07-326Councii File # Q 7_.� lo
Green Sheet # ��
RESOLVI'ION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
2
3
4
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
?g
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
S6
�7
WHEREAS, Cheryl Golden Black, on January 5, 2007, made application to the Heritage
Preservation Commission (hereinafter, the "HPC"), in HPC File No. 07-095, for a building
permit to remove and rebuild a roof and reposition dormers on the front and rear elevations of a
single family home located in the Dayton Bluff Heritage Preservation District at 805 Fourth St.
East; and
��
WF�REAS, HPC staff prepazed a report dated 7anuary 19, 2007, which was subsequently
updated on January 30, 2007 and which shall also be incorporated into this resolution herein by
reference, which described the subject structure, detailed the changes proposed to the roof of the
stmcture, provided background information regarding the installation of new dormers on the
second floor of the structure as approved in 1999 and provided the guidelines for design review
and restoration and rehabilitation in the Dayton Bluff Heritage Preservauon District as set forth
in Leg. Code §§ 74.87 and 74.89(b)(1), .89(c), .89(d)(1) and .89(fl; and
WHEREAS, the said staff report contained the following Findings and Staff Recommendation to
approve the said appiication, subjecC to stated conditions:
FINDINGS
1. The property is considered contributing to the Dayton's Bluff Historic District.
2. Changing the roof pitch from 6/12 to 7/12 and re-positioning the dormers do
not compiy with the principle which states, "All work should be of a character
and quality that maintaires the distinguishing features of the building and the
environment. " The low pitched hipped roof is a character defining feature of the
building and "the removal or alteration of distinctive architectural feazures
should be avoided. "
3. The roof is proposed to change from a squaze-hipped with dormers to a
modified-hipped with a continuous ridgeline from dormer to dormer. The slope
would change from 6(12 to 7/12 (about a 20 inch increase at the ridge) and the
overhang would be extended six inches around the perimeter. The proposed
dormers ue not set into the roof planes as would be done historically and
traditionally. These proposed changes do not comply with the guidelines which
state, "The original roof type, slope and overhangs should be preserved. The roof
shape at the front should not be altered except to restore it to the original
documented appearance or to add architeczurally compatible dormers. "
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
54
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
38
39
)0
�1
�2
3
4
� 7
4. The guidelanes state "Alterations to the roof shape at the sides or rear should
be compatible with the architectural character of the building." The changes to
the sides and reaz roof planes also do not comply with the guidelines for roof
slope and form. Going from an almost square hipped roof to a modified hipped
roof with connected dormers would have a negative impact on the character and
integrity of the house.
5. The proposed dormers are not architecturally compatible. The proposal to
make the dormer wail tailer and then reuse the existing windows, while not drawn
on the plans, would not be compatible to the new scale and proportion of the
dozmers. The existing windows are also not the windows that were required by
the HPC in 1999 (F3PC File #3550). The windows were to have two equally-
spaced vertical muntins. The detailing of the dormers does not comply with the
guidelines for new construction or windows.
6. It is unclear if the existing chimney will be stabilized and preserved during the
roof replacement or if the chimney will be rebuilt from the eave and up.
7. The proposed shingle is Certainteed Camage House. The style has scalloped
edge and the color is "Brownstone." The shingie installed after the first new roof
was constructed has a scalloped edge and this does not comply with the guideline
that states, `7f partial or fudl re-roo, fing in tide, slate or asphalt is necessary,
replacement roofing should match the old in composition, size, shape, and
texture. Dark brown, dark gray, dark green, dark red, and "weathered wood"
are among usually acceptable colors. " A scalloped detail is not appropriate for a
Craftsman style house.
8. Given the distinctive and character-defining feature of the low sloping roof
and deep overhangs of the Craftsman style, the roof levels were typically not
intended to be habitable space. It is unclear to staff if the increased pitch and
unified ridgeline is necessary only for the insulation and venting or if a more
habitable space is also desired.
9. The proposed changes would have a negative impact on the architectural
integrity of the property and the program for preservation in the Dayton's Bluff
Historic District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings above, staff recommends denial of the bui]ding pernut
application to reconstruct and alter the roof form, pitch and detailing.
WF�REAS, on January 25, 2007, the HPC, having provided notice to affected property owners,
conducted a public hearing on the said building permit application and, at the close of the public
hearing, moved to grant the said applacarion contruy to the recommendation of staff and subject
to amended findings and recommendations as set forth and noted below by strikeouts or
underlining, the said morion passing unanimously:
FINDINGS
1. The property is considered contributing to the Dayton's Bluff Historic District.
D 7 �
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
ll3
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
l36
l37
38
39
40
41
42
43
�
�S
46
47
8
9
0
���.r.n�,n �
: . . . . .. : .: ..
; : . . , •,. . ,- . . .
, ,. . . . . .
. :• . : . : :. . .
.. . . .. . . . . . , -, ,
., .- -. -
3. The roof is proposed to change from a squaze-hipped with dormers to a
modified-hipped with a continuous ridgeline from dormer to dormer. The slope
would change from 6l12 to 7/12 (about a 20 inch increase at the ridge) and the
overhang would be extended six inches around the perimeter. The proposed
dormers aze not set into the roof pianes as would be done historically and
traditaonally. These proposed changes do not comply with the guidelines which
state, "Tlze original roof rype, slope and overhangs should be preserved. The roof
shape at the front should not be altered except to restore it to the original
documented appearance or to add architecturally compatible dornzers. "
4. The guidelines state "Alterations to the roof shape at the sides or rear should
be compatible with the architectural character of the building. " The changes to
the sides and rear roof planes also do not comply with the guidelines for roof
slope and form. Going from an almost square hipped roof to a modified hipped
roof with connected dormers would have a negative impact on the character and
integrity of the house.
5. The proposed dormers are not architecturally compatible. The proposal to
make the dormer wall taller and then reuse the existing windows, while not drawn
on the plans, would not be compatible to the new scale and proportion of the
dormers. The existing windows are also not the windows that were required by
the HPC in 1994 (HPC File #3550). The windows were to have two equally-
spaced vertical muntins. The detailing of the dormers does not comply with the
guidelines for new constnzction or windows.
6. It is unclear if the exisCing chimney will be stabilized and preserved during the
roof replacement or if the chimney will be rebuilt from the eave and up.
: . : .. :.
:- :: :.• . :.
: . :. : .: : . . :. :
.. . .. - . , -
„ .. . , ., .. . ,- . .
:. , .� ,. ;. ,. . -. .,
. -. ., :. : : : :.. .. :
..
8. Given the distinctive and character-defining feature of the low sloping roof
and deep overhangs of the Craftsman style, the roof levels were typically not
intended to be habitable space. It is uncleaz to staff if the increased pitch and
unified ridgeline is necessary only far the insulation and venting or if a more
habitable space is also desired.
isi
isz
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
1��
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
l82
�.83
84
85
86
87
88
39
�0
07-3��
9. The proposed changes would have a negative impact on the architectural
integrity of the property and the program for preservation in the Dayton's Bluff
Historic District.
10. Extraordinar�circumstances were involved with this decision because of
health, life, safety issues.
STAFF RECONIIvIENDATION
Based on the findings above,
. the HPC
recommends approval of the pernut ap_plication with the following conditions:
1. The ridge of the dormers remain set down from the ridae of the maior roof
plane with revised drawings submitted to staff for final approval. The desi�n
shall be consistent with the 1999 a�proved dormer desi�n.
2. The shin�les on the main roof sha11 match those on the porch in color and
de Slgri•
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2007, the FIPC's decision to approve the building permit application
was commun3cated to the applicant in a letter of decision, which shall be also incorporated
herein by reference and in which the HPC's approval of the subject application subject to the
conditions imposed by the HPC is set forth; and
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2007, the applicant, pursuant to I.eg. Code § 73.06(h), filed an
appeal from the HPC's decision and requested a public hearing befare the City Council for the
purpose of considering the HPC's decision regarding condition No. 1; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2007, a public hearing was duly conducted before the City Council
where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and, at the close of the said
public hearing, the City Council, having heard the statements made and having considered the
application, the testimony, the report of staff and the record, minutes and resolution of the HPC;
does hereby
RESOLVE, that the decision of the HPC to apgrove the said agplication subject to the condifions
set forth in the HPC's January 3Q 20071etter of decision in this matter is hereby overturned as
the Council finds that the applicant has demonstrated error in the HPC's Condition No.l based
upon the following finding:
>1 1. The Council finds that it is necessary to remove the roof of this home and
�2 reconstruct it with a steeper pitch due to moisture management problems within
�3 the household. The reconstructed roof will have a steeper pitch which will raise
4 the height of the front and rear dormers such that the ridgeline will extend through
5 the dormers. While the district guidelines discourage roofline alterations, the
6 Council finds, on balance, that the alteration proposed here is the minimum
7 necessary to maintain the habitability of this home while retaining as much as
3 possible the overall architectural character of the home and the surrounding area.
AND, BE TT FLIRTHER RESOLVED, that the Council adopts as its own the HPC's modified
findings in this matter as set forth above, provided: that the said findings are modified to the
extent necessary to permit the alteration for the reasons noted above by the Council and further
D � �3� b
263
204
205
206
207
208
209
zio
Z11
212
213
214
provided that the appellant shall have a final plan for the proposed alteration presented to HPC
staff for final approval; AND
BE Tf F[JRTHER RESOLVED, that the HPC's condition of approval No. 2 shall remain in full
force and effect; AND
BE TT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Cheryl
Golden Black, the Heritage Preservarion Commission, the depamnent of licenses, inspections,
and environmental protection and the zoning administrator.
Adopnon Certified by Council
By:
Approved by Mayo � te _
By:
Requested by Depazcment of:
C�(�
�
F; ,
B �, �c .-
Form Ap � d by Ciry Attomey
By �D'�/i. L✓l✓`wr-� �-- 2 8'— 0- 7
Form Approved Mayor r Submission fo Council
B Y — ���C��=��
�`r�'-'� 07 �3�b
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
Departmentlofficvlcouncil: � 6ate Initiated:
cA -����� I 2&�,R-0� Green Sheet NO: 3038198
Contact Person S Phone:
Peter Wamer
266-8770
musc ne on
7 I-APR-07
Doc. Type: RESOLU710N
E-0ocument Required: Y
DacumentConWct: JulieKraus
Coritaact Phone: 266-8776
� y vacer.menc aens � o rerson
I 0 �Ll'tvAttorney (
Assign i 1 "ty AttorneY Deparlmeot Director
Number 2 ;CyrvAttomev
For
Routing 3 avor`s Office MavodAss9stant
��� 4 ouncil
5 �ity C7erk CStv C7erk
7oql # of Signature Pages _(Clip All locations for Signature)
Memorializing City Council's Mazch 21, 2�07 morion to overtuea and,modify the Heritage Preservation Commission's (HI'C)
decision to approve the applicafion subject to conditions set forth in the January 30, 2007 letter of decision for the properry located in
the Dayton Bluff Heritage Preservarion District at 805 Fourth Street East.
ioanons: approve (n) or H
Pianning Commission
CIB Committee
Civil Service Commission
1. Has this personffirm ever worked under a coMract for this tleparlment?
Yes No
2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee?
Yes Ido
3. Does this person�rm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate shQ���green sheet
Initiating Problem, issues, Opportonity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
MAR 2 9 2007
MAYOR'S OFFICE
Advantages If Approved:
The Council is required pwsuant to the City Charter to haue its actions reduced to writing either in the form of a resoluAOn or
ordinance dependent upon the nature of the matter before it. The decision of Council in this matter requited a written resolution in
order to compLy with the Charter. Apgroving the attached resolufion fulfills the Council's duty under the Charter.
Oisadvantages If Approved:
None.
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
Failute to approve the resolution violates the City's Chazter requirements.
Transaction:
Funding Source:
Financial lnformation:
� (Fxplain)
CosURevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number.
��tta���: �����e�h
MAR 3 a 2D07
March 28, 2007 12;51 PM Page 1
OFFiCE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIQN
Bob Kessler, Drrecfor
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor
February 25, 2007
Ms. Mary Erickson
City Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
��, p i
��
�
67- � a�
Telephone. 65I-26G-4090
Facs�mde. 651-266-9724
Web: in�r [iey zu
3�-
� f�'� ; ��
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Counci( is schedu(ed for
Wednesday, March 21, 2G07 for the foliowing heritage preservation case:
AppeLlant{s):
File Number:
Cheryl Golden-Black, owner
07-095
Parpose: Appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission
decision allawing for a new xoof system witl� a
steeper pitch as proposed by owner, but requiriug
the dormers be set lower than the main ridge line
and consistent with a proposal approved by the HPC
in 1999.
Location:
Staff
Recommendation:
Commission:
805 E. Fourth Street (Daytods Sluff Aistoric
District)
Denial
Approval with conditions
i have confirmeci tnis daze with the orfice of Councii Presicient i�athy Lantry. vIy
understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City —
Council at your earliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the
Saint Paul Legal Ledger, Thanks!
Please call me at 266-9079 if you have any quesYions.
Sincerely,
✓ �
Amy Spong
Historic Preservation Speclalist
CC: Council President Kathy Lantry
CAO, Peter Warner
Appellantlowner, Cheryl Golden-Black
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
COMMERCE BU�GDING
8 Fourth Street East, Surte 2DD
St Paul, Mmneaota JSIQI-1024
NOTICS OF PUBLIC AEHRING ���
1he Saint Pavi Criy Couna7 wilt conduct a
pubHc hearing on Wednesday,<Mamh 21,
200'7 at 5;30 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall=Court
House, 15 West Bellogg Boulevard, St.
Paul, MN, to consida the appeal of Cheryl
Golden-Black to a decision by the Heritage
Preservation Commission (FIPC] for a new
roof system wiffi a steeper pitch and m-
qn3ring the dormers be set lower tl�ian the
main ridge llne at 805 Fast Fourth Street.
Daytnn's Bluff HisWric Distxict. (F31e No.
07-095). � - �
Dated: February 27, 2007
. PAT11E KETd.EY FOR . .
� MARY ERICILSON � - �
Assistant City Councll Secretary
_ . (4larcfi'1A :
� ST. PADI. LE6AL LSUGER
2R193`E78 . +....,.,,.� I
Fsbn.sary 12, 2flQ7
John Bfaek 8� Cheryt Ga3den - 81ack
805 East 4"' Street
Saint Paul, MtV 55106-5142
(&51 }776-71 Q8
{6t2)858-2973 f Ce€!
C+ty of Saint PauE
Office of �icense, Snspections and Environm�nta7 Pro#ection
8�sst Fausfh Stree# 1 Suite 24{}
Sa4nt Paul, AAinn�sota 55i01-1024
Atten#ion: Ct�risfine Barr
t- :.
07 - 3 a-�
- a ♦� • �^ • s ' � - t r- • . •
• ' a�' r - �s-.. a .s_ + ' . ♦ . s
r° ♦ s 's - ii -
'••
�s•> • a ♦' � s a s � ��
t ♦ �
� .• ,� »♦ s r • V
. .,�
'- a^ r - a� �s. • -• s ♦
f .f � R^ a ! f! t
a aa• ^a • .a �` � s
* ' ♦ t
� �
.t " ' • � •. • » .• '
• t ♦a a�t a�. �s�� s s-
+�� a� s. - r - � a s
_ ' t. ° �_ •a •
•s �
s • � t ° i. : . ♦ e• ' • .
t a e a a r ' s .s - l,. °
♦ s ♦. s t s °• .t
• • s..• ♦ - � _• •s s
s s t s ' ra
� -s s� t+� t� a
e a :s e •
Joha 8iack & Cheryi Goiden — Btack 1 Gity ai 8aint Paut d�' � a�
February 12. 2047
Page 3
via6te solution. C)ur p4an was not based on "a mare habitabie space" but rattter ta correct
an inhabitable space.
Summarizing my investigation, tiwe have worked d'sligentty to ma�ntain the architectural
int2gri#y within histAric guidetines to actzieus the ptan tha# has been subsniff�d. Based on
�rTr. Lassan's cosnmersfs we asa well 3rrithsn vrhaf fha �iPC sf�ouid consider historicaiiy
cansisYent.
C. The second sen#estc.� under the first c€�nds#ion fo I�e rnef sfafes tha#:
" - s- • .- . .., .. . -. .. - .
-.. ..- . • ... - . s. .. .
• r � i + R �° t s * ° - y y �
s s . s .tr a -i • � ♦ • � • � t
! `t i^ ! .IRt t •• .#fi • ^•. •- i.
• ! • M ^t i i � i i i t 4 i
! i * � ! i #° •�.
# . �!i �!�" w • # ° f' fi� � ♦!
�! ! 6 t • 9 M i � •
Y� • • ! . • i� t
• • # R
*4 'i �. s
��
� Y 4 � �' 't
s � . x ♦. ...,� s
• - • � r* t
+ • • ♦ t � s . • • �. . ♦
- f ^ » - r- • • •-
.a : • s ^s .. �a -
*� * " r. ' ♦ • � t t -
• . ♦ e s � a r . s • _♦
s �r
'r tt.�- • �te^ • s
• - ,.s.� • r • t r .•� .ts�
•
♦ s � • .. s ♦ � • ' r' . - s
! � #i • • f ! .ti�".. �!
° # f ' �
� • R E� s" •! � •4 "' R
`s � a .. � _s � a . a n .s^ a �
! a i*< s t e..
'i ��
��.+X �
f �` ' t � f! .!t' • #'
• �° f � t �°t • t+1 . t " i �� ` t i # ! � f°" •�."t
. • • t i ^ !� � !!� i • • • � i. # '�`
M ° i �t * # :f ' t f �
!� f i.. �i t ' t � `f ..tR ♦ `t . • "A t � ♦ f
. t > iF . ♦.. , •"' " i� ♦ f. 1 °
�
! a - s s e - s r - ��. ..s- r
°i i i . t t�♦.4 �!#i � t s ♦
i # � ..•� y �.fi • t � � '! i f
E � � • � �. t ; • F #
' ♦ ea •s• �s r ' s-- �..��� ' • tt� :�s .. t _ ^ a . a �
• � � � s s� �� - • r• ♦
• • w t �. es+s .
s C . ' a s- : .
- s
, ': ;�� 3a-�
�
,�
�� .
.
� �, _
� .:�
� � - � �- �v ��.J
City of Saint Paul City Council Pubfic Hearing
.
Heritage PreserVation Commission Decision Appeaf
Property: 805 East Foutth Street
Owners: Joh� Black and Cheryl Golden — 81ack
My husband and i are here tonight to appeal a decision made by the Heritage Preservation
Commission which i will be referring to as the HPC hence forth.
i'd fike to set the stage py having you take a look at the pictures on this page of our hnme in
1998, and a picture of our home as it is today, front and back.
}
l�c�� �,'��
,��'
��� ��
:�,*
I , � ,
s =
. � , � ��: a , �.i C�' 'E�i. ' k ,
6
� .+ ;r �m, ; y :.t e t � �. �, r�-�
i ; �4:, w _- t` a t
. �° r ? �. " ` a "��-�t�.
c:' ',�:. � : % ; _ < - ; d j ,
;
1 i 1 *_.
-- _ - [I _.
��� _ I
� ' ' . . , . ` ��
0`J' � a-C
City of Saint Paul City Council Public Hearing / John Black and Cheryl Goiden - Black
� March 21, 2007
Page 2
The 199$ pieture was taken the day we started a re-roofing scheme which quickly turned into an
entire roof replacement project due to the fact that the original 2 X 4 roof supports were cracked
and sagging from supporting three layers ofi old roofing. We decided to take advantage of
having to replace the entire roof by lofting into the unused attic space. The dormers we decided
to add were intended to light that space.
We submitted our plan to the HPC and it was approved. Our plan was then reviewed by LIEP's
site pianner and also approved. We pulled our permits and the roof replacement pro}ect began
in September of 1998 and was completed in Oetober of 1998. The entire project was completed
some time in 2002. The original 1998 elevation drawing that follows this page shows the house
with the addition of the dormers, front and back. 1'd like to note that the drawing, which is to
scale, shows the dormer positioned 1' below the roof ridge.
Jumping ahead to April, 2006, my husband and I noticed a spot on our ceiling which was now,
afso our roof. I contacted the Gity of Saint PauPs building official Tom Riddering for advice on
how to approach this problem. Joe Urlich, who heads up all the city building inspectors, and
7om came out to our house to take a look and were unable to determine what the actuai cause
might be or how to address it. So my husband and � hired an architect to investigate and he
discovered the entire roof was wet, rotting and full of mold. The culprit; condensation caused by
lack of ventilation. That very same day we had to move out of the upstairs of our house and into
our famiiy room. We have been )iving in our family room ever since. That was in May of 2006.
My husband and I have spent the last 10 months, rigorously investigating and researching how
something like this could have happened, how it was overlooked and the potential resolve.
We hired our original architect and builder, another draftsman and preserted our new plan to the
HPC. A copy ot that plan also follows this page. The HPC Staff denied our building permit
application and told us a hearing would be necessary as they felt our new plan for the roof and
dormers was not "archifecfurally compatib/e" along with six or seven other incompatible
issues. The HPC Staff also mentioned in their "Background" notes that, "According to the
stamped approved drawings in the fife, the existing dormers were not built according to the
approved plans. The dormers were instaAed cioser to the ridge lines."
My husband and I were not aware of that and do ;not understand how the onsite inspector
overlooked thai when the roof was constructed. All permits and drawings were posted on site
and there were numerous visits from the LIEP inspector during canstruction.
Ail that being said the current situation �s this. We have done extensive research in coming u�
with a new replacement pfan. The entise roof needs to come off and this time the roofi must be
vented and in order to do that, taking into consideration the cost, the incorporation of the
existing e�erior and interior structure, we need to construct the plan we have submitted.
The plan we have submitted requires one continuous roof and dormer ridge. This is the singular
complaint of the HPC. Our design, contrary to the HPC, can be found on numeraus homes in
the Dayton's Bluff area and also in the Summit area where the majority of the HPC members
reside.
/ �¢awmp
Z��
�=�
=��
ZUO�J
w�i�wpz�
V U�� Ow
�wez
ayaoaQ�f
Q N = Q 6
6
�¢na¢�¢c
w o���a a
aLLwN� �
y �h ? SO Z
W�=
>
xa>wm �
p¢�
�2U�WWW
QQQf6¢¢
�
J v
Q Q
F
W �
� �
W �
� m
m
�
Rf.�F DORh'1Ei�- �l"1'iv�
r
Scn�� " q- � I -c�.______,_
a�wor
�F7�w
x�myo
NWW_
Vy�OU�
Kwo¢
w�¢awp
QY�JF�
UupO-=��
�W�jyyO
O p W y
O W60NyW
Z < LL � T W a
OW� .�
YN}SIO
ilW
xzw»
W�-cgsOO
w¢N
1�-�a��0
wERnN u�F
GqLE
�,�. '- 4�'
A
I �7..QJ q�.7
RAWINO NO.
HEEi NO
� CJt= (
Q�
� mE '
u r
E �
Q tt /
; � _
Z �
/
E �
3 /
� M�N wew:
� fiug:
/
`m
�
/ II I
II I
/ II I
// II I
�� �� �
(� II I
\\ II I
�\ II I
� II I
II I
«L � �� �
^ �e �
J
�
�
�
ta ��
R�
E�? \
E�m \
� -E \
wo�« �
O m� ° nm `�
\
���
/ ��i I
E
m
m E
x o
° c o
`o �
�ac
o^�
3 v
mw
o : °'
�`=
mEw
<"�
��
r
�
U ,
@
O
�
�
� o
- -i �� . ',. :. � �_ ol_�'=. : I
m
io
c'�
0
wi
w�
ma
��
U
Z
Z
�
N
W
O
J
Q
N
z
W
�
�
W
�
� N
(7 Q 1 �
Z �Z
LL ~�
pW��
�(9Sn
U W W �
� m
> �Q�
Q
07-� a�
N
�
e
8
$
rc
i
r
'� i
i
i
/
6/
0�
si
I�
A�
B�
[ d / /
m\ N
�\ N
�
� �
��
��
1�
1�
e� �
aam �� s
°'dEgE � 'u
��$�m \ 3
v 5 o cq \ �
ia��� �� �
zma=> � I
0
N `
�
N
C
C
� m
a
`� �� , �
j:;. �, „
W
N�
a
NR
v�iN
V
a
z
�
w
w
0
J
Q
F-
Z
W
O
�
W
�
� N
(� Q N
Z �'. Z
LL F- �
� W�m
o�z�
U W W `r
m �?
p �Qm
Q
D7-� a�
City of Saint Paul City Council Public Hearing 1 John Black and Cheryi Goiden — Bfack
March 21, 2007
Page 6
The HPC hearing that took place in January and was to decide on the findings of nine
incompatibie issues was boiled down to one and that one is:
"i'he ridge of the dormers be set down firom the ridge of the major roof plane with revised
drawings submitted to Staff for final approval. The design shall be consistent with the
1999 approved dormer design."
I wouid like to note my Appeal Gritena response;
Appeaf Criteria:
A. Tha Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) decided a continuous roof ridge
including the roof and the dormer did not roeet historical guidelines. The
Commission's general consensus, which apparently was influenced by the staff findings,
was houses that resembled our style, being °`Craftsman" in nature did not have a roof and
dormer ridge in common.
i drove around the Dayton's Sluff District and documented more than 1b homes that
exhibit a common roof and dormer ridge. 1 also drove to the Summit Avenue area (Dale
to Lexington, Grand to Selby) and photographsd an additional 5 homes. i spent 2 and %2
hours photographing those homes. 1 had no difficulty finding homes that had the same
roof and dormer ridge we are proposing.
One of the homes I photographed sits right on the Bluff at the intersection ofi Fourth Street
and Mounds Boulevard. This home has recently been renovated and it is one of the
premier homes that front the Dayton's Bluff H+storic District on Mounds Boulevard with
high visibility.
My further investigation concerning historicai guidelines took me to the University of
Minnesota where I came across a book tit{ed "Saint Pauf's Architecture A History" by
Jeffrey A. Hess and Pau/ Clifford tarson. Mr. Larson is the Chair for the current HPC.
Following are a number of quotes from that book:
"Bungalow building was a nationwide phenomenon. It is most often discussed as an
architectural component of the Craffsman movement in the United States. The guiding
themes of that movement were simplicity, natura! materiafs, honesty in consfsucfion,
and individua! self-expression.��
"... the other by a small suburban residence that had little or no regard for its ancestry, ..."
"... the other is humble and inexpensive and expresses the tastes and needs of a singie
famity. Simplicity, honesty in construction, even individuality ..."
"But its' telling achievement, like that of all Craftsman architecture, has nothing to do with
stylistic purity, whatever that had become, and everything to do with the melding of
d�ve�se sources into unifred workable, and buildable designs."
��-�a�
; City of Saint Paul City Council Public Hearing / John Black and Cheryl Golden — Black
March 21, 20�7
Page 7
My investigation and photographic documentation proves that the HPC's posit+on and
reason to not allow our application, which requests the roof and dormer ridge to be one in
the same, is nat consistent with tbe homes in tf�e Dayton's B/uff area or historic
facts.
Summarizing the situation we:
Submitted a plan in 1998 that showed the dormer placed 1' fower thahthe roof ridge.
Unbeknown to us the roof was built with the dormer only 6" lower thanthe roof ridge.
The new plan wouid place the roof and dormer ridge on the same plane.
The new plan is compatible with a"Craftsman" style house and also consistent with the
historic homes in the Dayton's Bluff Historic District.
My husband, in 1952, moved into and grew up in the house at 805 East Fourth Street. I moved
into my husband's house in 1998 from Golden Valley via a very upsetting eminent domain
ordeal. I made a decision to embrace a neighborhood that had hundreds of rundown houses,
many ofi them abandon, numerous houses that bought, sold and produced drugs, houses for a
multitude of Level Three Sex Offenders, countfess homes run by slumlords, homes sheltering
murderers and where murders have actually taken place and last but not least gang invested
homes.
I have spent the last eight years working diligently with Dayton's BIufE Volunteer Community
Group, guided by Karin DuPahl, trying to make changes that will turn this neighborhood around.
Changes that will make this neighborhood a safe place to live and enjoy. Being historic is one
tiny piece of this recipe.
My husband and I have spent over one hundred thousand dollars renovating this house and now
face an additional fifty plus thousand to replace an eight year old roof because of poor building
science undetected. We have endured an ugly 10 months worth of disbelief, worsy, health
concerns, money issues and many sleepless nights! We are askina you, tonight, to allow us to
replace our roof with the plan we submitted that is virtually 6" difFerent from what we currently
have. This disputed d+fference is visually undetectable from the street.
Our plan is absolutely historically compatible and the difference between our plan and what th�
HPC finds so much more historic is a mere 6"!
This decision should reflect a!/ that is at stake in terms of encouraging people like me and my
husband to continue living and contributing to this ghetto neighborhood and helping to make
changes that make a difference instead of dwelling on historically questionable, minor, non-
noticeable details. Details even undetectable by the City of Saint Paul's inspectors!
I appreciate your time and hefp!
r : Y e�:�� ;f.£=. �s_,. ; • �s�—� .
y a�t�r ; t : . . �
'� � y
� b
�'�..._.:°
� �� s
�
I4 �
� <_
�,
� -
P j
`�i �i �-3,,. �
l
a �� s ^ �
`� ' y
— .r
� ��
l i °tii'7 �
- � �
�r_ .-� '
� ��� ���
� e
. � �� �Z# ,�'.
"��u�s:3� . ,
,
.�
�;;,�"-- .. ..
� '-�} r�.��
� �` v { �
��I
.
_ °s '�
��"�
t�} h �F •..
�� �� !r
$�� p�
inp,