The URL can be used to link to this page

08-95Council File # �8 Green Sheet # 3Q `] RESOLUTION SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by 33 1 WHEREAS, Dave Roering, on or about October 10, 2007, made application to the Heritage Preservarion 2 Commission (hereinafter, the "HPC") in HPC File No. 07-171122 for a building permit to demolish an 3 existing non-historic garage and replace it with a new four-stall garage at property commonly known as 4 615-617 Holly Avenue within the Heritage Hill Historic Preservation District; and 5 6 WHEREAS, a report dated November 6, 2007 was prepared by HPC staff which contained the historical 7 background of the subject site, stated the Heritage Hill Preservation District design review guidelines 8 applicable to the site, contained a description of the changes proposed on the site pursuant to the subject 9 permit application and contained a description of the on-going interior and exterior remodeling work to the 10 site's principal structure that was previously approved in February, 2007 by the HPC and recommended 11 approval of the said application subject to conditions; and 12 13 WHEREAS, the said application was duly set on for a public hearing befare the HPC on November 15, 14 2007 where all interested parties were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and, 15 16 WHEREAS, at the close of the public hearing and based upon all the facts, &les, testimony and the said 17 staff report proposing the following Findings and Staff Recommendation to approve the said application 18 subj ect to those conditions set forth in the Staff Recommendations, the building permit application was 19 approved by the HPC with conditions on a 7-1 vote as noted in the November 15, 2007 HPC meeting 20 minutes based upon the following: 21 22 23 24 25 2b 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 FINDINGS 1. The site is classified as non-contributing to the Historic Hill District. 2. Demolition. The removal of a non-historic garage will not have a negative impact to the building or the historic district. 3. Massing and Heieht. The guidelines state that the massing should be compatible witli the existing neighboring buildings. While a 4-stall garage is considered larger than typical for residential housing, directly behind the property is a large commercial auto repair garage and there are larger garages further down the alley to the East. The massing of the new garage will fit within the context of neighboring buildings. 4. Rhvthxn and Directional Emphasis. The rhythin of the houses along the street-face will not be disrupted by the new addition. The garage will be visible from Dale Street and there is still an appropriate separation (rhythm) between the house and the new garage. The setback of the gazage from the alley at 8 feet is slightly mare than typical, however, the setbacks on this alley are varied and there will not be a negative impact. 5. Materials and Details. The lap siding proposed is more appropriate than the stucco application on the house, which was added at a later point in time. The proposed six inch . . a�-9� lap, however, is wider than traditionally used. The detailing shown on the plans meets the general intent of detailing secondary structures, however, some elements like a frieze water table and wide window and door trim needs to be clarified. 6. Building Elements. The pitch of the garage roof of 5:12 is consistent with the main house roof, however, the guidelines state that "highly visible secondary structure roofs should match the roof pitch of the main structure, and generally should have a rise-to run rario of at least 9:12. The garage is highly visible but also matches the pitch of the main house. Because of the buiidings visibility, the owner has proposed four dormers at the roof to likely break-up the horizontal roof plane. The main house does not have any dormers and typically secondary structures should be well detailed but should have a simple design. The proposed windows have a vertical orientation with a 2:1 ratio of height to width which complies with the guidelines. 7. Site. The garage is accessible from the rear and doors do not face the street, which complies with the guidelines. The guidelines also state, "parking areas should not be located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be located in rear yards. All parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalks by landscaping." The proposal does not comply with this requirement because screening was not included nor the indication of the removal of the pazking in the front yards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of the proposal provided the following conditions aze met: 1. Final materials and finishes aze to be reviewed and approved by staff. The cement lap siding will have a smooth texture and be four to five inches wide instead of the proposed six inches. The composite trim shall also have a smooth texture and be painted. Wide trim be at the corners and around windows and doars. Final trim detailing shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 2, Instead of four proposed dormers, the roof planes will be simplified by having one central dormer at the alley elevation that is appropriate far the hipped roof shape. Plans shall be submitted to staff for final review and approval. 3. A fence shall be installed around two-thirds of the off-street parking spaces and shall be approved by staff. 4. The driveway and curb cuts from Holly and in the front yard will be removed witrrin 30 days from the final inspection date approving the garage. 5. Any revisions to the approved plans must be submitted to the HI'C and/or staff for review. The HPC stamped approved plans must be kept on site during the construction project. �8-95 s9 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 WHEREAS, on November 16, 2007, the HPC's decision to approve the buiiding permit application was communicated to the applicant in a Letter of Decision, which shall also be 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 November 28, 2007 and pursuant to Legislative Code § 73.06(h), the applicant filed an appeal from that part of the HPC's decision regarding condition number 4 which related exclusively to the sub}ect parcel's driveway and curb cuts from Holly and requested a public hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the HPC's decision; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 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 having cansidered the applicaYion, the testimony, the report of staff and the record, minutes and resolution of the HPC, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the overall decision of the HPC approving the said application was without errar including the majority of the conditions imposed on the application. However, the Council fiu-ther finds, with respect to the applicanYs appeal regarding the APC's condition number 4, that the applicant has demonstrated reversible error for the following reasons: The Council finds that requiring the removal of the Holly curb cuts will not serve to protect ar enhance the architectural aspect or historical character of the residential structure. Further, it is plain that the subject aurb cuts have been on the property far quite some time. Finally, the expense of removing the curb cuts places an excessive cost burden on this applicant. Ob-9�' 114 AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council adopts as its own the HPC's findings in this 115 matter as set forth above, provided that ttus set of findings are modified t� the extent necessary to eluninate ll6 only that condition requiring the removal of the curb cut off of Holly far the reasons noted above by the 117 Council; and 118 119 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the remaining HPC conditions of approval shall remain in full farce 120 and effect; and be it 121 122 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to David Roering, the 123 Heritage Preservation Commission, the Deparhnent of Safety and Inspections and the Zoning 124 Administrator. Requ by e rtment of: C� 6 By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services � '1liune ` Approved b City A � � B➢: � L/ �— z t !- o� Adopted by Council: Date ��la� Approv by ay Submis on to Co cil AdopAon Certified by Council Secretary g BY� �' � �Gs� Approvgd by a �or: Date � � Q � By: � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheef Green Sheet Green Sheet � D8 -95� CA ��1' �mev 24JfiN-08 Green Sheet NO: 3049170 Contaet Person 8 Phpne: PeterWamer 266-8710 Must Be on Council qqen Doc. Type: RESOLUSIOPf E-0ocument Required: Y DocumentContact: JulieKraus Cotttact Phone: 266-5776 y Assign Namber Order Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip AII Locations for Signature) 0 ' Attorne 1 ' Attorne De arhnentDirector 2 ' Attome 3 a or's 0ffiee Ma or(ASSistant 4 rmcil 5 ' Cierk CS Qerk Memorializing City Council's December 19, 2007, mofion to adopt as its own the Heritage Preservation Commission's findings in this matter with the exception of condition nutnbez four (4) of the appeal of Dave Roeriug to obtain a building permit to demolish an existing non-historic garage for the properiy commonly lmown as 615-617 Holly Avenue within the Heritage Hill Histroic Preservation Dislrict. bauons: npprove �p.) or K Planniag Commission CIB Committee Civil Sen%ice Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has fhis person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person�rtn possess a skill not nottnally passessed by any current city emptoyee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on sepamte sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Oppnrtunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): The Council is required pnrsnant to the City's Charter to ha:ve its actions reduced to writing either in the form of a resolution or ordinance dependenf upon the nature of the matter befote it, The decision of Council in this matter required a resolukon in order to comply with the Charter. Approving the attached resolution fiilfills ffie Councll's duty under the Charter. Advantages If Approved: None Disadvan�ges lfApproved: Failure to approve the resolution violates the City's Charter Reqnirement Oisadvantages If Not Approved: Transaction: Funtling Source: Financiai lnformation: (EXplain) Activity Number: Cosf/Revenue Budgeted: January 24, 2008 3:17 PM Page 1 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor December 3, 2007 Ms. Mary Erickson City Council Research OfFice Room 310 City Hal1 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: �EPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPEC'CIONS Bob Kessler, Dfrector q DO � COMMERCEBUILDING Telephone: b51-266-9090 S Fourth Street East, Surte 200 Facsimrle � 6�7-2bb-9724 St Pau1, M+nnesota 35701-1024 Web. wiv�v.l+ep us I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, December 19, 2007 for the following heritage preservation case: Appellant(s): File Number: David Roering, owner 08-014 Purpose: Appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision conditionally appxoving construction of a four-stall garage provided two front yard curb cuts and driveways be removed. Location: Staff Recommendation: Commission: 615-617 Aolly Avenue, Hill Historic Aistrict Conditional Approval Condifional Approval (staffrec.) (7 to ]) I have confirmed this date with the office of Cou�cil Member Debbie Montgomery. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that yQU wi11 pub(ish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks! Please cail me at 266-9079 if you have any questions. Sincerely, `�� Amy Spong Historic Preservation Specialis CC: Council Member Debbie Montgomery CAO, Peter Waruer Appellant, David Roering and Brian Alton, Attorney for Appellant File AA-ADA-EEO Employex NOTICE OR PUBLiC $EARING 'Rie 'Saurt Pa� ul�ty Council wtII con- d�ct a publfc heazing on Weduesday, De- cember 19. 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Conncil Chambers, Third Floor, Qity Hall/Cowihouse. 15 West I{ellogg Boule- vard. SL Paul, MN, to cronsida the aPP� of Davtd Roering, own¢, �to a decision ot the Reritage Preservation Commission comlitlonaIly appmv'uig � construction of a four-staII gaiage provided two fi yard curb cuts and driveways �be remwed at 615-fi2t Hoity Avenue, Hiil� Historic Dls- tricE. {FIIe No. OS-014] Dated: Deeember 6, 2007 MARY ERICKSON Assistant City Council Secretary (Dec�ember 1� � ST.P140Li.E6ALIILIIDDC+LER YL15�878. ��-!5 NOTICE OF APPEAL Re: 615-617 Holiy Avenue HPG File No. 08-d14 Bob Kessler Director Department of Safety and Inspections City of Saint Paul Commerce Buifding 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 20Q Saint Paul, MN 55101-1024 PLEASE'TAKE NOTICE that David Roering (Appeilant), the owner of the property located at 615-617 Holfy Avenue, Saint Pau1, Ramsey County, Minnesota, hereby appeals to the City Councif the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission to conditionaliy approve the appiication for a building permit to demolish an existing garage and construct a new garage. The Appetlant requests that the permit application be approved without the condition that the driveways and curb-cuts, from Hoily and in the front yard, be removed within thirty (30) days from the finai inspection date approving the garage. The Appellant proposes to build a new garage, eliminating a curb-cut on Dal� Street, and not disturb curb-cuts and driveways that have existed at the property for many years. The grounds for this Appea( are that: - - A. The requirement to remove the driveways and curb-cuts would cause an unnecessary financial burden. B. Removing the driveways and curb-cuts would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of the property. C. The owner wishes to make sure that there is adequate off-street parking for residents in the building. D. The Zoning Gode permits front andlor side yard parking. E. The new garage to be constructed meets the principles for new construction in Section 74.65 of the City Code and the gensral principles in Section 74.65(f}(3)b. does not apply to the pre-existing driveways and curb-cuta _- b8-9� F. Approval of the demolition and construction of the new garage is consistent wifh the public poficy and purposes of the preservation ordinance. Leaving the driveways and curb-cuts on Holly is not inconsistent with these policies and purposes. r�lzgl�� Date ian . A{ton Attorney No. 149494 McCfayAfton PLLP ' 951 Grand Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 651-290-0301 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT DEPARTMEN7 OF SAFE7Y ANp INSPECI'IONS Bo6 Kesster, Director /i d �Gf� C/O / C� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher B. Coteman, Ma�ar COMMERCE BIJII.DING Telephme: 651-266-909D 8 Fourth Street E., Suite 2D0 Facsimile: b57-266-912A Saint PauV, Minnesota 5 5 10 1-102A \Yeb: �uz�lv.cisryaui.mn.us/i�ep FROM: Amy Spong, HPC staff RE: HPC appeal for 615-617 Holly Avenue, Hill Historic District DATE: December 11. 2007 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members CC: Peter Warner, CAO Bob Kessler, DSI The following attachments highlight the events that have taken place and relate to the HPC review of the permit application to construct a four-stall garage and make site improvements to the address listed: Page 1 Notice to City Council to schedule appeal. Pages Z to 4 Grounds for an appeal by appellant Dave Roering, owner. Pages 5 to 9 The stafF report recommending a conditional approval to allow for a four-stall garage provided the iwo front yard curb cuts and parking spaces be removed once the garage is constructed. Pages 10 to 31 7he application with attachments. Pages 32 to 36 Summary minutes from the November 15 public hearing and written public testimony. Pages 37 to 38 The fiinal decision fetter conditionally approving the new garage. . DEPARP��fEYi' OF SAFETY AND [NSPECiTO�S Bob Kessler. Direcfor SAihT PA23L � AAllll CITY OF SAINT PAUL Chr•istop)rer B, Coleir:an, .ttm�or• December 3. 2007 Ms. Mary Erickson City Council Research Offce Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: CO.l1ifERCEBt,7LDl.l'G Telephone; 6�1-266-9090 8 Four(h Sheet East, Snite ?00 Facsimi(e: 651-266-9719 StPauI,1?innesota5J70L702� IVeb� u�inr.(iep.us I would like to confirm tliat a public hearing before ihe City Council is scheduted for Wednesday, December 19, 2007 for the following herita�e preservation case: Appetlant(s): File Number: David Roering, owner 08-014 Purpose: Appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision conditionally approving construction of a fouo-stall garage provided two front yard curb cuts and driveways be removed. Location: Staff Recommendation; Commission_ 615-617 Holly Avenue, Hill Historic District Conditional Approval Conditional Approval (staffrec.) (7 to 1) I fiave confirmed tliis date with the office of Council Member Debbie Montgomery. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thanks! Please call me at 266-9079 if you have any questions. Sincerely, _�� Amy Spong�'� Historic Preservation Speciali CC: Council Member Debbie Montgomery CAO, Peter Warner Appel}ant, David Roering and Brian Alton, Attorney for Appellant File�� AA-ADA-EEO Employer � u r _ L— MSCLAY • ALTON P.L.L.P, ATiORNEYS �OBERT M. NLCLAY BRIAN D. ALTON° `Also Licensed in �sconsin November 28, 2007 Bob Kessler Director, Department of Safety and Inspections City of Saint Paul Commerce Building 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 20o Samt rau1, ivii� 35�i01-1u24 Re: 615-617 Ho11y Avenue HPC File No. 08-014 Dear Mr. Kessler: 08 -9�` 951 GRAND AVENUE Sf PAUL, MN 55105 FAX 651-Z4a2502 651-Z90-0301 Enclosed are two {2) copies of the Appeal in the above referenced matter. Please � transmit one copy of the Notice of Appeal to the City Council and one copy to the Heritage Preservation Commission. Very truly yours, r > t Brian D. Alton BDA: mm Enc. cc: � Christine Barr (HPC) David Roering www.mcdayalton.com Z NOTICE OF APPEAL Re: 615-617 HoAy Avenue HPC Fiie No. 08-014 Bob Kessler Director Deparfinent of Safefy and Inspections City of Saint Paul Commerce Building 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200 Saint Paul, MN 55101-1024 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that David Roering (Appellant), the owner of the property located at 615-617 Hoily Avenue, Sainf Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota, hereby appeals to the City Council the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission to conditionally approve the application for a building permit to demolish an existing garage and construct a new garage. • The Appellant requests that the permit application be approved without the condition that the driveways and curb-cuts, from Holly and in the front yard, be removed within thirty {30) days from the final inspecfion date approving fhe garage. � The Appellant proposes to build a new garage, efiminating e curb-cut on Dale Street, a�d not disturb curb-cuts and driveways that have existed at the property for many years. The grounds for this Appeal are that: A. The requirement to remove the driveways and curb-cufs would cause an unnecessary financial burden. B. Removing the driveways and curb-cufs would deprive the owner of the reasonabie use of the property. C. The owner wishes to make sure that there is adequate off-street parking for residenfs in the building. D. The Zoning Code permits front andlor side yard parking. E. The new garage to be constructed meets the principles for new construction in Section 74.65 of the City Code and the general principles in Section 74.65(fl(3)b. does not apply to the pre-existing driveways and curb-cuts. � � D��95� � F. Approvai of the demolition and construction of the new garage is consistenf with the public policy a�d purposes of the preservation ordinance. Leaving the driveways and curb-cuts on Holiy is not inconsistent with these policies and purposes. r l�z�lv� � � �; � - Date nan . Alton Attorney No. 149494 McClayA{ton PLLP 951 Grand Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 651-290-0301 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT s ► 0 Agenda Item N.A. File # 08-014 CITY OF SAINT PAUL � HERITAGE PRESERVATION CONtMISSION STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: 615-617 Holly Avenue DATE OF APPLTCATION: October 29, 20Q7 APPLICANT: Dave Roering OWNER: same DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: November 15, 2007 HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Hill Historic District CATEGORY; Non-contributing CLASSIFICATION: Building Permit STAFF INVESTTGATION AND REPORT: Amy Spong DATE: November 6, 2007 A_ SITE DESCRIPTION: The property at 615-617 Holly Avenue is a two-story, stuccoed duplex with a hipped roof. According to the inventory form, this modifed Italianate-vemacular style building was consiructed in 1900 and has been modified extensively with virtually no historic detaii remauung. The chiimieys on the east and west elevarions have been removed. An enclosed three-bayed, two-story front porch that extends the fu111ength of the house was added that covers the original facade of the house. The limestone foundation is still visible except for portions on the north and east sides. The property is considered non-contributing to the Hill Historic District. There is currently a iwo car garage at the rear of the properry with a driveway and curb-cut off of � Da1e Street. There are two curb-cuts on Holly Avenue for the driveways on the east and west sides of fihe building. The east driveway is concrete and the west driveway is asphalt. Both driveways aze direcfly up to the foundation. B. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant is proposing to raze the non-historic garage and construct a four-stall gazage at the alley. The plans do not address the existing curb cuts and pazking at the front of the house. The proposed materials are 3-tab shingles for the roof, cement board !ap siding, rough face concrete block at base and composite trim. The window and door specifications were not indicated on the plans. The applicant is also proposing to add four dormers, one on the east and west elevations each and two on the alley (north) elevation. The garage is proposed to be set back 8 feet from the alley, 3 feet from the side properly line and 20 feet from Dale Street with a parking slab. C. BACKGROTTND: The main house is currently under-going interior and e�cterior remodeling. This work was reviewed and conditionally approved by the HPC in February, 2Q07. There were three conditions placed on tfie HPC approval that addressed pazking, driveways and screening. Those are ouflined in a letter dated February 27, 2Q07 and are as follows: 1. The applicanUowner work with staff to create a proposal for relocating all pazking to the rear yard. 2. A plan for screening the pazking be submitted to staff for review and approval. - 3. The owner contact public warks to have the curb-cut on Dale Street removed. 4, Any changes pr revisions to the approved plans must be submitted to the HPC andlor staff for review. o8-�i 5 Agenda Item IV.A. File # 08-014 � 5. The HPC stamped approved construcrion level plans remain on site for the duration of the project. The current application is a proposal to relocate the required parking to the reaz of the yard 6ut the plans do not indicate the driveways and curb cuts off of Holly will be removed. The owner is required to provide 6 pazking spaces and the new gazage wi11 hold 4 spaces and there will be 2 surface spaces next to the new gazage at the reaz. Screening the new off-street parking was also not indicated on this application. D. GUIDELINE CITATIONS: Hill Historic DistrictDesipn Review Guidelines Resioration and Rehabilitation Generat Principles: 1. Every reasonable effort sha11 be nzade to provide a compatible use far a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its e�rvironment, or ta use a property for its originally iniended purpase. 2. The distinguishing original gualities 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 bz avoided when possible. 3. Alt buildings, structures, and sites shalt 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 evddence of rhe histovy and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. Theses changes may have acquired significance in � their own right, and this signiftcance shall be recognized and respected. 5. Distinctive stytistic features or examples of skilted craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 6. Deteriorated architectura(features shal! 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 architecturad features should be based on accurate duplications offeatures, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability ofdifferent architectural elements from other buildings or structures. 7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that x�ill damage the historic building materials shaZl not be undertaken.. 8. Every reasonable effort shatl be made to pr-otect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project. 9. Contemporary design for alterations and additions ro existfng properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy signifzcant historical, architectural or cudtural materfal, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood, or ertviranment. 10. Wherever possible, new additians or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such alterations were to be removed in the fufure, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. New Construction II. General Principles: The basic principle for new consri-uction in the Historic Hill District is to maintain the disriict's scale and � guality ofdesign. The Historic Hill District is architectztrally diverse within an overall pattern ofha»nony and continuity. These guidelines for new consiruction focus on general rather than specific design elements in order to encourage architectural innovation and quality design while maintaining the harnsony and continuity ofthe district. New canstruction should be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, f►a � Agenda Item N.A. File # 08-014 color, neaterial, bzrilding elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the area. 12. Massin� and Hei�ht: � New construciion should ronform to the massing volume, height and scale of exisfing adjacerzt shzrctures. Typical residential stnectures in the Historic Hidl District are 25 to 40 feet high. The height of new construction should be no lower than the average height ofa11 buildings on both blockfaces; measrerements should be made from street level to the highestpoint ofthe roofs. (This guideline does notsupersede the Ciry's Zoning Code height Zimitations.) 13. Itkythm and Directional Enzphasis: The existence ofuniform narrow Zots in the Historic HiC1 naturallysets up a strongrhythm ofbuilclings to open space. Historically any structure builz on more than one Zot used vertical facade elements to maintain and vary the overall rhythm of the street rather than interrupting the rhythm with a long monotonous facade. The direciional expression of new canstruction should relate to rhat of existing adjacent structures. 14. Materials and Detafils: T/ariety in the use ofarchitectural materials and details adds to the intimacy and visual delight ofthe district. But there is also an overall thread of continuity provided by the range of materials commonly used by turn-of- the-century builders and by the way these materials were ¢rsed. This thread ofcontinuity is threatened by the introduction of new indz�strial nxaterials and the aggressive exposure of earLier materials such as concrete block, metal framing, and glass. The purpose of this section is to encourage the proper use of appropriaie nsaterials and details. The materials and details of new construction should relate to the materials and details of existing nearby buiZdings. I5. BuildinQ Elements: � Individual elements of a building should be integrated inta its composition for a balanced and complete design. These elemenzs for new construction should compliment existing adjacent structures as well. Roofs. There is a great variety of raof zreamaent in the Hisioric Hlll District, but gable and hip roofs are most common. The skyline or profile of new construction should reZate to the predominant roof shape of existing adjacent buildings. Most houses in the Historic Hill District have a roofpitch of behveen 9:12 and 12:12 (rise-to-run ratia). Highly visible secondary structure roofs should match the roaf pitch of the main structure, and generally should have a rise-to-run ratio of at least 9.• 12. A roofpitch of at Ieast 8:12 should be used if it is somewhat visible from the street, and a 6:12 pitch may be acceptable in some cases for structures which are not visible from the street. Roofhardware such as skyZights, vents, and metal pipe chimneys should not be placed on the front roofplane. Windows and Doors. The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windows and doors in new construction should be compatible with that of existrng adjacent buildings. Most windows on the Hill have a vertical orientation, with a proportion of beriveen 2:1 and 3:1 (height to width) common. Individual windows can sometimes be square or horizontal if the rest of the building co�zveys the appropriate directional emphasis. Facade openings of the same generat size as those in adjacent buildings are encouraged. Wooden double-hungwindows are traditianal in the Historic Hil1 Districf and should be the firstchoice when � sedecting new windows. Paired casement windows, although not hfstoricaZZy common, will often prove acceptable because oftheir verticai orientation. Sliding windows, awning windows, and horizontally oriented munti»s are not common in the district and are generally unacceptable. Verrical muntins and munrin grids 3 � OB-9�' Agenda Item N.A. File # 08-014 • �nay be acceptable tivhzn co�npatible with the period and styZe ofthe building. ,4lidingglass doors should not be used where they wauld be visible from the str^eet. 16. Site Setback. New buildings should be sited at a distance not more than �% out-of-Zine from the setbackofexistingadjacent buiZdings. Setbacks greater rhan those ofadjacent buiidings nzay be allowed in sorne cases. Reducedsetbacks may be acceptable at corners. This happens quite often in the Hisforic Hitl area and can lend delightful variation to the street. Garages and Parking. If an alley is adjacent to the dwelling, any new garage should be located off the altey. Where alteys do not exist, garages, facing the st�-eet or driveway curb cuts may be acceptable. Garage doors should not face the street. Ifthis is found necessary, single garage doors should be used to avoid the horiaontal orientation ofhvo- car garage doors. Parking spaces should not be Located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be located in rear yards. All parking spaces should be adeguately screened from the sn•eet and sidewalk by landscaping. I8. Demolitzon When revfewing proposals for demolttfon of structures within the dish^ict, the Heritage Preservation Commission refers to Section 73.06 (i)(2) of the Saint Paul Legdslative Code which states the following: In the case of the proposed demolition of a building, prior to approval of said deinolition, the commission . shall make writtenfindings on the following: the archttectural and histor^ical rrterit ofthe building, the efj"ect of the demolition on surrounding buildings, the effect ofany proposed new construction on the remainder ofthe building (in case ofpartial demolition) and on surrounding buildings, and the economic value or usefxtlness of the building as it now exists or if altered or modified in conzparison with the value or usefulness of any proposed structures desdgnated to replace the present building or buitdings. E. FINDINGS: I. The site is classiSed as Non-Contributing to the Hill Historic Distric� 2. Demotitlon. The removal of the non-historic garage will not have a negative impact to the building ar the historic district. 3. Massing and Height. The guidelines state that the massing should be compatible with the existing neighboring buildings. While a four-stall garage is considered larger than typical for residential housing, directly behind the property is a large commercial auto repair garage and there are larger garages further down the alley to the east. The massing ofthe new garage will fit within the contest of neighboring buildings. 4. Rhythm and Directional Emphasis. The rhythm of the houses along the street-face will not be disrupted by the new addition. The garage will be visible from Dale Street and there is still an appropriate separation (rhythm) between the house and the new garage. The setback of the gazage from the alley at 8 feet is slightly more than typical, however, the setbacks on this alley are varied and there will not be a negative impact. ' 5. Materials and Details. The lap siding proposed is mare appropriate than the stucco application on the house which was added at a later point in time, The proposed 6 inch lap, however, is wider than traditionally used. The detailing shawn on the plans meets the general intent of detailing secondary structures, however, some elements like a frieze, water table and wide window and door trim need to be clazified. 6. Building Elements. The pitch of the gazage roof of 5:12 is consistent with the main house roof, 0 D Agenda Item IV.A. File # 08-014 however, the guidelines state that highly visible secondary structure roofs should match the roof � pitch of tke main structure, and generally should have a rise-ta-run ratio of at least 9:12. The gazage is bighiy visible but also matches the pitch of the main house. ____ Because of the building's visibility, the owner has proposed four dormers at the roof to likely break-up the horizontal roof pIane. The main house does not have any dormers and typicaIly secondary structures shoutd be well detailed but should kave a simple design. The proposed windows have a vartical orientafion with a 2:1 ratio of height to width which complies with the guidelines. ,Site. The gazage is accessible from the rear and doors do not face the street which compiies with the guidelines. The gaidelines also staxe, parking spaces should not be Iocaled in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be located in rear yards. flll parking spaces should be adequately screenedfrom the street and sidewalk by landscaping. The proposal does not compiy with this requirement because screening was not included nor the indication of the removal of the parkitig in the front yards. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the fmdings above, staff recommends approval of the proposal provided the following conditions are met: 1. Finai maferials and finishes aze to 6e reviewed and approved by staff. The cement lap siding will have a smooth texture and be 4 to 5 inches wide instead of the proposed 6 inches. The composite trim shall also have a smooth texture and be painted. Wide trim be at the corners � and around windows and doors. Final trim detailing shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 2. Instead ofthe four proposed dormers, the roofplanes will be simplified by having one central dormer at the alley elevation that is appropriate for the hipped roof shape. Plans shall be submitted to staff for final review and approval. 3. A fence shall be installed azound two sides of the off-street pazking spaces and shall be approved by staff. 4. The driveways and curb-cuts from Holly and in the front yard wiil be removed wifhin 30 days from the fina! inspection date approving the gazage. 4. Any revisions to the approved plans must be submitted to the HPC and/or staff for review. 5. The HPC stamped approved plans must be kept on site during the construcfion project. � CITY OF ST PAUL GENERAL BUILDING PERNfIT APPLICATION Department of Safety and Inspections Q$ �� 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 290 -� Visit our Web Site at www.sfiaul.govldsi St Paul, Minnesota 5510'I-'IQ24 �, - . Stttet \ame St .Ace. Blcd Em, \ 5 E �U Suite; Apt $uildina Name Date > a iG� a (Inclu zContactPerson) (Permit��illbemailedtotheCantracrorsAddress) Phone � Address � � ) City `'� �� .!� t/-' /� � }/� Srate. Zi +$ �t�'v ✓ l � (SncludeConcaccPerson) Address C / n / ' Phon� CS/J . City �f � Y` Ki /1;:RQ � 4YY�� _�.1. _ i , �f� r rl�i^-� . `;�' 1 S�a�e, Zy +4 Select the Type of Work Below. # of Exisring Dwelling Units ► Select the Twe of IIse. ► New Stntcture Addi6on For Miaed CommeiciaU � ResidenUal Final # of Dwelling Units > ❑ ❑ Residential buildings # of Dwelling Units Worked On ► _ _ enter informafion for both the Residenrial and tha $ /� C � C' Commercial Use. Cammercia! Esfimated Va1ue of Commercial Work 6> �/ �� RemodeUAlter Repair �� ..- Estimated Start Date ► ❑ ❑ Estimated Total Value of Project ► � Estimated Finish Date ► Description af Project: �j�CEJ Width Length ... i Lot Width Existing Primary Use Proposed Primary Use For Office Use ofUse? Yes / No Occupancy Group Construction Type PLAN REVIEW REMARKS .eLC. #: tBtC V31U`dt1011 : $ y; � � -� � PLEASE COMPLBT& THIS SECTION ONLYFD� Structure Dionensions (In Feet) Heaght Total Square Feet Basement (include basement) "—� Yes No Set Backs fron Front Back Reviewed By: � Date: ertifies that ffi1 inforsation is correct and that all pertinen4 sCa[e regulations and ices will be comptied with in perfomvng the work forwhich this permit is issued. Is a Fire Suppression System Available? # of Stories �i.e. - Sprinklers) Yes ❑ No ❑ 5ide 1 Warning Folder # Vacant B1dg. Folder # ❑ American Egpress ❑ Dascover ❑ MasterCard [7 Visa iter Account imber ► ► Side 2 SUMMARY OF FEES Building Permit Fee $ Plan Check Fee � State Surchazge $ SAC $ Park Dedication Fee Total Permit Fee H �� `� $ Jse Only) � � �� t �� d ► DEPARTyENTOFSAFETYANDI\SPECTIONS Bob Kessleq Direc[or CI� �F' S'I�INT Pf��. - CO�LIMERCEBUILDING Telepfione: 6SI-?66-9090 ChristopherB.Coleman,Mayor SFaunhStreetEast,Suite200 Facsimile: 6i1-266-9129 St Pav{ Minnesota JSIO!-f 024 IV2S: lSM1NY.SIpQllI.gOA�ASI Building Permit Affidavit for the Owner of Residential Real Estate' I, the undersigned, certify that I own the residential reai estate for which I am applying for a buildang permit, located at_ Location} I understand that the State of Minnesota requires all residential building contractors, remodelers and roofers to obtain a state license for work performed on residential real estate (as defined by Minnesota Statute 326.$3, subd.l7) wzless they qualify for a specific exemption from licensing requirements. I hereby claim to be exempt from state licensing requirements because I am not bailding or impmving this property for purposes of resale. I aclmowIedge that I may be hiring independent contractors Yo perform certain aspects of the construction or improvement of this p�+aperty and I understand that some of these conhactors may require a ticense. I understand that unlicensed residential contracting, remodeling, andlor roofmg activity is a misdemeanor under Minnesota Statute 326.92, subd.l, and that I would forfeit my right to reimbursement from the Contractors' Recovery Fund in the event that any contzactor I hire is unlicensed. I also acIrnowledge thaY as the contractor for this project, I am personally responsible for any violation of the state building code or other applicable law or ordinance resulting from work performed an this properry. J i� U-� tKd i/ rvLL � (Print Name) ` �1 (SignamreofPrope wner) ��_/o c�� (Date) To determine if a contractor is required to be license@, or to vezify the licensing statvs of an individual contractor, please contact the following: for buiIding contractor ................... MN Commerce Dept., Enforcement Div., (651) 284-5065 for elech contractor ................. MN State Board o£EIectricity, (651) 284-5064 for plumbing contractor ...............City of St. Paul, Dept. of Safety and Inspections, (651} 266-9090 for mechanical cantractor ........... City of St. Paul, Dept. of Safety and Inspections, (651} 266-9090 ''Residential real estate" means a new or existing buildiag constructed for habitation by one to four families, and includes detacfied gacages. (Minnesoha Statute 326.83, subd.l7} AA-ABA-EEO Empioyer • • _ � Saint Paut Heritage Preservation Commission Departme»t ofSafery and Inspecrrons • h 8 East Faurth Sireet, Se{ire 200 o Saint Pazr1, MIV SSIOI-102� �� Phone: (6�I)266-9078 HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION 1�8�95 This application must be completed in addition to the appropriate ciry permit application if the affected property is an individually designated landmark or located within an historic district. For applications that must be reviewed by the Heritage Pteservation Commission refer to the HPC Meeting schedule for meeting dates and deadlines. 1. CATEGORY Please check the category that best describes the proposed work � RepairlRehabilitation ❑ Sign/Awning 'e3Crew ConstructionlAddition! ❑ Moving ❑ Fence(Retaining Wall Alteration .�emolition ❑ Other ❑ Pre-Application Review Only 2. PROJECT ADDRESS . Street and number: 3. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of contact person: Company: Zip Code: �y� �_1 f` � Street and number: �i ��,� �! � City: a� �_ d� State: _�} Zip Code: .S�/G? Phone number: (.� -.��j�-rJl�. = �� S"� e-maiL• �r �� i2O�, , � �� dr� : f��'( 4. PROPERTY OWNER(S) INTORMATYON (If different from applicant) Name: Street and number: , City: Phone number. t State: e-mail: Zip Code: �2 5. PROJECT ARCEiITECT (If appticable) Contact person: Company: Street and number: Ciry: State: Phone number: (__� e-maii: G. P$OJECT DESCRIPTION Zip Code: Completely describe AI.L ea�terior changes being proposed for the property. Include changes to architectnrul detaz►s such as windows, doors, siding, railings, steps, trem, roof, foundation or porches. Attach spec�cations for doors, windows, ligfiting and ot$er features, if appticable, inctuding wlor and materiat samples. � c� ftS! � `e'P.e� � ( t` ` f� � �u' �� .�-- ,4nad: addirional sheets if necessary 7. ATTACH2I�NTS Refer to the Design Review Process sheet for required informafion or attachments, **INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL BE RETURNED** ARE THE NECESSARY ATTACHNIEIV,TS AND IRTF+ORMATION INCLUDED? �Y=3 Wili any federal money be used in this project? Are you applying for the znvestment Tas Credits? YES NO s� �, YES NO 2 � U � /� � l5 D� �9�' • � , I, the undersigned, understand that the Desi� Review Application is limited to the aforementioned work to the affected properry. I fiuther understand that any additional exterior work to be done under my o��mership must be submitted by applicarion to the St. Pau] Herita�e Preservation Commission. Any unauthorized work will be requged to be removed. % �'� ,.�- ' r,� - �' Signature of applicant: '�fr��.=� -' �� C` - .�:,t'�. Date: - - " i� i i �' , \ . Signature of oEVner: �...�_ � � _;� � � �:- .�=� Date: ` -- � Date received: � O " ( '��J ' �� District: � � u- /Individual Site: ContributingJNon-contributingfPivotaUSupportivel: Type of work: Minor oderate/Maj r FILE NO. � °O� Requires staff revi�w 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 has been determined tLat the work to be performed pursuant to the application does not adversely affectthe program For preservation and architectural control of the heritage preservation district or site (Ch93A6). HPC staff approval Date � Reqnires Commission review Submi� d: t� 3 Sets of Plans ❑ 1 Set of Plans reduced to 8%z" r by 1 I" or I 1" by 17" �'i`j Photographs ❑ City Permit Applicarion a' Complete HPC Design Review � applicaYion Hearing Date set for: �� • �' � City Permit # _ - � Home / Visua! Reso�rces Database / Search Results / Image Return to Search Results � View Details � Ordering & Permis.sion • �� Dafe Street, near Holly, St. Paui. Photographer: Mike Phillippi Photograph Collection 12/31/1931 Location no. MR2.9 SP2.2 p371 Return to Search Results � View Details � Ordering & Permission storip! Soaery - 345 W. Kello9g Bivd., St. Paul, MN 55102-1403 - 651.296.6126 ZOOZ Send questlons or comments to 2(ergnce@mn,3_org. Vtew our PrLvac��nl��. . }5 http_//coIIections.mnhs.org/visualresourceslimage.cfm?imageid=61549&Page=1 &Keywords=holl... 2/I4/2007 MHS Visual Resource Database Image Page 1 of 1 � � � ��a ��<.:� �-.. �� ` � -._.-.:. 6. � 1 Y + � t � � �-n,.�..Y ��.'-, '_'°_,..,� . +s � �.ie -c �>,�—+r�^,��- = �<: � � _ I 4� � �. .� � 5'e�`E'«+;eS.�� f _ , FG' i � T: � o '� � �-n,K L� yh 5 .y '` Y '� `�` '�' �' �^� , � - .. � ��^�.. � v "^LG p . 2� �C �.. � ..� . ._ < , . m . . � . � � � ,. -, � _ - , i, � ' �� . . .. - . ."s,z � ._ � _. i �� - � �i�fi .t. � /" , � F ! � �� : 1 J J' �� G q ��gi �a�+ s -'- � � C , � � , � Zi � , �;C4r� : �_ � �--=� -- - %;; � � :�( 3'-4«: � , '- 20._�.. � 44._�e �� F � � I i � EAST Slpr vFRO._P{aAGF SEZSCK: 3' _qi:: . �'� T... �'.'._ . �:'-: . .. - , :�ti.'.: _ , . _�.- -=-.: _ _ _ _ � ° > -- = �. . _ �__'; , � � a :� Proposed.= ,� - : � � � } Parking .` �A+ ,, = I * � J . = "' � � CaNCREiE DRIV€ � `�. F'' ,�� .. . '..-1� —° i I � . . . _ . '�. - -- - o m i. . ,� ^{51;',i:.`�,= �, ' '- �' :- f, - 0 4 t�,; °�s I— -- v-�=�_==�_ Q — � — ,: -'a<'s � N � — — — —' — — � —�t� f y "' � ��r�i�� ------ '€ ; (� `� � t � �°° �'ry , , �: a_�r � �� ` � ( I`� � " � ¢ � - I1� �CI I g . `. � , �3 ..� t I ��C ri c» °; ., �;q� ��; � �� w Gar e c� _ �.� ��.�„ z�� S] i �k . ' I ��_ � � � � (f � � �" �� EX7G. CONCftEiE WAIK a � � = y m ��;�; n< l� ti< = � =_ � ;z; ' o , , ti � �� \ �S.i �� .� . � a r� ¢ , � � .� K g� t.. � � t � � t �� W � o { . O T `�" � � �T �' �_ �;� ,v� J�. � +, Ar � '� � O �� ` f � i 1 F Z � �� _.. �.?Y.it � �a �� ' . . I '�! o: i�, 4 � N I � ! o o � _i � Y � N � W t° � � €� � f � �� -�,; �'�`.�a': 3 ..`�_. .v'.K+. a+._:4R EXTG CONCfiEtE DRIbE 2 EXtSl7ng — �__ W__g — i �_� — _ — _ — _ a.�� ...� i; � k' / \ �� £ i4 / \ ,� -�m..��->�^# � / \ 4� ` ' � � � � ; `` Exrc. rnee J � \ \ / S �`.•- � � �'v. "t .. .,_ �_ �_ i '�:�`=-�.:.d. ��;r _ : - "- �=. �_ � , e . i�` - i' ��.� � � >== IXTG CURS CUT � O EX7G REE �_�� EAST PROPERT llkE= 142.83' � .� � � � � EXIS�I 9 New Porch � � parki `^ S� � EXTG. CONCRE t DRIVE — — o _��_._u_I ° ---;---- _ � ( ------ --- I � � —' �EAST S � YARD, BUllD1hG SETBAC � 6'-0"_ _ _ ` _ _ j il � � ,► , - o � � u i ' N n i Y) r�i i z II 1 Existing m � t! � �� Apartment z� � ► I w �_ � s � II � �� _II � a� r — � � ' � ---- � ol j � � 1 — — — — RONT YAR . ' . - — — � � — — — — � Existing 5 Parkin � I ExTG. BITUMINUOUS DRI'dE � _ _ � � 4'-0" HIGN, DECORA7IVE/ PICKE( FENCE I _ __ RESt PRQ?E2iY IINE= 14 _ � —� \ PU3LIC S!DE1YAlK � �' � EXTG. Rr,�E �--- �� 0 � � Porch & Raif o Exrc. V 85C w� N � � � �� ' _ � � � _� � 32'-2 1/2 � � � � �g-�� • I �. _:, : �;--: _ \ . _ ,- ` j . a� ¢` uQ � I �� d ' i . . � M� N I � � � �i _ _ ,,-;, -.-. ; -- _...; f �_ � � !' j — ssr s��r r.sao. c ��aeF sez�cK: 3' _o��- „ 4: - . ;'. , : i �.... , = "';. .. ; ; � : i�: : �;'� - `:� — — _ _ •-,'-_ =.'i. •.{-.- `� _.,. _ ,�' ` �, �, � ; Pro osed�; � � - - _ =z_� � - - = i Par m _ _ = ��-� � � � ' CONCRESEDRIV€--= .�r "�. �:...�.t � ; . ::� I 1:_i . , ; r:� ��l�j �Y�ef-`�• o ! 4 '� , ��, _� ��r, E: a = — — «= `. :, i N r __ �_ __ \ ��.,--', f i3j '.''-��_: � . - ;. � `---�, . - ` I � ' �; ;.�: (4 '; ,'"^.�' `�:�_ � y s , �.?�'} � i \;� i ;ti? l o ; c' �, � ; (� . '; :'i I`� � °' 4�, g �- ,�; �� x��; t" Ex� � _�: !. �3�:;�a=: �;��;; .��? NtM Q TS.:x u.�K: ,� Gar e c,` s:=:s-v:�, � � 3' � ' A'� : � �.�.: Y: p ` m f:i ?F , 1 - I � , \� p I�-'�:S'S�a�i � r �.r� r `�� ' .r ° `,,��. a ¢ � N � � ^ O o ? -' I m I � �° i a v � ^y �� , , � � F �:. ��L ( i1 .. � �: � �� , t - `�� ,.�. � � � r , � , I �� _ i rd. .SW� .J. ': O � r '/ � i Z s � . ..� : k l+r'::ilY`- z . .f, � �-�u3 .. ¢, E1:TG. CONCREiE �R4VE 2 E�cis�ng — �—_�_� — 1 � iG. CURB CUT �_ J , EXTG. CONCREiE WALK =`/: -_� [ — — _ _ — _.-- : As' ?r.. t , _ �. •' � �� \ �� / � `� E � r � � \ �! ( 0 I � ' \ ExTC. m�E I �\ � \ � , �'' � ��'i`... :�.;^�� -_ � � :�� _ ,, - - - -� •(�_>_ ._;��,. ;� ::��".- ��a J � � � EXTG. iR�E N W N � _ 0 � W � � � 0 � _�_� EAST PROPERTY LItiE= 142.83' � ' � ` � EXIS�t g N Porch � Parki «S� -- o � EXTG. CONCRE t D.'.IVE � � � ...{.J I � —� ( —^_-- —�— f � �� EASi SI YARO, BUItAING SETBAC ' 6'-0"_ _� _ ' __ __, I �� ' o I ' — n i m� � i � � � Existing �, � � � }� � Apartment z� � i i �_ � 9 � II i �� _i I i �� _ ' o i 1 �� _ � ' ' � I ___ � RONT YAR . ' � - � � � FxESting 5 parkin I � EXTG. BIN4{;NUOUS DRP✓E �------I � 4�-0" HIGN, DECORAII`k/ PICKEi FENCE � _ _� riEST PRO?E4iY LINE= 142 .83' -_. � \ PU3! IC SDEKA! K - � � � EXTG lR� EL. 86C Parch & Rai! o Exlc. U wr N s—f � � EXiG. STOPdE RETAINING �- � �� 1 \ ?.'� �; � 30UTH ELEVA7tON 1/8" = 1'-0" TOP OF TR 21 �� '- _ �z �� •' • ��' , � , ,iY BASE QF DORME� 13'-0" Tt2USS BEARRING 10'-0" FLOOR _ _ PLAN/LAYOUT � - _ -o. = a „ TOP OF QOf2ME� 18'-10" �� ` l �� Tl1P C1F TRI ISS _ 12 5� • • - - ! • � • - -- �� i ,2 5� T04' OF TF2USS _ � � - - � - �:a: �--=:- :--� � -._,� =.--=_-.: : r -;, =e�� w _ � _ .._-----__ 21'-0" -_- --_-=-_=��_._.--•-.--==z.-___ - -- TO - - =�_ - ._ =-- =- - 18' 10�� ____ __ _ �_' _--_ _ _ — � _- = =_ .� -_ _ _ - _ _ _ � _ _ ,� - BAS OF D ORME - R � - - _ - - - _ __ = - - - ! ---� 13 - 0 � \ ---_ ---__-�_=- - ---=- -- -- -- ° _ - -z-=- - ----=-------- _=== ---_- � - __ - - --- -�_:-_ _- ---- --__- - - - - - -:..� ,.� -_ ---- - - _= - ----- --- � - -- -- -- -- -�_- � .. - -- -- -- --- - - --- -- - - __- , �P:_ _ ____ __"__ ___._ ._ ..._ .__.... . .�_______ ._ �. _ . _ . _ ._ . . _ _ . _ ... . .. . • +� ( _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ . . . • _ T42USS BEARR G ��. � 10' - Q" ' - �+ � � � � � . �`- v``P 4.... i __'___'__"__ _'_"' _ . ------ ------- - FLOOR PLAN/L AYOUT -0, _ $„- _ _ NORTH ELEVATIOIV 2 118" = 1'-0" --`--- � ` : ,;- . , � �� • . � , _. ... . _ ,_ . . "II �, II I _ . � �� 3 a�� _� TOP OF 7Rl1SS _ 21' - Q — � —B�O $ OM OF FTG_ I I 2 �� --,��;- �� i ; :;- � :- � - ��` r ��' .�' �, �;�� .:,;� � � �� - - TO OF DORMER TOP OF TRUSS 18'-10" 21'-0" �, - � =— �==-- BASE OF DORMER =-- = _ -- 13' - 0�� --_— _- .,�: — -- " TR B EARRING J— � 10' - �" � � � r� �� . _..._. � �� FLOOR PLAN /LAYOUT •� t `,' ,y�, .� � t t�, �' :°\'� l 0' �— � ._ �g ; �, , ._ .�., —BOTTOM OF FTG_ -0' - 8 �� 2 I � - TO!' OF DORMER 18' - 10" BAS OF DORMER 13'-0" TRUSS BEARRfNG 10'-0" ��- ' � ss t : �� WEST ELEVATlON EAST ELEVATIO{V 2 1/8" = 1'-�" � 1/8" = 1'-0" i _ -. �_ [� 2"x4" ROOF TRUSS 24" O.C. � �o m a y� ! - -f�CONC. SIAB ON GRADE BOTTOM OF FTG_ °� -0' - 8" — — — � 1'-4" 75# FELT 30YR. ASPHALT SHINGLE BASE OF DORMER ICE & WATER 13 � - �� \�f TRUSS BEA�2RI4V� -� 10'-0" 6" lAP SID{NG CEMENT BOARD �i�s° ose HOUSEWRAP 2" x 4" STUD 16" O.C. � 1" x 8" COMPOSITE FASCtA � 8" x 12" ROUGH FACE CONC. BLK. 2C. a FLOOR �, , - . PLAN/LAYOUT ° � " �, _ �„ .r ��orve. .,�iE. — � WALU FOUNDATION U 1/4" = 1'-0" ' � BOTTOM OF FTG. � � � _ _ g �� — — — n GAI2AGE DOOR SECTION U 1/4" = 9'-0�� 2� �: BAS_E �F DORMER 13 0' �- _ _ TRU� �RRiN G � 10 0"� � 8' SECTIONAL DOOR 150W EXT. LIGHT 6" CEDAR DOOR TRIM +cr � �1i'}1 � FLOOR PIAN/LAY�OU�T — — � — " ` ` TOP OF TRUSS � � p�� _ — — — — — — — — � s' - s s/a^ � - � � TOP OF DO RMER • � � — — 18' - 1 Q" —� . �BOTTOM OF FTG. �_$„ � DORMER 1 /4" = 1'-0" a � � - � i N �, N � � 1 a - 8" SOFFIT & FASCIA - 24" DIA. HALF ROUND WINDOW BASE OF DORMER 13'-0" TRUSS BEARRING 10' - 0" 0'-0" �� L� DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY A13D INSPECTION Bob Kessler, Director s.�,„� PAL1 � AAAA • • CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher 8. Coleman, 1layor November 9, 2007 Dave Roering 90 Dale Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 CO.KtlERCEBG`ILDI.\'G Telephone: 6�1-266-9090 8 Fourth Street £ast, S¢�ite 200 Facsimrle: 6J1-266-91?1 SIPa¢d,.tfinneso1a55101-/02J Iteb: �nnrstpauL�ov�dsi Re: 615-617 Holly Avenue, Hill Historic District November 15, 2007 - HPC Permit Review, Agenda Item IV.A. HPC File #08-014 Dear Mr. Roering: Enclosed is the agenda for the upcoming Heritage Preservation Commission meeting at which your permit appiication for work in one of Saint Paul's historic districts or sites will be considered. Also enclosed is a copy of the staff report that will be presented during the meeting. Either you or your representative must plan to attend the meeting to discuss your project and/or answer any questions commission members may have. Absence of such representation may impede approval of the application. Please note there is an Elmo video machine available in the meeting room which will project any type of image — photographs, drawings, slides, etc. — onto screens azound the room, if you should wish to use it. Please call staff ahead of time if you would like a laptop connection for presentations. Please contact staff at 651.266.9078 with any questions you may have. Sincerely, WV�I�1n9 �vvv Christine Barr Historic Preservation Planner Encl. cc: File V AA-ADA-EEO Employer 7'3 OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTfON Bob Kessfer, Direcmr CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Christopher B. Colenean, ,L�ayar CO:Lf.NERCEBUlLD1.1G Zetephone: 6�1-266-9090 8 Four�h Sbeet Eas; Suite Z00 Facsimile: 6i7-266-9124 StPaul,Minnesofai5101-1024 Web: u�u�v.[iep.vs �J February 27, 2007 �° �l� e.r c�2 u 5! Or �-e#�e.r .�, ac.c.or.�� c6 -� Michael J. Eckazdt � � � �� Archos Architecture & Design � p 1039NebraskaAvenueWest � hp�Sx 'f'0 0. t}—�(�i�C. Saint Paul, MN 55117 T►,� n�,,�ne.r c��d v� a � a..Q -Nnis d-ec:� s i u,•, �4•�c� Re: 615-617 HoIty Avenue, Hill Historic District � eg �� ,� S �-�, m a �� a.� February 22, 2007 - HPC Permit Review V Agenda Item — III.B. � t�j W-}- p r� �a✓� �" • Deaz Mr. Eckardt" As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) considered at its February 22, 2007 meeting your application to alter the front and rear entrances and porches, add a side porch and entry, and alter window openings at the property listed above. The HPC voted 7 to 0 to approve your application. This decision was based on the discussion at the public hearing, public testimony and findings by the HPC staff. The app2ication will be appmved provided the following condition(s) be met: 1. The roof pitches on the front and side porches be lowered from 5/12 to 4/12. 2. The applicant shall work with staff to finalize the guardrail and handrail designs. 3. The four, two-over-one, double-hung windows proposed on the west elevation be changed to a 2:1 or 3:1 (height to width) proportion to be consistent with the existing tall double-hung windows on the building. 4. The fence shall be removed from the proposal. 5. Any stucco repairs and patching shall match the existing stucco in composition, texture and color as close as possible, 6. Tfie applicant/owner work with staff to create a proposai for reIocating aII pazking to the reaz yazd. 7. A plan for screening the pazking be submitted to staff for review and approval. 8. The owner contact nublic works to have th curb-cut on Dale Street removed. or revisions to the approved plans must be submitted to the HPC and/or stafFfor review. I0. The HPC stamped approved construcrion level plans remain on site for the durarion of the project. You or any aggrieved pariy has the right to appeal the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to the Saint Paul City Council under Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislafive Code. Such an appeal must be filed within 14 days of the date of the HPC's order and decision. Chapter 73 states: • C� AA-ADA-EEO Employer �°� bg�� • Q2) .4ppeal to city counciL The permit applicant or mry parry ago •iered by the decision of rhe heritage presenation conamission shal7, witFzir: fow•tee�r (1�) days of t72e date of tlae her•itage preseJValiot: connnission's order atrd decision, hm�e a right to appeal such order m:d decision to the ciry com�cil. 7?�e appeal sJ�all be deer�zed peafected upon receipt by tlae division of pZmniing [LIEP] of hvo (2) copies of a raotice oJappeal a�zd statemerat setting forth the grounnds for the appeal. 7Tie division of plczru�ing [LIEP] sha11 transnrit or�e copy oj the notice of appeal at�d statement to the city cour�cil and one copy to d�e heritage preservation cammissian. The con:rnission, in a:ry written order denying a permit application, shall advise the applicant of the right to appea[ to the city council ar:d include this paragrapli in atl sach orders. Please note, an HPC approval or condirional approval does not obviate the need for meeting applicable building and zoning code reqnirements, nor is it a permit to allow for work to commence, If revisions to the approved plans aze made, be aware lhat addiTiona] HPC and/or staff review will be required. Please feel free to call me at 651-266-9067 if you have any questions. Our records indicated that a building permit application has not been submitted. This proposal will be on hold untii the buiiding permit application is submitted and the above conditions have been met. Sincerely, . �/"VV"9�/J tdGl/1^� Christine Bazz Planner, Historic Preservation cc: Greg Johnson, building inspector John Hazdwick, LIEP David Roering, owner File V C� ��j MIlV[.JTES OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATfON CONIMISSION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � Lower Level — Room 40, City Hall/Court House, 15 West_Kellogg Boulevard November 15, 2007 Present: Caroi Cazey, Richard Faricy, Pat Tgo, Carole Kralicek, Paul Larson, 7ohn Mamiing, Lee Meyer, Mark Shephexd Thomas, Diane Trout-Oertel, Shari Taylor Wilsey Ahsent: Susan Bartlett Foote (excused), April Haas {excused) Staff Present: Christine Barr, Amy Spong CALL TO ORDER: 5:07 PM by John Mauning (Acting Chaar) 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENAA: Approved (Wilsey/Igo) 2. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: No conf7icts of interest were noted. f��ll�l�'.�f I� L�iL��7 bl Yli7�A A. 350 Maple Street, Aayton's Bluff Historic District, by owner, Aaron Bates, for a building permit to construct a second story addition and deck. Work commenced without a building permit or HPC review. File #08-013 Staff read the report recommending denial. Aazon Bates, owner/applicant, was present to answer questions. There was discussion abont the windows that had been purchased and installed without a • permit. Larson stated there was not enough infortnafion about the windows to apply the guidelines as specs were not submitted to review and staff was not aware that the windows had been instalIed. Bates explained the addition started after he began a kitchen remodel and decided to construct an addition instead of replacing the roof. There was discussion about the drawings, the time for construction and the size and location of the deck. The height of the addition and the sidewalls was discussed. The public hearing was closed. Wilsey made a motion to deny the applicafion based on staff recommendafions. Igo seconded the moHon. There was discussion about the vinyl windows and the height of the addition. Staff explained this was more of an enforcement issue than approval and the commission needs to make recommendation on how to move forwazd. Lazson made a friendly amendment to have staff review the vinyl windows for profile and compliance. Wilsey stated the roofline on the addition should be dropped and the deck azound the side elevarion should be removed. Thomas stated that reaz addifions were traditionally built smaller than the front and Larson agreed. Bates interj ected that he wished to comply immediately. A neighbor stood up an announced the paved area on the side of the house was a driveway, not an alley. The applicafion was denied 9-0. 4. PERMIT REVIEW/PUBLIC HEARING: A. 615-617 Holly Avenue, Hill Historic District, by owner, Dave Roering, for a building permit to demolish existing garage and construct a four-stall gazage. File #OS-014. StafF read the report recommending conditional approval. Mamiing inquired about the dormer windows in the plans. Trout-Oertel asked about redesigning the dormer with a hipped roof. Dave Roering, owner/applicant, was present to answer questions. He stated he agreed with the staff • recommendations except for the removal of the curb-cuts and driveways because one he would give them up, it would be too difficult to get them back. There was discussion about the curb-cuts and �Z �1�� parking. Roering stated the HPC decision would not have any legal weight and stated he would • consider removing the Dale Street curb-cut but "legally" he would not have to. Meyer had questions about lot coverage. Arthur Thesenvitz of S03 HoIly sent a letter of support for the garage proposal. The pubiic hearing was closed. Meyer motioned to approve the applicatioa witk staff recommendafions. Diane Trout-Oertel seconded fhe motion. The motion passed 7-1(Wilsey). B. 178 Maple Sfreet, Dayfon's Bluff Historic District, by oumer, Lance Scott, for a building permit to replace windows and window trim. File #OS-015. Staff read the report recommending partial approval. Larsan had questions about the number of windows proposed. Lance Scott, owner/applicant, stated all ofthe windows on the second floor and a pair of double-hung on the frst floor for maintenance and energy efficiency. Currently the windows have wood trim a decorative drip-edge. The applicant stated he would keep the mullion. Wilsey discussed how Marvin could replicate the windows. Scott indicated he plans to instail the windows himseif. Wiisey discussed replicating the moulding at the drip-edge. The public hearing was closed. Wilsey motzoned approval of the first staff recommendation adding the foilowing conditions: i. The horizontal munfin across the storm window shall have both an interior and exferior profiles and shaR line up with the meeting rail of tLe windows. 2. The total replacement of the proposed windows, headers, sills and casingltrim with aluminum-ctad wood shall match what is existing in size, pro6le and detail. Meyer seconded the motion. The motion passed 8-0. C. 55 Victoria Street Nort@, Hill Aistoric Disfrict, by Ross Wiltits, Steppingstone Theatre, � for a sign permit to install banners between the front columns. File #08-016 Staffread the report recommending denial of the application and exploration of other options forthe banners. There were questions about attachment, location of poles, other examples of signage and the permanency of the proposed banners. Ross Willits, managing director of Steppingstone Theatre discussed the history of the building and color proposals that were not approved. He added information about discussing banners with Joe Spencer and staff at a meeting and believed staff was comfortable with the banners praposed on the front elevation and was surprised by the staff recommendation. Kralicek stated concern for obscuring the stained glass windows. Wiilits noted the mock-up photos were not to scale and didn't show perspective. He added the size could be adjusted for visi6ility. Larson asked if the applicant were amenabie to alteration of the size so it wouldn't fill the entire space between the columns. Willits replied he was fine with that suggestion and that the less space filled the less wind-ware. Meyer added the proportion of the banners should match the geometry of the building. Igo suggested relocating the banners to the base or the ends of the stair walls. Willits stated the content of the banners would be changed ever three to fozar years as they became weathered. Kralicek suggested looking at banners on poles. Angie Stehr,1656 Burns Avenue, stated support of tYte proposal. The public @earing was ciosed. Meyer motioned to conditionally approve the banners striking f►nding number 4 and altering findings 3 and 5. Wilsey seconded the motion. Thomas stated concern for obscuring the windows. Meyer stated tt�e banners will not detract from the facade. Wilsey agreed with Meyer. Kralicek and Igo disagreed. Carey noted it is for a contemporaiy new use. Trout-Oertel added it is rev�rsible. Larson stated his issue with the size of the banners and the visuai integrity since the solid to void proportions would be disturbed. He added the banners should be nairower. Meyer added that fhe top of the banners • should be below the capitals on the column. Igo stated he agrees with Larson. Igo offered a friendly amendment thaY the size of the banners be approved by staff. Meyer accepted and added that the banners hang in the center of the columns. The motion passed 6-1 {Kralicek). 2 - - A 157 Kent Street, Hill FIistoric District,-bg Tom Baker; Temo Sunrooms and Eateriors, • for a building pernut to construct a su�oom. File #08-f{17 Staff read the report recommending condifional approval. Bob Maietta of Temo Sunrooms and Exteriors was present to answer quesrions. He stated he agreed with the staff recommendarions and the homeowner did not have any issues with setting the sunroam back from the comer of building. The public hearing was closed. Igo motioned to approve the application with staff recommendations. Wilsey seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. 5, ANNOIINCEMENTS: A. 2008 HPC Meeting Schedule was distributed and is available on the website. B. Staff is looking into commissioner reappointments and wi11 inform of term expirations. C. Centrai Corridor Station Area Planning— Rovndtabie and Workshop Sessions. The workshops are by invited and staff must be notified if commissioners pian to attend. Faricy has already attended one meeting on the Raymond Station Area and I,arson will be attending the Snelling Avenue Workshop. b. ADJOURNtVIENT: 7:15 P.M. Submiited by: Christine Barr . � 3 � Page 1 of 1 �'�'�� . Amy Spong - 615-617 Holly � s From; "ARTHUR THESENVI"iZ" To: Date: SI/8/2007 4:26 PM Subject: 615-617 Holly RE: The proposa! to build a four - stall garaqe at 615-617 Ho(ly Ave. We strongly endorse the pians of Dave Roering to demolish the existing garage and build a new four-stail garage. His work on the house has progressed beyond our expectations and we are sure the garage wiil only add to the property. Arthur Thesenvitz @ Linda Lewis, 603 Hoily Ave. file://C:1Documents and SettingsiSpongamy\Loca1 SettingsiTemp�XPgrpwise\473338D2... 11/15/2007 Page 1 of 1 Amy Spong - 615-617 Aolly Avenue .,r.��...�:_:� ___w ___.. ._-» _:��,:.�_ �> � �..w-3w_�.� _�...�..a.v� __:: J.�� _��>__m�� u��..._.ft� _: From: To: Date: 12/12J2007 9:10 AM Subject: 6I5-617 Holly Avenue DS{ 8 4 Street East Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: 615-617 Holty Avenue On the upcoming ciry council agenda is an appeai to an HPC decision. The issue involves building a four car garage off the afley and removing two parking pads in the front lawn of a duplex rental property . I agree with the decision to require the removal of the pads. No other property on that block has curb cuts to allow parking in the front because there exists an alley in back. Front lawn parking is not needed for a duplex unit with a 4 car garage. Sincerely yours, Charles Goenner —� � � 3� ile://C:1Documents and Settings\Spongamy�I,ocal SettingslTemplXPgrpwise\475FA588... 12/12/2007 AINT- ivy � AARA CITY OF SAINT PAUL Cl�ri,stopl�er B. Colen. an, .ilm�a� November 16, 2007 Dave Roering 90 Dale Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 DEPARTti4ENT OF SAFE'CY A\D [\SPECT[Oh`S Bob Kessler, Dn�ector �� / /" ��l � C0.it1tERCEBCILDl.CG Telephone: 651-?66-9090 BFourthStrzetEast,Siutz?00 Facsi»rile: 651-166-91'f StPaul,.lfirv�esota3.i101-10?4 t�eb: . uyru.stpmrt�ovds: Re: 615-617 Holly Avenue, Hill Historic District November 15, 2007 - HPC Permit Review, Agenda Item IV.A. HPC File #0$-014 � Dear Mr. Roering: As you know, the Heritage Peeservation Commission (HPC) considered at its November 15, 2007 meeting your application for a buiiding permit to demolish Yhe existing garage and construct a four-stali garage at the property listed above. The HPC voeed 7- 1 to conditionaily aAprove your apptication. This decision was based on tha discussion at the public hearing, public testimony and findings by HPC staff. � The appiication wii( be approved provided ehe fol(owing condition(s} are met: I. Final materials and finishes are to be reviewed and approved by staff. The cement lap siding will have a smooth texture and be 4 to 5 inches wide instead of the proposed 6 inches. The composite trim shalt also have a smooth texture and be painted. Wide trim be at the corners � and around windows and doors. Final trim detaiiing shall be reviewed and approved by staff. 2. Instead of the £our proposed dormers, the roof planes will be simpiified by having one centrai dormar at the alley elevation that is appropriate for the hipped roof shape. Plans shall be submitted to staff for final review and approval. 3. A fence shall be installed around two sides of the off-sYreet parking spaces and shall be approved by staff. 4. The clriveways and curb-cuts from Hol1y and in the front yard wili be removed within 30 days from the final inspection date approving the garage. 5. Any revisions to the approved plans must be submitted to the HPC and/or staff for review. 6. The HPC stamped approved plans must be kept on site during the construction project. You or any aggrieved party has the righf to appeal the Herieage Preservation Commission's decision to the Saint Paul Gity Couneil under Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legisl�tive Code. Such an appea( must be filed within 14 days of the date of the HPC's order and decisian. Chapter 73 states: (h) Appeal to city coztncil. The perinit applicant or ttnyparty aggrieved by the decision af dhe heritage preservation cot�anzission shadl, rnizhin fouYteen (14) days of the date of the heritage preserva£ion conzmission's order and decision, have a right to c+ppeal such order and decision to the ciry coamcil. The appeal shall be deen:ed peifected upon receipt by the division ofptanning [LTEP] of t�vo (2) copies of a notice of appeal arid siatetrreNt setting fort7x the grozands for the appeal. The division of plaraning [LIEPJ shall transnzit otze copy of dhe taotice of appeal and staten2ent to the city councad and one copy to the heritage preservatio�z eol�ar�zission. The comnzissimz, in any written order derrying a permdt appliecrtio�l, shall actvise ihe applicant of the right to appeal to the city council and include ihis paragraph in atl such orders. AA-ADA-EEO Employer Please nofe, an HPC approval or-conditional approval does not obviate the nzed for meetin� i applicahie buildin; ai�d zoning code requirements, nor is it a permit to aRoFV for FF'ork to camcnence. An HPC appro<<al or conditionai approval espires after one }'ear if no permit has bezn issued. I£ revisions to the approved plans are made, be au�are thak additional HPC and�or staff review will be required. Please feel free to contact staff at 651-266-90�8 if you have any questians. The pemiit app(ication and plans witl be on hofd until the a6ove condirions have been met. Sincerely, �vvv`�1r�'�X/✓Yr Christine Barr Historic Preservation Planner cc: Greg Johnsoi�, Building Inspector File✓ . � 2d