07-7692
0
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3Q
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3&
39
40
41
42
43
44
RESOLUTION
Council File # Q 7' 7�P
Green SHeet # . �
WHEREAS, Goodmanson Construction Company (hereinafter, the "Contractor"), on behalf of
Dick Prokop d/b1a DAE Properties, made applicafion to the Heritage Preservation Commission
(hereinafter the "HPC"), in HPC file number 07-167, for an "after-the-facY' building permit to
conshuct a retaining wall in front of the properry commonly known as 579 Laurel Avenue which
is described as a"contributing structure" to the Heritage Hill Historic Preservafion District; and
WIIEREAS, on Apri16, 2007, HPC staff was notified by a City building inspector that a
retaining wall was under construction at the address noted above. HPC staff deternuned that
there was no building permit for a retaining wall at that address and that a permit was required.
HPC staff contacted the Contractor about the matter. The Contractor submitted photos of the
pzoject for staff review. Staff advised the Contractor that the type of block used could not be
approved. Staff gave the Contractor the option of either rebuilding the retaining wall with block
or stone of a type that staff could approve or have the Contractor submit the block that had been
used to the HPC for an after-the-fact review; and
WHEREAS, The Contractor elected to submit the matter for an after-the-fact review. The
Contractor submitted two examples of a similaz style of block that had been used in retaining
walls for two other structures located in the Heritage Hill Preservation District: 551 -553
Ashland Avenue and 136 Western Avenue. However, staff noted that the retaining wails at these
addresses were also constructed without having obtained HPC review and approval; and
WHEI2EAS, Based upon Heritage Hill Preservation District guidelines for restoration and
rehabilitation, staff prepared a report dated May 3, 2007 on the materiais submitted by the
Contractor which contained the following findings regarding 579 Laurel Avenue and the
Contractor's construction of the retaining wall:
"L The property is considered contributing to the character of the Hill Historic
District;
2. Work was completed without HPC review or approval;
3. The style of the block used in the retaining wall is of a modern design and does
not resemble natural stone or compliment the stone foundafion of the house. The
"three-way" beveled block and curved layout do not comply with the guideline
which states, 'Bnclosures which allow visual penetration of semipublic spaces,
such as wrought-iron fences, painted picket fences, low hedges or limestone
retaining wa11s, are chazacteristic of most of the Historic Hil1 azea.' ;
4. No historic features or historic fabric were destroyed or lost as part of this project;
5. The wo:k would be reversible without harming any historic fabric;
b. The retaining wall will have a negative impact on the character of the house and
the Hi11 Historic District;" and
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ��
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
7'7
78
74
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
B8
39
)0
al
�2
�3
4
o �-���
WHEREAS, based upon the fmdings of contained in the said staff report, the report made
contalned the following recommendarion:
`Based on the fmdings, staff recommends denial of the pemut
application; furthermore, staff recommends the establishment of a
timeline for removal of the retaining wall. Siaff could review and
approve a proposal for a retauung wali of an appropriate material,
color, style and design." ;and
WFIEREAS, on May 10, 2007, the HPC conducted a public hearing where all present including
the Contractor were given an opporhxnity to be heazd regazding the after-the-fact building permit.
Staff presented its report recommending denial of a building permit based upon its findings as
noted above. Staff further recommended the establishment of a timeline for the removal of
retaining wall. The matter was closed and the public hearing was concluded. Based upon the
staff report, findings and all the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing, the
Commission moved unanimously to deny the application and fiirther ordered that the retaining
wall be removed no later than 45 days after May 14, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the HPC, in a Notice of Decision letter dated May 14, 2007, informed the
Contractor that the "after the fact" building permit appiication for a retaining wa11 had been
denied by an 8-2 vote and, fm that the Commission had established a titneline of 45 days
from May 14, 2007, to remove the retaining wall or submit to Staff a revised proposal that would
comply with the district guideline; and
WHEREAS, in a letter dated May 25, 2007, the Contractor informed the Aepartment of
Safety and Inspections that he desired to appeal the decision of the HPC's denial of the building
permit; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 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
public hearing, the City Council having heard the statements made and hauing considered the
application, the testimony, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the HPC does
hereby;
RESOLVE, that the decision of the HPC to deny the building permit and to establish a
timeline for removal of the irnproperly constructed retauung wall at 579 Laurel is hereby affirmed
as the Council finds that the appellant has not shown any enors in the facts, findings, procedures
or conditions imposed by the HPC; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Goodmanson Construction (the
"Contractor") is hereby denied and that the Council adopts as its own by reference the findings,
conclusions and conditions of the HPC as set forth in the HPC staff report dated May 3, 2007;
and be it
98 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to the �
99 pernut applicant, Goodmanson Construction, the Heritage Preservafion Comtnission and the 67
Department of Safety and Inspections.
Requested by Departrnem oE
�'�� 6
BY: � C��-
/^
Form Agpr� by City� omey
By: �✓ �i�w— cY � �O'7
Fortn Appr vefi� Ma r for Submission to Council
By.
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
o7
CA -ciry naomey.
Coniact person & Phone:
Peter Wamer
266-871D
Doe. Type: RESOLUTION
E-Document Required: Y
DocumeM CoMad: Julie Kreus
10-AUG-07
�
Order
Confact Phone: 2668776 I I
7opl # of Signature Pages _(Clip AII LocaUons for SignaWre)
Green Sheet NO: 3042834
0 'tyAtrorner I I
1 ' Attorne De artmentDirector
2 C5ty Attorney � r' 4 "� 7
3 or's Ofiice Ma nr/ASSistant
4 ooncil
5 � Clerk Ci C7erk
Memorializing City Council's Sune 20, 2007 motion to affitm ffie decision of the Heritage Preservafion Commission that denied the
building permit and esiablished a timeline for removal of the improperly consffucted tetaining wall at the property commonly known
as 579 L.aurel Avenue in Saint Paul.
Planning Cqmmission
CIB Committee
Civil Service Commission
1. Has this perso�rm ever vrorked under a Contract for this departmenP?
Yes No
2. Has this personffirm ever 6een a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm possess a skili not normalty possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach M green sheM
Initiating Prablem, issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why}:
The Council is requiced pursuant to the City Char[er to have its acrions reduced to writing either in the form of a resolution or
ordinance dependent upon the nature of the matter before it. The decision of Council in this matter required a written resolution in
order to comply with the Charter. Approving the attached resolurion fulfills the CounciPs dury under the Cl�ar[er.
Advantages If Approved:
None.
Disadvantages lf Approved:
Failure tn approve the resolution violates the City's Cl�ar[er requirement.
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
Trensactian:
Funding Source:
Financial Information:
(Explain)
Activity Number.
f °n� t,n.^`a
�UU � � �
CosVRevenue Budgeted:
August 10, 2007 9:19 AM Page 1
DEPARTMENT OFSAFETY ANDINSPECTIONS
Bob Kesster, Dmector
07-
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Chrestopher B. Coleman, .Nayor
June 5, 2007
Ms. Mary Erickson
City Council Research Office
Room 310 City Ha1l
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
COMMERCE BOILD776G
8 Fourth Sbeet East, Suite 20D
Sr Puul. Mmnesota >5! 07-101 �
Telephone: 65/-Z66-9090
Facstmr[e 6.51-266-9124
Web �rinr 1rep.us
I would like to confixm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for
Wednesday, June 26, 2007 for the following heritage preservation case:
Appellant(s):
File Number:
Putpose:
Location:
sc�ff
Recammendation:
Commission:
Goodmanson Construction
07-167
Appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission
decision denying a retaining wall along the front
property line. This work was completed without
HPC review or a city permit.
579 Laurel Avenue, Hill Historic District
Denial
Denial (Decision was unanimous)
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council President Debbie Montaomery. My
understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City
Council at your earliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the
Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks!
Please eall me at 266-9079 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
���, �
Amy Spong � ��� �'
Historic Preservation Specialist
CC: Council Member Debbie Montgomery
CAO, Peter Warner
Appellant, Goodmanson Construction
File
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
NOTlCE� OF PIIBLIC IIEARING
E
1he Sainf Paul City Council will con-
duet a publlc hearing on Wednesday,
June 20. 2007, at 5:30 p.m. in the City
Councii ChamUers, Tivx�d Floor, (.Yty HaIlI
Courthouse, 15 West Kellogg Boutevard,
St PaUi; MN, to consider the appeal of
Goodmanson Constructlon to a decision of
the Heritage Preservarion Commission de-
nying a retaining wall along the front
property line at 579 Laurel Avenue
(Historic Hill Dishictj. (F71e No. 07-1671
Dated: June 6, 2007
MARY ERICKSON, ' � -
�1•ssistant City Councl_Sersetary
(June 11)
____� S1: PAUL i�GAL rx.mao ��—
�� ��q
•
DEPARTMEi�"T OF SAFE'tY AND ]NSPECTIONS
Bob Kessler, Dtrector
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Chr�slopher B Coleman. :4fa}ror
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members
CC: Peter Warner, CAO
Bob Kessler. DSI
COMMERCE BUILDI�G Telephone: 651-266-9090
8 Fourth Svut E, Smce 200 Facsimile: 6i 1-266-912�
Samt Pauf, Mmneso[a SS IO Li�24 R�eb: nti�u ci stpaul mn uslliep
FROM: Amy Spong, NPC staff
RE: HPC appeal for 579 Laurel Avenue, Hill Historic District
DATE: June 13, 2007
The following attachments highlight the events that have taken place and relate to the
HPC after-the-fact review of the permit appiication to construct a retaining wall along the
front at 579 Laurel Avenue:
Notice to City Council to schedule appea�.
Pages 1 to 2
Grounds for an appeal by appellant Goodmanson Construction.
Pages 3 to 5
A letter by buiiding officia{, Tom Riddering, in response to the appellanYs appeal letter. A
DSI handout explaining when permits are and are not required.
Pages 6 to 8
The staff report recommending denial.
Pages 9 to 23
The application with attachments.
Pages 24 to 25
Summary minutes from the May 10 public hearing.
Page 26
Letter firom the Ramsey Hill Association supporting the staff recommendation.
Page 27
The final decision letter denying the retaining wall.
•
DEPARTMEVT OFSAFETY AND MSPECTIONS
Bob Kessles, Dtrector
CITY OF SA1NT PAUL
Chrfstopher B. Colemars, lfnyar
June 5, 2007
Ms. Mary Erickson
Ciry Council Reseazch Office
Room 310 City Halt
Saint Pau[, MN 55102
Dear Ms. Erickson:
COMMERCEBU/ZDIb'G Te7ephone: 6�7-Z66-9090
BFovrlhStreetEast,Su+te200 Faca�mite� b�1-266-972d
StPme(.Lfinnesota5i101-1024 bVe6� innr.Lepus
I would like to confirm that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for
Wednesday, June 20, 2007 for the following heritage preservation case:
Appeltant(s):
Eile Number:
Goodmanson Consiruction
07-167
Purpose: Appeai of a Heritage Preservation Commission
decision denying a retaining wall along the front
property line. This work was completed without
HPC review or a city pettnit.
Location:
Staff
Kecommendation:
Commission:
579 Laurel Avenue, Hill Historic Dish
Denial
Denial (Decision was unanimous)
I have confirmed this date with the office of Council President Debbie Montgomery. My
understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the Ctty
Council at your earliest convenience and that you will pubGsh notice of the hearing in the
Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks!
Please call me at 266-9079 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
��
�
Amy Spong � � � �
Historic Preservation Speciatist
CC: Council Member Debbie Montgomery
CAO, Peter Warner
Appellant, Goodmanson Construction
Filev
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
•
L�
I�
\�
o�-���
�
May 25, 2007
•
•
GCJODM�►NSON
G��������9��
2630 FAIRVtEW AVE. N., ROSEVILLE, MN 55113
(651) 631-2065
�AX: (651) 631-0768
���I��� � � ' � t
( `� �
�/ ,� �
(r
�
Bob Kessler, Director
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection
8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1024
Re: 579 Laurel Avenue, Hill Historic District
Dear Mr. Kessler:
� � r ��
��
��
�i
� � � .;�f
I am writing to appeal the Heritage Preservation Commission's denial for a permit to
install a retaining wall along the sidewalk at the property listed above. On Monday, March 26,
20Q7 Merl Goodmanson, President of Goodmanson Construction, Inc., contacted the Saint Paul r �
Building Inspections Department and was refened to inspector Dave.Tank. Merl Goodmanson (,� 1
requested a permit to build a wall at 579 Laurel Ave. He provided Mr. Tank with the address to �`
the property on which the wall was to be erected and the material to be used. At this time, Mr.
Tank advised Merl that because the wa11 was going to be less than four feet ta11, it did not require
a permit; and therefore gave him permission to construct.
After the wall was completed a second inspector insisted that the wall required a permit,
and Goodmanson Coristruction, Inc. was asked to submit an appiication for approval of the wall.
To do so, Rick Goodmanson, Project Manager, attended the HPC meeting on May 10, 2007. At
the meeting Rick submitted examples of block walls in the Historic Hill District that contain
almost identical style blocks. The HPC admits that there are other wa11s in the area that do not
comply with HPC redulatior.s. These �val;s were built without HP� permissicn and are still
standing. Despite the extreme resemblance between the walls in the area and the wall
Goodmanson Construction, Inc. built, the HPC denied Goodmanson a permit and requested the
wall be removed.
It is the City of St. Paul's responsibility to issue permits when necessary. Goodmanson
Construction, Inc. requested a permit and was assured it was unnecessary. Goodmanson
Construc6on, Inc. built the wall with permission from the Ciry of St. Paul. The wall is
esthetically consistent with many neighboring properties, and it adds significant value and
character to the neighborhood, Realistically, your resident and homeowner, Richazd Prokop,
cannot afford to accept financial responsibility for Mr. Tank's mistaken permission for
construction. Also, there aze other walls in the area that were built without permits that are still
standing. We are collecting signatures from neighbors who believe the wall shouid be left as is,
and we have received many compliments and signs of appreciation for this improvement. It
www.go od manso nco nstructio n.c�
/
would be inappropriate for the City to isolate this wall and ovezlook the otl2ers that do noY �
comply �vith HPC requests, especially after we had recezved pemiission from the beguming. -.
Therefore, it is unfair to the homeo�vner and to Goodmanson Consttuction, Inc. to remove a wall
that had approval from city inspector Dave Tank before it was built. We request this issue to
resolve by permission from the City Council to let the walt stand as is.
Sincerely,
P`�� �L�LI/`�"t�i��l
Rick Goodmanson
Project Manager
Cc: Dick Prokop, owner
�Villiam G. Swanson, Attomey at Law
�
�
�
� � ���
DEPAR'I'MENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTfONS
Bob Kusler, Director
CTI'Y OF SAII�IT PAUI,
Chrisiophe B. Coleman, Mayor
June 12, 2007
Mr. Rick Goodmanson, Project Manager
Goodmanson Conshuction
2630 Fairview Ave. N.
Roseville, MN 55113 .
COMMERCEBUILDING Telephnne.- 651-2669090
BFossrthStE,SuIIe200 Facsimile.- 651d669/24
SnintPau(, Minnetotn 55101-l024 Web: www.stpauLgov/dsi
Subject: 579 Lawel Avenue
Appeal to the City Council of HPC denial of a permit for a retaining wall
Dear Mr. Goodmanson,
Your letter of May 25, 2007, to Bob Kessler has been refened to me for response.
Pirst, your request for an appeal to the City Council is being processed by our HPC Specialist, Amy Spong,
and you should receive notification from her separately of your hearang before the Council on Wednesday,
June 20, 2007.
�sked building mspector David Tank about your claim that he had approved the retaining wall to be built
without a permit. Mr. Tank doesn't remember talldng to you, and 579 Laurel is not even in his district, so I
don't lmow why you would have been talldng to him. Generally, a permit is not required for a low retaining
wall in a non-historic area, so iYs not unreasonable that someone may have told you that, but since there are
many nuances and exceptions to zoning and building rules, we issue al1 of our approvals in writing, and we
have no record of having done so at this address.
The building inspector for that area is Greg Johnson who directed you to stop building the wall until you
obtained HPC approval. He advises me that, although the wali was substanrially finished at the time he did, so,
you continued to bac�ll behind the wall after he left. This will only increase the cost of complying with the
Historic Preservation Commission's requirements if your agpeal faiIs.
In conclusion, I cannot find any evidence that we approved this retaining wall to be built �znthout a permit, but
the fate of your wall will be detemuned by the Council as you have requested. Please feel free to contact me at
(651) 266-9014 ifyou have any questions.
Smcerely, /I � �
j r
6
Thomas Riddering, P.E.
Building Official
Copy: City Counci]
• B. Kessler
A Spong
G.7ohnson
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
3
OFFICE OF LICE�ISE, i�SPECTiOVS A\D
ENVIROV�(EN7AL PROTECTIOV
Bob Ke.csleq Direclar
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
qu B. Co[enimr, bf���or
CO.b(.i(ERC£ BUlLDLM1'G
8 Fo�a St. E. Suite 200
SuSrt Pmd.:i/imtesom 55701-10?4
Tefepf�one: 651-?66-9090 �
Facsin+ile: 65/-166-912R
lteb: ���nrliep.ta
When is a Permit Required?
A general building permit is required for ail structural revisions to residences, garages, carports, decks and
similar structures or buildings, except as noted below. Non-structural revisions or remodelings that do not
consfitute normal maintenance require a buifding permit if the value, including both labor value and the cost of
materials, exceeds $500.00. If your residence is in a Historic Preservation Area, a permit is required for
exferior work or repairs such as tuckpointing, siding, window replacement, patching a roof, efc.,
regardless of the value.
Other work which requires a oermit:
Detached accessory structures, such as too! or garden sheds, if they are larger than 120 square feet.
Any such structure in the Heritage Preservation District or a designated historic site, regardless of size
wili need a permit and approval by the Historical Preservation Commission. Accessory structures
under 120 square feet and not in a historic area do not require a permit but must comply with atl
provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance for setbacks and lot coverage. Building permit information on
garages and sheds is available at our o�ce above or on our website. (See information below)
. Decks require a permit. Excepfion: Except in fiistoric areas or designated historic sites, a deck or �
platform not attached to a structure with frost footings and not more than 30 inches above grade does
not require a permit. However, decks or platForms greater than 24 inches above grade must meet the
zoning seYbacks and lot coverage requirements.
. Retaining walls supporting more than 4 feet of earth behind them. (In historic districts or sites, atl
retaining wails require a permit.)
. All fence instaliations. Check with our office or our website for requiremenYs. (See information below)
• In-ground and above ground swimming pools with a capacity greater than 5000 gallons. NOTE: Ali
permanent pools, regardless of size, require a permit in historic districts or designated historic sites. The
City's zoning ordinance regulates the location of pools and hot tubs from propetty lines. (See
information below)
• Most work on electrical, plumbing, piping, sheetmetal or heating and air conditioning systems.
. Grading or filling a property. A permit is Rot required for minor eaRh work associated with gardens or
landscaping pianters that do not affect drainage patterns.
Exemptions from permit:
• One-story detached accessory structures, used as tool and storage sheds, playho�ses and similar
uses, provided fhe floor area does nof exceed 120 square feet. (Ail accessory structures in the
Historic Preservation Area require a permit.) •
. Decks and platforms not more than 30" above adjacent grade and not attached to a structure with frost
footings and which is not part of an accessible route. Decks greater than 24" above grade must meet
zoning sefbacks. (AI( decks in the Historic Preservation Area require a permit.j
�. Retaining walls that are not over 4 feet in height measured from the bottom of the fooiing to the top of
the wall, uniess supporting a surcharge or impounding Class 1, U, or 111-A liquids. (All retaining walls in
-- 4
�he H'�±�r�c Preseryation Area reauire_a�ermit.i ��� l ��
- • Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to dwelling units constructed to the provisions of the
International Residentiai Code or R-3 occupancies constructed to the provisions of the International
Building Code, which are 24" or less in depth, do not exceed 5,000 gallons and are installed entirely
• above ground. {The city's zoning ordinance regulates the location of pools and hot tubs from
property lines.)
• Sidewalks and driveways that are not part of an accessible route.
• Painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, countertops, and similar finish work. (Ail exterior work in
the Historic Preservation Area requires a permit.)
• Minor earth work associated with gardens or landscaping that do not affect drainage patterns.
Zoning Section: For information about Zoning Code setbacks, iot coverage, land usage, call: 651-266-9008
Plan Review Section: For information on Building Code construction requirements, call: 651-266-9007
"�f" Heritage Preservation Comm. Staff: For information on historic districts or sites, design guidelines, call:
651-266-9078
Visit our Website! www.lieo.us On our home page; click on the LIEP Forms tab at the top of the page and
you will be able to access many informational Ahandouts@ and forms.
The statements above are intended as gene�al ci�cumstances when permits a�e necessary. You are advised
to contact our office in specifrc cases to determine if a permit is required. Permits may be issued to the
homesteader of the property for single and two family residential construction or to a contracfor licensed by the
City of Sainf Paul. Stafe of Minnesota contractor's licenses do nof exempt contractors from city licenses
requirements.
•
C�
5
Agenda Item III.A.
HPC File #07-167
CITY OF SAINT PAUL •
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FII,E NAME: 579 Laurel Avenue
DATE OF APPLICATION: Apri127, 2006
APPLICANT: Goodmanson Construction
OWNER: Dick Prokop, DAE Properties
DATE OF HEARING: May 10, 2007
HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Hill Historic District
CATEGORY: Contributing
CLASSIFICATION: After-the-Fact Building Permit
STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: Chrisrine Barr
DATE: May 3, 2007
A. SITE DESCRIPTION:
The two- and one-half story, stuccoed dwelling at 579 Laurel Avenue was constructed in 1886. Two
projecting gabled bays and two gabled dormers face the street. The dormers have thick trim, "stick-
styte" detail in the gables and pairs of double-hung windows. The entrance is located on the eastern
half of the facade. The roof has a slight overhang with heavy molding. The building is categorized
as contributing to the Hill Historic District.
: ' 'ZI ' 1 ��lZ�:/�►Ll1�.�
The applicant conshucted a retaining wall at the property without TIPC review or approval. The 30"-
36" inch wall with a cap was dry-]aid along the sidewalk in the front of the property and curves back •
into the stairway and the retaining wall at the property to the east. The block is Anchor Diamond
Three-way (beveled-face) of a buff color. The grade was raised behind the western side to meet the
height of the retaining watl.
: : � ��e72Z1ii1,1`�1
On Apri16, 2007, staff received a ca11 from the building inspector for the azea. He informed staff
that a retaining wall was being constructed. Staff had not reviewed an applicarion for the retaining
wall. StafF was then contacted by the contractor who submitted photos for review. Staff informed
the contractor that the style of block used could not be approved by staff and gave the options to
rebuiid the retaining wall in a block or stone that staff could approve or put the applicarion an the
agenda for the HPC as an After-The-Fact review.
The applicant submitted two examples of a sunilar style block used in retaining walls in the Hill
Historic District (photos are included in the packets). The retaining wa11s at 551-553 Ashland
Avenue and 136 Western Avenue were consiructed without HPC review or approval. Staffdoes not
know when these retaining walls were constructed.
D. GUTDELINE CITATIONS:
Historic Hill Disfrict Guidelines
Restoration and Rehabilitation
General Principles:
1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which ,
requires minimal altera#ion of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a
property for ils originaddy intended purpose.
�
�?�7 l�/�l
Agenda Item III.A.
HPC File #07-167
• 2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site and its
environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or
distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible.
3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time.
Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall
be discouraged.
4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and
development of a building, structure, ar site and its environment. Theses changes may have
acquired signifzcance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and
respected.
5. Distincfive stylistic features or examples of skilZed craftsmanship which eharacteriae a
building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible.
In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being
replaced in composition, design color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or
replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of
features, substantiated by historic, physicat, or pictoriat evddence rather than on conjectural
designs or the availability ofdifferent architectural elements from other buildings or
structures.
7. The surface cleaning ofstructures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible.
Sandblasting mzd other cZeaning methods that will damage tke historic building materials shall
not be undertaken.
• 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeotogical resources
affected by, or adjacent to any project.
9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be
discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical,
ttrchitectural or cultural material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color,
materiat, and character of the pr-operty, neighborhood, or environment.
10. YYherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done fn such a manner
that if such alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the
sh-ucture would be unimpaired.
Site
Landscapine
Typically, open space in the Historic Hill District is divided into pubtic, semipublic, semiprivate
and private space. The public space of the street and sidewalk is often distinguished from the
semipublic space of the front yard by a change in grade, a low hedge or a visually open fence.
The buildings, landscaping elements in front yards, and boulevard trees together provide a"wall
of enclosure"for the street "room". Generally, landscaping which respects the street as a public
room is encouraged. Enclosures which allow visual penetration of semipublic spaces, such as
wrought-iron fences, painted picket fences, low hedges or dimestone retaining walls, are
characteristic of most of the Historic Hill area. This approach to landscaping and fences is
encouraged in contrttst to complete enclosure ofsemipublic space by an opaque fence, a tall
"weathered wood" fence or talt hedge rows. Cycdone fence should not be used in front yards or
• in the front half of side yards. Landscape timber should not be used for retaining walls in front
yards.
For the intimate space of a shallow setbacl� ground covers and low shrubs will provide more
visual interest and reguire less maintenance than grass. When lots are left vacant, as green
2
T
Agenda Item III.A.
HPC File #07-167
space or parking area, a visual hole in the street "wall" may result. Landscape trearirzent can
eliminate this potential problem by providing a wall of enclosure from the street. Boulevard trees ,
mark a separation between the automobile corridor and the rest of the streetscape, and should
be maintained
E. FINDINGS:
1.The property is considered contributing to the charactez of the Hill Historic District.
2.Work was completed without HPC review or approval.
3.The style of the block used in the retaining wall is of a modem design and does not resemble
natural stone or compliment the stone foundation of the house. The "fhree-way" beveled block
and curved layout do not comply the guideline which states, "Enclosures which allow visual
penetration of semipublic spaces, snch as wrought-iron fences, paintad picket fences, low
hedges or limestone retaining walls, are characteristic of most of the Historic ITill area."
4.No historic features or historic fabric were destroyed or lost as part ofthis project.
S.The work wouid be reversible without I�arming any historic fabric.
6.The retaining wall will have a negative impact on character the house and the Hill Historic
Dishict.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings, staff recoxnmends deniai of the permit application; fiuthermore, staff
recommends the establishment of a timeline for removal of the retaining wall. Staff could review
and approve a proposal for a retaining wa11 of an appropriate material, color, style and design.
\J
r�
L-�
� r
a�-�r��
� �
z,�.r
rni��
� � c
!11l�Ri � �
HPC
Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission
O�ce ofLicense, Inspections and Emironmental Protection
8 East Fourth Strzet, Suite 200
SaintPaut MN .i�101-1024
Phone: fb�l) 266-9078
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
This application must be completed in addition to the appropiiate city permit application if the affected
property is an individually desiguated landmark or located within an historic district. Foz applications that
must be reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission refer to the HPC Meeting schedule for meeting
dates and deadlines.
1. CATEGORY
Ptease check the cate�ory that best describes the proposed work
❑ Repair/Rehabilitation ❑ Sign/Awning ❑ New Construction/Addition/
❑Moving L�Fence/Retaining Wall Alteration
❑ Demolition ❑ Other ❑ Pre-Application Review Only
2. PROJECT ADARESS
•
Street and number: S� `l �urc� J��J�. Zip Code: �S � UZ
3. APPLICANT INFORMATION i
Name of contact person:�1 Lt,� �'Zc7SW�.�7y�
Company: ��y�G.-t�i✓� �n5'}Yc ��i(� c�tC.
Street and number: �3G �iYVt�J � �.
City:����,t��P_ State: /�„�__ZipCode: SStl3
Phone number: (C�� )�o� e-mail: f"IC.�caC�c�I+. r�
4. PROPERTY OWNER(S) INFORMATION (If different from applicant)
Name:
Street and number: �� �
.
City:�p�2,lli�� State: 1"t� ZipCode: ����
Phone number: (�� ) �(8( 8�(ta`� e-mail:
�
5. PROJECT ARCHITECT (If applicable)
Contact person: �
Company:
Street and number:
City:
Phone number: (
State:
e-mail:
Zip Code:
6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Completely describe ALL exterior changes being proposed for the properly. Include
changes to architectural details such as windows, doors, siding, railings, steps, trim, roof,
foundatiou or porches. Attach specifications for doors, windows, lighting and other
features, if applicable, including color and material samples.
���►l r�e� r�c.p-tc- bI�K r�tai✓���5 �-�.11 �� 3c7�� h x �o'L,
� � See c�i�cc,�c5. ��ct�Sa
r� L
�
Attach additiona! sheels if necusary
7. ATTACHMENTS
Refer to the Design Review Process sheet for required information or attachments.
**INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL BE RETURNED**
ARE THE NECESSARY ATTACHMENTS AND TNFORMATION INCLUDED?
19 YES
Will any federal money be used in this project?
Are you applying for the Investment Tax Credits?
2
YES NO k
YES ` NO X
�
��
G�-�Ga %
•
�
.
I, the undersigned, understand that the Design Review Application is limited to the aforementioned work to
the affecied properiy. I further understand thai any additional exterior work to be done under my
ownership must be submitted by applicarion to the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission. Any
unauthorized work will be re uired to be removed.
Signature of applican�� f-i ��c�`tu.r;-� Date: !`z�;'e''�
Signature of owner:
Date:
Datereceived: �
District: � � L-�— /Individual
Type of work: inor/Moderate ajor
FILE NO. D� -1 lv�
, Requires staff review
Supporting data: YES NO
Complete application: YES NO
The following condition(s) must be
met in order for application to conform
to preservation program:
It Las been determined that the
work to be performed pursuant to
the application does not adversely
affect the program for preservation
and architectural control of the
heritage preservation district or site
(Ch.73.06).
HPC staff approval
Date
V Requires Commission review
Submitted:
❑ 3 Sets of Plans
❑ 1 Set of Plans reduced to 8%z"
by 11" or 11" by 17"
❑ Photographs
❑ City Permit Application
❑ Complete HPC Design Review
application
Hearing Date set for: S b(j�
$�lL—Tb4E—Ff1�
City Permit # , -
''
•
Apri125, 2007
GOODMANSON
CONSTRUCTION
2630 FAIRVIEW AVE. N., ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 (651) 631-2065
FAX: (557) 631-0768
Heritage Preservation Commission
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection
8 East Fourth Street, Suite 200
Saint PauI, MN 55101-1024
Dear Commission/Residents:
This letter is written for consideration of approval for the construction of a concrete block
retaining watl at 579 Laurel Ave. By fhe request of the property owner, Dick Prokop,
Goodmanson Construction Inc. built a retaining this Apri12007 as shown in the attached
pictures.
Goodmanson Construction is a licensed concrete contractor and has been doing business in Saint
Paul and surrounding cities since 1971. With this history, we are very familiar with Saint Paul's
explicit building codes and procedures. On Monday, Match 26, 2009 Merl Goodmanson
contacted the Saint Paul Building Inspections Dept. and was referred to Dave Tank, inspector.
Merl informed Mr. Tank of the project tocadon and material to be used and requested permission
to build the retaining wa1L Mr. Tank granted Merl pemussion contingent on the wall being less
than four feet tall. With this approval, I, Rick Goodmanson, built the wall as requested by our
customer, Dick Prokop.
After the wall was completed, we were asked to submit an application for material approval for
the construction of the wall. As requested, I have enclosed a completed application for approval
and ask that the commission grant our approva] based on the following reasons. First, the wall
we built is estherically consistent with many neighboring properties, as you witl see on the
enclosed pichues (see attached). Secondly, the Saint PauI City Inspections Office already granted
approval for the project. And lastly, the material we used is an Anchor Diamond Wall accepted
structurally by MnDot. It was installed to last a very long time — adding long-term value to the
neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration in tlris matter.
Sincerely,
� , � i . � � i►
/
' ��� �.� • � ' � �. �• �.- �=
' � - .i. � �-
www.goodmansonconstruction.com
�
•
�
��
67 -`71��
0
�
� �
�_
x�
3z
;N 1
�o ,
�
i�
\ �
� _
% H �
3z �
�N 1
•- �
.- o .
�
�
�
w
>
a
O
W
�
a
�
�
�
-� �
m
�
�
>
�
0
�
w
>
w
U
�
�
�
�
�
��
�
\
W
�
W
�
�
S W
0 >
z �
U
N �
�
0
�
�
\
z
�
C7
a
�
N
Z
_
W
� 1-'
W
�
W M
W
�
�� �
o x ya
z U aF
�a O aQ
� � �3
¢�
x � o�
�a �
�� <
H �
0
¢ b z�
J a :!
�
0
�
`o a.
o .p , e � v�
N �` �. W
g�� 3
� ° r� � ,�
.� T y r �
6n
o ° r d �
. „ o
A N
� •p.' O i'n �
�.. C �U 4 •�
��o�S a
� y � v o
�, � �w
� 2 � � �
,C .9 �
F+ P.A O R�
� a
a.a �
t-.
N �
Y
H �
��
�y
ao
3 �
a
��
x ti
— o
x3
_�
�a �
� �
W L
C 4 .
�3
_
���
ci
�
m ,ri x
\V1�
Z
�
_
�
Q
�
F-
N
f'
Z
�
w
�
W
W
m
�
�"
�
a
Q
U
H
Z
a
W
N
�
qW
O�
�U
�
A�
�U
zW
� �
�
�
�
�
tia
."dj F
¢Q
3 ,�
�3
F�
U
O�
U
6
0
� o �
3 � �
`J<:1
E
�
W s N
y G � �
vem 3
.5 m �m o
� . c
�,;=5 a
� O O C h
. o
� w '� W N
��, 8 e
_
d C �� �
ti M� d t
U � O O
�
4�w� '�
e�� €
v e '?
�.'— a W
�apo a
��
.., �
~ 4
VJ C
Y Q
Q7 .�
Y
...1 �
-+ h
6 p
� �
+�
� 3
= v
z �
��
C .
H �
W L
CC
'�
�
e: "
�-
3
a'A"�
�. �
A
i �aa�" � s �.
� `� :'.
;�:� � _ i , . ..
� ,
; � _
� � � � �
' �# '
� �1�f ��R � �
r vo.� . � � � - .
i
�`'s �.. ��. �' > �" � _ _` � .'� �.3 ' _
p j/ ((1��� ,. � n
� " } � & 'Cr y:� Y��y ,. �1 � ��� ' . ,
i Y�/1
r-�, c ez. � � � V � � , � �� ,,,.
5°+�, ~_�3" ��` ;' _
a - r d�"}�
�� i � .
k a �.'
�5 t� y � ,
3 '
� #.., � � ��: .
3 � � ��
� ^�� F
� � t R �
4
.., � .'�`. � ,
g � T .�
��? s � �
�
� .# � � �
Y =.:` "� , .
'� � 3/ �ff l ' f y ���+'i ,`
. & � g 4'j Y ss6 _.' �c.Yt
$ � 43` '£ 't, �
�
� e a
; 'y �� ` �. d � . ye -fi
„ 3er Y+ 4 .F ' _
�� t , � , � - � � . .
� .,',f S, } c.�a .
,�:� T '�� A - � '� �'-+ ° F �" � $ .. `,
>w� .1�'i' e a x.- zu � � .. °� � . �.. "� � � s '� . � . _
� �"
a
°a �t, �b M1 �.' .
�' ` E
Xf 2 q -
„ � � � .�� ,�. ...
. � 9 T^>.. " _ £s=.
�-r."�..v.aa , , . � ` � .
.� ... � x �� ' .
� . :.
+ �� �
��, �� � �" _
_ _ _ � ��.�� �- �:
. �
5 � �-
r � _ --���' `` �
'' "" �� � �
..� � .. , ,: . .
�
3 ;
� �" f
, �
„ � _ � .. . - .' _ . ` ,,; ,
4 ,. . . . . - - , `
��..� - 'Ai � ! -. � c ' . .�
�g . � �
,.� �' _ __ : � � ;€ � ' �''
. '�� . , �. � � � �-
'� S , k
T : � � � �f
�. . �. � : � 9 � � ���.
£ ' £ ~ 3
£ � t r
n t R ,
. �S. . x - ��' �` .
• � . .., q --•'� � ��
,,: � � � { . j
U ' ��
a� z '� z
- ' � � ., � -. � �' • �.
. ; '� 1 " : .�3 �
� 3 � A� � �
. . � �;�� � � � -.
r �, s
� �� � '
_ . i. � • � �i�� L3�S.
v^ :t �
3�� �
a * �
, .. �t ��� � �l� ���
t
� .. . �1�� o- . `SY h �i .
. � T �� � � ��, �` .ef�
s , -i a
5 � . ' �.... . r r ,eE� ..
h y �� �
3 '�e . .. � r . r 4 5 j �, ; § ',� �'.
� � .:- k s �,r� t a � � �
. .. . �. > . �` � + :
._ � �� `s;� � � �. ����rrd
�� t � Y� �' �
�.'�� �-, q� f m �� Y § 3
d _� F �
y . .. . f l i � ,�,`.�G4 �•€i
i
�. Y , �'� � r � ^i : � .
�. . _ . p '� * Y -S z .Y
� � �� � � � �� �
� � a {
� � �1�
1 , t T� k
� ` / } g :� , �<
n` I'. . i h �st ° a �
t y
� .�tr. 1 . � : - � S � _
.r� ( � �
Stl 3 d� '
.}s4".'." ��.. .. � � � Y�u
�� �
�"^ S i � T
M� S. � �'; P .:
. . � ��, � � Y- �� 3 :
� . a :_ 1 - Y� � ..pe a�':.
q_
•v� � }
xf w � � x�
� #
�e ,. `�. . '�"' ' >� �: f , .
��� � E- � , � �x
�' 4 _ t�,� a _
_ & ' � � �'�t '-' f
� F � I '� ��
? � �< + �
3
� � � } �
� �" '
��� `�... �` .., �
� �
� ���� Yp � F �
.�g` . �.,, r 1
'� � E-� � � $4 v -
� � x �.r` � y .x
�
r � �� i �
£� -
�� ' �t
*�r�' �'
�� � �
:� .
� , e
� ' #
§
fi� '
r
� �1s.
�
� �; 4
���� i ' . . ���.
R'
�3
d
� �i�
�.' ��f + � y � . �
s� Y )}�.. �$ �
� �
��55 �°
p d2
. i . ih'.:�._ �
���., , ;
`' ?. �
� p
6' � '�� g�'+��k �' 1� Y� .r ..
y O
'4 � � .[� �11
c.�,oY - i . -
� y � � _ � � � � ��
h??' � } �� 4 S � � -
,��_ 4 .
wr'��-*:- . - '
�, �a � 4 �=
� ' a
• y,
A. ''�d��.�` � ... -
�-�t� �-':-:: _��.
�r` i
��F�� -
_._ �
�� _ .
f��" .��..� '_ --
: � �,�� _�
�' � �,� `a.:
'...',�� .�k��
�_S
A * 4 :
S� 8� 1! 1
i s �
v
�. �.TCi. .s�� 'xt�.
-.�
� � �. _� ,
� ��^ +r ''
i ry
�� v
j�'� .�'
�� � . f ����' •
F� i �� , �
� � � �_
f °
z
�' � � 4
€ i
I � � s .` t. .
`' � �' � -
. �_ - , ; ,
,; ;
- �, i���
,� 9� � �,
' , �-. �. �"�,,,
_ ..,� � " II l i :. M li
— a eg ,�.:
i
�i 'd �� e ' � � I 1 i I
v3° K'
� �.��
��i.
M
F
. . ,. . ��• ° �.
�i�
��
� � �
K�
� �
� S
�R4 r,
x ;.
3..
K:.c
> �M1
� '°::
��_ �
r
l�i:
L2.?
� , rc �
3
� � � ' 1
7 ��
�� u
a� ` Y
... ��i��i�F����ls �r ::� ` ,� 3
� '
'(`��G � � �'_.
� �
� �
� , i�
� �
■ � y
�, ( ` - i
.. � S � � Fj ��-
� �
�
{ �, �
. � . F�€ , i fu ',
. , - �' * t �_
� � � ���� •�. , � ..
_ .
Y- ° ' • °
� _ �.3
�; � � *
�; �� � f $
A f
� ��,
���� ' �
M1
y.
fr
�f.. .. .. _ . ..
F.
s33
w �
„ �' r
�3�:,
�
�
�
� �� ��� ���( �y�� ltf� ''� � �'11�tG
�i►1`� � 10
� #�,, �. -� -
�
, `� N _ _ _
. ,, -
� ` � : �. � � : -. _ ,� .-
- :. � , _ -
,.. �_� - --___
' . • �:\ " � I ...
,i . \ � ��.. . . �
y ' �
. . . � . —'_ . '. . . - . � � '.�
. ,�, � � ���y �z
. . �. '�',di
. � . . . � ._ —. . . , �-.
. . . .. . —��� �'
x e:
. � . . .. e�..
� � ��+j . ,,.z� '� u.� � � f _ � �1°iee-v-.� rr ¢ �,
i 1� / _�� �ci . r � �� � '� a
a �I - y�� 1� r � � �, s
A n 5^. y �\ /\ t ��A9y� �
� � . ..:5 k ` . f� N ��' � � '�
�'"' ��. "a� . . � 9"� ,—a� C �` ��
'g '�� � _ � ' t'� � ' �' s � �`._
� '�` $' � � ,r
2 4�
� hk � � � f "� � . _ � � � � .. ���Q
� � I � � � ' .... � .._ y $c $ S{
� � �� �
L � � � � F �
{ � g .ayy� S;c .� :"a'zF-P ,; '+�,2 ��� 3�k.�_'` . '�ldalqf
4 � '
j ��<�� � � i3's $ 1 . i5�� �s� ���� f �':'
�'3 t �.�s*,k°,_ u* � _ -
� �� �. � ' �� � � . � ' .
a ��� ��' ..:. ��c � �, � � �. :sAe ..-.� ^� :.�
� `�"�� ar. "i ..,_ .,::'^-�—: .� e"�`''` �` .�_.
�- �:� . _�. _
� _ � �"�
t� d
_ ;
, --. z:i � � �;
x �� 3
r �
� 4 e �
j
5 Y. ' -� . . - .
a � -� -
Y
� �� � �-st1
, p .
� J 1� F' A 4i'� .
4 S � x � r � g � �� �
's
3 �� 3 a"` � � `��
��
j ,� , ��;, _ .
:!.J � 'n�-`� / �.. ����� ..
i4 .?
"�
�
Y
N �
�
�� _"
s
�� ,
�.:.�. �,.W---'u'� . ,.
c
z�„.
. tv�.�„ . �.
— w�
. . . . ' _ s.�=m:��.
� .
� ; f4�l�
� k 4' � � e
e
� � ��
? �, t
' =� s` ° ` .
r� � Y� ,�, f � ,
a� , t �� � �
' � _� f 3 � "a
�
. i �l �
1
' + � —
� 3 �i
.3 • `j �.. '' r .
`� �,�� s �. �- `y�..
1 z � 1.�✓
14 � ..��' . l.
; � £." a �}� :
a = � � �
� � A i.
N e ; _I Y ±�� •` /� .
i
5 '� , {,� °
t 1 � �� _
i
� .�
� y
sr :'E ` V� � x.�.
� s_f i. � � ::
� '-'� � .'� a�.;�� . ,.�. �:'�-
� + :€� �* �.�
: 1 °!.
(�
4
� ��� V � � �`'� �`�
( F :���.� Y�4;� � ; \ l 4 :
�� V ^` ''���F� � in
� 4'� 4 �.
� � Al
J
Y . d � v
3 ��
� S F
i c` : �� .� ��� � �,
� �:
�-,��a� . . .`:� ._ .r ,. ��:: s"�'.f;'':
5
� j �'. Q
.
1
t.. .' � �\,._ ,_ ...
e
`
�; i
�� I ,
d M S�, t
�.. I
�,r; !
1 .
e ,�. � ' ��.�.
c
Fh i(,-
_ = k C��
_ __ f L
F :o
= I '
F. �
� I �
E r r F a
° r`..�; � ` i
, �
� ���� r
. �, � � � � ` yf ��:
! F
�� ;� . °� ^ f� F ` t�.� �1
s
°.:, .
� � � _
� q f. _.
�" � ���������
�. . } � �
( T 1 �
4} [[[
�: � �O `�{
� t � M
~ l S �j
— ""�_
.. ` T ��� �L 4 �
r
; � � ��
; �: �
I �i
{
�
b z ' � `
�
' ��
I � -'
i �b�� �
,� � �
'
S„ � �, ..
� � `�,
� � � .
��_ � � �
( �
�
�. ,,, „a . �
•\
� }.
�
�
' ''�
� � �
'� � '
�
F
- � �.�^
-��
� �� � j 1 � $
:"j � a y �
2 �
£ ��
r
� li
u
� � �
i.' qc . s'
� . , � � . � � .
��
; \{ .
e�
$
F-
"�
s"ffi: � �'°-`. � .
(I
L .
'�,'
� :�
Y N
�,�
� �;���:
U
�y
�C 5_
� k � '
a I :
��
�
: _ r .
F 6. I
_ f k
� �= j ,
i
s` 4' t 1
(,. f � , �
� � �
\` �:, ' � , �; ::'..
� � 1
�v ,F.
� 4 v,.r,�7 � .
��,�,f�9���n�'<kt + �
� t
__,� ��� � .a . -� � t
t -�. a
r ^
_ � .�a`4� � �'� L - .
,K _ `T � P�E'._ � G +? 4 . :� ' .
S S; � (, � ^tt6 '�g22�� � _ `�S� � '
srn� ... .. .. • . � . . .. .. . 4� �.
_ I'i 1 f �{/ � � i '� L �v � � �.3.a;\ ��kJ I � y p r , `�
F {Y- ,Q t . i � - { � � ! � AV �// PfS� M ! . .
� j r ' � ;, ; �9 � � � � ��z-..�w �� ) : ��.� f��4��i I y- ` Y.'7���.��'s$
�' ...i "S� n.�.t� , �y � YN � s a :t 3 f ;� �,�a
J `�.� � j
�� � � i� - t � x4 3 '�2=5 \ rl �e,,� �.' �� '���
� � _ _, t . F . r . `' ; � �C�'�-��-�.'`j"�,��' �
> yi � �,. � +
�� . w � ,` �,���,�a�
%_� < � s.�, �
. ��_. " l r�,�+:-�
, � �,
,'
_ , _ _
- - •��� c' , � ;
o. . �
..:. ;: : " . -. � .: . .:� ,., .
_ _ �.. .. r , ..-i ' .. .... ..:. • - `_ , ..: , .., a ,:-.- "i -,..:
^� :a�t�. . , � � � V y s$"�.t,{�'� ?' n +y r :���c '� � �'"�`' �
_ � . ., k��" ^ � y ��� ' � 7 3'+ 3 f �� � � � 7* r
., r'�� �� - ar. o ��`c � ��'� i t . „ � I
� �. � �._ • h* ' � �
�` r .- '__ , . Y . `µi � F °,� �. .
�r. � F
l ��� � �• t9 k��� �k Y�
� �' � � 4 y
r4--�J � � 4 A YE� . � � 'N'N
4 . v .1�.: . : '
I' �
f .
� Z�� k �y� " ; �' � Yd ' . ' .
. � - �� � .;Y � Z � ��
i
� � �/ � � S �r � r `Y i � t.h �
� 5
� � ' . _ I ' Y "�' y 4 � 2 ' s i ��L K� � # s O "".` ..
i � � Y �' �t ��f � k k �bu,Tl� . y� sa�
� 1�:ar��i�l. .�;� ���� �.,,b � ^�"� � . .k.
' � ,� « r � ' � � , � �'.»
�� . � r w-e. L' .� .: .�
I � �. ' � , � x � �'� `'
<
� ��1
� � '` i;�i�✓'�nS'> �l ,�t: .S �" `�
' . . ��) �� r� y. � ,� �y �: �.; A
.. Ty�,t A g 1 . '� -" �
" ,� *.� S+t�' �r �"'� f � g r
=,�. *� � � .��,�'�` . '� a ��. x � �x y ;, �"+sa..� ;: r9�;
� � �_� � � .� s � o-�^ s � �`'�v)'
A ,
� . �
.-__ !�:�� ' . . S � � �:". �. 'i`
, .
� e �
�(f, p i
y ..t„r
�l .. � e :. ` �"5�'� � r , a . 4 �� , �.
. a, � � : � �� ��
Z�fi
� - � ���:: � �� }�. � � s� � ��� � '.
o- `�� r' . ' =' & � 'r 1 ,m .
�-.� " � �s �v�j . �" �y���';^�,� �,�� �' ��"�;
s
- � k k• � T�+� �'_ � ar� gg� y �, tis '
_ �: � � �,�. � , x � i a��. �e� �
� � � - � '� � .. ��++ 5 : �: �� S� L ' S' ° % � /?
. . . '- � � {� x � ? .�' a+ ; �+ b £ 1 p�,� ' � � ,� l �
' �- . :,. _ 3 �: ; R la✓ p � . 3 K'�o Y Yf � �.
. . _ ` _ y � � � _ � Y � 9 "+rC..�
Jr �
� - . -- �' }�, � ` r fa � - .F a. `�y { ���F '��;:ys �# a �,� .
k . . � i �" � �.�`� +s�` ^ 1 L x i � 3 r € :: Cs- . �.
1 .,, ,�,� ; ,,���', x � � � � �� � ���:
,: , � P , � ��, �� � �. �� � �� �-� ��
� � __ i � e ,�.; ':i .%�3 t r,�-�s :i ���s�j�.� �'�3��'���`` ♦ w
�— � . �. ' .an� � � � r ;." .�i� .v.j��`'�4 � � . Xr
. ��� � � r �'�
_ } Y � � �. � « �_ � � t� :.
��
/
:? � � '; C .� r''..1 � , ' ,y y�f •� �'°a y , .'.'s"� ' �;J,;
y �'
. { ` Q � ' t �„ �r �: r- :; , _ S �b� 4.., "
� t _ b > >: � _ '= � ♦ `�,�,
V � l . `�ets' #� �(k"„� 7 4A`"^'"�"� 2� _' ,,:
1 S5G3 m�1 �-
Y , —
� F!-�sL A.� ` : ...-`PG�^ -� �yM� f
.._ �.i���-� � - _� � � �� � 3 �
� � �-�� � �� ` ����� �._.�
�� .. , � . .�
- _ �— s ;' —�� .:�.
- . � - �`�r* ° � 'c � ---�^� �� ->
- y �� � 4 � ��ae �/�¢ ( - , 4 � �5.. : .:
c_' �l'�� ���..-� �-"S:
— ' � _ �� E [5 � " ���ss � S�'�'y'�3" �`�SITY t ` N � '� �1 Y."'
TA '
� � F _` � ±�� -
� , ; �"�.}pA1C�fi'1Fi Y3+7,1�t �R � '�`�'-� � l� -
�. � ' ; � � �I � ` � � � � .:'� .
-;�;� E ., l ��i - ��- �� , _. ,���
��' �;� �' - _ .
> : - #.:
. �. = x �
x �) _ �:
�� :�� . � ; � _ �" �_ }; `,��
�, a � �� �,
.� C �\ �� - :;: - C _ L �� �,.
� ���� £.i�'� �� �1 f�� '^b���
�'�;4��'�t, > ����'�r�,> t, ., t� � � �
<
i. � � i � ' �a �� 1 �' � �, �ti
�� i � � ��
.� � �'� �' tnil' �`''�p�.,, �• r. � ..:
1 �M1Y+�
v;y ��'r �' • y w , � �.\
y � p
�� � Ys . w �' A . el.
e
� � ` .. �a � �
m �� a �•
�° . ` �.s ,�; � p � 9
� �. � i
J r b e KS
�
q i �! y � �`� ' ._ w � y� . � .. �.:
' �' ��F � �i-� �>,.��u '� �.. ��., ..
��;i � � ����' »>` `
� n � �`� �i�. � #
�`"/� 2 � [ Stf � `�t,.i. �-j
,��� � 4 ' .� .k-�:: i
i
Y"7'-� ....:. � t� x� r ' A� '.
( � �� � t � �� �
' � � � �� �
..e i y�' '. � d �
/ �� k: _ �a �,� ; `� �i'
a�'� 4 ��� ��E��' �
.
� •
` � �,.� � • s � , t�"�"�'
<
�� t ti� �i � X �
x � ,:
�r�� �t �ti � � �
� I� ti �, .�
�
�s � �,� es� u fi 's�� ���� }' 4 �,F �1
�� � Sy�a :4� � � � � ' ��
c, i =�� � : � :.� ,
1 °� 3�i � � � ! �`°�"�€� � � '� ���+€
� . �. �,� �:
• • � x5 y d L
� V� � '{u. 5 i� �� F �� �,*� ��.
i ^'G / �` . , w S �� �` .>.'TE'2� � Y� : �: y._� ..:
�` 1
� \ � � _ . 6 �ti � �� � q,
S , �� ,r '� � �� �% ��
� � . `� ���� � � :
� .+�'l'MR �
p 5�.. { X � ���'F S �p T -
P � � �'; . ��Z" � � ������ � -."'°
��.
,� . �1�":' `;'.a ��% ` y�a� � o- �� : K
�
�; ��������. .� ��
� .� ���
5
� . e .; ��� G� � � :
4 � ��_�'
�' �� ' � �' �
y$.. � >. �� .
l
\�e�
� ;t�.
k , ,a
1 4 � i��t
�� � ��.
;a/ �
�y z
[PARTIAL MINUTES NOT APPRO'VED BY COMMISSION]
MINUTES OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION •
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Lower Level — Room 40, City HalUCourt House, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard
May 10, 2007
Present: Carol Cazey, Pat Igq Carole Kralicek, Mark Thomas, Susan Bartlett Foote, Shari
Taylor Wilsey, Lee Meyer, April Haas, Diane Trout-Oertel
Absent: 7ohn Manning, Dick Nicholson, Paul Larson, Richazd Faricy
Staff Present: Christine Barr, Sherry Huffrnan, Amy Spong
CALL TO ORDER: 5:00 pm by Foote (Acting Chair)
Foote explained that this was a business meeting but there also were three permit reviews on the
agenda and in order to address those issues that need a quorum the agenda would be done in
reverse order as some of the commissioners would need to leave early. The order of agenda was
item IV, than items III A and B.
I. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: Approved as presented. (Wilsey/Thomas).
CONFILCTS OF INTEREST: There were no conflicts of interest.
IL APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Approved as presented.
III.AFTER-THE-FACT PERMIT REVIEW/PUBLIC HEARING
A. 579 Laurel Avenue, Hill Historic District, by Goodmanson Construction, for a
permit to install a retaining wall along the sidewalk. Work was completed without
HPC review. File#07-167.
Staff read staff report recommending denial of permit application; staff also recommended
the establishment of a timeline for the removal of the retaining wall.
There was discussion regazding the height of the wall and when a building perxnit application
would be required. Staff informed that regardless of the height, an HPC application would be
required for review, Foote opened public hearing. Rick Goodmanson, the contractor and
applicant was present to answer questions. Goodmanson stated he was awaze of the codes and
guidelines but when Merle Goodmanson talked with Dave Tank, a building inspector, he gave
the ok for them to construct the retaining wall. He added that he knew the property was in the
historic district and it was not the company's intention to let anything slip through the cracks.
Goodmanson stated he was present to ask the commission to approve the permit.
Wilsey asked the applicant if he knew he needed to submit materials. The applicant replied that
he did. Goodmanson stated he believed the inspector had given Merle Goodmanson the conect
information that is why they went and built the wall. Trout-Oertel stated the applicant should
have known better. Foote stated it is not the building inspector's job to review applications in
the historic district and the applicant should have contacted HPC sTaff.
Goodmanson stated they have constructed retaining walls in the historic district before. Haas
asked how many. Goodmanson replied that he did not have a number and added that he thought
they had followed the correct chain of command. Meyer asked if the brick was always curved
and if they could make it straight. Meyer stated the curved wall is not appropriate. Goodmanson
stated the block is calfed Diamond three-way. Meyer asked if they would change curve into
n
U
C�
Z�
v�-�r��
stairs and into limestone so it would be straiaht and look cleaner. Goodmanson stated that they
� could, but that decision �i�ould need to be made by the property owner. Goodmanson replied the
owner had a choice and he chose the curves. He added the owner was trying to be consistent
with neighborhood.
Meyer asked why the retaining wa$ was so tall. Croodmanson replied they wanted the top to be
flat since the sidewalk slopes. Staff indicated on a photo that the grade was raised behind the
retaining wall when backfiiled. Staff read a letter from Philip Friedlund, Ramsey Hill
Association, stating support of the staff recommendation.
The public hearing was closed, as no one else was present to speak. Wilsey motioned to
deny the application based on the findings and staff recommendatian. Meyer seconded the
motion. Wilsey stated the block and the design of the wall was inappropriate. Igo suggested
the creation of a timeline for the wail to be removed. Wilsey stated in denying the proposal the
applicant couid come back to staff with a revised proposai and go through the conect process.
Wilsey accepted the friendly amendment to remove or correct the retaining wall within
forty-fve days of this decision. Staff indicated the applicant will have fifteen days from the
hearing in which they can file an appeal and added the applicant had not applied for a building
permit. Wilsey suggested that the applicant start over and go to staff with a revised proposa] that
would compiy with the guidelines. Motion passed unanimously (8-0}.
Meeting adjoarned: 7:15
Submitted by: Sherry Huffman
•
.
•
2
�(5/10/�007) Chrisfine Barr - Permit Reviews Page 1�
From: Lisa Isenberg/Philip Friedlund <isenb006@umn.edu>
To: �Christine.Barr@ci.stpaul.mn.us>
Date: 5/1012007 425 PM
Subject: Permit Reviews
Christine,
Having discussed the the report of the staff and as the 8oard
representative of the Ramsey Hili Association, I support the staff
position wrt the properties at 579 Laurei and 546 Marshall.
Philip Friedfund
118 Vrginia St
St Paul, Mn
�
�
•
Zto
s,�t�r
AUL
�
RAAA
•
•
OFFICE OF LICENSf, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Bob Kessfer, Drrector
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Chrisrapher B. Coleman, ibfayor
CO.LI.itERCE BC'JLDl.��"G
8 Founh Street East, Sznte 206
Sr Paul, Mmnesota 55101-l024
May 14, 2007
Rick Goodmanson
Goodmanson Construction Inc
2630 Fairview Avenue North
Roseville, MN 55113
Re: 579 Laurel Avenue, Hi(i Historic District
May 10, 2007 - HPC Permit "After-the-FacP' Review, HPC File #07-16�
Dear Mr. Goodmanson:
� 7-���
Telephone� 6�7-266-9090
F¢cstmile� 6�1-266-91?4
1Yeb n�inr.lrepus
As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) considered at its May 10, 2007 meeting
your application for a permit to instali a retaining wal! along the sidewalk at the property ]isted
above. Work was completed without HPC review. The HPC voted 8- 0 to deny your application
and established a timeline of 45 days from the decision date to remove the retaining wall or submit a
revised proposal that would comply with the guidelines to staff. Tbis decision was based on the
discussion at the public hearing, public testimony and findings by the HPC.
You or any aggrieved party has the right to appea( the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision Yo
the Saint Paul City Council under Chapter 73 of the Saint Pau! Legislative Code. Such an appeal must
be filed within 14 days of the date of the HPC's order and decision. Chapter 73 states:
(h) Appeal to city council. The permit applicant or any party nggrieved by the decision of the heritage
preservatro�� commission shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of the heritage preservation commission's
order and decision, have a right to appea! such order and decision to ths ciry council. The appeal shal! be
deemed perfected upon receipt by the division of ptanning [LTEP] of hvo (2) copies of a notice of appeal and
statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal. The division of planning [LIEP] shall transmit one copy of
the notice of appeal and staCement to the ciry council and one copy to the heritage preservation commission.
The conemission, in any written order denying a permit application, shall advise the applicant of the right to
appeal to the ciry council and include thu paragraph in al! such orders.
Staff could review and approve a proposal for a retaining wall of an appropriate material, color, style
and design. Please feei free to call me at 651.266.9078 to discuss fhis application and to move forward
to correct these issues and comply with the timelane.
Sincerely,
���Q ! ��N�
Christine Barr
Planner, Historic Preservation
Cc: Greg Johnson,building inspector
Dick P kop, owner
File �
AA-ADA-EEO Employer