Loading...
94-1062 Council File # 9 %2X ORIGINAL Green Sheet # a RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA - _.__ • Presented By t i �./6 -7r ° ��l�t Referred To Committee: Date ■ 1 2 Whereas, Lois Chavez, 721 E. 4th Street, applied for a building permit for 3 placement of vinyl siding on an exiting garage at 721 E. Fourth Street, which application 4 was subject to the review and appr a1 of the Heritage Preservation Commission or 5 Planning staff, as delegated to it by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of the 6 Saint Paul Legislative Code for pro erty legally described as NE1y 1/2 of Lot 10 and all 7 of lot 9, Block 24, Lyman and Dayt n's Addition to the City of Saint Paul; and 8 9 Whereas, The application Ss approved by Planning staff, and pursuant to the 10 provisions of Section 73.06, Tom Dimond, 324 Bates Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. 55106, duly 11 filed an appeal from the approval 4nd requested that a hearing be held before the City 12 Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken; and 13 14 Whereas, Acting pursuant to Section 73.06, and upon notice to affected parties a 15 public hearing was duly conducted 1:)y the City Council on July 13, 1994, where all 16 interested parties were given an opportunity ' to be heard; and 17 18 Whereas, The Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered 19 the application, the report of staff, Ithe record, minutes and recommendation of the 20 Heritage Preservation Commission,i does hereby 21 22 Resolve, That the Council Of the City of Saint Paul does hereby affirm the 23 decision of the Planning staff in this matter, based on the following findings of the 24 Council: 25 26 1) The property in quesion, known as the Adolph Naumann House, was 27 constructed about 18 4 as a two story wood frame vernacular Italianate 28 structure, the origina clapboard siding is covered by aluminum siding, and 29 to the side and rear f the lot is a two car 400 square foot garage 30 constructed in 1939. 31 32 2) The proposal is to p t 4 -5" wide vinyl siding on three sides of the garage. 33 Two boarded up wi ow openings and one unboarded window would be 34 covered with siding. One window would remain and would have vinyl trim. 35 The front of the gar ge already has white, wide aluminum siding, which 36 would remain. 37 38 3) The house and gara a are with the Dayton's Bluff Historic Preservation 39 District. The guidel es for the District states that "buildings originally clad 40 in wooden siding sh uld not be re- surfaced with brick, stucco, artificial 41 stone or brick venee$, hardboard, or vinyl or aluminum siding, but that the 42 Commission may co ider an exception for the installation of vinyl siding 43 in the following cas : in non-contributing 9V /49 ORIGINAL 1 in the resurfacing of non contributing buildings constructed after 2 1930, and 3 4 in the resurfacing of existing or the construction of new garages, 5 particularly when the garage is inconspicuously sited. 6 7 if vinyl siding iS used it must be of a width appropriate to the style 8 of the building, and all architectural details including window trim 9 wood cornices, and ornament must remain uncovered. Replacement 10 siding may cover only one layer of existing siding. Window, entry 11 and other trim must be built up so that it projects from the wall to 12 the same extent as the original. 13 14 4) The garage in question is in need of attention. The north and east sides 15 have novelty wood sidling. There is almost no paint left on the north side 16 and only a moderate amount left on the east side. The west wall, which 17 faces appellant's yard, is sided with cement - asbestos shingles from which 18 some paint is peeling. 19 20 5) The garage is not categorized and was not constructed during the periods 21 of significance for the ! district as it was constructed in 1939. 22 23 6) The garage is inconspicuously sited- not easily seen or attracting attention. 24 The garage has very minimal visibility from the west. The rear wall is 25 clearly visible to the neighbors to the north. The north wall faces a large, 26 open side yard that frOnts on East Fifth Street. The front of this side yard 27 is bordered by a hedge of about 4.5 feet in height making the garage 28 invisible from Fifth Street. 29 30 7) Removal or covering of three of the four windows on the garage would not 31 adversely impact the architectural character of the property or of the 32 district. Two of the Windows to be covered are boarded and are located on 33 the rear of the garage, and the third window is on the west wall. The 34 applicant wants to cover the window openings with siding for security 35 reasons. 36 37 8) Eleven of the fifteen historic structures with frontage on East Fourth Street 38 between Bates and Maple have artificial siding (vinyl, aluminum or 39 asbestos). In addition j to these 15 buildings, there are three split level 40 homes on the other side of the street and at the other end of the block, in 41 relation to the subject' property, which were constructed in 1978 and which 42 have painted concrete block foundations and vertical wood siding. 43 44 9) That the decision mace by Planning staff, as delegated to them by the 45 Heritage Preservation Commission, is supported by the evidence and is 46 consistent with the guidelines for the Dayton's Bluff Heritage Preservation 47 District. 48 49 Further Resolved, That the appeal of Tom Dimond be and is 50 hereby denied; and, be it 51 2 97-/- /06 z 1 Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Lois 2 Chavez, Tom Dimond, the Planning Administrator and the Heritage Preservation Commission. Q Yeas Mays Absent Requested by Department of: Bret' Harris i Grimm i Guerin ✓ Megard Re t tman Thune By: Form A•1 oved by 'ity A or --y Adopted by Council: Date\ c� 119 ' Adoption Certified by Council - re •ary B I j , ,A By: lik `, App oved by Ma,or for Submission to �k✓ Cow Approved Ma or : gate , 5 if By: By: st N° 8 DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/COUNCIL DAT! INITIATED NQ 2 8 0 3 City Council Research 7,19/94 GREEN SHEET INITIAL/04,E -- CONTACT PERSON &PHONE ED DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR E CITY COUNCIL Nancy Anderson ANON FOR CITY ATTORNEY ED CITY CLERK MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) ROismo Ei BUDGET DIRECTOR ED FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR. ORS Q MAYOR (OR ASSISTANT) ED TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CUF ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTION REQUESTED: Resolution affirming the decisios of the Heritage Preservation Commission to grant a building permit application, &confirming decision of the City Council to deny ' the appeal of Tom Dimond. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R) P;RSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: PLANNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? _ CIS COMMITTEE YES NO _ STAFF _^ 2 Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? YES NO DISTRICT COURT 3 Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? YES NO C_plain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, What, When, Where, Why) ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: 1 S TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COST /REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) qy -(o6 SAINT PAUL Interdepartmental Memorandum 4 AARA CITY OF SAINT PA L ! OFFICE OF CITY AT ORNEY Suite 400 City Ha 1 Saint Paul, Minne ota 55102 Phone: (612) -266- 710 FAX: (612) -298- 619 DATE: July 14, 1994 TO: Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall FROM: Jerome J. Segal Ott 1 '10 Assistant City *ttor SUBJECT: Appeal of Tom Dimond- 1 E. Fourth Street Council Hearing July 13, 1994 The City Council voted to deny the appeal of Tom Dimond from the decision to approve a building permit application to install vinyl siding on a garage located at 721 E. Fourth Street. This vote was taken at the Coun0i1 hearing held on Wednesday, July 13th, and the City Attorney Was requested to prepare a resolution setting forth that decision. Attached is a draft resolution which upholds the approval of the building permit application and denies the appeal of Tom Dimond. �r'1 ! Research motet JUL1 El S DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ( T - k- J ©G g-- 4 & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT g 2 • rp A T CITY OF SAINT PAUL Division of Planning Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 West Fourth Street Telephone: 612-266-6565 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Facsimile: 612-228-3314 AAAA MEMORANDUM TO: Council President Thune and Members of the City Council FROM: Aaron Rubenstein, PED ,A& RE: Appeal by Tom Dimond of staff decision to allow vinyl siding on garage at 721 E. Fourth St. DATE: 5 July 1994 Mr. Tom Dimond has appealed the d ision of the Heritage Preservation Commission staff to approve vinyl siding for three sides of n existing garage at 721 E. Fourth St. in the Dayton's Bluff Heritage Preservation District. a Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the case at its June 24, 1994 meeting and voted to recommend to the City Council that the appeal be granted, provided that a determinatio is made that the existing siding is in workable and sound condition. The HPC believes that scr ing and painting is the most cost - effective and compatible treatment for the structure Attached are the HPC's resolution as well as the staff report and a rough transcript of the C discussion of the case. The grounds for appeal stated in Mr.1#)imond's letter of appeal are: * The garage is not inconspicuou ly sited; it is visible from Fourth and Fifth streets and from Bates Avenue. * The vinyl sided garage would d tract from his adjacent property. * The district guidelines state th t: architectural details, including window trim, should remain uncovered; new siding ay cover only one layer of existing siding; and window and other trim should be built p to maintain the same profile. The applicant's proposal for vinyl siding does not adher to these guidelines. The issues discussed at the June 24 1: C meeting are summarized below. Some of this information was discussed at the HPC 1 eeting and some of it was collected following the meeting. 1. Condition of e 'stir • wood ski' . The condition of the existing wood siding was not known precisely at the HPC m; eting. The applicant estimated that 25 to 50 percent of the existing siding would have t • be replaced if the existing siding were to be retained. At the HPC's direction, HPC s . ff, along with one HPC commissioner, inspected the siding following the HPC meet' g and determined the siding to be in good condition. Two boards are loose on the w st wall and need to be refastened. Part of one board on the north wall needs to be repl • ced. I i 9 - • CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATIO COMMISSION RESOLUTION FILE NUMBER 2034 DATE 24 June 994 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage P eservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to rev i w building permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or demolition on or , vithin designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and WHEREAS, paragraph 73.06(h) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code states that the permit applicant or any party aggrieved by th decision of the heritage preservation commission shall...have a right to appeal such orde and decision to the city council;" and WHEREAS, HPC staff approved a bu ding permit to allow the installation of vinyl siding on three sides of an existing garage on pr perry located at 721 East Fourth Street in the Dayton's Bluff Heritage Preservation District; a d WHEREAS, that decision has been apealed to the City Council by Mr. Tom Dimond; and WHEREAS, the Dayton's Bluff Herita a Preservation District guidelines for design review include the following: 1. Wood Siding and Shingles, 1. epair: "Wooden siding should be maintained with paint or stain. Deteriorated wooden siding should be replaced with new material resembling the original in width, thickness nd profile, and texture." 2. Wood Siding and Shingles, 2. inyl and Aluminum Siding; other Manufactured Products: "Buildings originally clad in wo den siding should not be re- surfaced with brick, stucco, artificial stone or brick veneer, hardboard, or vinyl or aluminum siding. The Commission may consider the ollowing exceptions to the installation of vinyl, metal, or hardboard siding on a case -by- se basis:... B. In the resurfacing of no - contributing buildings constructed after 1930. C. In the resurfacing of e . ting or the construction of new garages, particularly when the garage is inco spicuously sited. If vinyl, metal, or hard. • and siding is used as described in A -C, it must be of a width appropriate to th • style of the building, and all architectural details including window trim, ood cornices, and ornament must remain uncovered. Replacement siding ma cover only one layer of existing siding. Window, entry and other trim must be '•uilt up so that it projects from the wall to the same extent as the original;" . nd WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage ' eservation Commission, based upon evidence presented at its June 24, 1994 review of said pe it application and appeal, made the following findings of fact: 9 Li _ t o G a— . HPC FILE #2034 CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: Garage Siding--Appeal DATE OF APPLICATION: 6.8.94 APPLICANT: Lois Chavez DATE OF APPEAL: 6.13.94 APPELLANT: Tom Dimond DATE OF HEARING: not yet scheduled LOCATION: 721 E. Fourth St. (north side between Bates and Maple) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NEly 1/2 of I.ot 10 and all of Lot 9, Block 24, Lyman Dayton's Addn. HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Dayton's Bluf District CATEGORY: Contributing (house) CLASSIFICATION: Minor STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPO#tT: DATE: 6.16.94 BY: Aaron Rubenstein 1 1 A. PURPOSE: To consider an appeal of a staff decision approving vinyl siding for an existing garage. The Heritage Preservatio Commission will be asked to make a recommendation on the case to the City Council. B. SITE DESCRIPTION: The Ado1p Naumann House at 721 East Fourth Street, constructed circa 1884, is a two -story, wood fra e, vernacular Italianate structure categorized as contributing to the Dayton's Bluff istrict. It is currently a duplex. The original clapboard siding is covered by aluminum sid g. To the side and rear of the lot is a two -car, 400 square foot, garage constructed in 939. C. PROPOSED CHANGES: The ap 'cant proposes to put 4 -5" wide vinyl siding on three sides of an existing garage. Two aided -up window openings and one unboarded window would be covered with siding. On window would remain and would have vinyl trim. The front side of the garage, facing Ea Fourth Street, already has white, wide aluminum siding which would remain. i D. GUIDELINE CITATIONS: The yton's Bluff Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review state the following: 1. Wood Siding and Shingles, 1. epair: "Wooden siding should be maintained with paint or stain. Deteriorated woode siding should be replaced with new material resembling the original in width, thickness and profile, and texture." 2. Wood Siding and Shingles, 2. inyl and Aluminum Siding; other Manufactured Products: "Buildings originall clad in wooden siding should not be re- surfaced with . — HPC Staff Report: File #2034 Page3of3 of the ease of maintenance a the age of the applicant. 3. The Dayton's Bluff District idelines state that the Commission may consider, on a case -by -case basis, the installa ion of vinyl siding for the resurfacing of noncontributing buildings constructed after 19 0 and for the resurfacing of existing garages, particularly when inconspicuously sited. lanning staff approved the requested permit based on the belief that the garage is incon picuously sited, i.e., not easily seen or attracting attention, which does not me that it is not at all visible. Certainly there are relatively few garages which are not vis le from some neighboring property. In addition, the garage was constructed after 930 (built 1939) and, if considered contributing, is only marginally so. The garage is of categorized and was not constructed during the periods of significance for th district. 4. The garage has very minimal isibility from the west. The rear wall is clearly visible to the neighbors to the north. e north wall faces a large, open side yard that fronts on East Fifth Street. The front • f this side yard is bordered by a hedge (lilac ?) of perhaps 4.5 feet in height which make most of the garage invisible from Fifth Street. The visual screen provided by the edge is broken at one point by a driveway into the side yard. The garage has very m al visibility from Bates Avenue to the east. The garage is located approlimat.i y 140 feet from the Bates Avenue right -of -way and the property in between (the app llant's) is rather heavily wooded which makes the garage almost invisible from Bates d ring the growing season. As one walks toward the back of the appellant's property to and the garage, the garage does become significantly more visible because of the h ight of the tree canopy. The appellant's house and yard are perhaps ten feet lower th n the elevation of the garage (appellant's statement says 15 feet). The south side of t - garage, facing Fourth Street and already metal sided, is dearly visible and quite pro ent from Fourth Street. It appears that the three sides to be covered with vinyl sidin have limited visibility from public right of way and are not unusually close to any of he neighboring residences. 5. The applicant has stated that she is willing to install a privacy fence to shield the appellant's view of the garage`. 6. The removal or covering of t ree of the four windows on the garage, a structure that is minimally contributing if at . would not adversely impact the architectural character of the property or the distri i Two of the windows to be covered are boarded and are located on the rear or north all of the garage. The third window to be covered is on the west wall. The remainin . window would be on the east wall facing into the applicant's rear yard. The a • • licant wishes to cover the window openings with siding for security reasons. 7. Eleven of the 15 historic stru ures with frontage on East Fourth Street between Bates and Maple have artificial sid' g (vinyl, aluminum, or asbestos). In addition to these 15 buildings, there are 3 split le -1 homes on the other side of the street and at the other end of the block, in relation • the subject property, which were constructed in 1978 and which have painted concrete •lock foundations and vertical wood siding. GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT - 14 - (ov DEPARTMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL SAINT PAUL ITY OF SAINT PAUL • FFICE OF LICENSE. INSPECTIONS AND I NVIRONh1ENTAL PROTECTION i UILDING ECO AA AA s0 St Prtr St -S 310 AND DESIGN , Permit No. dirt Paul, Minnesota 55 $2 - 1510 612 - 266 - 9001 _e, ICJ Q IP -1 "' PLAN NO. OEB ON OF PROJECT DATE C OWNER :-- i • OWNERS ADDRESS ?2 r •• c ' r ' ❑ OLD TYPE OF ❑ NEW TYPE CONST. OCCUPANCY GRADING STUCCO OR ❑ BUIL ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALL ❑ FENCE ❑ ADDI ION ❑ ALTER ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ WRECK NUMBE STREET SIDE CROSS STREETS 7Z 1 1 E.1/ /-k) WARD LOT BLOCK ADDITION OR TRACT A _— P H -- N 1 LINE DEPTH SIDE LOT CLEARANCE BUILDING L E FRONT REAR LOT A STRUC WIDTH LENGTH HEIGHT STORIES TURE i , ES MATED VALUE BASEMENT TOTAL FLOOR AREA ❑YES 0 NO SO. FT. ? j D V` Uv INCLUDE BASEMENT i DETAILS REMARKS: 1 1 � 1 •.4 .1 . 1 ... - witmlypont, , . lektt / I.. JAL k 4 41 , S C-4 40 1 P nve4 TEL: NO. " ARCHITECT CONTRAC ADDRESS & ZIP MASONRY STATE PERMIT PEE VALUATION PLAN CHECK STATE. .4 SURCHARGE TOTAL FEE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT ALL IN- FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT ALL RTINENT STATE ULA CASHIER USE ONLY AN CITY ORDINANCES WILL BE COM T IOS WHEN VALIDATED THI Is Sy PERMIT PLIEDWITH IN PERFORMING THE WORK FOR WHICH THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED. St. Code X ADDRESS OF JOB AuTI ritiiW ]'SIGNATLJRE II � ..aims t =_ =s - - cam = a / P 6 =s I nc �zsao � IO�o -- • le Si. • ii 347 .J45 34J 33/ Jr 11 • .,, -- 11 Y 6 r --- --� z :0 /�: >s. x`..,.16' D x 1/ Z $ 1 F O B , ( •1 g DArr+a A ti: 10 I 1l w.. •,...... ,�,�,�, sop • j5 , t, 1 i amorz + :. / I r _ __. / r f p Oa 4 / 1 4. , El �/ t b • c... ...0 b 1 D M 1 • b> t �. • D l' a t 1 r% 1 i • •D ,. 1 �� b D a / / 4 D I t\, • I rw G i. 1 •I Z3 • •, i3 � j 1 1• Z D ; l w 2 1 ' D / • • i.__ 7? 3 S 1 1 I . � t r -rN 1 I D / ?� 6 D n e D , /_I V r t • . I / /P I 4 D / 1 4) n /I / D ` ro • ti F Z 1 D • I•1, e_ -A 1024_1 t. • r Z 1 r? / Z 1 Subject ti 1 r/ I J.. 1 D /6' I ._ ! - 9 ..• r } r ii •1 gy I / • /7 // 1' A I ., r ` R • / i 16 . /5 ig t I R la . /2 ,----,/, X r , i r 4 ii L o !! II 2 = k 11 Sca o Feet. 11 � J .___ • , 50 100 Iso ceq • � ii 50 40 30 20 Io 0 11 1- ;r ` n t Copp-left MK b M. S.nb.rn M.p Co .>•� _ 4 ' O , 3/6 3/4 /1 a 3¢s �¢2 =====z11,....=.....1= • B K - — - n - - �I } 1 1 9 2 .E • r u S .; a>� born m bp ,hzc''f? �' R il" y +. r ' 5 ,;.---"'""'777'4"—:,.., „{•`�ki 1 GP }> to �. !N V i . ; '- .:J I�u p vt* qtr- •a.�r':- ∎76 � iAI!IFS,�'� ,: + "I',- l/ x + i L ' y .4 Se +a. --e • • 4`tm ' 4•' .- ••1' + :. - .r.. v .. i u`11. Fr....!v: •X�h..... �^ .s .t. y It '4? IA - - ' t1 --i tanscri pt SAINT PAUL HERIT GE PRESERVATION COMMISSION • REGULA MONTHLY MEETING THUR DAY, JUNE 24, 1994 5:00 P.M., OM 40 A/B CITY HALL 15 WE T KELLOGG BLVD. MINUTES PRESENT: Commissioners Brooks, Carey, Cattanach, Hauser, Kessler, Lunning, Miller, Murphy, Rafferty and Vojacek ABSENT: Commissioners Baker, Earhart, and Frame ALSO PRESENT: Beth Bartz, Wayne Gnnaway, and Donna Sanders, PED staff The agenda items were heard out of sequene. I. ANNOUNCEMENTS b Beth Bartz, Heritage Preservation Commission staff, directed Co- be�ye July 1 - December 31, 1994 Heritage Preservation Commissio m ot` . o Commissioners packets, and requested that Commissione- ''c'eye *c calendars. , Ms. Bartz announced that Mayor Co eman ha- e the opening the HPC has for a registered archite t. Ply $ e . this appointment to contact the Mayor's office. oo,�` b* e e II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENT' Serer eoa.�,e e III. APPROVAL OF THE ' ire -oe aa� O e, to May 26, 1994 < 9 �,c,ei a ay Commis ��ey oo r . amendment be made to the May 26, 1994 meeting mint• a br a �r y y y e s e �y G sr ° ..ucture o v is very old fashioned, and that the HPC ignores cultural -a-at its peril. _causer moved appro al of the meeting minutes as amended. Commissioner .,nded the motion. The otion carried unanimously. IV. LIC HEARINGS: ESIGN R VIEW Beth Bartz pointed out that Mr. Ru nstein had prepared the staff reports, but in his absence cry -(0c , Slides showed the side that's already received aluminum siding treatment. Commissioner Carey said that the staff report indicated that the three sides of the garage to be sided with aluminum are currently covered with cement aesbestos siding. When she drove by to look at the property that was not t e case. She clarified that actually what it said was the two of the sides are novelty siding which he needed clarification for so drove by and it turned out it was drop lap siding on two sides, ith one side cement aesbestos and one side aluminum. Carey questioned that the applica t is proposing removing the cement aesbestos and then siding the three sides with vinyl. Yes, th t is her intention. Carey asked if any determination has been made on the existing condition of the original drop siding. Bartz said that she has not inspec d it and that she would assume that the drop siding is probably the original siding which 's fairly typical of garages in the 1930s and 1940s. Carey said that even though she d d not get a closeup look it appeared that the drop siding that was exposed that was in relatively ood condition. In looking at it she thought that it might be a more cost - effective alternative to ctually prepare and paint the original surface. Commissioner Rafferty asked how the Commission feels about the windows being removed. He said the windows add some character and help to break up the surface and might be one of the elements to consider also. , Chair Miller asked whether the st ff report references the windows other than the security issue Beth indicated that the applicant did want to remove the windows because of security issues, and as this is a 1939 garage she felt that eliminating the windows would not adversely affect the architectural character of the district or the property. Michael McKane, speaking on be alf of the applicant, Lois Chavez, 721 E. Fourth, spoke. Ms. Chavez a retired person on a fixe income. Since she's owned the residence she has made many improvements, siding on the hous , new sidewalks, new roof, etc. Feels it's one of the best kept homes in the 700 block of 4th. S e'd like to continue regular maintenance of her home. She's asked Mr. McKane to make som minor improvements to the garage. Her plans were to paint the trim, including the garage do r. The front of the door is aluminum and will be left alone. They would like to cover them u with vinyl siding with wood grain. He said he finds it hard to believe that from a distance of 10 ft. that anybody would be able to tell the difference between wood and vinyl. This choice of vinyl would be less expensive for her, and would provide for little or no upkeep for her. He believes that a prop decision was made by Aaron Rubenstein when he approved the permit. Find it hard to belie e that this permit could be revoked. The neighbors behind her on 5th Street are all in favor of t e improvements. It would not do anyone any good if the building permit were revoked. It ould be a shame if the Commission would deny her the right to install vinyl because of one pe k. on's discontent. Commissioner Carey said that o issue is that the Commission has been working on and definitely needs to address an art icial siding policy. She thinks that Mr. Rubenstein's decision 16 I of 4- log;.. i that point. Dimond used the We ster's Dictionary to define inconspicous as: "scarcely noticeable, highly discernible." H challenged that this certainly does not apply from 4th Street; from Bates it doesn't apply either as he displayed in photos that he presented to the Commission, and also from 5th S eet doesn't apply. So based on this criteria alone it should not have met that category and it tates in his staff report that that is what the approval was based upon. And the basis for th t decision is not valid. ( pit V l { : A Showed photos of the view of the garage from his property, depicting, especially after the foliage has left the trees that it can be se n very clearly from his property -- less clear when there are leaves on the trees. When he walks in his front entrance from the street you can see the property in question. From his slides you can see the condition of the siding. ,�, Mr. Dimond presented a 1926 Sanborn map that had a garage of that dimension included on it. (, An early map he guesses to be from the early 1900s shows a garage of a different configuration. Dimond addressed the fixed into a issue which ich Mr. McKane has mentioned. Dimond said that he has met with Ms. Chavez and old her that he would be glad to paint the garage for her. But, her preference is that she lik s vinyl siding. He believes that should not be reason for the standard. I Other things that might come int play might be that it's deteriorated beyond repair or materials are no longer available, cost is prohibitive to do - -- but these do not fit into this scenario. The most cost effective thing to do is to paint, whether you do it or have someone else do it. Dimond said that the ondition of the siding is very good for that age of siding, and \\ he suggested that nothing would eed to be replaced. 7 One very important point is if yo take a look at sidin requirements it is very clear, if there's a reason the HPC did approve this ith vinyl, it is very ear that if vinyl, metal or cardboard siding is used as escribed in A- • which is deterioration 1930 or prior or inconspicuous, it must be ap+prp (jet to the style of th building and all architectural detail including windo4 trial, wood cornices and ; must remain. Replacement siding may cover only ., e r - of existing 5 j 4,1 0 q . Window entry and other trim must be bu' up so that it p ojects from the wall to Able extent as the original. Then why is staff allowing siding :.oing on that does not match the original siding? Why is there being allowed to side over windo s and trim? Why is that trim not only being covered up but being required to be built -up to eet the requirements? 1. This application has gone thrcugh the process incorrectly. It should have gone through Design Review and should have never been approved. 2. It does not meet the qualifications of age or inconspicuous' 3. If it were approved it was required that it match the original siding and that the window trim detail be kept and built up. 1 18 611-t — ? o (- the trim. It is just a sheer wall. Yes it's the historical aspect but +o clearly the visual loss of the character of that building. Commission Kessler asked Mr. M Kane what the structural condition of the garage is right now. j McKane said that he would guess that 25 -50% of the siding would have to be removed and 1, replaced if it were to be painted. essler asked about the footings. McKane said there's some movement. The garage door doe not shut evenly because the slab on the floor is not even. Kessler asked what McKane woul consider to be the useful life of this building. It has a new roof on it. Just finished painting e eves and the door and the trim. The garage door is just about 10 years old. Added the al minum to the front when she had the new garage door put on. i Hauser asked McKane what he would estimate the cost differential to be between putting on vinyl and painting. McKane said they can do the vinyl for about $250 doing it themselves, including the outside 1 corners, inside corners, window trims. Said he already has the vinyl ordered. Said 500 sq ft at $.38 a sq. ft. double 4 at Menards1 Hauser asked if he understands that they could either stain or paint the siding that is there now. Said at least 25% of the siding would have to be replaced in order to paint. Said where the lap siding is on th re is only one layer which means it was probably put on when the garage was built. He doesn't hink it would hold paint. Commissioner Cattanach asked if the applicant has thought about the feasibility both in terms of just structural help, as well as the cost of keeping the windows to break up the visual. McKane said the reason why she I ants to eliminate the windows is two of them that are covered have no glass in them no as they've been vandalized, the wood is rotted, and that adds more expense. He thinks that if i came down to no vinyl because of no windows he thinks that she might be able to say perhaps a windows could be left there. But it would have to be worked out with her. McKane pointed out that the gar ge height on the wall facing the west, Mr. Dimond's house, from the ground up to the eves is 7.2 ft. so it's not as big as a billboard, and the wall facing the alley is 5 feet and the back wall is 8 ft. plus 5 ft to the heal? Chair Miller said that there are s veral things to consider. Mr. Dimond has raised the issue of process. Think that's something r the Commission to consider. It's her understanding that the reason that this was considered a taff approval was because it was only a garage, and not on the house even though it's a sidin issue. It's a question of siding that is not on a main structure. Beth agreed. Miller said that she believes it is upposed to be clear to everyone when staff is allowed to make 20 V . are laid out in the guidelines but • re not mandates for approval of the manufactured products but they are situations in which w consider them on a case -by -case basis. Including the stipulation about the resurfacing • f noncontributing buildings constructed after 1930. For her the issue is two -fold. One is cost. One is compatibility with the guidelines. She believes that in this situation the most cost - effecti e treatment is basic maintenance, scraping and painting. She thinks in terms of comptability wi h the guidelines and from a design perspective that the preservation of the existing siding and window openings is preferable to flat vinyl treatment and she would agree with Commissio - r Rafferty. Chair Miller said that one of the portant issues here that both the applicant and the appellant have addressed is the date of the • uilding, which is an important question. If indeed it is a 1939 building then she thinks we're loo • g at this building with a somewhat different perspective than if it were a building built be •re 1930. She doesn't feel there is no information that is 1 definite enough to prove that the •uilding was built in 1939 or before it. A garage can burn and they often have. The fact that th• Sanborn map from 1926 shows a building on the site oriented •, that way is not proof that this pa icular building was around in 1926. However, the date of this building has effectively been calle • into question here, which somewhat muddies the question of if this is a building outside the pe iod of significance of the district - she would be inclined to be more lenient on the artificial sid' g issue than she would be if it were within the period of significance. Rafferty questioned whether the ates matter -- because if that's set aside the argument all shifts to the next item which is the resu facing of the garage and it comes down to inconspicuously sited. It seems to him that what e Commission really needs to resolve is what the intentions of this historic area are and how he Commission can best preserve the historic district and how the commission can work within at. He finds both sides of the argument equally as valid - and who is going to establish inconspi uous? We have an argumentative situation on both sides which won't be resolved here. Miller said there probably is a w to find out when the building was built or be a lot closer than the discussion is here today. Her comments are to simply suggest that not knowing when the building was built muddies the q stion that she finds significant which is is the building within the period of significance for the istrict or not. Commissioner Hauser said that ' it were not in the period of concern in this area would the Commission be concerned about ompatibility and appropriateness and contribution to the historic texture of the area. Wo dn't it be appropriate for the Commission to make statement about that. It's a small building t at's either conspicuous or inconspicuous. The date is not certain. But does the Commissi• not want to think about the larger issues which have to do with the gradual incremental up u ading of an historic district. And he believes that if the commission has a chance to send the message, not in a judgmental way or in a way of casting blame or aspersions but simply t • say we can, and we as neighbors can all work together to create this historic fabric which • • favorized by the historic district. Chair Miller said that we are ne r going to have a set of rules that we can simply apply. There's always going to have to some interpretation. If the period of significance is going to have any meaning at all, then sh = believes it has to be one of the factors that is taken into consideration. That's not to dis iss compatability and visual issues as well. But, if the period of significance means anything it m • ans more for buildings built within that period of significance. Not that we still can't go on and • iscuss these issues and these recommendations based on other 22 . - form of a resolution or a letter. • Hauser recommended that one of the Commissioners speak on the Commission's behalf, so that we can represent fully and clearly our stance about this very complicated issue. Chair Miller asked for any response to the question about whether the siding is found to be in poor condition. Bartz asked who should make thai determination? Commissioner Carey questioned t at under the guidelines where it states under the first condition that in cases where ther is artificial siding on there, it's to be removed, and the underlying original siding and dec rative features are found to be significantly deteriorated. Said this is the first condition and asked who usually makes that determination. Bartz responded that staff would o out and take a look at the site to determine the condition and maybe would ask for the assi ance of a Commissioner if that is appropriate if they did not feel that they were able to make t at judgment. Beth said that her question in part is that since this is an appeal of a staff decisio , do you want the staff to make the determination on the condition of the siding. I Commissioner Carey said that he reading of Mr. Rubenstein's report is that the condition of the siding wasn't really a consideration. Carey said that it should be fairly obvious in an inspection whether the siding is significantly I deteriorated or not. She feels th if the siding is significantly deteriorated, and it would add a significant cost burden to the cost of the exterior treatment then the Commission would consider Commissioner Cattanach's sugges ion of recommending that the applicant preserve at minimum the original window openings if v yl siding was to be used. Chair Miller said that Mr. Ruben Lein has her confidence as an assessor of the situation of the siding. Miller said_let s_do_the_co unicationirangnittaLto_the_Civ Council as a resolution. Dimond said that on the issue of rocess, he said he hoped the Commission would take a look that in the future if more things just through staff that if there's some way of notifying adjacent property owners so that hey're aware that the process is going on. And also that if there would be a way that in the idelines as to what goes under which categories, if that could be clarified. Ms. Bartz clarified that there is never an instance in which the adjacent property owners are notified, even when the items appear before the HPC. Dimond broadened his appeal th t the HPC consider notification procedures of property owners, as with zoning and build' g issues, normally properties within 350 ft. be notified. B. Concern about Granite Curb in Sewer Separation on Summit Avenue In October of 1993 the HPC disc ssed the sewer separation project that is currently undergoing on Summit Avenue. The HPC d a lot of good work for the community not only in terms of approving the plans as presented by the Public Works Department, but also in helping the 24 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 310 C H — *. SAINT P A U i. x-'11 i OF SAINT r 1 PAUL Division of Planning Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 West Fourth Street Telephone: 612- 266 -6565 Saint PauI MN 55102 Facsimile: 612- 228 -3314 AAAA MEMORANDUM TO: Council President Thy and Councilmembers FROM: Aaron Rubenstein A ci RE: HPC minutes re: 721 4th St. garage DATE: 12 July 1994 Item #52 on the agenda for the July 1 City Council meeting is Tom Dimond's appeal of the HPC staff decision to approve vinyl si ing on a garage located at 721 East Fourth Street. Attached is the relevant portion of th minutes of the June 23 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting (not June 24 as oted in information previously transmitted) which were not available earlier. SAINT PAUL HE AGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGU R MONTHLY MEETING TH RSDAY, JUNE 23, 1994 5:00 P.M. ROOM 40 A/B CITY HALL 15 WEST KELLOGG BLVD. MINUTES PRESENT: Commissioners Brooks, Carey, Cattanach, Hauser, Kessler, Lunning, Miller, Murphy, Rafferty and Vojacek ABSENT: Commissioners Boer, Earhart, and Frame ALSO PRESENT: Beth Bartz, Wayne Gannaway, and Donna Sanders, PED staff The agenda items were heard out of sequence. I. ANNOUNCEMENTS Beth Bartz, Heritage Preservatio Commission staff, directed Commissioners attention to the July 1 - December 31, 1994 Herit ge Preservation Commission Scheduled enclosed in Commissioners packets, and requ sted that Commissioners mark these meetings on their calendars. Ms. Bartz announced that Mayor oleman has sent out a press release announcing the opening the HPC has for a registered arc i' tect. Please encourage anyone interested in this appointment to contact the Mayor's office. II. APPROVAL OF THE AGEND No action taken. III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE' May 26, 1994 Commissioner Hauser recommended that an amendment be made to the May 26, 1994 meeting minutes as follows: Pg. 4, line 1: ... designation of a static structure only is very old fashioned, and that the HPC ignores cultural and social issues docs so at its pe Commissioner Hauser moved app oval of the meeting minutes as amended. Commissioner Murphy seconded the motion. T motion carried unanimously. 1939 e ara that eliminating th windows would not adversely affect the architectural g g, g Y character of the district or the pr perty. Michael McKane said that he wa speaking on behalf of the applicant, Lois Chavez, 721 E. Fourth. He indicated that Ms. C avez is a retired person on a fixed income and has owned the residence and has made many im rovements including: siding on the house, new sidewalks and a new roof. She would like to co tinue regular maintenance of her property and has asked Mr. McKane to make some minor im rovements to the garage, including painting the trim and the garage door. He said that Ms. C avez would like to use vinyl siding with a wood grain for three sides of the garage as the vinyl w uld be less expensive and would require little or no upkeep. Mr. McKane said that the neighb rs behind the applicant on 5th Street are in favor of the improvements. Commissioner Carey pointed out hat the Commission has begun addressing the need for an artificial siding policy. She indica ed that Mr. Rubenstein's decision is within the context of the guidelines as he viewed them in t e absence of a written policy. However, she said that particularly in the Dayton's Bluff istrict, change is very incremental and happens one permit at a time, and suggested that it is im ortant that the Commission consider the alternative that is more compatible with the guide ' es and may very well be the least expensive alternative. Carey referenced a volunteer program t at she's associated with that does home improvement projects for people who are experiencing ancing hardships when executing rehab projects and suggested that this project may fit well into that program if the applicant would be amenable to working with a group of people t scrape and paint her garage. Mr. McKane reiterated that the g rage was built in 1939 and that the guidelines allow for vinyl siding for garages built after 1930 He stated that Ms. Chavez will not accept any help as "she has a little pride ". He said that if she's not allowed to use vinyl siding she will not do anything, and will leave the garage in its pr sent condition. Ms. Bartz clarified that the guide es state that, for buildings constructed after 1930, vinyl siding may be appropriate. Mr. Dimond outlined the followin reasons for his appeal of the staff approval of the permit: 1. Mr. Dimond believes the rocess for approval was in violation. He alleged that alteration to windows, sid g, entries and trim require Design Review Committee review, . -- and should not have been taff approved. He complained that there was no public notification, and that it w by chance that he learned of the permit approval. He understood there to be a 4 -day time period allowed for appeal and said that without this case being heard by t e HPC that nobody was notified. 2. Staff found the building t be inconspicuous because the one conspicuous side of the garage is already covered ith metal siding. Mr. Dimond challenged staff's determination that the thr e remaining sides of the garage are "inconspicuous" and presented photographs to upports his conclusion that the garage does not meet the dictionary definition of in nspicuous, i.e., scarcely noticeable or highly discernible. 3. Mr. Dimond challenged t accuracy of the 1939 building date of the garage. He presented a 1926 Sanborn map that had a garage of the dimension of the current garage on it and compared it aga st an earlier Sanborn map he believed to be from the early 2 i on painting the garage as it woul be if vinyl were used. He stated that merely a preference for vinyl siding versus what is appro riate for the district gives reason for the HPC to re- evaluate 4his permit approval. I - Commissioner Carey said that th issue is one of cost and compatibility with the guidelines. In ' this situation she believes the tre tment most cost - effective and compatible with the guidelines is basic maintenance -- scraping an painting -- and, from a design perspective, the preservation of the existing siding and window o enings is preferable to flat vinyl treatment, and the permit should be re- evaluated. Commissioner Hauser also expre sed concern over the building's compatibility, appropriateness and contribution to the historic t ure of the area, addressing the larger issue having to do with the gradual incremental upgradin of an historic district and suggesting that the community can work together to strengthen the 'storic fabric of the district. Chair Miller said that if the peri of significance is going to have any meaning at all, then it has to be one of the factors take into consideration. That's not to dismiss compatibility and visual issues, but the period of si ificance means more for buildings built within that period of significance. However, this can o y be one of the criteria considered. Commissioner Cattanach clarifie that the guidelines allow for Commissioners' discretion when a building is constructed after 19 0, and when it is a garage allows further discretion without calling for meeting all of the crite ia. He encouraged that perhaps a middle ground could be arrived at to avoid a stand -off wh re the applicant makes no improvements at all. He encouraged the applicant to reco sider retaining the windows to try to retain as much of its historic nature as possible if vinyl is to be used. Commissioner Carey moved to o rturn the staff decision, provided that a determination be made on the condition of the exis ing siding. If the siding is determined to be in workable and sound condition, the HPC recom ends that scraping and painting — basic maintenance and preservation practices — as the m st cost - effective and compatible treatment for the garage. The motion was seconded by Co missioner Hauser. The motion carried with a vote of 8 to 2 (Murphy, Cattanach voting again t the motion). The Commission directed that st f ascertain the condition of the existing siding. It was further stated that if the siding is found t be significantly deteriorated and would add a significant cost to the cost of the recommended erior treatment then the Commission would reconsider its position and allow the vinyl sidin with a recommendation that the applicant preserve, at -- minimum, the original window op nings. Commissioners requested staff to repare communication transmittal on this matter in the form of a resolution with interest show on behalf of the Commission that a Commissioner be present at the City Council meet' g when this item is discussed to represent fully and clearly the Commission's position on this co plicated issue. Ms. Bartz clarified for Mr. Dimond that there is never an instance in which the adjacent property owners are notified, even for cases decided by the HPC itself. 4 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT C i y - (0 (a a.. n C"el o-Pi -- 3 C. t- - CITY PAUL PAUL CI l 1. OF SAINT PAUL Division of Planning 4 Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 West Founh Street Telephone: 612-266-6565 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Facsimile: 612 -228 -3314 AAAA t.i4�LSiVlf Ai/Saar Un l ' S'E JUL221994 MEMORANDUM TO: Council President Th e and Councilmembers FROM: Aaron Rubenstein (ZJ RE: HPC minutes re: 721 . 4th St. garage DATE: 12 July 1994 1 Item #52 on the agenda for the July 3 City Council meeting is Tom Dimond's appeal of the HPC staff decision to approve vinyl s ding on a garage located at 721 East Fourth Street. Attached is the relevant portion of th minutes of the June 23 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting (not June 24 as oted in information previously transmitted) which were not available earlier. 1 - I' I q .. f Q( L SAINT PAUL HERI AGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGU R MONTHLY MEETING TH RSDAY, JUNE 23, 1994 5:00 P.M.,' ROOM 40 A/B CITY HALL 15 WEST KELLOGG BLVD. I MINUTES PRESENT: Commissioners Brooks, Carey, Cattanach, Hauser, Kessler, Lunning, Miller, Murphy, Rafferty abd Vojacek ABSENT: Commissioners Barer, Earhart, and Frame ALSO PRESENT: Beth Bartz, Wayne Gannaway, and Donna Sanders, PED staff The agenda items were heard out of sequence. _ I. ANNOUNCEMENTS Beth Bartz, Heritage Preservation Commission staff, directed Commissioners attention to the July 1 - December 31, 1994 Herit a Preservation Commission Scheduled enclosed in Commissioners packets, and requ sted that Commissioners mark these meetings on their calendars. Ms. Bartz announced that Mayor oleman has sent out a press release announcing the opening the HPC has for a registered architect. Please encourage anyone interested in this appointment to contact the Mayor's office. II. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA No action taken. III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE May 26, 1994 Commissioner Hauser recommended that an amendment be made to the May 26, 1994 meeting minutes as follows: Pg. 4, line 1: ... designation of a static structure only is very old fashioned, and that the HPC ignores cultural and social issues deer -se-at its peril. Commissioner Hauser moved ap val of the meeting minutes as amended. Commissioner Murphy seconded the motion. a motion carried unanimously. C IL(— BOG,) a 1939 garage, that eliminating th windows would not adversely affect the architectural character of the district or the property. l Michael McKane said that he was speaking on behalf of the applicant, Lois Chavez, 721 E. Fourth. He indicated that Ms. C avez is a retired person on a fixed income and has owned the residence and has made many im rovements including: siding on the house, new sidewalks and a new roof. She would like to co tinue regular maintenance of her property and has asked Mr. McKane to make some minor im rovements to the garage, including painting the trim and the garage door. He said that Ms. C avez would like to use vinyl siding with a wood grain for three sides of the garage as the vinyl w uld be less expensive and would require little or no upkeep. Mr. McKane said that the neighb rs behind the applicant on 5th Street are in favor of the improvements. Commissioner Carey pointed out hat the Commission has begun addressing the need for an artificial siding policy. She indica ed that Mr. Rubenstein's decision is within the context of the guidelines as he viewed them in t e absence of a written policy. However, she said that particularly in the Dayton's Bluff istrict, change is very incremental and happens one permit at a time, and suggested that it is im ortant that the Commission consider the alternative that is more compatible with the guide • es and may very well be the least expensive alternative. Carey referenced a volunteer program t at she's associated with that does home improvement projects for people who are experiencing ancing hardships when executing rehab projects and suggested that this project may fit well into that program if the applicant would be amenable to working with a group of people t scrape and paint her garage. Mr. McKane reiterated that the g rage was built in 1939 and that the guidelines allow for vinyl siding for garages built after 1930 He stated that Ms. Chavez will not accept any help as "she has a little pride ". He said that if she's not allowed to use vinyl siding she will not do anything, and will leave the garage in its prtsent condition. Ms. Bartz clarified that the guidelines state that, for buildings constructed after 1930, vinyl siding may be appropriate. Mr. Dimond outlined the follow4 reasons for his appeal of the staff approval of the permit: 1. Mr. Dimond believes the rocess for approval was in violation. He alleged that alteration to windows, sid' g, entries and trim require Design Review Committee review, and should not have been taff approved. He complained that there was no public notification, and that it w by chance that he learned of the permit approval. He understood there to be a 4 -day time period allowed for appeal and said that without this case being heard by t e HPC that nobody was notified. 2. Staff found the building t be inconspicuous because the one conspicuous side of the garage is already covered ith metal siding. Mr. Dimond challenged staff's determination that the thr a remaining sides of the garage are "inconspicuous" and presented photographs to upports his conclusion that the garage does not meet the dictionary definition of in nspicuous, i.e., scarcely noticeable or highly discernible. 3. Mr. Dimond challenged t accuracy of the 1939 building date of the garage. He presented a 1926 Sanborn map that had a garage of the dimension of the current garage on it and compared it aga st an earlier Sanborn map he believed to be from the early 2 - 1069- -,, , ,. efti on painting the garage as it would be if vinyl were used. He stated that merely a preference for vinyl siding versus what is appropriate for the district gives reason for the HPC to re- evaluate this permit approval. Commissioner Carey said that th issue is one of cost and compatibility with the guidelines. In this situation she believes the trea ment most cost - effective and compatible with the guidelines is basic maintenance -- scraping and painting -- and, from a design perspective, the preservation of the existing siding and window op nings is preferable to flat vinyl treatment, and the permit should be re- evaluated. i Commissioner Hauser also expres ed concern over the building's compatibility, appropriateness and contribution to the historic to ure of the area, addressing the larger issue having to do with the gradual incremental upgradin of an historic district and suggesting that the community can work together to strengthen the h toric fabric of the district. Chair Miller said that if the perio of significance is going to have any meaning at all, then it has to be one of the factors taken into consideration. That's not to dismiss compatibility and visual issues, but the period of si ificance means more for buildings built within that period of significance. However, this can o y be one of the criteria considered. Commissioner Cattanach clarified that the guidelines allow for Commissioners' discretion when a building is constructed after 193 , and when it is a garage allows further discretion without calling for meeting all of the crite ia. He encouraged that perhaps a middle ground could be arrived at to avoid a stand -off wh re the applicant makes no improvements at all. He encouraged the applicant to reco ider retaining the windows to try to retain as much of its historic nature as possible if vinyl 's to be used. Commissioner Carey moved to ov rturn the staff decision, provided that a determination be made on the condition of the exis ing siding. If the siding is determined to be in workable and sound condition, the HPC recom ends that scraping and painting — basic maintenance and preservation practices — as the m st cost- effective and compatible treatment for the garage. The motion was seconded by Co issioner Hauser. The motion carried with a vote of 8 to 2 (Murphy, Cattanach voting again t the motion). I The Commission directed that sta f ascertain the condition of the existing siding. It was further stated that if the siding is found t be significantly deteriorated and would add a significant cost to the cost of the recommended a erior treatment then the Commission would reconsider its position and allow the vinyl sidin with a recommendation that the applicant preserve, at minimum, the original window op nings. Commissioners requested staff to repare communication transmittal on this matter in the form of a resolution with interest show on behalf of the Commission that a Commissioner be present at the City Council meet' g when this item is discussed to represent fully and clearly the Commission's position on this co plicated issue. Ms. Bartz clarified for Mr. Dimo d that there is never an instance in which the adjacent property owners are notified, eve for cases decided by the HPC itself. i 1 4