � s c�y�S�� , " .fo-� � �� . .�y,� .�� X � � ^—% . �I. ��..-+.�'3r '"�.�i�'-��-�� .�?v$ ,a ` . r �eca�--v Y��j:. � � r av .� c� i s� . g� � � g� N _ ' . a . y # . � � aY• �� `` ��: & � .s � �. � � . � a �`* � .� � ! � � .. � � �'-� H �`£� � . . 4 Ri44�•y�-G_ 3 -�� 9 i: _ ....�.��: �. �� { r ' � _ �,":<.' i': �' F Tt _. , " �� L r �i� � � � . � aoew�++^a... ti�:� Tf� � Y( -_^_ � s� -�i.:.ns�=�' � � � - ' :; � . �- . , - :�� .2 �9 i . i.p �.,t.i+�.."� L �_ cr' �! .:-_-er �" ' :_ .� .�. cc _ _ „ -.p� . . . _ ' �_ . �: . . � ' �, � :' — _._._ >.: : '. p � a ��: .._ f 3 , -_' _ i�_'� � _.. � ' .-s �a, \ + _>i` � � � . � l ''. . - ..__ � $� LL �� .. � _ _ _ z: �' .( �. i <-� � j � [ � � �� ' � � , i�� —� �— , _. . q. _ ,� t � - '�% : - ��. € �. � �' 5 � � �� i k . �, �': }� i 4� j "-. 4 �` . � . � � .. . � : � . �. � t t ir� � • • °;-�`��_:;::.�._ :.�_ . " ;z ` '�y __ _ oa- � a.o � � ii�� ! • � . _._ :_;<;, � ,_ .. yr_�a..�... _ 6 _ S [ � �� , � � _ . � P � ' ' . � � ��" '-,:� :��` -: � - _. s �� ... . _ � F�c'. .._... ,. �tY�� S_. [ �i _ . ..:�.�.. .��-�� - • • - ,�. . :. - �: �.. :�,� �. ` - � _ ` _ �.. .. -�:= � . =_:��- �:.: _ _ �� . - �� . . _ � � ;._ � � �` � �: ` ,. _ _. �� z f- _ , . J � , :� �- � . � � i �-� 3 _� _ '� �- ' . �- �:� -;: ` _ �� _ . ,' . . . � , - . . .. P e ; ,.. ��'v , _� � � . .. . � . " . �-�# . '�,�� ;r r � _ _ � �` � �_ � .� ��: � ��1 � 1 - r e� ��`3 .�►. . ��. _' � - ` � ,•;`� � . �i ¢.. . . � � 4 �- . _ d +. � . �� - . . - " . £ }�,' yys�;?_ _ S f k � k�� . t., �� . -- ; dY� '�` . � .; �. �_ - , ._ .z " . _ . _ . - '. ir�s - . _ _ . - .. ' -..r�` . � . �._- _ _ .�s,� �. _ _ . - . _ _ $.^ � � . . � �c ;.� . . , . . - � .- . y;, .. •;, :; �r i � .. '� r. _ ' . - _ . . _ :r - a„ - r � §K ; x � � c. , � . .. �� . .� . . c . .� t�'�,��•ae ` �^,+ � � s� .,c�'r5 gi� �s�� .. . _ _ t ti: y, � • � � . . � � . . ai f' { s�'�y � �i '' . �r � ��€ , . �. � ' � _ r ' ._ . . . _ �w � -�,. �'r R� � . L r �� ""4H'."� .s i � r ` har - s � i' �� x.'� �^�'n� 5 �. _ "t �� y, � �` ' ,.,.. ; c� t z' ,�'� r ' 7-; �� - ' �` r''�` a . 3ti.� � � � aT �� :�. . . � h ��r µ��._ �� . � 4 3 . .. . ... �� 3�SJ � �� v �'��' � , , ` �� r ��k� �� ' K� � r 4 � ,- `,� ` , �� ` �' � � � � �- � "`�� E i `*s Y ��# t � Z � 5 �� rP � ?"+�`�' . � �� k P � x� � �� . � �� .� : , ' � :� �` .;s „� � �� $ ; � � �� Od-! �o } � t j ! Y' -" �� ',.-�' � -: t .T ; : r � �: . _�� - � , _ ��. ' .� - _�`� , , - �- _ ;� � : z: �,�� : j � 6 �� : �: _ �: -:;� ---'t _ f __ 's �� e,� _ ` -�;_ � i , - � - ,� �-: � F . � � _ �. � .. �- �T • '_ F.�:� � � . L r � , �� . �%. M .. _ .. s.°a . '�'a"'?.E�'" �,. '.S"a �� _ . _ . �, � ' f ` � 4a '+'� � .. T'� _ Af} ' $ ; � °i y. •. . .� , , .. �. � �. z �- s.. �°. *� �� i � � 8� �: � -: �� _ ' -- � _ " � - " . _ -_: _ _.�� .. _ . ., . _ _ � • ° �., _ $ = � ��- � . , � � � ' � ,� + "- � � f � ,� ;' � x� e - x : � , s � � e- � � _ � �� t�� - _ �' - - - � r �� . _ , t_� Y � � . �� } � _ - �.. � � �_ 3 , � ; � j � � ` , �`�'� � £" � z ,� .' • �� - � �.,€ 3 �� #4-" : �� ;�. �� - : � . ., : - . .,. . k �� 3 - �� .�. _ �-� �- � ti . # . ,� t . '�` s : � ,� 'a .. s � _ ' �,.a ' _ �� e . ` � � _ _ _ . _� � ° �' ' � � � �, , � 4 � ' � � � � � _ � � `_ �° � � �"'' *�•;" "`. ?> � ,.�_ � � , x � _ a _ .. , , : E _ � � �' �`�''� . _ _� , � t s t �� ,��t �. � =_- �� -. '� �� j 1 . i __Y . � � # � �: :s p i � � � t :. �; � j.. { . . � .. -. . � � � � a 1�. t y ji � � t : � � . � . F E � i i � � � � A. £ 3 � � — _ , � , � i; _ � � � { a � � ''. . . . � � ' � �: � � :: . . . . . . . 'n . � � � # . . � . � . . .. . . � �`. . � '-_. . � �. .. . , ...- .. � � . � . �� .. . S . � � �: o . 4 ' � .w': � * � .� ) [ ( � 4 f � i' S .: - � % . � �+ t � '�. � � � � � �� :�� t r�.,, . s� � �� ; _ . �_: F � n ! Y � �� r � � i > '4? P r ' �s _� 4 F \ .,� " t c su� � _ ' c "�� _ . .. - . . �� b-�. _ " , ...�-- � ,�� $ ,. �r� � �� _ � `. ' �� v�� _ _. — �.��'�s�. , -- .� - � �u,..� - � ,_ _.. . . . . s � . . . _. . .., . . � .. .. `: � ... . ... . _. . ti � . ` _ '._ ' '"c:: . , . .,,r- ,•,'� ,, ;,.-.. . ....... Wi�g3`z ` . � - : �.p� _ . � . . , `�,. _' a:>...--`:__. . . . .. J av� � ._. e ` - : e4 , � ` F � � (s-. . �'� '. � " ! ? i £ _ GS��: �s �Vn F � ,�� ' z _ �' R F r.?". ,(F '' . . .. . . . . . . .. a. �r �. ��';. .? _. . _ '{ `W° �_ - �bJ ✓ l.� y ' S 5 , � . �f$, i d . t T9 i3 1 �_� . �. � �-. .� � 1 .� � 2a�., i �� icZP� -.�p' . _. . _ . . _ .\ � , 4 } � � �� S� � �� + l t� , - t� a r� £� f� '' � _ 4 = � ) �.` . . .... . � _� `�: � ! � � 1� % � 1 �� : m � R 1 � � �� 5 � � y� ;�", � 3� J � J.i �� $- � i . �. HI �� i2:- ..� � . :. ..�- ;. . " ='� � . y JI_ 4 # �"f. t �-'�R � � . .5� ��''. _ . ____..., �� _ �S'.. - � •� 3J7 i y �Lr�J il� � ,.. � � � +_ . ,. 1� ` � ,' �- �- � �� : _ _: �� : � � =_z=_ � :�`. �.:.,. = :. �.._= �� - = »� _ __n _ :. E::, .. ; sw �� r�"�A� � � a ��`��•� '�` �. r"..'�, " .. .....� Jf' . � �.� + • ,r • �;,� , �lo;_. - * a' . � . �� .� � . �. .. S + �. . �.,♦ � ' ` -� 2 . :,.,.� , „ . "- ;�- • _ � , r ---�. .� , �� _ �> , �. ,:� � � � .# � �� :��'� _ . .: - e ��a ?, -�. ., — � '- � _ � � ',` �� = - °{' �� f ��:.=. -- } -_ {: _ . . ;#-s .4 _ ., � _ =_ � . ; ; ; � :�� - - , � 3 .:��t� �' � � <�� & �.,�� - -� ;,. � ' � � t = � ,� x ` �v"�F .� . �.� # : � ? _-, �,i e � - =a`-�. �; ' _ ti - �+��E �. , �_. �� ..� ` a � 4 �� — � ,. � �; �' � ; ; �� a�m��1�M1�1� � � 1 . . � � � � £ t f - { s � ' ��' 3 f � y' � . �' i ; �"�4.. � � ��. '''",�a }'�. �� # � � . ,� � �>. �, � ; �:;� �.� : c�,,,�vf_°�: " � �� a , ` f'�' w � �a, e 3 �� ±„ . *.' s �` . � *: �� ``� �. ; i' .� 1 �.,:- � '��, J -' . . �s �-_ .:? ;: a . _ -: � `- .. . �c_ ..:s+v,.....°{.."""�Y+-,_ ^..,,,.. � � ' � � � - �, - - - � _ A ` 1 �� ,�.. ,� ,:� i� � � � �'.. � Y ► � .. ",�. 4s+E�.';y;k-,. } � � � :�� . � } �� ; Y� � ! < �; � �� . :... ��_. � , _+�, �� . -, p .'� .��:: �.'-.. L � . .a.�..�1 x . �.�_ . . � • �� . - '�,.`�� , �► '" �� : ` - s , .�,,,� � ►�� • �� y � I�- � -� . � � :: �� '� # _ , �� '..� V ,. -�, _ ,sw: ��' �;, s� •�__ '� +� � � � � � � � �� .: a h �� ..� } � € � �a � � � � � �;;'� " � 4 � � ► L` L� t � �� : J a _ , z _ /; � _ � - -�t�� ° l,°', � I ,_ f � = ; : — � , �.� ,� � _ � : " �� — � „ , � ��_ .i�� , � � � � , ! 1 ��i�� u : � _ �' � /� ��l�,I- ,,, „ • � ��'-`' °�� _" ,� ;��;� "�`-yt�°`� ��; ; ; � �f � , : ,/ �' , , 9 '� _ �t � � J l .,�` i , "."7 ts , Y 4 1 � `�s-'� . . . .�:�+'.v��^�.+��' ..� � �`1 � .. .� }�• - 1 � - . ,� _'.. ` �"'\, : � ,.___ . . � l , w ' �� ,�� ._ � L .. �+�1'�. � �`. '' -._ ��R �_'1 r - � � �=��. ': � . _- i >r�, "�� /( � �R''°` 1 - \ �1yAl�� { - _ e�R � i � �t�e �1 t� } ��%- ^ ��'fCy� . � __ JSb ��,� - f i / � �� . f i �� F ��-:��\\� - 1 t� I: � - �� . S� .- � }. . . � � 'ra�^'1 3 '� 1 � - � j ,�l J � � : L. ' � .. � . __y i � 1 ..,�. �1 ( y� � � ` . . r I { .� _ � l �i�.c �'� � ss�� j /��i' j -- � � �ii ?� a� ,,• ;t� a'.V� � _ �'j� a yp,^] �/r� ��lA�� j \ _} £ . 4 t � j S S R ` _ i}l . ) t � ' �� 9 �� -� .�.+ -, � �ki i� , � j � :. j <�,. � f z . : � � � r � ` ' �� ,� a� �;�— i : @j - - i � � i ' :a � �,..:� � 4 ° . , . , - � ,. - ., . � . �- �. ��. , �:.9�:��.�'_i . �, . 1 ' ° . 'a- ' ` r� , : . � f� � �� .. . a � �1 _ a��=��ac<wro�.,l� ti ��`, t �'�' . � t, 1 � ` � �� '� �� ' � � ,. � �w1�� . �17�\; _ . t _ � � ,_ � _ � � "" � " � v\ �*•> '� � ,s„a ' t \ . 1 � l �-. � .. .. s� . � Z> �� 1 ` � �. ' �- �.. � �.:� . i "� — _ =zj ; �. ��'' +1+ .�, i .� ... __< ''� - �`?I�J�IG'..�I� -- �tl�'��..�e'° � . � - -Y°*. ` - ; E �. -� �. y � 3 r P ' 3: �y� J11� � 4 � jF ��`��_°� E i� i � � � �t t i , �' '; ` _ ' i � s; _ : � ` '' ._ _ hn,.�e�...+.�3 :: �� 3 � j Y � �� a � S � ' �� _,� � 5 �� . � �. . _ � F . i i.. � �� :� �:�.. . � :1 � ! oa -� �o � � � � �� . ,� � � ' �.s ` �`i' �i-i+.i ' a ,.. ,-.' ��+�.� "+' 'i�4F �1` . . 'L' y � � . � � S'r . �i - � -s'�"-3` �'� r v+,,,bsp> � ��.>� ' � qyt•-� ,`� �� - � �.+ , �y.� - -1 - ,, . �.' g� - � N �'�r 2F€ - c �'R�-�i�ti 'S' a s ._+., .9L�F'.: '- . . . - � �` Y _� J . .. � F � � ,� �r i �� #� ��? tq .•� '' �� • � � F ` . _ «..� � � - : a -, .�e!`� ""4 �" � .: �� P� -�av'. ��. / '. � '_ �.. _t.'_"�i'�-,�. `. � ( - � •^�.� . .' z � S .� . _ ' �� . . ' W :IF��. . i i��ye ° / � Y`}a�.✓ � __ . . - � . S_ �. �?�y � �. "' f �°'; � � �c. . . � � �� . � � � � � 4 d. � ��' � � = v � � ��5!�r 2 , F ��i t .: �v _ .. -Gd p �� ',y J _ ��. �� Yr �l� fLSf s�� _ : �. !�� - . � �%. � �.� �hL �'. �'��i.�� { , e � `�.� � . . � �� ..��Y ��j.`+'+r+. . . . '� r A � .- g '�. . . �� °� .4'rt�� _ '� � .-. _-- : � + -�2 .,`_�/ . _.. � � `'' tt �s5�4s y , s �1 ! . _ � � t � �� i a -. r � � �.:. -� � ' �� ': � �- �� ,� ' - �6f � ��, � � �� - / � �� n � t e��..+i" ' �' 1�'r'Sb.. '� . . � � �'� . .. � i �. �_� �i f- +,�"• r } r � �''. ( •-'�¢ �� `� � �( � T • F � 4� � aryY% � Y'� 6��" � F +� r �� 9 � �� f v- � �+, y , f "� �e �, . . �� ,+.,�, � _ y � ,- ^s �'S>/_ t -Y•9 � - .�s � �+3mi _ .. ��3, x ->� }.; - ..�a''�: - . . � � ., � �� L � ; _ . - _. .. 'F"�� .a�� ' . �� . • . , � . _ .. ..: � - �y . _ .., ' � . �T' l j - \ a _ ?a._ -�3 « a� - � � � � - �� ffi � v i � t - �''� 3��?�1"9�! ,,, �': �°`- ' �> � .�� .,, :�•�'�-�� _' � . °'y '� ` , '`�` _ - `. � �_ �� x �� , �, , � .�a � � �° - s � �� ' o -� � < 1 � -- _ ,{ '' . �y 6 L v; yyy yyy s �^�, � � j � ��.� �� y�� , A ek• �pr y .. �� . . '� ` �� : x! , ..:_�t'� ,-` r 4a, t � ! 3; { Z � ?��.�53 i i �� , �.. �� , f'' r;S t { , � ,�g _ ._ .. � G �� , � , ,§�._ _9!. ��' �` `<-��1 . � i _ _e'u$ �i � , � � � At �� : � � . � 3 �� • F � i�-- ' � t � � ` �; . 1� `' - .# ` "y`� _ � x ' � ` w.: ' �`' $�. - F � . 3 '` s�_ � i 3° .: � . � ��.. � : :_ a '• E � — � < ��-�; :� . . . ^ :-- �, t�, r �' a' v , 'tk'�`Y� .�.'c� i°' � t S F t�i7� `� � i ' �'4 \ ' � - ` £� � ; Y � �'��:�' Y . � _ .'a'J � �1R� _, ��1. a4y♦ a� �� -.. 'Z\ .ry+wk�t�'� : � ..<��. o-. i f t' � � • ► i �. -- � � � . � � �� . �_.,�t ! � � � F . � � . � � � ` v �� o ;_� r ��- �.-- � � i � � cr� � � � � Da-�a.o . � � _ �� ►� � � � _� ' _ �. , �:; -��,3'� - - _ �� .��,: * � ' 3 r «� xz�� Y ✓ �-4y:y } - �§ ♦ �.- yC'� r . . � sa+'�.i ro.<� ��i � �-. � s - t.'.. �-""' - ` .. . ' - ' `.? r. t --}� r � i �i j� �. _ i.' .' i_.-__ - r` FI �`"" � " : ,� �•-�'� ,��;-�� I � ., ;: �� / �t � � �x' ' -�� l 1 ��',`,.._�—°'� � � -'` � >�� -.s "� �� , _,-. , y ,: ' � *� � I; � . - `x� '�:. — - � . . . . . :Y . 3 »;} . .-.-- ...._ � . : �";'.� - � ', ��"- � - $X � ` �,E. , •.s : , . r. �'..F� ' . .� --'_- r =��; _ `� +f : � =?'� � � .�� s -"�- � `� F �� . \ �:--�-`,�� t . � s: 1 ��c °��.. a �✓ � �,' �= � � .:�_ 4 �� . . � � . Jy 1� 5+v. � �� . �-� � � } '�Y�. � ;x`'� �► 'Yw 1 'R �LCe \� #, F-` � � ' . ... K � : n _ —' �2 �'�' . .. �--�..� .�e ,_: �_z :, i s'd{+�Y k��'�. � � � - �; �; °zz �e 's o = ��g �� y ; s N yd � Ub 0 � s a = �� s�: aa- ° 0 0 � �I �� o JO �s m= 1'� `-"oc7w z m Z i, o � �� -QwOw s " QZ=(q 3� LL � N _ mm ¢ �p y � ?� O_ e , " y�2 WQ �KQ F�: :.:, . o � aa =�+!> .�Scss e o t,f �e0 L �F- �X� ;`_ _ � �or YVJ(n 5WW 3c3ei�8Q 0 �� a _< � � oa-�;Ze r `-�,— � J �� m � � 4 0 s � � o o N � � � � d p1 � � � � � � d � J � o Q �.J v � � 3 � �\ � V � ' Q 7� � � � � d � � � 2 � � �9 y e S� � a Ees F� �? ��? vu. � oa,v � � �� •_ . a � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nornt Co(elnan, h7a�'or November 16, 2001 Gary Findell LHB Enginecrs & Architccts 250 Third Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 OPIICE OT LICENSt, INSPECfiONS AVU [NVIRONMGNTALPROTECTION Roger' Cvr(rs, Direclor LO{f'RYPROFESS/OA'dL BUILD/A'G Suile 300 350 St. Pe(er Sb�eet Snint Pmd, A1i�vresotn Si101-ISIO Telephane G51-266-9090 Fncsimile� GS!-2GG-9019 Re: 664-668 Suirey Avenue, Dayton's Bluff Historic District File #B02-044, building peni�it Dear Mr. P'indell: As you know, the Heritage Prescrvation Commission (HPC) considered at its Novcmber I5, 2001 meeting your application to construct a three unit townhome structure at the property listed above. The commission voted 11 to 0 to conditionally approce your application. T}iis decision was based on the findings in the staff report. The building permit will be approved prov�ded the following condition(s) be met: 1. The vinyl siding must be appropriately detailed and can ouly be install as siding. All window and door trim, comer boards, detailed trim, railings, porches and soffits and fascia must be painted wood. 2. Final material selections and colors will be submitted to HPC staff for final review and approval. • You or any aogrieved party has the right to appeal the Commission's decision to the Saint Paul C�ty Council 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 dec�sion. Chapter 73 states: (h) Aypecrl to city council. Tl�e per�mit applicmat or airy party aggrieved by tlie decisioit of tlte heritage p� conmerss�oit slrall, tvithin fourteen (14J days of d:e dale of dte l:eritage preservatia2 comntission's order anrl decision, have n right to appeal such order and decisiort to tlte city co�mcil. The appeal shall be deemed pe� jected upat receipt by tl:e clivisiat of pla�:l�ing of ttivo (2) copies of a r:otice of appeal aiad slatemeitt setting forth the gro�u�ds jw� the appeal. The division ofplmining sJrall lransmit one copy of the notice of nppeal and s�ntenterrt to die ciry council and one cop�� to the Ireritage preservatioir cor�rn�isa'iorc Tlre commrssion, in airy titrittea order� denying a c�a-i ao Page 2 . File #B02-042 November 16, 2001 permi[ upplica[ion, sha11 udvise the applicunt of tl:e rigkt [o appeaL to !he cit�� council a��d irzclude Zleis pm�agr•apl: in all sucle orders. Please note, an HPC approval or conditional approval does not obviate the need for mceting applicable building and zoning code requirements, nor is it a permit to allow for �r�ork to cotnmence. If revisions to tlie approved plans are made, be aware that additional HPC and/or staffreview may be required. Please feel free to call me at 651.2669078 if you have any questions. Our files indicated that a general building permit application was filled out in addition to the HPC application, however, three copies of the plans were not submitted. Upon receipt of three copies of building plans, the plan reviewers can further review and process the building permit. Sincerely, Amy Spong Historic Preservation Specialist cc: Jim Erchul, DBNHS � Jim West, Building Inspector File . � � � oa-� � N .� 3 � — N N � N 7 O — t w 3 U O' � � Q � C C (6 O N � m � � � o �n S � N 0.. C r�` O � N m L N y Q � � o O U Q C � � r � � C .- N � 0 2 � � �v — � L Q 0 J N .� � � � Q O � O � � a N �I' � '�i' P') G � a � v rn � M � � w � a � � tn N N ch c� m � M O N � I� M N N (") C`) CO � s � 0 �' � � a � 0 O � � w � N n N � � T I� cn �C��X X :� � O �t O N M O � ��' J. � O� , � r N 1� LO Q_ '� � A �+ T > U p � O� O� O Q2� �Ur �U�,�t�� > > > � a� � o=� o=� o= � � � � � Q � � � Z� o Q:� oQ� oQ � o N � � � � Q O J � d N O O a` N S Z m � a U � W M c9 � � N � � � � � � � � N � ti m V N N N � � � m � ��ww�� a��a� tA N tn (n fD fq N N N tA N !� tf) N O O O 1� tf� !.D O O m O N O Cfl V O CO CO r d' V N N M CO d' V N r � O W O� I� (O r7 N N N N N N N � r ��- � N N N V�t N� N N� CO � w w a-� � � � � � a»� � � � �n s�a�aa`� �a�sa � �n v> �n �n �n w o �n u� �n �n rnc�ornoo�rn00000 N O N i� O 7 N C� o� � N c .j N', 6) N N f� M �(9 CO CO I� �� V�Y 07 00 ��- M M O� 6J N _ _ N� c- O 6) O o.7 '� �[fl ' N i0 � N N r N O� N O O O M r r a- N � � � W D� e- r X X X X X x,X X X'�,X',X X °� - - - O c') � � O � 6� O CO,CO�O N �� V'V V' CO�.M N V'�(' �'�I� � � 3 C N U a W a W N ca c4 'o �1 c� crs c� 3�.� 3.� .� ci� � � (�6 N (6 O �t„ � O c6 (6 � O ch � � � C� � � U � � V � M M N o� N o� O� I� � �� CO � V V'V tf) CO M� tt) tn LCJ � M N N N CO CO N(O N N CO � � • • Oa—/ � See. ��s 3 �,.�d �-I -�-'�.�. �G.� Cornnn.°SS��s�S t�:.�cl,'.�S R2��n-c1:�5 � city of saint paul �"�'�b"'l�l-~`� �e5��`�S �� c�; +h -}'l.2 Sci.(�.t2du.�,cL �•s� nie.� �.,loc�.�.l..oa� planning commission resolution file number ol-9� date November 2, 20C1 WHEREAS, Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services, File �01-227-374, has applied for a Special Condition Use Permit under the provisions of §60.413(13) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, for cluster housing development and variances from fhe schedule of regulations on property located at 4 sites: (Parcel 1)212 Bates Avenue; (Parcel 2) 207 Bates Avenue; (Parcel 3) xYx Euclid Avenue; (Parcel 4) xxY Surrey Avenue, Parcei Identification Number (PIN) 1. PINs 33-29-22-32-0142 & 33-29-22-32-0143; 2. PINs 33-29-22-32-0154, 33- 29-22-32-0155, & 32-29-22-41-Q155 ; 3. PIN 32-29-22-41-0178; 4. PINs 32-29-22-41-0090 & 32-29-22-41-0091, legally described as (see file); and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on October 25, 2001, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said appiication in accordance with the requirements of §64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and _ WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its � Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantialiy reflected in the minutes, made the foliowing findings of fact: The appiicant is proposing to construct cluster housing developments on four parceis in a seven-block area south of Surrey and west of Maple streets. There will be a totai of � 6 units, including 4 2-bedroom units; 9 3-bedroom units, and 3 4-bedroom units. These units are intended to provide affordable housing for families and assist in stabilizing families whose chiidren attend Dayton's bluff Elementary Achievement Plus School. 2. All of the uniYs wiil be aftordable at 50% of the regional median income, and 31 % ot the units will be affordable at 30% of inedian. The units will be rental and will be managed by Garsten Perennial. Rents will range between $453 and $939 per month. The f1'GrB!'YIOS NJIII t)° Q°CU�� by a .`�.Q-y@3� f?lOfi�?C�° ?hat v req��ire ownership by Da;�ten Bluff NHS and wili ensure continued affordability of the units. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority is participating in the financing of this development. moved by Kramer seconded by in favor Unanimous � against aa � a� . Zoning File �01-227-374 Planning Commission Resolution Page 2 3. Cluster development permits housing units with common walis while retaining 4he density standard for of the underlying zoning district. In tfie RT-1 Zoning District, the minimum lot size is 50a0 sq. ft. per unit. 4. The conditions that must be met are as follows: a. There sha1/6e a minimum of two units. This condition is met. Parcel 1 contains 3 units; parcel 2 contains 6 units; parcel 3 contains 4 units, and parcel 4 contains 3 units. b. The units sha/l be attached, common �rall, sing/e-fami/y, with no unit intruding on the vertica/ airspace of any other unit. The plans submitted with the application show that this condition is met. c. The parcel shall meet the lot area required per unit in fhe zoning district. The lot area requirements are as follows: .• 1. Parcei 1. 3 units proposed; lot area needed is 15,000 sq. ft.; lot area available is 8,800 sq. ft. The condition is not met and must be modified. 2. Parcel 2. 6 units proposed; lot area needed is 30,000 sq. ft.; lot area available is 16,217 sq. ft. The condition is not met and must be modified. 3. Parcei 3. 4 units proposed; lot area needed is 20,000 sq. ft.; lot area "� available is 13,894 sq. ft. The condition is not met and must be modified. • 4. Parcel 4. 3 units proposed; lot area needed is 15,000 sq. ft.; lot area availabie is 9,000 sq. ft. The condition is nof inet and must be modified. d. The parce/ shal! have a minrmum frontage of 80 feet on an improved street. The frontages for the parcels are as follows: 1. Parcel 1. Frontage is 75.08 ft. This condition is not met and must be modified. 2. Parcel 2. Frontage on Bates is 150.26 ft. and over 150 ft. on Hudson Road. This condition is met. 3. Parcel 3. Lot width is 50.76 ft. along the Euclid right-of-way. This condition is met. 4. Parcei 4. Lot width is SO ft. This condition is met. e. The structure shal/ conform to the schedule of regulations for height, !ot coverage, setbacks and parking. The schedule of regulations in the RT-1 district requires that the structures meet R-4 standards: maximum heighf of sfructures of 3 stories and 40 ft.; maximum lot coverage of 30%; setbacks of the average of the block face for front yards, 25 ft. for rear yards and 4 tt. on each side. Parking is required at a rate of 1.5 spaces per unit. The conformity to the schedule of regulations is as follows: 1. Parcel 1. Structure height is 3 stories along Bates (31.8 ft.) and 2 stories (23 ft.) in the rear. Lot coverage is 25%. A front yard setback of 5 ft. is proposed, with a rear yard of 76 ft. and side yards of 7 ft. each. The average front yard for this bfock is 0' (all buildings are at the sidewalk). Parking is provided at 1 space per unit (3 total spaces), while 4 spaces are required. This condition is not met. A Variance for parking (1 space) is required. . 2. Parcel 2. Structure height is 2 stories in front (26.8 ft.) and 3 stories in back •. .. . Zoning File �01-227-374 - Planning Commission Resolution Page 3 (30.4 ft.). Lot area covered is 25.2%. A front yard setback of 6 ft. is proposed, with a rear yard of 30.6 ft. and side yards of 18.9 ft. and 9 ft. When the existing building is demolished, a front yard of 25 ft. will be �• required. Six parking spaces are provided, 9 are required. This condition is not met. Variances of front yard (19 tt) and parking (3 spaces) are required. 3. Parcel 3. Structure height is 2 stories (23 ft.). Lot area covered is 27%. A front yard setback of 20 ft. is proposed, with a rear yard of 31 ft. and side yards of 9.1 and 23.1 ft. Four parking spaces are provided, 6 are required. This condition is not met. Variances of front yard (5 ft.) and parking (2 spaces) are rsquired. � g. Individual lots, buildings, street anci parking areas shall be designed and situated to minimize alteration of the natural feature"s and topography. This condition is met. The individual sites are vacant lots and parceis surrounded by urban development with minimal natural features. Where stopes are present, the buildings are designed to make use of them. h. Applications for cluster deve/opment shal/ include site plans, including landscaping and e/evations and other information the planning commission may request This condition is met as this information was submitted with the application. F. S0Gfl0!1 64.�QQ �� IS±S general standards that the Planr.ing Commission musi find are met prior to approval of a conditional use permit: a. The extent, location and intensity of the use will be in substantial compliance with the Saint Paul Comprehensive P/an and any applicable subarea pians...app�oved by fhe city council. Thi's condition is met. The Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Pian recommends good design solutions for housing that meets newer market .. needs and complements existing Saint Paul neighborhoods...(policy 52) and encourages the production of rental housing (policy 5.3). Policy 5.4 recommends a diversity of building and unit types to meet the diversity of the market. Policy 6.2 states theat the City shouid work with its partners to preserve and construct affordable housing. The Lower Dayton's B/uff Small Area Plan goais include developineni inai is arcPiiiecturally compatibfe lViifl EkiS:l g h�storic structures cCla . providing homes for families of various incomes. 4. Parce! 4. Struc2ure height is 2 siories (26.5 ft.). Lot area covered is 30%. A front yard of 10.3 ft. is proposed, with a rear yard of 41.4 ft. and side yards of 12 ft. and 9 ft. A front yard of 10 ft. is required. Four parking spaces are provided, 4 are required. This condition is met. oa: �a� • Zoning File n01-227-374 Planning Commission Resolution Page 4 c. b. The use will provide adequate ingress and egress to minimize fraffic congestion in the public streets. This condition is met. Ingress and egress for Parcel 1 will be onto Bates Avenue. Bates is a residential street, so the addition oi three garage doors wilt not impact traffic congestion. Parcel2 has garages that exit onto the lot ands need only one access point on Hudson Road. Parcels 3 and 4 share access from Euclid, with all manewering of vehicles taking piace on site. of or existinp character of the area. The pubiic health, safety and be endangered by this development � at d. The use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of e. The use shall, in a1l other respecfs, conform to the applicabte regulatrons of the � district in which it is locafed. Modifications of conditions and variances of the schedule of regulations are required for this condition to be met. 6. Section 64.300 (f) permits the planning commission, after public hearing, to "modify any or all speciai conditions when strict application of such special conditions would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of a piece of property...and would result in exceptionai undue hardship to the owner...; provided, that such modification will not impair the infent and purpose of such special condition and is consistent with heaith, morals and general welfare of the community and is consistent avith reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property. The planning commission may act as the board of zoning appeals and grant variances from the regulations of the code related to permits.... The commission shali grant the variances in accordance with section 64.203(b), (c), and (d):' 7. Condition "c:' of Section 60.413(13) requires modification for all of the parceis. Since cluster development is first permitted in the R-1 to R-4 single family districts, the ciuster development must meat the standards of the R-4 District, just as new single family homes would need to meet R-4 standards. The parceis identified for this development ., are infill lots and parcels in a historic, compactly developed neighborhood. The designs of the huiidings are consistent with the neighborhood and give the appearance of large single family homes and mixed use buildings. The Heritage Preservafion Commission has approved the general e�erior designs of these buildings. The quality of the design increases the cost of development. The denser level of development offsets these audiiional costs an:; enGbles tn� urits !o remain affordable. For these reasons, strict • application of the lot area condition would unreasonably limit or prevent otherwise lawful use of these properties and would result in exceptional undue hardship to the owner. This modification will not impair the intent and purpose of the condition, which is to allow �. _ . • Zoning File �01-227-374 Planning Commission Resolution Page 5 residential development that is consistent with the surrounding area a�hile preserving as much open space as possible. Because of the design amenities, granting the modification is consistent with the health, morals and general welfare of the community and is Consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property. 8. Parcei 1 at 212 Bates, does not meet condition d, which requires 30 feet of frontage. Since this property is infill between two existing buildings, it is not possibie to meet this standard. In addition, the site slopes up from the street, making it more difficult to develop. The applicant needs to provide additional density in order to offset the higher costs of development, such as the brick and stucco exterior, as well as the topographical limitations of the site. The design of the building will also create a uniform stre=t face for the block. For these reasons, strict appiication of the lot frontage condition would unreasonably limit or prevent othervvise lawiul use of the property and wouid result in exceptionai undue hardship to the owner. This modification will not • impair the intent and purpose of the condition and granting the modification is consistent with the health, morals and general welfare of the community and is consistent with reasonable enjoyment of adjacent property. 9. Condition e is not met for Parcels 1, 2, and 3 unless variances are granted from the " strict enforcement of tfie provisions of the code. Six findings must be made: . (1) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provision of the code; (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and tAese circumstances were nof created by the landowner. _ (3) The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistenf with the health, safefy, comfort, morals_ and welfare of the inhabitanfs of the City of Saint Paul; (4) The proposed variance will not impair an adequafe supply oflrght and air to adjacent property, not will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding � area; (5) The variance, if granted, wou/d not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the districf where, the affecfed land is locafed, nor would it a/ter or change the zoning district classification of the property; and (6) The request for variance is not based primari/y on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. 10. Parcel 1 requires a variance of 1 parking space. � (1) The property in question cannot be put fo a reasonab(e use under the strict provision of the code. Reasonable use of this property includes the ability to design a compatible structure in the neighborhood. The extraordinary costs of development on the slope mean that this property cannot be put to a reasonable use under iha s`rici provision oi the parking regulatic�s. • (2) The plighf of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner. Because the property is sloped in the rear and there is no alley, access to ofi-street parking is needed +. . • • Zoning File #01-227-374 . Planning Commission Resolution Page 6 from Bates. This is a small infili site, and the piight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to this property and wer.e not created by the landowner. (3) The proposed variance is in keeping with tne spirit and intent of the code, and is ••consistent wifh the hea/th, safe� , comfort, mora(s and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Saint PauL The intent of the parking requirement is to provide adequate off-street parking. The units will be occupied by low and moderate income people; there is transit service nearby, and on-street parking is available in the area. Therefore the proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and is consistent with the health, safely, comfort, morals and �ielfare of the inhabitants of the City. (4) The proposed variance wil/ not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent preperty, nor will if alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surroundiny area. Providing one less off-street parking space than the code requires will not affect the supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish estabiished property values. (5) The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the drstrict where the affected land-is" located, nor wouid it alter or change the zoning district c/assification of the � property. Approval of the parking variance will not permit a use not permitted in the RT-1 district, nor wili it alter the zoning district ciassification of the property. (6) The request for variance is not based primari/y on a desire fo increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Providing the additionai parking space would involve extensive site work and would impact the design of the buiiding, which is compatible with the neighborhood. The request is based on the topographical conditions on the site and tfie extraordinary development costs associated with the proposed structure, not on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the land. _ 11. Parcel 2 requires a front yard variance of 19 ft. and a parking variance of 3 spaces. (i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonab/e use under the strict provision of the code. Redevelopment of this parcel for housing is consistent with the current zoning. The consrrainis on this property mea� thaY it car,r.ot be put to reasonable residential use without variance of the front yard and parking requirements. (2) The plight of fhe landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were nof created by the landowner. The property is a ,_ former commercial lot that is constrained by the existing street layout and the construction of I-94 many years ago. The parcel has frontage on both Bates and Old Hudson Road. The existing pattern of development has no setback from the street and very little off-street parking provided. These circumstances are unique to this property and were not created by the landowner. (3) Tl�e proposed var;ance is in Ueeping �!�it,h the sprrit �nd in�ert c,` ins code, and is consistent wifh the hea/th, safety, comfort, mora/s and welfare of the inhabitants • of the City of Saint Paul. Surrounding property is built to the property line. The existing structure, which will be demolished, is built to the property line. �I � � • Zoning File �01-227-374 • Planning Commission Resolution Page 7 Requiring a 25 ft. front yard would be inconsistentwith the pattern of development in the surrounding area. Further, the property has street frontage on tvdo streets, creating an ample supply of on-street pa�king. Therefore, the ' variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and are consistent with the heaith, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City. (4) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supp/y of light and air to adjacent property, nor wi!l it a/ter fhe essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property va/ues Niithin fhe surrounding area. The front yard and parking variances will have no effect on the supply of light and air to adjacent property and will cause the development to be consistent with the essentiai character of the surrounding area. Creating a development - compa?ibl� with the surrounding area will nct dimin;sh property values. (5) The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the p�ovisions of the code for the property in the district whe�e the affected land is . located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. Approvai of front yard and parking variances will not affect the residential zoning or use of the property. (6) The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potentia! of the parcel of land. The request is based on the locatian'of the property and site cfiaracteristics, not on a desire to increase the value or • income potential of the land. 12. Parcel 3 requires a front yarcl variance of 5 ft. and a parking variance of 2 spaces. (i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonab/e use under the strict provision of the code. The parcel frontage is constrained by the alignment of Mounds Boulevard. Most of the front yard meets or exceeds the minimum requirement; however the curve in Mounds shortens the front yard at the south end. A consistent building facade requires the variance of 5 ft., and the rear of the parcel will be used for access to the property to the north, so additionai parKing cannot be provided in the rear yard. The parcel cannot be put to a ' reasonable use under the strict provision of the code. (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, and these circumstances were not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is due to the location of Mounds Blvd. and the cui de sac at the end of Euclid, which has no access to Mounds. These circumsfances are unique to this property and were not created by the landowner. (3) The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morais and welfare of the inhabitants .. of the City of Saint Paul. Most of the front yard meets and exceeds the 25 ft. requirement. If additional spaces are to be required in the rear yard, the front yard variance would need to be larger. Therefore, the front yard and parking variances are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code and are consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City. (4) Tne proposeo veriar;ca will no� impai; an aa'2quara supply o; Iry,hi and ai; to � adjacent property, not will it a/ter the essentra/ character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values wifhin the surrounding area. The variance for the front yard is next to street frontage with no immediate .. . , � � Zoning File �01-227-374 Planning Commission Resolution Page 8 neighbors. The parking spaces needed would require more paving of the existing yards. The variance will not impair adequate light and air to adjacent property nor will it alter fhe 3essentiai character of tne surrounding area or '�unreasonably diminish established property values in the surrounding area. (5) The variance, if granted, wou/d not permit any use thaf is not permitfed under the provisions of fhe code for the property in tAe district where the afrected land is located, nor would it alfer or change the zoning district c/assification of the properfy. Front yard and parking variances will not affect the residentiai use of the property permitted under the provisions of the code for property in the RT-1 district, nor wiil it change the zoning district classification of the property. (6) The request for variance is not based primariiy on a desire to increase the va/ue or ir:come potentia! of the parcel of land. The request is based on the configuration of the site, not on a desire to increase the value or incoma pc:ential of the land. • ' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, that the application of Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services for a Special Condition Use Permit for cluster housing development and variances from the schedule of regulations at 4 sites: (Parcel 1)212 Bates Avenue; (Parcel 2) � 207 Bates Avenue; (Parcei 3) xxx Euclid Avenue; (Parcel 4) �ocx Surrey Avenue, is hereby approved. . ' CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT ZONING FILE NO: • APPLICANT: PURPOSE: LOCATION: 01-227-374 Dayton's Biuff Neighborhood Housing Services �_ . � Special Condition Use Permit underihe provisions ot §60.413(13) of the Saint Pau! Legislative Code, forcluster housing development and variancesfrom the schedule of regulations. (Parcei 1)212 Bates Avenue; (Parcel 2) 207 Bates Avenue; (Parcel 3) xxx Euclid Avenue; (Parcel4) xux SurreyAvenue, Parcel identification Number (PIN)1. PINs 3349-22-32-OT42 & 33-29-2232-Ot43; 2. P(Ns 33-29-22-32-0154,33-29-22-32- 0155, & 32-29-22-41-0155 ;3. PIN 32-29-22-41-0�78; 4. PINs 32-29-22-41-0090 & 32-29-22-41-0091. _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1) 212 Bates Ave, PIN 3249-22-32-0142- AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION N0. 20 ST. PAUL, MtNN. LOT 7. PIN 32-29-22-32-0143, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 20 ST. PAUI., MINN. 2. LOT 8. 2) 2078atesAve.,PiN33-29-22-32-0154-WILLIUSSUBDIVISIONOFBLOCK570FLYMANDAYTONSADDITIONTOST.PAULSUBJ TO ESMTS AND EX SWLY 10 FT FOR ALLEY; NWLY 73.91 FT OF LOTS 1 THRU LOT 3 BLK 57. PIN 33-29-22-32-0155-WILLIUS SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 57 OF LYMAN DAYTONS ADDITION TO ST, PAUL EX HUDSON RD AND EX SWLY 10 FT FOR ALLEY THE SELY 75 5/i 0 FT OF LOTS 7 THRU LOT 3 BLK 57. PIN 32-29-22-47 -0755 - WlLIIMS'SUBD! VISION AND BLOCK 57, LYMAN DAYTON'S ADDITION EXCEPT PLOT CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF ST PAUL FOR HASTINGS AVENUE, LOT 4. 3) �oc x Euclid Avenue, PIN 32-29•22-41-0178-LYMAN DAYTON ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ST. PAUL ALL OF LOTS 4 8 5 BLK 50 AND EX PART TO THE CITY OF ST PAUL THOSE PARTS OF LOTS 6& 7 BLK 50 LYING NELY OF THE FOL DESC L; BEG AT A PT ON TH E NWLY L OF LOT 7 SD PT BEING 25 FT SWLY OF THE MOST NLY CORNER THEREOF THEN RUN SELY TO A PT ON THE SELY L OF SD LOT 6 TO A PT 5 FT SW LY OF THE MOST ELY CORNER THEREOF AND TERMINATING. 4) xxx Surrey Avenue- PIN 32-29-22-41-0090-LYMAN DAYTON ADDITION TO THE CfTY OF ST. PAUL LOT 21 BLK 50, Pf N 32-29-22-41- 0091-LYMAN DAYTON ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ST, PAUL LOT 20 BLK 50. ZONING COMMIl ACTION: � PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: CONDITiONS OF THIS PERMIT: i APPROVED BY: Approval Approval None Giadys Morton, Commission Chairperson I, the undersigned Secretary to the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission for City of Saint Paui, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record i� my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said originai and of the whole thereof, as based on minutes of the Saint Paul Planning Commission meeting held on November 2, 2001, and on record in the Saint Paul Pianning Office, 25 West Fourth Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. This permit will expire one year from the date of approval if the use herein permitted is not established. The decision to g rant this permit by the Planning Commission is an administrative action subject to appeal to the Cify Council. Anyone affected by this action may appeal this decision by filing the appropriate aoplication and fee at the Zoning Office, 1400 City Hall Annex, 25 West Fourth Street. Any such appeal must befiied within 15 calendar days of the mailing date noted below. Violation of the conditions of this permit may result in its revocation. (''� q , �J��i NU�LC Carol A. Martineau Secrefary to the Sainf Paul Zoning Committee Copies to: Applicant Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housing Services File No. 01-227-374 Zoning Administrator Wendy Lane License Inspector Christine Rozek District Council 4 Mailed: 11/9/01 J I �� _� � v a-� ao ! \,I' � � � %��\ �� Dayton's Bluff District 4 Communi 798 E. 7th Street, Saint Paul,1VIN 5� 106 • Phone 651-772-2075 • Fas 651-774-3510 Visit our web site at www.daytonsbluff.org Coun November 26, 2001 Mr. Roger Curtis, LIEP Director Lowry Professional Building, Suite 300 350 St. Peter Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Dear Mr. Curtis: Please attach this letter to the materials related to Dayton's B]uffNeighborhood Housing Services (DBNHS) appeal to the City Council of the Heritage Preservation Commission's (HPC) misguided actions on November 15, 2001 in regazds to the denial of a building pernut for construction of four townhouses at 663 Euclid Street (File #B02-043). � We have worked hard as a St. Paul district council to be consistent and to make decisions based on relevant issues. DBNHS made several full presentations about 663 Euclid to local residents and our board. We were concerned with: 1) appropriate design (including mass, scale, and orientation), 2) quality construction, and 3) competent management. DBN'riS more than satisfied us on al[ counts. Consequently, and unanimously, we made positive recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council. To reverse our direction at the last moment would have been irresponsible. Therefore, we are taken aback that the HI'C would shepard DBNHS's plan along and then reverse itself — on such apparently thin and non-germane, grounds, and despite staff approval. DBNHS's design cleariy fits with nearby housing. The massing and scale is proportionate. We fully understand that accessibility is needed and support DBNHS's efforts in that respect. We are left perplexed and concerned by the HPC's action. Fortunately, the City Council can compensate for the HPC's shortcomings. It is our sincere hope that the final barriers to this project are removed and that construction begins. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, / ^.—� r John Vaughn, Community Organizer � Cc Sheri Pemberton-Hoiby Amy Spong Kathy Lantry #� Creating a sense of pince and a place that makes serzse #� � `J � oa-iao cz�1� �EONaRD STABET A1D DE?PIA_RD (MON)11. 26' 01 16:45/ST. 15:a�/N0. 426ii=!:;83' F 1 � LBONARD, STRBET AND DEINARD CO`IFIDENrLALITY NOTE The i�formaaan contained � thu ufecopp message u f,�ng tran�utced to a�id is incmded only for the use of the iadividiu7 narned helow, Ifthe resder of ihis is not the intended redpient, yw� are hereby advised that any dissm�itaation, disQibuuon � apy of this telecopy is stricriy prohibiud, t£you luve recei�ed rk�is trla»py in error, ptease immediarety nodfy uc by tdephone and desrroy chis telecopy message 150SOUTg�SCxF�iSL�rCe2300 M�EaPOi]S,Mmr�arorn 55442 T�.612335-1500 F..x 6t2-335-1657 IAW qFFICFS LU MlNNFs1p0(:S, SALYL PAIJf� ANll:.UH41T0 ��7W�#��t:7!`a(.9SI�r . arf al:� C J LYdte o{TransIDitt21: Recipient: Firm/Company: City: Facsiuule Number: Telephone Number. Sender's Name. Sender's Number: BSI]1IIg KIlIDbeI: GliendMatter I4um6ers: rxor�ox.v. nssocunox November l6, £001 Txm Erchul Dayton s B1uffNeighborhood Housing Services, Inc. 651-774-0445 65F-i74-6995 Shaun C. McElhatton, Esq. 61�S8�i084 245 G4983-2 Totai number ofpages: (Including transmittal letter) immedsate notificauon of transmittal: � � No ('AbII�1�ETS: Memorandum rc Outlinc of Ilaycon's Btuff Fair Howin� Iuv�. IF YOU ARE BAVIIdG PF20BLEbSS RECFS�ING OR FKANSMT271NG, PI.E�SE CAT.I.: 614-135-'f084 Original will not follow by mail Return origix�al: Dawn Haruer✓Pat Baughman Date= Seni by: - � 'Cime: 1�ce Notified sender: Se� �'�� - �'c , �� o � ��J e � �v2 oua �.�'�+....se.y S c�..�c..��.�.S�o.J 5 � r R2��'n.c��vS f'ra �`tuw5%�F ati c� 1 V �f�C ��M'P2: Cq,�15 w �'�� .�. i S4jji �i-�Y ('�� l'YG�. F=:�'d i50tVA3D S13EE� AND DEINn°D � T0: F12QM: SUBJECT: DATE: oa -i ao (u��)11.26'U1. ?5:48/Si.16:^7/?10.4250433837 ? 't MEMORANDUM Juu Erchul Shaun McBlhatton and Sean Fredricks Outline of Dayton's Bluff Fair Housing Issues Wednesday November 2I, 2001 is � 1) To discriminate in the sale or xental, or to otherivise makc unavailable or deny, a dwe}ling to any buyer or renter because of a handicap of— : . * .� � ,� B} a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwzlling after it is so sold..,or made available. • � : a * 2) To dascriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling...becausc of A handicap of— � * * a� x a B) a person residing in or intending to reside in that dwelling aRer it is so sold...or made availabie. � W + � � 3) For purposes of this sabsectioa, discriminatian inclrides— a * � r x� A) a refusal to pemut, at the expense of the handicapped person, reasonable modificatians of e�cisting premises occupied or to be occupied by such person if such modifications may be necessary to afford s�ich person full enjoyment of the premises... B) a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, po&cies, gtactices, or sezvices, when such aceommodarions may be necessary to afford such person equal opparfuniry to use and enjoy a dweIling... The tmlawful di�**�+**Ation prohibited by sectioa 3604(� requires reasonable accommodations for people with a`�andicap," as defined in section 3602(h): l_�_J "Flandicap" means, with respect to a perso� 1) a physical oI IIlental imgairmant which 5ubstantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities.,. 2153536v1 memarandum focus�s on Section 3604, the aaalysis under the ADA is essentially the same. Section 3604(fj provides in relevant part that it shatl be unlawful: oa-!a� �P,OM i EONA3D STFcEET AND DEiNAAD � (MC�) i1. 26' 0� 16:48/ST. 15:�'.7/N0. �260�33837 F 3 Under scction 3604(#)(B)(3), a city cannot enforce zoniag ordinances thaT have a disparate impact oa pa5ons with disabitities. See United States v City ofPhiladelphia, Pennsylmnia, 838 F.Sttpp. 223 (E.D.Pa,1993). Tn Philadelphia, the court found that the city had not acted reasonably imder the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow a homeless shelter to substilute a side yard, rather th� thc required back yazd, for purposes of grivaoy and other treatment related reasans. 83& F.Supp, at 228_ The court stated that an accommodation is not reasonable if: 1) it would require a fitndamental alteration in the nature of a program, or 2) if it woutd impose undue financial or a +*++�+T^�ve burdens on the defendant. See id. Similarly, deveiopmentslly disabled adults iiving in a group home successful }y chailenged tIis eaforcemeat of a neighborhood association's restrictive covenant prohibiting non-residential purposes in Martin v. Constance, 843 F.Supp. 1321 (E.D.Mo. 1994). The court in Martin found that a glai.ntiffneed aot show that her handicapped status was the sole factor of the defendant's enforcemcnt of the covenant 843 F.Supp. at 1325. Ultimately, the court held thst the neighborhood 2ssociation's attempt to enforce the res�ictive covenant to bai the operarion of the group home amounted to refusal to make reasonable accommodation, as required by the Fair Housing Act See id_ at 1326. Martin is important since the defendants were private citizens, as opposed to a pub&c entity, as in most zoning cases. That means that in our case, whether the Aeritage Freservation Committee is a sublime or a prinate entity does not matter. The facts in Trovato v. Ci�y ofManchester, New Hampshire, 992 F.Supp. 493 (ll.I�I.H. 1997), are � vcry similar to the present situation. Tn Trovato, the plaintiffs were residents with muscular dyslrophy who sought an exemption from a zaning setback requirement so they could construct a driveway to make access to their home easier. 992 F.Supp. at 495. The court found that the city's rafusal of the exemptian was discriminatory since it had failed to make `�easonabie accommodarions in rules, policies, practices, or services that were necessary to afford (people) with a han3icap an cqual ogportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." See id, at 497. T'he plsintiffs in Trovaro were not literally buying or renting their home, as the Act might appeaz to require on its face, but rather owned their home. See id. However, parking was deemed a "service ar facility in connection with" the plaintiffs' property affecting their use and enjoyment. - See id. The Fact that they were not involved in a transaction or in the process of renting or buying was not important, whicti would be helpful in the present case as well. The plainriffs successfuIly demonstra#ed that, in light of their disabiliries, they would bene5t from tbe desired parking space. See id CJ Tfte court found that granting the exemptian was not a"fundamenta] alteration in the nature of a program" nor would it unpose `�ndue financial and administrative burdens" on the city. See Trovato, 992 F.Supp. at 497. ?Fus reasoning is signi8cant Ybr the piainriffs in the present case since the construction of the desired addition would not appear fundaznentally to after the Heritago Presetvation Committee's specifications to the paint where its general scheme would hc niin The Committee would not suffer any financial or administrative burdens, and the benefits to the disabled resident(s) wouid far outweigh the aesthetic dehiment to the community. Under the reasoning in Trovato, the addirion would likely be deemed a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. 2k53�36vt oa-e ac� F:.OM I.EONARD STREET AND DEINA�D (?�Cti;11. 26' O1 16:49/ST. 15:47/N0. �25f^;3837 "^ S In Trovato, the court indicated that it would have considered other fomis of reasonable accamaiodation if any had been proposed by the City. In our case, we would be wise to ask the HPC to reconsidec its decision sn light of the ADA aad Fair I�ousing Act requirements and to give the F�C an opportunity to propose other reasonable accommodation. � � 2753536v1 3 rRG?� 1,;ONA�D "ai.°,�eT AN� DEiNARD 992 F.S`app. 493 • 7 A.D. Caees 326,11 NDL$ P 382 cc�te �: ss2 F.s,��. �va> . <SeyCite YeIlow Flag> IJmted �ates 7Jistrict Coux'E, D. New Hampahise. S�lvia TROVATO and 8haaleen Dnrost, Plaintiffs, v . CITY OF bLda1�TCHE3TEZt, NEW HAAZPSI�IEE, Defendan� Givil No. 96-71-M Sept. 30, I997. r� U Individusls with dissbilft3es bxoup�xt action for i�iunciive sad declaratory relief againet r+tY, claimin8 city's denial of Pexmiss+on to build Paved par�ng sPace in froat of ]�.iV1d17818� �f0�10 V1018� �1C3! 27�t8 IIIIC�B1' Fair He Amezulme*+±a Act �'HAA1. A�A, and x�ror;i;tfltive Act. On i�dividuals' moti0n for suuimarY ludgment, the District Crnat> McAuliffe, J., held that city failed to reasonab�y accommadate iadividuals wittt diBabilitie8. ' .. ,:.,_ WesG Headnotss r1 U Ei7 GYvll Riglats � 131 7&k1311Yiost Gited Cases City that devied zonuig varianee failed to zeasonably accommodate 4adividusls with disabilitias wbo requested petmfssion tq build accessible P�'�S ePace in front of theiz home, and thus vinlsted FAir Housuig AmPn >�rs Act (FHAAI; isldividusle demanstrated tbab givea tbeir disabilities they vtould derive great benefit fram P��B � and that ]ack thereef wonld adverselY affecE their use and en.ioYmeut of theiu home, reguest was reasonable as it was most simple and lesst a�rQ*ve option far individuals, c3ty did net slww that pai�kiag epace would di�upt character of neighborhaod or that city would suffer a�qy finanCial or ot�leT a•niniairstiVe burden, aad city did not suggeet aqv reasoaable altern&tiv& to aCCOInmodation. Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, $ oa-� � (MO�i; ll. 26' O1 1.5:^9/Si. 15:^1/M0. 42b0433831 r; 804(fl(2), 42 U.S.C.A. $ 3604(fl(2). [27 Civil RightS � 132 78k132 MosE Cited Cases Page 1 Rair Housing Amead.'nents Act (FIiAtll claim Dremised on theory of failure to make r08sonable acwmmodation dces not require showiug of discriminatozy intent. Civil Rights Aet of 1968, as A*++�++��, § 804(1x2), 42 i7.S.C.A � 36Q4(f)(2). [3I��g�� 78k1S1 Most Cited Cases Paz3aag was "aervice ar facility in connecbon with" property affeetin8 use and e�joqme� Lt18t'Cpf, bl7Gh tl]flt t}18C1'�minah0ll iII pI0Y3630x1 of parl¢ng on basis of handicap would be actinnable under Fair Housing Amendments ACt (FHAl�. Civil Rights Aet of 19(i2i, as �ended, $ gp4(fl(2), 42 U.S.C.A. § 3604(f)(2). [47 Cfvll B.ights � 131 �skisi ma� c�+.�a c�6 Under Fair Eiousing Ameadments Act �iAAl, aecoa+modatian is "neceseary" ta afford "equal oppartunity" when per5ons with disabilities Lave shown tbat but foz aeeommodation. t3sey will be denied eqn21 opportunity to enjoy hovsng of their choice. Civil Rights Act of 1368, as amended, § 804(n, 4a U.S.C_A. § 3644ff?. (5j GYvil Efghts G7131 78kI31 Most Ciked Cases Under Fair Housing Amendments Acc �`HA�il, accommodatioa requizemeat to assist pe1'sons with disabilities with equal oppaa�kunity to enjoy houaing of their choice is reasonable unless it requires funds�mental alteration in nature of piogram or imposes undue financial aad at�inistrative burdens on defendant. Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, § 804(fl, 42 U.S.C.A. § 3604(4?. [6] GYvil Rights � 181 78ki81 Moet Cited Caiscs C,pps, a WesE 2001 No Claim to Otig. U.S. Govt. Works FkOM I�ONAAD SiP,E�T AND DEINARD � � . 992 F.Shpp. 493 (Clf.e as 992 R:Snpp. 49� Fair H9usix� Amrsnri�a .4ct's (�HAr� goal af sa�sting pe.reoas witl� disabilities sh�u}.d be wei�hed agaivst costs or burdens of tomPlisnce im�osed oa local Snverning body. Civil $ights Act af 1968, as amended, g SQ4(�, 42 U.S.C.A 4 3604(fl. L'IJ GYvil Eights � 131 78kF31 Most Cited Casea fte86ona61e accommodatiaa requixement of �' S1I �OiISl7]$ a�aIIlCA.dID6IIt6 ftv`t rn' � c821 apply to zo�ng o:diasnces. Civil RighLs Aet of 1968, as amended, $ 804(fl, 42 U.S.C_A � 3&04(f). [Sl Clvil $ights � 131 78k131 Mest Cited Cases Crivea b�road remediel nbjectivea of Fair Housiag tlmendments Act (F'BAA), statutory ezeemptfons shonld be ' construed rutrrawiy. Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, � 802 eL seq., 42 V.$.C.A. $ 3601 et saq. Fair Aousix� Amendmeats Act's �HAA) esemgiion for �ingle fami�jr homes was intended to protact ownere of siagle family hemes &om being subject ta requixeuients of F Fp?� and not to purotect local gov� W}S06C O�1B8DCQS H78 8Qp�lEC1 ]Il II7Annnr �gt d18Q'Imll]A�88 �H1n8t pE3'89218 �VI}]1 disabilities. Civil Rights Act of 2968, as amended, § 803(b). 42 U_S_C_A $ 36U3(b). [91 Civil $fghts � 131 78k18I Most Cited Gases tio� civu aige,ss � ima� 78k10?(1) Moat Cited Gases City which is both public entity and recipient af federal funds is regulated bp both ADA aad R�e�abiliEation ' Act. Be�ahilitation AcL of I973, $�04, 29 U.S.C.A. $ 794; Amerieasu .pith Disabilities Act of 1990> $ 202, 42 II.S.C.A $ 12152. [11] Civ�2 Eights � 130 78k130 Moat Cited Cases City's zozning quslifiec} aa "activity" of public oa -la.o (MON)11.26'O1 16:49/ST.16:�7/N0.4260�33837 P b Page 2 evtity within meaning af ADA. Amenoans with Dieabilities Act of 1990, � 202, 42 U.S.C.A. $ 72132. I1ZJ Civil ftights a 130 78k].30 Mast Cited Cases City's faillue to reasonably accommodate individvals with disabilities with variance to wn;�u ozdinance, which would perau{ individua]s to truild �a1.1 PaTking spaCe near £�eil �0� ontrawa� 8nd 1ffi �8711II'8 tA 8�10W how �ng individuals varis.nce would {undamentallp alter or subvert purposes o£ mning oxdinance auzounLed to discrimination, and th�s, violated individusla' rights under both ADA and Reha.bilitalioa Act. Civit Rights Act o£ 19fi8, as amended. $ 504� 29 IJ.S.C.A. § 794; Amezicans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 4� 241• 204 42 u.s.c.�. g4 I2131 •I2134. �43b Lynne J. Zygawnt� I?issbilities Rights Center, Inc., Coaeozd, NH, for Flaintiffs. Themsa L Amoid, III, Gity of MancbESter SoIicitor's O&'ice, Manchester, biH, Keria hI. .9t, pnge, Lindabuay, McCormick & Estnbsook PC, Wesf,field, NJ, faz Def'eadant. ORDER ON SUMM.4RY ]UDGMENI'AND p&RhfAN.ENT IlVJUIVCTlON 1VTcAULIFE'E, Districb Judbre. �aznti$g �y1viH Z10VStA 94d �]L'Y d8lig�lt2.2', �arleea Durost, bring this action for i�junetive and declsratory relief againsf Aefendant City of Manchester, New Hampsilire. Plaintaffs filed theis complaint sftes the cit9 refured to giant them permission Lo biuId a paved p��ng space in the front of their home. Both piaintiffs suffer from muscu]sr �sfaophy and claim that the city's refi�sal violated tlxeir rights under 1�tle II of the Ameriaans with Diaabilities Act ("?,T?A"), 42 U.S.C.A. §$ 12131-12134 (West 1995); Section 504 of the Rehahilital:ion Act, 29 U.S.C.A $ 794 (Weat Supp.199�; aud the Fair FIousing Amendments Act of 1988 ("FHAA"1, 42 U.S.C.A. § 36Q4(fXWest 1994). Before tl� court are croas motions far Copr. ° West 2001 No Cla;m to Orig. U.6. Govl. Works oa- i �o : r,Otv: ? EONA3D S 1 REFT AND DE j NA�tD 992 F.Supp. 493 � fCitE as 9S2 F.SIIPP. 493, =495) �� =ud�nenL For tl�e reasons aet out belaw, defenda�'s motian is denied and plaintiffa' motion is gtauted. FACTS � � Mts. 74nvato walks with difficulty but caa get alang fnr sbort dibrtances u�tinS a walker. She 5p�vetiu�Eg 1'equjr6s S WhePlehair. Sharleen wears a braca, bsa di$'ieultiy walking, and relias on h� stepfather for help tn go frrom the slreat up the walk and into the hause. Mrs. Tz�ovata cam Sti71 drive a car. Berauae her gait is setiously impaired b9 the disease, Mrs. Tmvato tends to wallc ves9 cautionBly and wit�wut raising her feet too far off 4he gsuund- zeminiecent of s slow shuffle. She walks at her peril over SulfaCes t1]at are noL �ooth, aot cleared, or thst are incline� She also ca�uw� waik very far aad has diScultiss ciimbing stairs that are not built with a low riae. The defendant City of 1�TvnnSiactpr does not diaputE tbst botJl women xuffer fivm musculaz clygtcophy, por can it reasonably dispute that both walk tentatively and with eatreme difFiculty. �9111t1$8 WBILE tA j3UC 8 PP.1&f1vP1y Bl'lO16 p8o2d P�'�B gP8� ia fxaat of their hnuse, aeaz the &ont steps, in order to facilitats their ability t0 18A98 SY7d BIIt2I theCiY hOUF38 Blld gCt into �0ir c8s. �By p['2f2! t0 U9E �18 f10IIt entraar.e of t�.ir home becauee the steps Iesd'u� Lo the bsck door are Rign;fi�9•+xty mare �tteep. For scrme time the 1Yovatos fiave been pullfng their car up o�a the fioat lawn to park but with wiakes weather (and rain and New Hampahira's mud sessoxil the grouffii becomes nitted, iced, snow Covazed, sud impassable for plaintiffs. Towazd that end, Mr. 'tYrovato applied for a building Peratit to construct the paved space. The pezaiit wss denied becavae ihe zonin�a prAinnnro�s 6Et�1dCkl2Qt1�2ER1EII�,S CAtlld ASIt. t12 met. Mr. 1Yovato was directed by the Bzrilding Commissionncr to the Zoning Board af �ius�ent f"ZBA"? where he p�usued sn appeai. The 2BA gsve notice of a public hem�ing oa 1VIr. '14�ova4o's aPpesl, simply (MGN;1l. 2c' UI 15:5U/ST. 16:47/N0. �260�'.33831 ?? Page 3 noting s496 tbat tbe egpeBF related to the following maLLer: "T`O: �xte a paved parlang spsce in elxeet yaxd, where mt allowed, as per plan submitted 6/5/96, at 36 Rand St" The ZBA alsa notified all abutters of the hearing, �ne of whom actually ggpeared to oppose, or ath21'Wise ogposed the reqnest. Reoiew of the transcript of the ZBA hearing Slsa bY defendant reveals that the ZSA members conatrusd the appeal ae a request far a zoning vaz'ian�, which tbe ZBA denied. The ZBA also seems W have cons;dered in passing Yhe possibility of �axsting s special eaception, which m.iHht have permitted a "eircular �'+veway," but abandoFed the idea either betause the matter before the ZBA was co n�;�Pm� to be a varisace aPPlieaEinn or becsuse the lot size and builcling location did zwt qualifY, or twth. 1`he $pand eapzESSed genuine sympsthy for the Plairniffs' situation, 6ut feh legally Constraiaed to de�P tke appeal. Understaud�bly disnppoinEed, Mr. '15rovato eought and obtained legal help from the Disabilities Rights Center. Inc. On Juiy 27 199b Lynne Zpgmont Esq., wrote to the ZBA on behalf af the 1�ovatos to request tz rehearing far the P�se of presenting evidence and arg�msent rclatad to plaintzffs' erititl8meat undBt fedeZ81 i8W tA S T8880na1718 BCCOxnmodstion uader the mmng oid'uuusce sugicienb to pezmit tham 4o pave the pa�lcin8 8725 SlC][t t0 �}1837 f2'OIlt St2pS. �BIId3ri'� Clty considered the request on Atiigust 16, 1995, and a review ot'the txanr.cript of thst meeting, filed by defendant, shows thaL the ZBA denied the reqnest without ax�y wnsideratian of the ciLy's zespon�bility under agplicablc federal law to ; � disabled persons are not subjected to discriatination. The ZBA did not con6ider the need for a hearing in order ta, nor did the ZBA on its own, Isalance the interests of end beaefits to these disabled individusls &gainst the interest of and burden to the municipalit9 in malan6 accommodations uvder the zoning ordinaace based on the facts of this particular case. Rather, the ZSA r�ems to have denied the request for rehearing b2C87]68 it 2rronCOUSly ConGluded that state 1Sm applie&b1E to v8ri�nc�+ precluded its graniing any form of relief: One Board Copr. ° West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Gavt. Works .► _ _ � �30;�F _.BC^iA�D STREEi A�D D� iNAAD i . • Sg2 R.S��}.sp. d93 (Cite as: 992 F�.Supp- 493, s496 3 . ... - � : - .:. - .� . :.. , . ... , _ ..._ - � • � . 4' � 11 � � �.� � � - • � J ' _ : � • : • � - _. •r:+a : .- - ♦ �s•' n �' �: -_ n � •c - .� - J• ' �• - �� J :. . � - •.- _ - -• "' '• " DLSCUSSIOPT L Standard of Review �TY 7�'� is proper "if tl�e Pleadings, depositions, anxwexs to intarrogatories, and admissfons on ffie, together with the affdavits, if any, ehow that tbese is no geaufne iseus ss tA ar�y material fect and that the movix�g party is entitled to judgment as a matter of Iaw." Fed.R.Civ.P. b6(c). A material fact "is one "that miglrt affecE 4hc outcome 6f the suit undet' th8 goveraing ]aw.' " United Skues v. One Parce1 of Rrat Property witil 81dgs.> 960 F.2d 200, 204 (ist Cir.1892) �4nfft+n8 Andason v. IlbcrlY Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1386)). The moving party bss the bui"den of demonstratiag the abaence of a genuine iasue of matstial fact for trial. Andersae, 477 U.S. ai 266. The party oppos�ng the motion muat set forth speciSc faets showin6 that theze remains a genuine issue fOT �'C18Y. dCIIlOI1S1�Y8,�Ilg ° 60II'1� fACtu91 disa�ceement eu'ffici�nt to deflecE brevis disppeitipb" Mesnick v. General' EltCt7ic Co.. 960 F.2d SI6, 822 (lst Cir.1991), cerr. denied, 504 U.S. 985, 112 S.Ct_ 2965, 119 L.Ed.2d 586 (1992). `lhat burdsn is dfec2�siged onl� if the e3ted disBgTeemeat zelates to a genuine issue nf materisl faet. iYynrse v. Tufu Universiry schoo! of Medicine, 976 F.2d 791, 494 (lst Oir.1992), Cert. denied, 507 II.S. 1030, 113 S.Ct. 1845, 123 L.Ed2d 470 (1993?. . u. The Fsaa cigim ue:e. - .• u � .- Y 31 � �O• ¢N - • : � � _ .� � • (MOV) 11. 25' U1 1b:50/S?. ?5:^7/N0. 4260"33837 P 8 Page 4 spaces in certain re�dential areas be not le�s thsti foui' feet frvm the pYinciFal buildin�• Manchest�' Zoning Ordinance '497 § 7.a3(sXal(u). Pisinti$s contena tbat by dgnyjng ttlEir zequest for pernxiasioa to bsvld su aceess;bie pari�ng epace in the front of },�yyu hO)IIIc� �18 C1L3' �lRCC�minaLaci 8g8]]]SC C }hem on the 7sasis of Yheir disability. [2] The Fair Houeing Amendments Act of 1988 IDake6 it unl&wful tA dic�r�?�^ina� gg�i2Lq� ° SI�p PEi'50it ZIl L}12 �1'II76� COY7�1t101}S, or �'ivilegea of sale ax rental of a dwelling, or in the provision 6f &21'V10E6 or facilities in connection with such dwellin�" on ihe ba� of tbat petson's bsadicap• 42 U.S.C.A $ 3$04(tX2). ��on is defined to iaclude refusin8 ta *+�akE reasonable accommodations in "rules. Policies, Practiees. or service8" when necessar9 to afford a person with a handicaP "e4t�a1 opportunit9 to use and e.njoy a dwelting". 42 U.S.C.A $ 3604(fl(3XB). A FF�IA c1&� prgmised on a Lheory oF Failure bo ms1cE reaeo,u,ble secomrrwdation does not require a showing of discriminatorY intent. See, e.g. Smish & Lee Assocs. v. Ciry oJTaylor, 102 F.3d 781, 794•96 tBth Cir.1996). I31 The cowt finds, as the pazties agi�ee, t.�at plaiatiffa ars indeed °handicaPP�" within the me_*} *� of the FF3AA, 42 U.S.C.A $ 3602(�il. aad that plaintiffa' musculat dYs�P�'Y ubs4a••s:otto limits their abi3ity to w8llc. Although, literall9. Plaintiffs wese :mt discriininated aga'tnst regaxdixtg the sale or rentat nf l�usng, Par�x�g ie dearly a"service or faci]aty in connection with" their P='oP�Y affecting theiz use and ex�joyme� thereof aad ya covered by }.he Acl. See, e.g. Shapiro v. Cadman Towers, Inc., 51 F.3d 328, 333-335 (2nd Cir.199�. Q�'i�T'Nl] �'1N1. ffi additio0. the FHAA a7so maYes it unlawful t0 btheiwiSe mafce available or deay" a dweIling w any buyu or renter becauce of handicaP. 42 U.S.C.A. ¢ 360d(fl(i). This phrase "encomPasses x wide arrcy of housin8 P�actices" and'°d�ates ti�ac the FfIAA proscn�Ees acts by persoac 'who ate *P;tt,r. sel3ezs noc lessots of pmpenY•� Casa Marie. Inc. V. Superior Court of Pucno Rico. 988 F.?.d 252, 257 p. 6 (lst Cir1993). co�. � w�t 2ooi xo ci� m orig. u.s. ca•rcc. w�� -lao FRO:`�` ��ONA�D S1R3c1 AND r� ,, - JLl��HJ • • • � F.s�. a9:� (CiYe as: 992 F:Snpp. 493, •48� I41 Under t�e FHAA, an sccommodation is "necessary" to aff'aa�d 'eqval oPPa�t9" when plain{iffs have slwwn t�at but for the srmmIDUdsbD� t278Y "Will be deniad 8A 9qu81 opportnniLy tn e�joy the hou�ng of their choice." Synith � Lee ,ds.socs., 182 F.3d at 796. $ere, plaintiffs bave demonsfrsted tbat, given +�+P;� disabiiities, thay would derive great benefit from a gar�ng a-p:u;e in their froat yard and the lack thereof has adveisely affected their "use or enjayment" of theu hnme. See, e.g. Shapim, 51 F.3d at 3S5 (seco�iang tbat availabilitp of conveni.evY P�'�8 � affected disabled cooperative agartmeat ownaYs "use and e�joymeut" of dwelling within the mesx�ing of the FHAt�. [5](6) Giveu that tI�e plaintiffs a�re entitled to an accammodafion by the cit9, t}�e IIe%t guestioa is wheUier the citp fulfilled its dutY t4 provide sa acCpmmodation thaL was reasanable. Aa accnmmodation is reasonable IInless it T2qUires "8 fi�'1 w AIt2z'ation in the natare of a prograw. or imposes vndue fissacial and adminie�ative burdens [on the defexu3antl" �th &�e Assocs.. 102 F.3d at T96 (quotations omitte�. The F'FTAA's goal of ssaisting persona with disa�iliLies should be weighed against the costs or burdena of compliance imposed on the local gover7ling �dY• [71C8][91 The rassonable accomazalai3on req of Lhe F'HAA clearly can apply to raning mdinttnces. Ser Casa lfarie, Inc, v. Suptriar Courf nf Puer10 Riro, 988 F.2d Zb2, 257 a 6(let Cir_1993). "Courts inter�seting the reasonable accommodation provision of the IFHAAJ bave ruied t1�at muxncipatities ... must change, waive, cr make escept:ions in their wning rules to afford people with disahilities th,e sawe oppartuaitq Lo 2w"� as thasa who are without dieabilities." . Hm�sanr, Inc. v. Townriup o,f Brick, 89 F.3d 1096, 1103 t�a cu.isssxq,�no� o��c�c�ml�s that towsLShip grent variance in oider to sccommodate needs nf elder�v disabled whn haped to live in nursing home in residential aone}. See alrn SmiUt .k Lee Assocs., 1�2 F.3d at 79S �oldin8 under similau' facts that city 2tad to accommodats disabled residex�ts, deagit�e restrictions impoaed by �oeutra! mnusg wde� (MON)11.2o'r�1 ?6:5?/ST.16:a7/�;0.^25rS33337 < 9 Page 5 b4oyer v. Lowe� Osfard Township, 19J3 WL 5489, at'"2 �.D.Pa January 6, 1993}. �'!32I FN2. 7'�e muxc disagrees with defeadant th�t § 3603(D) of the FFLAA, whicL exemps singie family homes. applies w die iasiant siau[ioa. Csivcn tLe broad remedial objcctives of thc F-HAA, samrory exemptons should be construed nan'owly. See Ciry. pf Fdmonds v, Qiford H[�urt. Int.. 514 U.S. 725. L15 S.Ci. I776, F31 L.Ed.?d 2i01 (1945); Ho,qar Agua y Yrda en el Desieno, Inc. v. Suaret-Medina, 36 A3d 177, I81 (Ist Cir-1994). T6e c7ause quite ctearly was iatended [o pro�ct owffirs of siagle fam�y homes ftom bei¢g 5ubject ro the cequiremencs of the FFL4A, aad ao4 as defeada� argues, m p[otxt bcal governmentc whose ordia�aces aze applied ia a manner that discr�inates against perso� w;rh aisat�7ihes. • 4yg 1`he plaintiffs here made a reasonable requeat. 1`hey simP�' wanted permission to build a small parldng space near their firont entcavte. They also gave the city smple OppOZCIIY11tjT fA ACCOII3IIlOdRLC U72II3 befbIE see7ang SOIief in a judiciEl foriun� cf. Osford House v. Ciry oJ Universiry Ciry, 87 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (8th C�r.1996Xcautioniesg tl�at plainLiffe mvst gioe a local governing body tha chance to aecommodate them b9 adjusting the zoning code before challenging a voaing deciffion in caurtl. In contrast, the city has responded unressoasl�ly, stbeit without malice or bad faitti It }zas no� ahown that the requestsd par�ng spaee would have disrupted tha clfsrecter of plaintiffs' neighboihood (certainly � neighlwrs objected) or that the citp would have a�ffered aay finaaczal ez a�her adalinixtcative btuden if plaintiffs were acwmmodated Nor has the «ty suggested any reasoyahie altarnative accommDdation (pininLiff'a would glad�' have accePted ZBA membeT McQuaid'8 reasonable suggestion relai:ive to an "as needed" permit)• The city's attorney argued t�at ths eity gave the plairniffs valia options short of a variance, such as suggesting tt�at the pisintiffs park their car in their eide or rear yard and then install either a ramp or ekevator (at wmpardtively great expense). Defendant concedes, however, that a front-9� P�� space would shorken the distanee tbe plttintifr's co�. � w�� 2ooi xa ci� � orig. u.s. coac. wo�xs FnOPf i FONA3� STAE',;i AND D� iVAi�D �J � J . 992 F.Sapp. 493 (Clte as: 892 F.S�pg. 493, •498) would 2iave to wal&. A fxont-yard Parldn8 spsce also undaubted�y wonid he Yhe moat e�mple and least espenffive ogtiou for the plaintiffs. Accordingly, it is plain th2t, as a matt� of law, the city failed to reasonably aabmmodate the p7sintiffi as requu�ed hy t�e F'HAA. Cf. Jankawski Lee & Assors. v. Cisneros, 91 F.3d 891, 891•96 (7th Cir.199&Xaffizating HLTD's det�s'alination that under FHAA private aparEment comples had to rassonabLy accaaunodate disabled tenant b9 Pm�� P�'k�ag sPace as cioae as poasible to main huilditsg)- �`N37 FN3. Comts are dividW abonc wberLet We plam6ff or me eeteadaa[ beus tLe burden oa the ressouatrie acco�odadnn isana. Compase Hovsons. Inc.. 89 F.3d az 1103 (koiding that under FHAA detendant musc prove ma[ rhe plainriffs pmposed aCCO�rion is uiueasonablc) witlt Elderi�avcn, Inc. v. LFry of Zubbot:�c, 98 F.3d 115, 178 (Sth Ca.199Q(plsiwiff beazs biudea of proof wider FFlAA aad 3tehabaitadon Act). Even ass�ing that p� bear the burden of shawmg tha[ defendanc has not pmvide8 a rea¢onatile accommodatioa, thc plainuffs have satisEed tbeir obligation. III. The ADA, and Rehabilitation Ae! Claims t10] 'rbe analYxis under the ADA and the 2iehabilitation Aet is vezy �milar to tbat under the FFIA/i 'I1tla II af the ADA gPphibits a pUZJIzC enlif:y fT�IIl diurrim;na inc againat an individual on the basis of disability or from axelndinS sacti aa individual from public services, paagrams, or activities. 42 U.S.C.A $ 12132. [FN4J SecEioa b04 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits the same type of �;d.• : by a recfpient of fedsral filnds. 29 U.S.C.A. 4 794. The 3efendant city is both a publie entity and a zecipie� of federal fvnds ead is tberefoze regtalated by both.statutes. In addition, the parties agree that plaintiffs are "disabled" and "handicapped" as the terms are de5a9d in tlie ADA, 42 U.S.C. � I2102, and in the Rehabilitatian Act, 29 U.S.C.A $ 786a, respei.�tively. FN4. Titis pmvisi0n SpeciGcally provides: Subject w the pmvisioas of dvs subcLapter, uo qualificd individual with a disability shall, by reason oa-►� (MCNi1?. 25' U1 16:5i/S�. ib:^:=l/iv�. �26!�^3�3:1 :' iC� Page 6 of sucL diaa6�1@y, be �uluded &om pazucipatioa in or be demed tLe benefas of sIle services, programs, or srrirrties of a public entiry. or be subject�d w discrimivarioa by any snc6 enaty. 42 U.S.C. § 12I32. [I1II1 'S`he plaintiffs maintain t�at zoning 1lA�lT as an "acfavity" of a public enti.ty wi{hi.n the mEan+no of the ADA and that thQy were denied the benefits of this activity when the citp failed to sccommodste their request foI a Yar:.ance. Althou6h "activify" is not •499 e�plicitly defined in Title II of the ADA, it has been held to include aoninE deci�ons by a ciLy "beesuae malang such deciraons is a nozmal funehon of a governmental entitq." See Inrtotnlive Kea11h S)'s. v. City of White Plairzt, i17 F_3d 3?, 44 (2nd C9z.199'n. But ree RobIttsan v. Ciry of FriauLrwood, 890 F.Supp. 616, 620 (S.A.Tec199�. Tlte conclusion tUat 'l�tle II of the ADA applies to ru n?n deciaions ie also eapport.ed by the impleme�3ng regulations issued by the Deparp�ueaE of Tvstice and its Technical Aesistance Manu81. Under the regulationa, a eity must reasonably modii9 its policies when "r��ary tA avoid discrimination an the haffis of disability," unless it caa show that the modit'ications ^ wauld fundamaatal�y alber !hs nB�uYE Of the 8E79iCE �IY7�'8II1 6T BCtiViLj�." Z8 CF.R § 35.130(bX7X199�. 7`he Justice DePmr�ment Prorades an examP2e that hears remsrkable similarity to the situation presented in ttus ease: II.LUS"t'Ett,TION 1: A municipal zoni�a o:dinance mquirea a set•back of 12 feet from the c�b in the een1sa16usiness dis In arder to instsIl a ramp to the fro� e�tranae of a pharmacy, the owner must encroech on the set-back by three fest. Gzanting a variance in the waing requs.rement xnay bc a reasonahle modification of town policy. 't`he AuyezioAVS with Disabilitiee Act: 2�tla II Technical Assistance Manual � II-3.6100. AgR_,n for the reasons given above under the FgAA seMion, defendant not aniy failed to reasonably xccommodate plaintiffs' disability, but it has also failed to show how granting plainti.ffs an eaception would fundamentally coPr. � w�c zooi xo ci� s� orig. v.s. ��, worx� FF,Ohf I.EONASD ST?EE! AND DEiNAP,� 992 F.Sugp. 493 � CGYte es: 992 R.SnPP.'E83, �489) alter nr subvext the ptu'poses of its mnix� Mslinanro, �gj1y{y�g $[� }�EYB{OIC 8II�7.t�'FA �mary judgineat on their claims under the ADA affii Rehahilifiatian Act. u The courL has y r -y eviewed y � d _ e � fen L d � ant t ' - s ] AiTi�TO �}T]t$� ULLy � y{ypya W W UAj�IgpB$1,VC. �'iOIItYffi'y �A dE{8A�9�'S �gument, the ADA and Eiehabilitatian Act claims sre not govezs�ed by 8 80-day limitations peziod, but by the three 9ear IimitaLions period set forth iu New gampaisire°s pezsonal i�yjury statuts. See Doukas v. Maropolitan Life bu. Co.. 882 F.Supp. 119't, 1199-1201 CD.N.H.188�. � ��n, given that both glaintiffs wera uliured b9 the citq's conduct and their iajurp is sedressable by the ix�uncti0n they aeek, they bot3i have standing. See Yaitey Forge G7:ristiars Coilege v. Amenca�s Unired for Separation of Church de State. 464 ZT.S. 464, 472, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L_Ed2d 700 (19827; Innovative Health Sys., 117 F.3d at 47(bolding that standing Pa'ovisions of Rehabilitation Act aad 'i�tie II of the ADA eatend as bscadly as pesmitted by Art. III of the Constittztiox�. CONCLFSION � For the foregofng reasons, the court denies defendBnY's motion for summary judgmeat and grants glsintitE's' motion for summery jnd�BIIL The d0fendani 3s eu3oine.d. &om e.nfo�iag ita zo ni�a code in S mannPr f�hflt in an,y waq restricta or ampedes the Plaiatiffs Sbfifty t0 P$VB 8IId mxinhQin 8 p�r]nng BpacB isa thQir firont yard. Thi6 iA1��0A Sh811 termiaste if end when the plaintiffe move &nm thaiz gresent re�denae. SO ORDEB,ED. END OF DOCUMENT oa- iaa (MCN)11.-26' O1 ? 6: �2/ST. 16:47/N0. 4260�33837 F! 1 Page 7 Capc. o West 2001 No Claim tq Oxig. U.S. Govt. Woz'ke � � '� � t � c� -.. �x - t. ' s:- i.� � � ^S.. ~ i1' . _ J� c S' �� - , s -'v� '. a s _ i_, i � � _ `;.� 3 _ �< i { _ i ', �.. .... _. . . . _. . :si ¢ ' w ' � __ � �' � ' � 3 _ c � � � 4 � ;t � .i.: S' ' F.: � ._ p,��. � _ }:. t -'i _ �� _ ` "5 i ' � , � Y ,"i :�.'�. � }`. :• S c.i i; . � _ � . ' ! y. -� t .� £ t ' � ��' �,' r';�. }� s Y vi �K` 4 � � I ' vY F �. .: . � . : � _ • • : X: a°�"o+ev�/1w'-'C'; s ` _ _ >' - 7- i �I � �� _ _ -+?, ,; " s- - � �! Y � <•:a . _ - n.��: . - `s s<+! `. ' ' f. � '-? a � � : �r_ � � �.�':ti �' tr _ ;; 4 3, � h� � Y � ., } ". }Gf: - 'Y� � � �J':a ' . '.f Y �� c .v. m ., • _. . .3 '�' 3 � �"1 � }� � � �' , _ 4 � �' � :� i � � . 3 . .� `. �� . i � .i � �; �,� ya�,: -�f` . ? »� � w��s ��, a� '} $"2 �5 k � 4 : ++`. �l .,� rr 4 z �" ' ^9 � 5 z�� .. fi `ti- �.� �7t.. g�s i�:�, :;� - } F � : i<- " '�~ � i � e �.s-,.�" � ,�.�-._ - . � ._..._ . . 3 a6;:: ` - s�,. i ; ~ r . _ ,:E �T7 - !.� . f �' � ' _ '��'` �, 'Y f' �t \,. .. y r` y1 � �.. S � . y s : �� F � i �� ! � �Gih S . ,� �Y �.:��: r ° ?34 3 � .`. � i b' .. , �� 3 �. . .�;.". v ':_'., j` .-' �1 � � � � . � . . " + F �s � � ,. � � . � ,. �= <r .> _ �.- ..�. _ � �� .� _ �� i � � Y 2 � �� : f' . . . . - . .. g�� . . . . . - r'��._ ( . .. � . _ .. . . .. � � � .. . . .t��. �.'� 1 � . , . - �.. � - . . � u� x �€ ,� ;. � . . � . > � ��_ i '�` ��3� _ �.,71 iF��': �� _... t � f � . � � � a s "" _ � � - - ;;� -. � ' T-°�? � y / � � ° �Cp� . y i�a ., � � i'. . . � ¢.�..�_ .. � . . � . . � . . s v W r � y_ i�� _ .. .. �y . . . . . ... _ . . . . " . . - ... . � . �.� ��_+�q � ..��__.. . . . - - . .a'� - �� -~� � t E � ' . � � _ . � ` �3. �.� _ .. �.� � f ' J ti ; . 3 . - � l�— b . F." .£ �+.f . . . .. . .�� . '2.Y ;� ar� . � .. ,. . . F - t 'ss 3 � , � �� .• �u.�Fr_t .. . . . . � -S��i? 3i :.r.S �µ- �� : � . _��.i 9 - . ?p : - p a� � � � � t r - r "� r � t - . + . . '_ ��'j S � � f F i� .s G 5„cy, .d � i 1 . : . �%K� Y'iTI i�'�Ry.Ti�� /.zl � . . . ' t . iY4 N } �� v .a�� . _ t � i . . � � ! ai..�: . .. dr s Y � ; � — � � . �� N : . . _ . .:��`' _. �.�. . .. - � , � ^'O � = S 1 : . . ' � � � � Y . � �.� �7�� ' � - , - � . -:�� -� " � �. .. .. . . .,... . _ : � . . .. ._ . . � �---�� ..... , : . . ,., .. � . .. .. _ .. . _ ... � � -. ' �:r -� � . .. . . � � �t !A "�-.�.� _.. . .. ... . . - . . . .. . - _ _ "�� ' � � . �� .�` ' . - . . . � .. � .. t a �S�Y , . ' . - . r. - .�- . . � � . .. - � � . �. _ . . � . � 2' • . .. � � . . . '�6�'i�' � � � . .. . � ^ i.• .F. . � . . . . .. -, }.' . t �. . .. .. . . _..�.� -.. e .��. .. ,.....� .. . . .. . . ' .. .. . 1 r.� �. - I � .= . . . . . � ��. . . . ' . . ._.-.. .. . � .. � � , . . . �� : +� _ , r.ae ��tp - g . . . . � . . � . ____ _� . t . . . � . 4 � � :f. �'aF � � : . . . .. .. . : _. _ r-� . . � ' Hc.�.. � .. . N � � . .. . , . . . ° ,� .�- � . � . . . .� . . . . � j � S '..+ . � . ,. . . ..: .. . *`��.: . . . , . . v 3 . - . . - �. .. � .. . . �..1 � _.. . . �� - . .. Y _ .. . . . i� �. _ . �+�° . - y � y , � _ l �� .6� ..'�y � . S: . �+?�i�°' '�'' 8` _.;_z ; �'s �f"++� � � # � .. >� . ��i. t� r� 3' ;, � � 8 v - � .,� �ws yy � y �$ � � � .qf/ y �� `%� � � " . �' �.� .�.s� '�+;�� - � �ff - � �--- � ?'r � �3 '?; ��s - i'i��4t ' �� - ' c �- \ �►,; �, . �� ,. }. , r ; �±a,��?a ��i � .�".a - �_ _a _ i�r+� €g'�.-arc�,�' - - . . :. . . .. . . . . . •..a+. @i .�n. _.,�..-'" ._ . _ . . � e.r .. ss- '� �wf . . �� :2,, � < . - "��,e�� ' - c<s d' ��°�7/ �� , � x`�„ � • � ,�'��.£ A � J �� ^ _ . � ' . �is � � � _ , � J ' i � � _ ..� .. . " . . . '� . _ . 1 } - �.�� y �. . . � . . . �'.�� .. . .. . a� �..E?� . ,. � . . — ;•�*�r?� � . — - � � ,. . . s �;�,� �,�qJ � � �;��!_ -� •.= �. �� • �� ` ti '� �•; � � - �- � �; `.: : n . � � � 1 5�� . . . _ . . . . 4 ' ��. - � y ' ' - � . . . ..,.�. _ ti� . . � . � � �' R ' . . . . . , - 3 � u,� e � _ . L � . . ' . � � ..� , � - ry . 1► ` � �� : � � �< � ; _.�� - - � + • i--. — � '� / / � n t �, 1b, � . � .. 1 � . . �E _ tw� �"�. `� ; �'�� , � - - I '�,��.•�- , � �.� . � -- �—a� :: � : 3 -, ' ` �. :: , ,�,. � �� .� � K � �� _ � �� a � • `'-�;�+° � � � ,' � � � �� r = `.w'¢.' � -' � s „ �+'��l��+; �'-_ A��',�"��,��, �` 4 ? . �� . . . ' . �� " ° � �'- � ;� �7 3 ' � � c._� � t 5 ' �., . . . . _ � '' s� �� ° �$ fi . . � ,. _ . � �. �.: �� c, �� a � � _ .__ � � . ,r �. .��, . � °��ta� ... � � _ � � . . � \ }� � t� i� � l� _ ' 9 ��. } .•. � � i f . 1 � ; � `.�. �L �i % J .M1, . . .. .. S . { 1 � � � 1 �. � � f.R4 3 ' ' . -' ^ �=. � �9 i . " . . F � . Z� .. . � - � '�4. , ~ �� J � . e�� t.s .. . � • . ` .r� -� � . _ � �� . . `'i�`YS"�"r �: � � - � . , r ._.�F` �: � �� '� _ � : � � :� ::' �'' . � . : . _: � .. •. _. a ��' "` _ .`: _ . ..- . _ , _ baaay� :,- . v .�- �. , _ _ � x. : x: > iC _ a'Y � _. . - ./ =� y �:._' � . _ � , � ._ .9W.>�3��?�� - . . .. : 3 � _��$��R. \"'��r � . l. M . �- . � � �� yc d ,. � 1;s' Vs�CA� �� 1.�: ; . . ; � µ��$�( . `�� ' ' _ 'F -. �e35�'��¢�� 4 s7�- � ` • M. � $ � w �qs Lf \ y f � „' s �� v- i a � _ _ � . . � '�.. -;, � �° ' v4 �� y ��'� 9 " : . '" � . . � :_ �> a 4 a� �d : .� L � � '-' s{ : _ efi ,' j ' - ,"-`�€ ,. , � _ 3� .s 1 t°(D.�� "' . - f � �; `� `;'� �; %`' t� > �1 ssti- . a �+ ° �s d `` � � a•v � ' ` g`a� t m � ��'a r � t .__�," �.'��' {� � � � . � � �� : '�aU .. � i � �sy - � �-?�� S �',E'� '�„ � e ��". �. . � �� €�� - � . �s�r� . t � Se �� s � �� GAs2„� .�. . ' . ` .s? > .9�� ...�,�f'��' ,� � -. ' �..� � �� :�� 3 �� , «; �`��-�� ,.` �-.`_ �,�.� � �:<< � �� a��'�.�►�- �,�' ;� �� `��' �, �,�. '�' qf i ^ i ��' '��`' s"� � . �'3� ��,�"°l�,y '� ? � c a �`� � �" . . .,,� �- s; � �° r�.<�r" �� q � a � y � �� ;��e � �� r. � � � � . \'j.4 .�tl€''" Y} �K . A`� �. I (P't'�e 1 �� bw+.z� p V� "�� c�a. r n.E�'� . ' � • � .��+�,'�� . �w`'�s3' ' ' a " x ' , ' - ' ,� . . ` .:. : , 3 d s �. :` : ._ a' . ��'- > �._ a' . �' � 4YS �,'.:. � ..�_ry ' ; `_ ` .. LL ., �. �''a � .:i = y � , ° _ .s- � 4-� _ ,��a ,R .s� � ° . •,> ''�> " , .. . " 3 � : �` t� t �.. ; � .. �, . � y t . ' � S. uz. �.. .,�, < 5, , E> x . a��,.f'�� . - s� � _ T _..� ., s .�,. � � - . . _ -- s � ��:z qa '� _ . ( c � . [ _ , �.. . " .. . . . ... . ... - . .. . . : _ . .. - 2 : � . � . . ::� :.- � .._.} . .. . .. , . . - ... � . ' . . . .. � � _.. , .: .. ..:: . . :. , - .� . � - . � � 3:�> .. � . . -� .C... . � ._ '. ' . . . - ' � _ ' f . . . . . . ' .. .. .. . . i � ... _ - - . " � . t ., . _ i : _ - , z ..� , �� ,. . . . . . .. , , �. . - . . . � � . ' . " . _ . < , 3 � �,�a� `- . � J �' s-, . f: . -x i�8 "�, � ; �.._',y � } .. _ - , ... � . c.. y �� >� e - _ .. . �.. ... _. , -... , ' ' 4urt . - . . . . � . _ .- ` �.-:= . ,� :..: ..—�..: -. .� . _ ,. . . `.` �. _. � � ' _' , n . - .. � . , . �� . - � .. . .r� - .. . - : '� : 3: ; ? . _ . - .. . . .. - z l �'� . . . . [ . _ � - �� ' ' � s � � ':- �� ' 4 _ -- � �� rt ' . . �' � + .. l '€ -ny ".. � �-. � �'3 1 r .: f � . -S� .� � � : ' Y a+" ��i� n £ C . ' 4(��i�� ..`� � , � 4 � � - �� 1 _ f . � s � �'j"',�v._. .. ._ _" . ��i.�'F � 4" , ' ^^! S 13 '. a% � - j . � 0 ° i@ �� '`� Y � a ;. - � t T$�93v�cal�`,g - o � � . . �� . 't � �' � � a a `�"e•}�P��'�."�'s"�"�.. . . s�'; Ly`aa� n� 2 4��.� � �� ' �A l' ��.��y� � � . T .,L�'�3 ° 3 'CL� .r��` � � .. � � J �2-_Rl�'.°IA4K�:�� . .. . . , i w.: � �� . � � . - . . �P'f .�� . � �� .� a ^ ml �� ` y�:4� �,- . � � . �� > �`,� �` ; .s4��a��'��' .. .. ¢�`?<.S 4V �� R � J �� ". ' __ . � ��t� -c 2 �� .i��X� . . .. _ ` �S�`�#�\4a?'S,�+� �� ;� �.. � � � � . :.. V,Y��' '. . . � }: _:� 1 s_ :c 7 • ' € ��i�a`��.a.. . .z. .._ _. �. :,.' . =-�� , �9.�� 5 � � , � _ ... 4 . . . h . , 1 ♦ �i�I �J'�� 1 . . .. �. . - �e ' �n�'J. i � �' f , { ,y� s �: � `� ' �' =� ��;. .� m��s,l�; ,7� . � _ y i � . ��1. . }. . .. #. �,. � . Y Ldb�/��t �' : �1 .. . . b . � § yy �`� y !i�" 'S �-A a`>Y j 'i �� '. s — y g '�i ,. L , � �� W . � �3 �'� � ��1 i i � r? �. �. : y ��. " wf ��i sA + y 3 =� ' iii�;,' z��-':`; � "� � � ,{ .y ,---. d . v i R� � . : � �s�.�? 4vcm3 �3dii .�: ri k ��`-,, 'C.. �< � a ,.�,- F �,., ;� 3 3 �' a � ? � �-.�l i c ' �" y ,� a�� s � `' � saAr w �� .3 � �y� . � �. � �J� �€{,�� ` '�� t- �a,. - �i �-- �� i.S��Y��'>`,i ��' ,` - _ i . r� -.K'T. y c 9 �� Z �� r � � ' _ � . �" , �� 3 � � � �.� ' . +! :..� �� Y'��i'� ` � '�-� � �Yyi. � ,. 5!-# Y��l1?, f . i 3 J t ? 'i % Y �� - . ...�{ �SL� . � .. . � �' ..f R f� , � [ .�a = y ! � _ t �. (_ 1 �.�.L '. � a , — i �� ` � � e ' ' ��' _ �scr.- : �=�-t,. - �-„' 25��"i�; � i . i" -x�.t'.$e±.ix"'_`-: ... - ` „ .t ,� :.. . ... � . . ,:: l s '- 3 4 s e t t 1 ` �. — F t _`. �-- -- - - � .. r `°�,n_ � � 9 { � � '� �� J '� .J oa-� a� �GEND z�t .D • File rB02-043 CITY OF SAI\T PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COVIb1I5SI0\ STAFF REPORT • FILE lv'A �vIE: 663 Euclid Street DaTE OF APPLICATIO�i: October 31, 2001 APPLICANT: LHB En� neers & Architects D�TE OF PUBLIC HEARING/PERVIIT REVIE�V: Nocember 1�, 2001 HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Dayton's Bluff Historic District CATEGORY: new construction CLASSIFICATION: buildin� permit STAFF NVESTIGATION AND REPORT: Amy Spong DATE: November 8, 2001 A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The site proposed for development is vacant and was purchased by the Dayton's Bluff Neighborhood Housin� Services. This site is located at the ed�e of the bluff and is quite visiblz from I94 and Mounds Boulevard. Euclid street dead ends at this parcel. Our files do not indicate that a struchire was located at this site. B. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant is proposin� a four unit townhome structure. The proposed structure is two stories high with a gabled roof, has individual entrances to each unit and personal �ara�es attached to the structure at the rear. The unit that faces Euclid and the bluff is a one story accessible unit. 6Vood doubie-hung windows are proposed with 4° trim. Four inch lap sidin� «�as noted on the plans with comer boards, however, the material was not specified. Simple entry porches with 2t2 inch spindles and top and bottom rails are proposed. rivo conceot reviews and comments related to roof forms, needin� more the area that the proposed development is in. ;ponded_ fav�_rablv. Some general views and understandin� the context or C. GUIDELIrE CITATIOrS Darton's Bk�ffDesign Review Gzridelines Gerieral Principles: 6. Nex� construrtiort sho�dd be eompatible with the historic and architectural character of the dislricl. " Pri�:cipal Bt�ildings: 1. blassing and scale. Neti� catstrz�ctior: shoc�ld connform to the massirtg, voleir�ie, height, facade • proportions arid sca[e of surroundin� structures. The gr rolunte of any neror stn�cture shoz�ld be vis«ally� coinpatible tivith the bi�ildiftgs and elen�ents tivithi�: the sur area. Neu• dtivellittgs anct conurtercia! buildings shorrld be co»ipnrible ivirh rhe height of existing adjaceru buildings. oa- � ao Fite fB02-043 • 2. �Llaterials and Details. ��faterials and details should relate to those of e.risting nearby bz�ilcfings. GYood or masonry� constre�ctiort is rypical for e.risting residential be�ilding in the district, while masonry is typical of cortmercial building. These materials are preferable to vinyl, metal, or hardboa�d siding. Imitative materials st�ch as artificial ston2 or brick venee shoz�ld not be z�sed. !lfaterials tivill be reviewed to determine their appropric�te z�se in relation to the overall design oj the structt�re. Thz t�se of vinyl, metal. or ha�dboard siding ivill bz consider2d by the Comntission on a case-by-case basis. These mate�ials may be perritissible in netiv constraction of pr bi�ildings if appropriately detailed. B«ilcfing Elements: 1. Roofs: The gable and the hip roojare the printciry historic roof forms if: the District, with many var and combinations. In new constrztction, the skyline or roofprofile should relate to the predominant roof shape of nearby bi�ildings. Highly visible secondary strt�cture roofs shou[d nu�tch the roof pitch of the main structure. Roofing ntaterials used on new buildings should be appropriate to the design of the building and the visibility of the roof. Roof hardrvare such cis s�ylights, vents, and n�etal pipe chimneys should not be p!aced on th.e front roof plarie. 2. GViridotivs a�td Entries. Vertically-oriented, sin�le or double-hi�ng sash are the predomiriant historic tivinclotiv type in the District. The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windovcs r�ncf entries shoc�ld be compatible with that of existing nearby buildings. The rhy7hm of solids . to voids createct by openings in the facade of the new structure should be vist�ally cornpatible with surrourzcfing structures. 3. Porches and Decks. The front entry shocdd be articc�lated tivith a clesign elentent such as a porch, pot'tico, or larzding tivhich provides a transitional zone beriveen t{:e serrti public and public exterior zones and the private interior zorie. This design element should be appropriatefy detailed and compatible rovith the si_>e and scale of the bc�ilding. Decks shoirld be co�tstrz�cted at the rear ofthe buildin� and shoi�ld be integrated into the overall design. Decks should be appropriately detailed and shoi�ld not be raised iri a rrrar�ner wltich makes therrc carupicuous. � Accesso�ti� &�ildirtgs: Gar�tges and othef� c�ecesson be�ildings skould be con�patible ticid� the over design and matef of the e.ristirig bc�ildiii�s oft tlie lot. Nevv gcira,;es should be located offrear alleys i�hereie� Gara�es s)tould riot be attached to the frortt of the bcrild�rig and shozrld only� be attachecl ifrtot visiblefront t1�e pc�blic tivay. Site Co�tsiderations in 1�'eec Co��structiof�: 1. Setback attd Sitii:g. The setback of new be�ildifigs in niost residential and conrrnercial areas should be contpatible xith the setback oje.ristirtg adjacent areas. ?. Parking. Residerttial parkin� areas should be confirred to the rear of existirt� or• netic • EJIRILICi1J5. PQYlilftj spaces shoidd be screened frorrt rietic fronz the pc�blic street by� lartdscapirtg suc{: as hedges, grade chan�es, or lotir ferrces. 3. Fences. Fenres which allox� son�e visual penetratiort offront y�ard space are preferable to File rB02-043 • complete enclosz�re. Fences of wrot�ght iron or tivood which enclose the front yard should be no higher than 3-1/2 feet. Cyclone fences shozcld not be usecf to enclose front yards or the front half ofside yards. 4. Retaining tivalls. Stone, brick, and split face concrete block are preferable to landscape timber for the consrruction ofretaining rovalls. Masonry retaining tivalls shor�ld be finished tivith caps or other appropriate details. �. Pzrblic Improvements. Netiv street and landscape improvements, lighting, street fc�rnih�re, and signs shot�ld be compatible with the character of the historic district. The historic urban pattern of grid plan streets shoc�ld be retained and enhanced in improvement projects. D. FINDINGS 1. The gabled roof form and pitch relate to neazby residential sin�le family homes. 2. The entries are "articulated" with porches help to define public from semi-public spaces. 3. Garagin� may be visible from the public way, which would not conform to the guideline that states gaza�in� should only be attached if not visible from the public way. 4. The use of �vood trim, siding and windows would comply with the �uidelines �vhich state "Materials and details shoidd relate to those of e,risting nearby bt�ildings. " 5. The overall massin� is much larger than nearby sin�le family residential buildin�s with • detached �ara�es and the orientation of the building is facin� the bluff and not the street (Euclid). This development, however, is located at the ed�e of the historic district and at the end of a dcad end street. 6. The one story unit that faces Euclid street does not relate to the directional emphasis and rhythm that the other two story units do and the two and one half story historic houses. The lar�e gable end is also not of a scale that relates to existin� structures. E. STAFF RECOM�IENDATION Based on t he findings, staff recommends approval of the buildin� pe rmit provided the follotiving ) be met: 1. The horizontal massin; and directional emphasis of the one story unit should be altered to relate to the scale and rhythm of existin� buildin�s. 2. Exterior sidin� and trim must be painted wood. 3. Finai material selections will be submitted to HPC staff for review and approval. • �' . ��1 e vaa� `.xc-e(Z�f"5 - �2ow1 �"�.e. l5'( � cl e ��( 2.5 / �lw�-� ��aa � �i/To �t 5 COL'.^.Ci1 F:le # Orc'iaaZCe r Gree:� S :ee: r ORDINANCE CITY OF SA[NT FAUL, MINNESOTA ?rese^te� Ev ne:erred :o �� I � ` ~ �"�` p Cor,.nitte_: Dzte An ordinance desi�atir.g the Da;2on's Bluff Heritage Preservation District and settina forth a preservation pro� for the district The Council o: the City of Saint Pau1 dozs Ordain: Section 1 • • Pursuant to the authority contained in Chapter 73 oi the Saint Paul Le�siative Code, upon the recommendation of the Herita�e Preservation Conunission of the Ciry of Saint Paul, ar.d after havin� duly considered the matter at a public hearLzg held in accordance with Chapter 73 o: the Legsla:ive Code, the area generally bounded by Mounds Boulevard on tne south, Mapl�, Arcade and Hope Streets on the east, Bee:h Street, G:eenbrier Street, Maury• Stree[, Bates Avenue, horth Street, and Foentain Place on the north, and Ei�hth Street, Batzs Avenue, Si�h Street and Mounds Boulevard on the wesi is designated for heritaee presen�ation as the Dayton's Biuff He:itaee Prese:c�ation District. The arez is more specificaliy descrbed as follo� y Aeditor's Subdivision ho. 13: I.o:s 3-13; Audi:or's Subdivision lv'o. 14: Lots i-7; Auditor's Subdivision Iro. 19: Block 1, I.ots 1, 10-12; Auditor's Svbdivision ho. 20: I,ots 1-18; Auditor's Subdivision No. 69: Block 2, Lots 4-12, 14-18; Auditor's Subdivision No. 72: Lots 1-13, 16-18; Belmont Addition: Z.ots 1-13; R. Broanson's Subdivision: Lots 1-;; L. Daytoa's Addition: Biock 2; Biock 7; Block 8; Block 18, Lots 1-10, SEh� 50 Y. of Lots 26•28, SEly 40 fr. of the Iv'SL1y 100 8. of Lots 27 and 28; Block 19, I.ots 1-16; Block 20; BIock 24, I.ocs 4-26; Block 25; Block 26; Block 32, Lou 16-2�; Block 33; Block 34; BIock 37; Block 38; Block 46; Block 49; Block 50, I.o:s 1-6, 17-24; Block 54, I.ots 22- 24; BIock 5�; Dayton's Place A"ddition: Lots 1-13; - A. Gotzian's Sub3ivision of Block 74 of Lyr.ian Dayto;�'s Additior.: Block 74, I.ots 1-3; G:eenleaf Clark's Subdivision of Block 69 of Lyman D2;rton's Addition: Block 69, I,ots 10-16; Highland Addition: Block 1, Lots 6-22; Block 2, L.ots 8, 11-28; Block 3; Block 4; Irvine's 2nd Addition: Block 10; Block 11, Lo:s 1-12, 19; Block 12, Lots 6-13, 17; Keller's Subdivision: Block 1, Locs 3-12; Block 2, Lots 1-22; C. A. Mann's Subdivision of Block 8 of Lyman Dayton's Addi*.ion: L.ots 1-9, 13-19; oa-tao • Nell's Subdivision of BIock 2i of Lyman Da}�ton's Additior.: BIock Zl, Lots 1-21; • Registered Land Survey I`TO. 54: Tracts A and B; Ro�er's Subdivision: Lots 1-6; Rolfer's Subdivision of BIock 75 of Lynan Dayton's Additior.: Block 75, I.ots 5-10; Schurmier and Evans Addition: Block 2, Lots 6-3Q; B. Sinnen's Subdivision of BIocks 10 and 22 of Lyman Dayton's Addition: Block 10, Lou 15-23; Stinson's Rearraneement oi L, „ an Dayton's Addition Block 4�: Block 4�, Lots 1-11, 18-3�; Stinson's Subdivisioa of Block 83 of Lyman Day2on's Addicion: Biock 83, Lots 14-16; Subdivision of BIock S, Lyman D2yrtoa Addition: Lots 18-23, NEIy 10 ft. of Lot 5 and all of Lots 3 and 4; Subdivision of Block 68, Lyman Dayton's Addition (Boardman Sub.): Lots 1-12, 15-23; �Valther and Schnittoer's Subdivision of Block 90 of Lynan Dayton's Addition: Biock 90, Lou 1, 28; � WIlder and Dodae's Subdivision: Block 2; Willius' Subdivision of Blod: 57 of Ly7nan Dayton's Additioa: Block 57, I.ots 1-3, 16-23; Wirth Place: Block A; Secfion 2 Pursuant to the authority contained in Chapter 73.05 (� oi the Sain*. Paul L.e�s1a*.ive Code, upon the recommendation af the Heritage Preservation Commission, znd after havin� duly considered the matter at a pubiic hearing held in accordance with Chapter 73 of the I.egisiative . Code, the preservation proaram for the Dayton's B1uff Heritage Presercation District hereby reads as follows: Dayton's B1uYr' Heritage Preservation District Guidelines for Desi� Review I. Intent and Purpose The followi-�g Guidelines for Desi� Review serve as the basis for the Heri:a�e Preservation Coinmission's permit review decisions in the D2yrton's Bluff Heri:ase '� Preservation District. The guidelines identify the key visuai and architectural � characteristics of the district to ensure that they are preserved and enhanced in rehabilitation or new construction. The guidelines provide standards for coasidering the impad of exterior alterations on the individaal buflding as wzll as on the surroundins dstrict. � The guidelines are intended fo be flexible, and the permst review will be conducted on 2 factors which The general objective of the Dayton's Btuff Herita�e Preservation Dis:rict Desi�i Review Guidelines is Lo maintain ihe architectural and visual quaiities of eacistine historic buildin�s and streets:.apes and to encoura�e architecturally compau'bie new desi�. The • guidelines are based on the Secrztary of the Intenor's StancL�rds for Rehabilitation zs w'eL as on an analysis of the specific characteristics of the district. oa ► a� • 'Fhe follo��in� Geaeral Principles are derived fron tne Standards and study and znalysis ' o; the area. They provide a broad framework for evaluztino most rehabili[ation work as weII as new constnzction. The Ci:y of Saint Pau1, as a Certified Local Government in the 23ational Historic Preservation Pro�am, conducts desi� review of locaIly desi�aced heri:aQe preservation sices 2nd districts acc.o:din� to the Secretary of tY.e Fr.:erior's . S:andards. The D2yton's B1uff E3erita�e Preservation District Design Review• Guid�L+'nes ha�e been review by the Minnesota State Historic Presetvation Ofncer persuanc to Minnesota State Statute 471.193 Subd.6 and Chapter 73 of the Saint Pau1 Leeislative Code. General Principles 1. AlI work should be of a character and quality that maintains the distinQuishino features o: the buiidin� and the envi�onment. The removal or alteration of distinctive architectural features shouId be avoided as should alce:ations t'r.a[ have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance. The restoration of alcered oriainal features, if documentable, is encouraeed. 2. _ Chanees which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired si�ni&cance in their own right, and this sienificance shalI be recognized and respected. • 3. Deteriorated architectural features should be repaired rather than replaced whenever possible. In the eyent of replacenent, r.ew materials should match [he ori�nal in co.;iposition, desi� includin� consideration of proportion, tex znd detail, color, and overali appea: ance. New additions or alterations to structures should be constructed in such a mznner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the form and integriry of the ori�zial structure would be unimpai; ed. 5. The impact of alterztions or addi:ions on individual buHdings as well zs on the � surrounding streetscape will be considered; major alterations to bufldings which occupy a corner lot or are otherwise prominendy sited should be avoided. 6. i�'ew constn:ction should be compatible with the his IIv�'RODUCTION The Dayton's'BIufYHeritage Preservation District The following guidelines reco�ize the contn'bution of architectural styles as well as certzin vernacular building types and forms to the visual character of the district. Tne district contains appro�mately 500 residential, commercial, and institutional buildin�s, most constructed between ca. 1878 and ca. 1910. Some properties are good exampies of • cenain architecturat sryles, and some are the work of prominent Saint Paul architects. A great cariety of omamental trim details and other desi�n elements remain on ihese buIldings and their conservation is important to the historic character of the area. oa- � a� The commercial buildings within the D'utrict cre oj m�sonry cons.7uction and d�te • _, from the I880s thraugh tF.e 1920s. Fach bui?dusg has a specral style or character that belor.gs to is per.'od oj� con.smcction Althoug'r. each buildir.g is unique, mo;t share a r,vo pan horizontal divisior. rvith g?a�ed (or once g12=zd) storefrorts ar the ftrst story. TF,e storefror.ts--tNz faccde.s oj ind'vi.d:wl shops--us;�Zly support a ban3 cf uniformly-si=ed windows and a decoramz com:ce cbove. 1. Conservation. Tne ori�nal appezrance of comme:ciai buudinas and storefronts shouId be conserced. Decorative features such as colunas or brackets should be retained i� repair 2nd renovation projz:.ts. Sto:e�ronu should not obscure the basic architectural frameu•ork of the buiIdinos which they occupy. .Storefront desi�n shouId not reproduce stytes of a period earlier than tne buildin� they occupy. 4. Roofs and Paraoets. The ori�nal roofline--including cornice, parapet, and other elements--should be maintained. • 5. Si�Qns. Si�s should be compatlbte with the character of the buildino and surrounding area. Si?ns should be appropria[ely sized and complement the buIldin� ez�cerior; rooi-top si�s are inapp:opriate. They should not conceal architecturai details or features. Sien materials should be compatible with the materiaLs of the buIlding io which they are attach:d. Iv'o part of ihe historic facade should be damaged in the ins:alIation of the sien. _ 6. Awnin�s. Awnings should be sized to fit the windows and sto; efront(s) behind them. Aw•ning materials and details shouId be compatble F�ich the architectural char2cter of the building. No part of the historic facade shou?d be irreve:sibly das,aged or altered duria� the instaliatioa of tne awnin�. 2. Mzsonrv Surfaces. Masonry and other ori�izial surfaces should be conserved. Brick shoi:ld not be covered with stucco, shakes, or othe: veneer. Unpainted masonry surfaces should not be painted. 3. Windows. Windows should not be filled in with wood, brick, or any othe; material. Window sizes and shapes should be maintained if removal of original uni[s is necessary. B. NE«' CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIO\S • (l�ew construction 2nd addi[ions on sinle or multi-block los; see also the following sections for additiona: East Third ar,d East Seventh Street euidelines.) 1�'ew cors*ruction--whetF.er in the form of an ac'd!ion to an easting building or con.struction of a new dweZling, garage, or commercial buildng--shoulcl be compatible with the histaric character of Dayton's Blufj: The�e ir a great diversitv of builctinp rir. However, rhe development oj 11 oa-�ao • every proposal for new design murt involve care�.d assessment of the architecr.�ra1 "-- character of nearby buildngs and streztscapes. The objective of guidelines for new construction in the Dzy �on's Bluff IIis:oric District is to encoe:aae a high s:andard of histo;iczLy conpatibie new desi�:. ?�ew' buildin�s and structures should be compatiole wi.h tae s:ze, s:a1e, nassino, height, rhy setbacic, color, material, building elements, site desi�, and � characte: of surroundliz� struc[ures as weII 2s the broad con[ext oi the D;strict. The foIlowin� guidelines are divided into three sections. General guidelines are provided for the review of new construction on most parcels and additions to existing buildings. Specific guidelines for East Seventn and East Third Streets have also been developed to address the special characteristics of these two arzzs. These guidelines are compauble ��ith existine Iand use and zoning in the district. Applicable zonin� reQulations 2s well as current planning studies such 2s the Lower Dayton's Bluff Small Area Plan (1990) shouid be consulted before plannin� new construction. General Guidelines: New Construction 1. Site Evzluation. Existing historic buildin�s and landscape features should be retained and rehabiiitated in pians for redevelopmeni. • 2. General Character. New construction.should reinforce the historic architwtural and visual character of the a;ea; specificaLy, it should re:er to the tradicional two- and three-story dwelling and commerciai building module, and typical setbacks already established in the district and in the adjacen: 2rea. 3. Pedestrian Circula*.ion and Parkinv. Iv'ew construction should be o:iented tow�a;d streets w;uch are invi.in� environments for pedestrians. Parkin� ai shouId be placed at the rear of buildin�s wherever possble, or ' screened with lands;apin�, low walls, or appropriateIy detaIled fences. 4. Views and Vistas. Exceptional views from the gublic w�av shou�t be ot structure I�ew Construction: Principal Buildings; Additions 1. "Massine and Scale. New • to and also compl�wi:h existina zonine rePUlations. The gross volume of any new structu:e should be visually compatible R�ith the buIlduzgs and eIer,ients within the surrounding area. New dw•ellings and commercial buildings should be compatibte with the hei�ht of existin� adjacen*. buIldinas. 12 �- , s • 2• Materials and DetzIIs. Materials znd detaIls should reIate to those o; - existing nearby buildincs. Wood or masonry construction is typiczl for existing residential buildin�s in the district, while masonry is tSpiczl oi comme:cial bui:din¢s. Thzse materials zre preferable to vinyl, metal, or ha:d'ooard siding. Ir,iitztive mate:izls such as ar:i.icial stoae or b:ick veneer snoeId not be nsed. Mate:ials c,�iII be reviec:ed to de.ers.i�� taei- appropriate use in relation to the overall desi� of the siructure. lne use of viny!, metal, or hardboard sidane will be considered bv the commission on a Building Elements mac be 1. Roofs. Tne gable and hip roof or thec variants are the primary histo;ic roof forns in the district, with may variations and combinations. In new construction, the skyiine or roof profile shouId reIate to the predomina;�t roof shape of nearby buildin�s. Hi�hIy visiole secondary structure roofs should be compatible with the roof pitch, color, and ma[erial of the main structure. The roo: n� materiaLs used on new buiIdings should be appropriate to tne desi� of the beildin� and the visibility of the roof. • Roof h2rdware such as s}.yliglzts, vents, znd meta! pipe chimneys should not be placed on tne front roof p:ane. 2. WindoR•s and Entries. Vertically oriented, doubie-hun� sash are the predominant historic window type ir the district. T'he propo::ion, size, rhy7hn, and detailing of windows and entries should be compatibie witn tnat of existing nearby buIldin�s. The rhythm o: solids to voids c:ezted by� openines in the facade of the new structure shoutd be visualIy compztbie with surrounding structures. 3. Porches and Decks. Porches are a standard feature of manv historic houses in the dstrict and whether enclosed or unenclosed they are zn important part of the streetscape. In new wnstruction, tne front entry shouId be zrticulate3 k�ith a desi� element sucn 2s a porch, potico, o: Ianding which provides a transitional zone between the semi-public znd public exterior zones and tne private interior zone. Tnis desi� ele:,ient should be appropriately detailed and compatible with the size znd s:.a1e of the building. Decks sho;ild be constructed at the rear o; the buIldin� and should be inte�ated i�zto the overall desi�. Decks should be appropriately detailed and should not be raised in 2 manner which r.iakes thzm conspicuous. • Accessory BuiIdinrs Garaees and other accessory buildings should be compatble with the overall 13 . +'v � 4 a - ¢ ' � � i� I >- � i�. ��.�✓j .. \V'f^ �N � � 6 3P ..` /± A�s.; . I..._ 1 L spJS'aF F �. � P � �.� � b '�j " �e� � � �� '� � � �' �� <�''�r.� ,�� ,�. -- � , _ "- - ,�, -'�:, - � �� ; - . _ _ ., � - _ _ - �� - , , __ �_- � _ �;�, � � �� , ` ' ir '�i"_ �" ±�' , �.: � I �I � �� ,�.� . _3� �! �r � _� � � � � .� � C — � � � 7I O �� -� � W � t! ��b►��5 J X � � d t r d � v � .� � � ,O 6 t� O i� � � • ��r� �s >`� 3i� s+II �� _. � �ty� H� iP _� �R�i;'j � � � �. � ,,, � r�_ ' ..,�� . � r i�, �.. �PF dt t. t � ,_ ��,r o ,,,_ � � � J � � � � �' � � � � D � � 0 � � � � � � � � � ci � � � � 0 s � . � .a d J 0 � .� � � - � �-�;�,- > _ �°� J _ � � ; � �,: � � - _ �.� _.. �� . : "'�'`� � — - - _,. . ��_ a�, _:: . ��;= _ ��=' - `J �� V 7 �.L .a L d � 0 _� � � � � � > Q � ; I� ._ W � � �� 7^d � � d .� � x � � � � � .� •� 0 ._ � � �, � : r� ; � _� �,, ; �� i ,. _, ; _; ., � , 3 . ^' fd: i s __ S+ > V * � :" ! ��.°{'+^ `" . o,:�s& 4 _ .� *. —. .. a . _. �- . "'E�i-r:r�w.i,w.yr� ,.-_ � ,�,ND I'��R.��'. � � �, ��Iilti!i< �� ..�,.m. � �,r�;; �� ;�'; i,:P' . _....._ i-. � � J �t � � � � rrn�.iL,�, r. i;� ; ::. *�-� i „ c,r �/ / � / t i ] . _�_ � �' v. - -- A.\. `\ r 1 �� :��¢�� S ,f , �" �� `>- _ - ',as ' — —_' �_ 1�. � I� �,� � �v,, __ ��_. ;. ,-, __ � _ � ;,, . - � _ ,. , � Z � � � ip !OAY�*��l.Y� � . . � Y' e� ❑ �` _� � _ ; ` - �� ' ,; �. � ❑ � �... � �s a,�:rk e; ��t { � : i��7 il � g1� =\ �\`�-� g -� .� c � <._ _ .r -- � �, fa��1��' � _ — _ y �r�� .. �. . ai` �¢�3� ,+¢: _ 4,, '��:;ia . � : s'e ,s� �� .��`a� '. �-�- � ��. ': "� _. . m