The URL can be used to link to this page

95-9541 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 9s ys � Whereas, Acting pursuant to Sections 73.06, and upon notice to affected parties a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on August 2, 1995, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and Whereas, 'I'he Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Commission, does hereby Resolve, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby affirm the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission in this matter that the proposed materials do not conform to the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District Guidelines, that the decision of the Commission is supported by evidence contained in the record of their proceedings, and that the appellant has not shown that the Heritage Preservation Commission committed any error in so deciding; and be it Further Resolved, That the appeal of Dennis A. Louie be and is hereby denied; and, be it Finally Resolved, That the Council Secretary shall mail a copy of this resolution to Dennis A. Louie, the Zoning Administrator and the Heritage Preservation Commission. Requested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date � Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: Approved by �Yay�-? Date By: By: Form A By: _ Approv Counci By: by City Attorney Mayor'for Submission to 9s =9s� DEP`RYENTC011RC11CIL D$/7/95D GREEN SHEET _N_ 33440 CANTACT PERSON & PHONE INITIAUDATE ITIA AT 266-8610 �DEPAflTMENTDIRECTOR OCITYCOUNCIL Councilmember Jerry Blakey ^u��" �CRYATTOFNEY �CINCLERK MUST BE ON CQUNqI AGENDA BY (DATE) pQ�N� O BUDGET DIREGTOR � FIN. 8 M6T. SERVICES DIR. ORDER � MAVOR (OR ASSISTANn � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR S�GNATURE) ACTION REQUESTED: Finalizing City Council action taken on August 2:, 1995, denying the appeal of Dennis Louie to a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission denying a building permit application for the installation of aluminum soffit and fascia at 586 Laurel Avenue. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve (A) or Reject (R) pERSONAL SEFiVICE CONTHACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _ PLANNMG COMMISSION _ CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION �� Has thls pefsonlfifin eVef WO�ketl Untlef a ContfaCt fOf Mi5 depdrtment? - _ CIB COMMITfEE YES NO _ STAFF 2. Has this personlfirm ever been a ciry employee? YES NO _ DISTRIC7 COUR7 _ 3. Does this personRirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city empioyee? SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTNE'+ YES NO Explaln all yes answers on seperate sheet and attach to green sheet INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTl1NITV (Who, What. When, Where, Why)� � �� m AUG 7 1995 ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVEO: " � RECElVED �i�G � i ��a�.�i .�E�R4' BLA�;�Y DISADVANTAGES IFAPPROVED: DISAOVANTACaES IF NOTAPPFOVED a TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) VES NO FUNDIfdG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAI INFOflMATION. (EXPLAIN) gs � q�'�' Interdepartmental Memorandum CITY OF SAIN'T PAUL OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY Suite 400 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Phone: (612)-266-8710 FAX: (612)-298-5619 DATE: August 3, 1995 TO: Nancy Anderson Council Secretary Room 310 City Hall FROM: Jerome J. Segal � Assistant City Attorn SUBJECT: 586 Laurel Avenue Council Hearing Held August 2, 1995 Nancy: The City Council adopted a motion to deny the appeal of Dennis Louie from the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission, and the City Attorney was requested to prepare the resolution confirming that denial. Attached is the resolution which denies the appeal and upholds the decision of the Aeritage Preservation Commission. CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND 9�- y s� ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC770N Robert Kessler, Dmectos LOWRY PROFESS/ONAL Telephorse' 612-266-9090 B(IILDING Facs�mde: 612-266-9099 Suite 300 350 St. Peter Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-I510 5 July 1995 � ?-s�i;v� ':�a�'�s'��I m•�'}y�a1' Ms. Mary Erickson City Council Research 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Erickson: ,;��' � � i�?� I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, August 2, 1995 for the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision: Appellant: Dennis Louie HPC File: #2343 Purpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to deny a building pecmit application foc the installation of aluminum soffit and fascia Address: 586 Laurel Avenue (located in Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District) Legal Description of Property: Lot 5, $lock 7, Woodland Park Addition The Heritage Preservation Commission held public hearings on this matter on May 25 and June 8, 1995 and voted 8-0 to deny approval. My understanding is that this public heazing request will appear on the agenda for the July 12, 1995 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions. Sincerely, >�- �� Aaron Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner cc: Councilmember Blakey Richard Murphy, HPC Chair Bob Kessler, LIEP Dennis Louie NOTICE OF PUBLI6 HEARING The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public hearing on August : 1995;�at 3�30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floo: City Hall,, to consider the appeal of Dennis Louie to a decision of the Heritag Preservation �Gommission to deny a building permit application� for' tY instailation of aluminum soffi[ and fascia at 586 Laurel Avenue (located i His[oric Hill Heritage Preservation District). Dated: July 6. 1995 � - �- - - NANCY ANDERSON � . Assistant City Counc'tT Secretary . (Julp S, 1995) OFFICE OF LiCENSE, A'SPECtIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PR07'ECIION Robert Kessler, Dirccmr � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor 28 7ulp 1995 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: HPC File /t2343: ' City Council Hearing: LOWRY PROFESSlONAL BUIIDING Suue 300 350 St. Peter Sveet Saint Paul, Miru�esota 55102-ISIO Twin City Storm Sash/Dennis Louie Aub st 2, 1995 Agenda Item �/61 9s q s� � / Tefephane: 612-266-90A7 Focsimi[e: 672-266-5099 672-266-9124 PURPOSE: To consider an appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to deny approval of a building permit for che instaliation of aluminum soffit and fascia on the struccure located at 586 Laurel Avenue. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTION: DENIAL - STAFF RECOMMENDATION DENIAL , . SUPPORT No one spoke. OPPOSITION: No one spoke. Dear Ms. Anderson: Mr. Dennis Louie has appealed the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission to deny approval of a building permit for the installation of aluminum soffit and fascia on the structure he owns located at 586 Laurel Avenue. The Heritage Preservation Commission held public hearin;s on this permit application on May 25 and June 8, 1995. Mr. Louie addressed the commission at the first heazing but was not present at the second heazing. At the close of the June 8, 1995 public heazing, the commission voted 8-0 to deny approval of the permit. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on August 2, 1995. Please notify me if any Councilmember wishes to have slides of the site presented at the Council's public hearing. Sincerely, �(/VI�i Tate Halvorson Senior Plan Examiner TH:az Attachments cc: City Councilmembers Robert Kessler Dennis Louie _�� ,<-=: _:j . 14June 1995 Saint Paul City Council City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1�10 Dear Members of the St. Paul City Council, �`��'`�� _ . OFF1=:;� �� `t=,° JuH 19 � �.a P�1 '95 9$� ys� Iwiah to appeal the June 8, 1995 decision of the St. Pau1 Heritage Preservation Commission to deny the application of Twin City Storm and Sash for a building permit to install aluminum soffit, fascia and gutters on my triplex at 586 Laurel Avenue. I am appealing this decision to the St. Paul City Council under Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code: Section 73.06 (h)Apoeal to the City Council. The permit applicant or any party aggrieved by the decision of the heritage preservation commission shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of the heritage preservation commission's ordzr an� decision, have a right to appeal such order and decision to the city council. The appeal sha11 be deemed perfected upon receipt by the division of planning of two (2) copies of a notice of appeal and statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal. The division of planning shall transmit one copy of the notice of appeal and statement to the city council and one copy to the heritage preservation commission. The commission, in any written order denying a permit application, shall advise the applicant of the right to appeal to the city council and include this paragraph in all such orders. Please consider the following information in regards to my appeal: 1) My tri-plex is considered supportive to the Historic Distric. It is neither architecturally or historically significant. It is not a Summit Avenue house. 2) The fascia, soffits and gutters need to be replaced. The gutters have rusted through. The fascia has wood rot and holes where squirrels have chewed through to nest in the eaves. The soffits are gappe.d and have wood rot. They are also sagging from the weight of nests and other debrie left by the birds and squirrels over the years. In the past the gutters, fascia and soffits have been patched and repaired. They now need to be replaced. 3) The cost to replace the fascia, soffits and gutters with orginal material-molding and beadboard-is very expensive. The owner cannotafford the expense as other major repairs are yet to be done on the building. Secondly, the fair market value of the tri-plex has declined �, the last two years. The value of the hone does, � 9s- ys� �� r not warrant spending the cost to replace the fascia, soffit and gutters with original material. 4) The use of aluminum on the fascia and soffits will only be on the side and back of the house. The soffits and fascia on the double story front porch were replaced several'. years ago with original wood material. From the street the house wi21 appear unaltered. The use of aluminum on the fascia and soffits on the side and back of the house wi11 not deter from the historic or architectural character of the building or its role as supportive to the neighborhood. No architectural features will be lost or removed with the installation of the new fascia and soffits and gutters. 5) The price for material and installation by Twin Cities Storm and Sash is $4500.00-a winter sale price with a 409 discount. The price is fairly afforable and provides maintenance free material, allowing the owner to make other much needed repairs and renovations to the building-i.e. foundation and chimney repair, boiler replacement and exterior and - interior painting. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, , �.�� a- � ��,�' Dennis A. Louie Building Owner cc; Lance Broderick, TCSS Aaron Rubenstein, HPC � 9�=�s� CITY OF SAINT PAUL �: HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION � _ - FILE NUMBER 2343 DAT� 8 7une 1995 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to review building permit applications for exterior alterations, ne�v construction or demolition on or within desi�nated Heritage Preservation Sites or Herita�e Preservation Disu and WHEREAS, Twin City Storm Sash has applied for a building permit to install aluminum soffits, fascia, and �utters on the structure located at �86 Laurel Avenue in the Historic Hi11 Heritage Preservation District; and WHEREAS, the structure at 586 Laurel Avenue is a two-story, I�ieoclassical style residential buildin� constructed in 1889 and categorized as supportive to the Hill District; and «'HERE�S, the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District guide]ines for design review include the io]lowing: TI. Restoration and Rehabilitation, A. General Principles: I. Every reasonable effort shall be made ro provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration for the burlding, structure, or site mtd its e�:vironment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. �_ II. A.: 2. The distinguishing original gualities or character of a building, structure, or site and i1s environment shall not be desrroyed. The removal ar alteration of any historic material or distincrive rn•chitectural features should be avoided when possible. II. A.: 6. Delerrorated architeclural 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 gualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architecrural elemenrs from other buildings or structures. II. A.: 10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such alterotions were to be removed in the future, the esse�rtial form and integrity of rhe structure would be unimpaired. ZI. C. Siding and Surface Treatment: Deteriorated siding materiols should be replaced with material used in original construcrion or with materials that resemble the appearance of the old as closely as possible. Resurfacing frame buildings with new material such as ariificial stone, artiftcial brick ve�Teer, or asbestos and asphalt shingles is inappropriate and should not be done. Four-inch lap vinyl, metal, or hardboard siding may be used in some cases to resurface clapboard structures, especially structures categorized as non-contributive to the disbict, rf well detailed, well designed and in keeping with the historic character of the structure. Yentilation must be carefully provrded when using these products �o prevent damage to the original wood fabric by tropping moisture. The width, pottern and profile of the original siding should 6e duplicated. Residing should not aJter the profile of � 9S-ss� Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File �2343 ,�., Page Two '-: _ bordering trim such as drip caps, frieze boards and corner boards; if replacement is necessary, they should be matched; and WHEREAS, the Saint Pau] Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its May 25 and June 8, 1995 public hearings on said permit application, made the fol]owing findin�s of fact: The applicant proposes to wrap the existin� wooden soffits and fascia on the sides, rear, and front gable of the structure with white aluminum. The wooden eaves on the h�o-story front porch wculd remain as is. Accordin� to the applicant/contractor, the existing so�ts and fascia are in good condition but need painting. According to the property. o�vner, the existing fascia boards are rotted, resulting in problems with animals, and fascia replacement with new �vood and so�t repair would be cost prohibitive--in excess of $10,000, excluding painting. The existin� so�ts appeu to be in reasonably good condition, though some reptacement may be necessary. The cost of the proposed work is $4,548, including new �utters. 2. The applicant has already installed the zluminum soffit and fascia on the west side of the structure, in spite of numerous wamines from the property owner about the need for a building permit and inquirie, about its procurement. Accordin� tc the property owner, he had been assured by the applicant that a permit had been pulled. �: = -i � 3. The proposed alteration does not conform to the Hill District guidelines which call for retention of original materia]s and, if necessary, replacement with materials matching the original. The proposed material differs from the original in composition, design, profile, and appearance. The existin� soffit boazds ; un parallei to the exterior walls; the profile of the aluminum soffits are perpendiculaz to the walls. The fascia moldings are also covered. R'OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLY�D, that based on the above findings, the Herita�e Preservation Commission denies approval of a building permit to install aluminum soffits, fascia and gutters on the structure located at �86 Laurel Avenue. MOVED BY Baker SECONDED BY Buetow IN FAVOR AGAINST ABSTAIN Decisions ot the Heritage Preservation Commission are final, subject to appeat to the City Council within 14 days by anyone atfected by the decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting applicable building and zoning code requirements, and dou not consTitute approval for tax credits. i �.�. gs y,�5/ SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION z � THURSDAY, MAY 25, 1994 5:00 P.M., ROOM 40 CITY HALL 15 WEST KELLOGG BLVD. MINUTES PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Miller, Lunning, Baker, Murphy, Vojacek, Heide, Hauser, Buetow and Frame Commissioners Carey, Cattanach, Kessler and Albers ALSO PRESENT: Aaron Rubenstein, LIEP staff I. ANNOUNCEMENTS II. III. �� '�; Mr. Rubenstein made several announcements. A meeting with Mr. Perry Bolin regarding the Dayton Avenue Presbyterian Church has been scheduled for Friday, May 26 at 9:30 a.m. in the LIEP office. The walking tour has been scheduled for June 9th from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Rubenstein passed out a copy of the comments that Commissioner Albers made at the open house at Chazles Thompson Memorial Hall. __._ APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Commissioner Baker moved approval of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vojacek and passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS: DESIGN REVIEW 586 Laurel Avenue (File #2343) Twin City Storm Sash Install aluminum soffit and fascia A. Mr. Rubenstein showed slides and gave staff report Mr. Dennis Louie addressed the commission. He said he has done extensive renovations on the house, including rebuilding built in gutters on the front porch. The porches are the primary element seen from the street. The main damage on the house is the fascia. The house value doesn't warrant the cost of the using wood. Soffit replacement would be $10,000 to $12,000 with plywood, more for running board, and maintenance costs would be higher. Mr. Louie showed photos of houses in the neighborhood with aluminum trim or siding. The proposed aluminum color matches the existing painted trim exactly but the paint is dirty and aged. The aluminum doesn't detract from the historical signiFcance and look. This job would normally cost 1 � qs- q�''y $8,000.00, but he got a 40 percent discount during the winter. There were several questions !=: from HPC members for staff and Mr. Louie. Commissioner Lunning said he was concerned about work being done without a permit and about other structures in the area with aluminum trim. Commissioner Luvuing moved a rivo week layover to allow research on other houses in the_ neighborhood with aluminum trim. The motion was seconded by Commissioner A4iller and passed 9-0. B. 1216 Easf Seventh Street (File #2330) Orlanda Messerli Construct one-stall garage Mr. Rubenstein showed slides and gave staff report. The HPC approved this garage with a 12:12 roof pitch two weeks ago. . Ms. Messerli stated that the 12:12 roof pitch would be 5690.00 more than a 6:12 pitch and that an 8:12 would be $250.00 more than 6:12. She also believes that the 12:12 is too high, the roof would be top heavy, and not much of the garage would be visible from the roof. She prefers a 6:12 pitch, but an 8:12 would be acceptable. Mr. Rubenstein showed slides of garages in the alley and they are all around 6:12 pitch. Comnussioner Buetow moved to amend the plans to allow an 8:12 pitch. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Baker and approved by a vote of 9-0. , � �: ' � C. 1943 Sununit Avenue (File #2302) Elliot AndersonlElliot Architects Stucco Mr. Rubenstein showed slides and stucco samples. Commissioner Buetow stated that white is appropriate for half timbering. There was discussion about color and the HPC purview and a review of the guidelines. Commissioner Buetow asked if the stucco is acrylic or synthetic and whether or not it will be redashed. Commissioner Heide asked if the commission can require proof of original color and texture. Commissioner Frame stated that the commission should review Donnelly Stucco's records. What about the thickness and how it's applied? Commissioner Lunning stated it would probably require sandblasting the existing stucco. He would like to get more answers and deal with this in two weeks. Comcnissioner Lunning suggested a ri��o week layover or staff and commissioner review of doctunentation of original color and texture provided by the architect. The �vork could be approved if staff and commissioners can verify that proposed work is similar to original. This motion was seconded by Couunissioner Miller and passed 9-0. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Design Review Task Force report and discussion `a SFE �FxT SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1995 Y :z� _: 5:00 P.M., ROOM 40 C1TY HALL 15 WEST KELLOGG BLVD r4INUTES PRESENT: ABSENT: P�E gs-q�s� Commissioners Frame, i�4urphy, Heide, Hauser, Baker, Carey, Lunning, Miiler, Kessler, Catcanach, Buetow and Albers Commissioner Vojacek ALSO PRESENT: Aaron Rubenstein, Lynne Larkin, LIEP staff I. ANNOUNCEMENTS ' n4r. Rubenstein had no announcements. Commissioner Baker am�ounced an e��ent to honor the contributions of Ms. Bech Bartz and '�4s. Garnech Peterson on June 26, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at che University Club. Commissioner Hauser staced he is looking for a historic buildin�, vacant or not, in which to produce a television series for a period of three months, starting in mid-August going through sometime in November. Please be on �he lookout for an appropriate house. II. APPROVAL OF THE AGEA�DA III Mr. Rubenstein asked the convnission to move item 1V - A, after item IV - C. Chair Murphy requested the item B, under Old Business be deferred to the next meeting. Cominissioner Baker mo�'ed appro��al of the amended agenda, seconded by Connnissioner Lumung and appro�'ed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARIA'GS: DESIGN REVIE\� B. 1943 Summit A��enue (File �2302) Elliot Anderson/Elliot Architects A4odifications of pre�•iously appro��ed plans , T4r. Rubenstein eave staff report and showed slides. There were three issues addressed in A4r. Rubenstein's memo to the commission. Convnissioner Baker asked about the problem ��ith die strucmral support and windows. Commissioner Heide pointed out that the french door head height does not match windows as shown on page 31. Mr. Elliot Anderson stated that it wi11 match wHen done. The transom �lass �vill be 3 I/2 to 4 inches high. Commissioner Miller asked about the original dark creme stucco color. Mr. Anderson responded that the owner wants white stucco and Commissioner Buetow stated there are a number of others in the area that are the same. There was discussion about window head height, door canopies and stucco. , :, 9�= ys� F� :?;. 7 permit to cover �;ith aluminum the sofCt and fascia of the Ben Kostvck House at 1439 Summit A�'enue, this ��as seconded by Commissioner Hauser and passed by a��ote of 9-0. G. 1935 Summit A�•enue (File �2356) Rachei and Joseph �i'esterme}'er Construct rear addition Mr. Rubenstein showed picmres and gave staff report. The applicants r4r. & Mrs. Joe ��Jestermeyer w�ere present, but had no questions or comments. Commissioner Kessler tnoced approcal of the draft resolution to grant appro�•al of a building permit to construct the proposed rear addition, seconded Uy Commissiouer Luniung and passed by a��ote of 9-0. \� A. �86 Laurel Acenue (File �{23�33) T�r•in City Storm Sash Install aluminum soffit and fascia Mr. Rubenstein revie�a ed his June 5 memo and additional infomiation. He a]so stated he be]ieved that approval would set an important precedent for 1439 Sunm�it at this meeting and many likely future applications. The applicant and property owner were not present. Conm�issioner Frame stated that there is no standard for economic hardship. It is zddressed on a case by case basis. Corrvnissioner Carey pointed out the "be it further resol��ed" clause in the previous 593 Laurel resolution approvin� _. aluminum window trim states that "this shal] not serve as precedent when considering applications for similar work in the future". Commissioner Baker moced the draft resoIution to deny approval of a building permit to install aluminum soffits, fascia and autters on the structure located at 536 Laure( Acenue; seconded by Commissioner Buetow. This motion passed Uy a��ote of 8-0. At this point the Chair was turned o��er to Secretary Baker. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. 669 East Third Street update and discussion Mr. Rubenstein briefed the commission about the Ma�•or's veot concerning 669 East Third Street and about the HRA's actions concerning 661 and 669 East Third Street. The conunission discussed the situation and how to be invo]ved in conmiunity development policy discussions. B. Design reciew process The Chair laid this item over until the next HPC meeting. <_ ' . �- .- � q�= ys� HPC FII.E #2343 � �-� ; � ,.:, CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERTTAGE PRESERVATION COMII�SSION STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: Install aluminum soffit and fascia APPLICANT: Twin City Storm Sash DATE OF APPLICATION: 5.5.95 DATE OF FIEARING: 5.2595 LOCATION: 586 Laurel Avenue (south side between Kent and Dale) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 7, Woodland Pazk Addition HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Historic Hill District CLASSIFICATION: moderate STAFFINVESTIGATIONANDREPORT: DATE: 5.20.95 CATEGORY: supportive BY: Aazon Rubenstein A. SITE DESCRiPTION: The structure at 586 Laurel Avenue is a two story, Neoclassical style residence constructed in 1889. It has a rectangular plan, hipped roof with intersecting gables and asphalt shingles, clapboard siding, primarily one-over-one double hung windows, a stone foundation, and a two-story front porch with squaze columns, the first story of which is open and the upper story enclosed. The east side yard has been excavated to apparently provide access and light to a basement-level dwelling unit. The structure currently has three units. At the rear of the lot is a contemporary two-stali garage with alley access. B. PROPOSED CI�ANGES: The applicant proposes to install white aluminum soffits, fascia, and gutters. • G GUIDELINE CITATIONS: The Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the following: 77. Restoration and Rehabilitation, A. Ge�:eral Principles: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration for the building, structure, or site and its environrnent, or to use a property for its origi�aaZly intersded purpose. II. A.: 2. The distinguishing original quQlities or character of a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic nsaterial or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. � II. A.: 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the n:aterial being replaced in compositron, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement ofmissing architecturalfeatures should be based on accurate duplications offeatures, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rafher than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elen:ents from other buildings or structures. q� ys� HPC Staff Report: File #2343 s �?, Page Two II. A.: 10. Wherever possible, new additions or aZterations to structures sha11 be done in such a manner that :f such alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. 77. C. Siding and Surface Treatment: Deteriorated siding materials should be repZaced with material used in original construction or with materials that resemble the appearance of the old as closely as possible. Resurfacingframe buiZdings with new material such as artificial stone, artificial brick veneer, or asbestos and asphalt shingles is inappropriate and should not be done. Four-inch lap vinyl, metal, or hardboard siding may be used in some cases to resurface clapboard structures, especially structures categorized as non-contributive to the district, if well detailed, well designed and in keepirag with the historic character of the structure. Venrilation must be carefully provided when using these products to prevent damage to the original wood fabric by trapping moisture. The width, pattern and profile of the origi�ral srding should be duplicated. Residing should not alter tl�e profile of bordering trim such as drip caps, frieze boards and corner boards; iJreplacement is necessary, they should be matched. D. FINDII�TGS: 1. The applicant proposes to wrap the existing wooden so�ts and fascia on the sides and reaz of - the structure with white aluminum. The wooden eaves on the two-story front porch would -� remain as is. According to the applicandcontractor, the existing soffits and fascia aze in good � condition but need painting. According to the property owner, the existing fascia boazds are rotted, resulting in prob]ems with animals, and fascia replacement with new wood and soffit repair would be cost prohibitive--in excess of $10,000, excludin� painting. The existing soffits appear to be in reasonably good condition, though some replacement may be necessary. The cost of the proposed work is $4,548, including new gutters. 2. The applicant has already installed the a]uminum soffit and fascia on the west side of the structure, in spite of numerous warnings from the property owner about the need for a building permit and inquiries about its procurement. According to the property owner, he had been assured by the applicant that a permit had been pulled. The proposed alteration does not conform to the Hill District guidelines which call for retention of original materials and, if necessary, replacement with materials matching the original. The proposed material differs from the original in composition, design, profile, and appearance. The existing soffit boards run pazallel to the exterior walls; the profile of the aluminum soffits are perpendicular to the walls. The fascia moldings aze also covered. Finally, the white color of the aluminum does not re]ate to the rest of the exterior which has dazk taupe siding and trim of cream and blue. E. STAFF RECOMl!'IENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends denial of the proposed aluminum soffits, fascia and gutters. �- _. ----� �� GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT DEPARTNENT , CITY OF SAINT PAUL � � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL � OFF7CE OF LICFTSE, ASPECI701:S A7�'D i &�`VII20NME[.TAL PROTECIION r�=,.� BUI7DINGIA'SPEC710NM'DDE9GN � L=�- � 3505lPe�nStreel-Suilt310 � PKTit Soint Pou1, Minnesom 55102-1510 612-166-9001 �v?G�y! ��/}S L'�9 I�F �C7Tz��S PLAN NO. D SCFIPTION OF PROJECT , / DATE ��'�S� OWNER ��d��S n-�4/F OW ERS ADDRESS �- L? G�-�'�� `� OLD �{�� TYPE OF NEW 7YPECONST. �_�7 OCCUPANCY�^ GRADING STVCCOOR S-F•D. �� ❑ BUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYW LL ❑ FEN I7ADDITION ❑ALTER L2IREPAIR OVE ❑WRECK _WIDTH DEPTH SIDE L� LOT STRUC- �'�DTH LENGTN TURE TRACT I BUILOING LW � FRONT REAR � �- i T STORIES BASEMENT TOTA FLOOR AREA � YES ❑ Np S�. FT. INCLUDEBASEMENT T'✓1 S�lL SG/=-t=/T� �-s4C'�I � �i 4 ?�f�.$ �f�C- �re� � .�. u„ � ARCHITECT TGSS ACOUtSflfOfi IOC. 10825 Greenbrier Road Cor+7a.otAfrA�innlca. l�nnESO!0 55305 Q A...�� ISTATE PERMIT FEE IFf vn� ue PLAN CHECK STATE �r, SURCHARGE d TOTALF ��'`Y APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT ALl IN- FORMATiON IS CORftECT AND THAT CASHIEF VSE ONLY ALL PERTINENT STATE REGULATIONS AND CITV ORDINANCE$ WILL BE COM- WHEN VALIDATED TMIS �5 YOUR PERMIT PLIEDWITHINPERFORMINGTMEWORK FOR WHICH THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED. St. Code X �� ADDRESS OFJOB /ii.. i10R12E� SIGNATURE USE TYPEWRITER OR BALL POINT PEN � - ANDPRESSFIRMLY S'S � � q� �s� � .__-- ..:... ....... :: ... . -- -- - � GENERAL BUILDtNG PERMIT DEPARTnnENT � CITY OF SAINT PAUL '�` _ � CITY OF SAINT PAUL . � OFFICEOFLICENS$L�SPECflONSA.'�'D i � E.'VIRO\7.gIv7ALPROTFCI70N s,.._ I - BUIt�TNGIN5PEC710NM'DDESIGN � Pem4tNo. L- � 3505t Peter Sveet- Sui1e 310 - - — Saini Paul, M'v�nesofa 55102-)570 612-266-90�1 � SD�f'y7 ^f" PLAN NO. OESCFIPT�ON OF PROJECT / DATE .-'f�-9_C/� OWNER J�'�i7f��s /1��f O NERSADDRESS J��° lti/�� OlD TYPE OF NEW TYPE CONST. OCCUPANCY �� GRADING STUCCOOR, ❑ BUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER : ❑ DRYWALL ❑ FENCE i ❑ ADDITION ❑ALTER �REPAIF2 ❑ MOVE ❑ WRECK NUMBER STREET ;SIDE __ CROSSSTREETS WARD LOT 6LUCR WIDiH DEPTN lOT WiDTH STRUG TURE $IDE LOT CLEARANCE LENGTH HEIGHT _ ESTIMATED VALUE BASEM _ „ ❑YES I �L 7� DETA�LS b REMARKS: s- �7a�v /L/?27L/�G�E_ .S/1/=r'L I � tl� E RtES T TOTAL FIOOA AAEA NO 5�. FT. INCLUDEBASEMENT .: TCSS Acquisiticn I�c. ree n r �. � Minnetonka, Minneso:� �53C5 STATE PERmIT FEE /J/J (f!� yp�UATION TEL. NO. PLAN CHECK STATE (/ SURCFIARGE ,�Q TOTAI FEE �� APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT AlL IN• ' FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT ALL PERTINENTSTATE REGULATIONS CASH�ER USE ONIY AND CITY ORDINANCES WILL BE COM- WHEN VALIDATED TM�S IS YOUR PERMIT PLIEDWITHIN PEAFORMING THE WORK FOR WHICH THIS PERMIT i5 ISSUED. , �_ n n St. Code X �[.re.ccc/�� ADDRESS � AZTrSiORIZED5IGNATURE OFJOB _ ___'__—_ . __' _ETY EWR TE _ ��(.J-O� ; 'c �. t RESS FIRMLY � �,� ��' = 9�'y � � �0 � � � -� �- � , !J L� � O16 i7 �� .�1 Srt,B l� � ;� �, ��, . .� � �- -� � � � _� V � �� I 0 � �� f� 0' �0�00�� • � • • �� ' ��• • 0 �I� � � ��O �� I� 6 �- �86 ��u �.�t, /�1. � ■o�a�� Q■��■ � � �� . . �' � . � . . • S • � . tl. oM�1.r . o � � �• • .... . . s . ° �� . . � 0 � �I ✓ I � I O �I�I�I�I¢��I�'I°I�1�1 �J HOLLY 6 � � � � � O � zo �� 6rJ �I�r � �Y � . � � � �-`�-� - ��°O C 4� u 5 � ,� . � � O O O � O ,`�,.� � RECTORY ¢ O ¢ O C� t APPLICANT TCSS �"CCQUI S �TI U� LEGEND PURPOSE ��UMIt�UM �UI=FIT f r�i�� hpc districtboundary FILE # �� `t 3 DATE � �7 ' � � � subjed property n"' orth�' "PLNG. DIST____�___ MAP # L U o one famiiy •�^ commerci� - — � two tamiy ♦ � s industrial SCALE 1' = 2pp• A�. Q muttiple family V vacant t , � J � � ° ��.� o _ �. � � � O O �i� � oo � ��¢ O CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemax, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preservation Commission FROM: Aaron Rubenstein f{P� RE: 586 Laurel Avenue/File 1f2343 DATE: 5 June 1995 OFF�CE OF LICENS$ INSPECTfONS AND / ENVIRONMENTAL PR07'ECfION �Gj_ ��f af � Rober( Kessler, Director � LOWRY PROFESSIONAL TeJephone: 6l2-266-9090 BUILDING Facsimile: 672-266-9099 Svite 300 672-266-9124 350 St. Peter S(reet SaintPavl, �nnesota 55102-7570 At its May 25, 1995 meeting, the HPC laid over the application of Twin City Storm Sash to install aluminum soffit and fascia on the residential structure at 586 I.aure] Avenue in order to ailow for investigation of similar cases presented at the May 25 meeting by the property owner, Mr. Dennis Louie. Attached are my notes of a survey of the structures on the block of Laurel on which 586 is located. Significant findings are: 2. The HPC approved in 1992 vinyl siding to replace asbestos siding on the house at 562 Laurel subject to the condition that fascia and (at least some) window trim remain uncovered. Very little clapboard siding remained and it was in poor condition. The soffit and fascia now existing are wood. The houses at 590, 589, and 613 I.aurel have aluminum siding and trim that was installed prior to creation of the Hill District. The three story apartment building at 593 Laurel has aluminum trim on eaves and windows on the front of the building which was approved by the HPC in 1990 (resolution attached). Staff had recommended denial and the Design Review Committee denied approval. I am still looking into two cases elsewhere in the neighborhood cited by Mr. Louie. ,_� ��= y�� --�-� 6 -��"-�-�-�� -��{�-�--w -� t---, � � - -f,�„� 6 ?� c,,r�s--� ��— � a I w -� - ��, _ ��.-�,�� - � �'� �`-. � , �j �?0 i - - �'I �v� �- / �,l �, 3 � � M�. S 0 r� 'w�Jn- ��'��,`� �' Y�n -��-- -------- - -- — - - ------ - �,� +;�� ,� -- ,�� -��.� �'� I � � � ,� �'�' , ,, � �� ( � � '�� } o 3 � e� � i'w u,°tu1;�,4'�9k j,�,'�l� �.1��2:5 iucG {��IrA,il,�i�.• / e + � f�', �1"v1 �hC.�G� �ri f,h.�•y�_ l�� ?l � � � ��,h :,..��, k �J-��'1� l � C �`�Z� �, „ �� ° i v�.�; �,%� �� ti� ��'.,6' u,� s2�,�'' � , 1 , �_�0 � � � C-; � ' P..d S z C[,�111�� _ \n,��•v� , W c� ,? �,'��f./1- c': .,; � � `� c, at� � __ , � �"�"r ', _� G� 13 � .``__ z �. , we�-K -�vv�-#� p.�,et2�— [1.�8' �,9-� � �/�'�' ./�/' L� � �t/i lrJ1 � Q SR/J�1�' � �� `'� �� . �cQ1tUV� � �h,�� 3-�t�� /',�1AU Q� � QK.L�vti •�a)"1 �tMnt D�1 • R,��(v'vi. � J c�u�v� P.�'�' s�,� �,,� :- � ��' d�,.�S � 4a�.4,� l�runv ��"�' >�.v v'' � -�,��. � � �: �� 'Y �r� �� iAj'�i�'� 1'}� K/l �� n/E Vv1 � `'^y��'��1� �.��'✓� la,o "' �,d 1�,�,t,�' Cbrvl�4�t,�1�� ..�c�!'�.�T fiilr�hn�� 1�m (.Q,�s�s((,�h� � U,n� ��"�t 1�.✓t��J1 �� i,� �M�11,�' k%�-�/1J-Q/�'� �r'a-Hl� t•�"ti^� C�� c.,tw�n. �:.�nr�,i� uw t4tJC f��-�( ��r at��,- �'( 3 �� ) � S�� l3 � �� (��2.; i{(�C o �;�.,� ��;,u-� ��i �I�;Q�. a�[an�, n�iu �c�� f�� I.ew�il�.aiQ,b u� iklr�se'� c..s�,�;.�t�. ca�Q,t�c�, ��1euc �- (a�'ua� t�� M, f�eati+ �ncG� ti "I s'� �.s,�e �rvsc.ca .4¢��-��eQ�eu.� � � 'v„c�z,l. �y;t� � 1452 � �� z /.�Jttia� �,q,� , (,,.e�,� ��;��,�U,� �,i2 ,�j� in �N�) � � — - — - --- �, � -= ------; 3 i �-- -! � � � i , �� y�� 1�� iv�iwc�,_�8�ti�- e�k{.��btAl.�. `�d/wy � Ew ��'� c,��'� �_a�urn_S�tt�tv�i;_F�!r�. burr,� j-- -- — J U . _, , � ,i � (�76--v��i� �,��u�"..d�,tc� — - — - ---- -- ---- — .------ a��.ti�_��n,_(��c ��.a�,�? i°��_, � �� (►9s C �,��,�_ t�er��n.er.�i� �e:ui� � (`xa�S�. ReL��ut Cr�u�,�ee �i� ct�'��LV�) - - � �---,. �`=°: CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERiTAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSlON FILE NUMBER �i9s DATE November 15, 1990 RESOLUTION � g�_ ��' WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to review building permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and WHEREAS, Dona]d Lyman of Midwest R'indow Company has appiied for a building permit to cover all ezterior wood trim of the front Cacade with blue aluminum coil and to cover soCfit areas with vinyl soffit panels at 593 Laurel Avenue; and 1!'HERE�S, 59�Laurel is a 3 story Classical Revivai b-unit apartment building built in 1901 and categorized as supportive to the Historic Hill District; and WHEREAS, the Historic Hil! Heritage Preservation District Guidelines for Design Review include the following: I. Section D. Restoration and Rehabilitation oC the Historic Hill District Guidelines for Design Review states, "All work shall be oC a character and quality ihat maintains the distinguishing features of the building and environment." 2. Section D. II. Siding and Surface Treatment states, "Resurfacing frame buildings w�ith :-�^'� new material which is inappropriate...should not be done. Four-inch metal siding may � be used in some cases to resurface clapboard structures if well detailed, w•ell designed and in keeping with the historicat character of the structure." 3. Section D. IV. Window•s and Doors states, "R'indow sash, glass, lintels, sills, architraves, doors, pediments, hoods, steps, and all hardware should be retained' «'HEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the Heritage Preservation Commission met on November 6, 1990, and voted to deny said building permit application; and R'HEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preser�ation Commission, based upon evidence presented at their Vovember I5, 1990, public hearing on said permit application, made the following findings of fact: 1. Due to the restrained detailing found in Classical Revival buildines of this [ype, [he fenestration and its relatcd elements (iacluding window and door trim) and treatment of the eaves are the primary stylistic elements oC this structure and are therefore considered distinguishing features of che structure. 2. The proposed cocering of window and trim with aluminum coil stock will, to some degree, distort and blur the profile of the trim. The character and quality of this w�ork does not maintain the distinguishing qualities of this siructure. 3. 1i'ell designed resarfacing with artifici3l siding typically implies that wood trim and detailing remains intact. Covering of the exterior trim is not considered to be "well designed" and is not in keeping with the historical character of the structure. c � 1� � �� ::a � �_:: File #119 Pagc TK'o 4. 5. :� 7 g �" ��sy While window sills and architrases will be covered by an artificiai product they will be retained thereby allowing thc ezterior trim to be restored by a future owner. The proposed wor arcnt toethe7casual obs rverfront facade of the structure but will not be readily app A situation of economic hardship exists in that appropriate repair and replacing of wood trim will increase project costs by 50 percent, a cost that the Hawthorne East Association, owners of 593 Laurel A�enuc, are unable to bear at this time due to their financial situation. Failure to perfozm some type oC correctional repair to the ezterior trim could result in serious structural damage to the structure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that baseed�oL apP� ca�ion toa�overtall exter3or Preservation Commission appro�es the building p wood trim of the front facade w'ith aluminum coil stock and to cover soffit areas With vinyl soffit panels at 593 Laurel A�enue. lications for BE IT FUR7fIER RESOLYED, that this decision has been made under the economic hardship provision and shall not ser�e as precedent when considering app similar work in the future. !�tOYED BY Rafferty SECONDED B1' Murphy IN FAVOR 6 AGAINST 0 ABSTAIN 0 Decisions of the Heritage Preser.ation Commission are final, subject to appeal to the City Councii within 10 days by anyone affected by the decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting applicable building and zoning code reqnisements, and does not constitute approval for tax credits. � M^^^ �^ �. � arlll Vvccc [IOMI� '