The URL can be used to link to this page

96-1009!'�''`�"��` it � �. e `. . ... � e m . .._ Presented By Referred To council File # ��— �u�q Green Sheet # � �, �i �c � RESOLUTION �INT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� / Committee: Date WHEREAS, Gregory Lehman, 839 East Fourth Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106, made application to the Heritage Preservation Commission to remove an existing deteriorating side yard deck and rebuild it with a larger one measuring approxixnately riventy feet by twenty feet [20' x 20'] pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code for property located at 839 East Fourth Street (North side beriveen Hope and Mendota Streets); and WHEREAS, The Heritage Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing after having provided notice to affected properry owners on May 23, 1996. The commission, by its resolution number 2609 adopted May 23, 1996, denied the application based upon the following findings and conclusions: 1. The applicant proposes to replace the existing, rotting deck on the West side of the building with a new, larger deck measuring approximately 20' x 20'. He is willing to reduce the size of the proposed deck. The deck would not be painted or stained and would not have bottom rails or skirting. The floor of the deck would be 3.5 ft above grade. The applicant has stated that a roofed porch would cost more than he can afford. 2. The proposed deck does not conform to district guidelines: it would be located at the side, rather than rear, of the building where it would be highly visible and it would not be in keeping with the character of the district. Porches, rather than decks, aze an important dis6nguishing feature of the district. While the subject structure has been greatiy altered and retains little architectural integrity, future wark and alterations shouid move the structure more into compliance with district guidelines, rather than further out of compliance, so that it might conYribute to the chazacter of the district. 3. Removing the existing deck, if it is dilapidated, would not preclude use and enjoyment of the yard. The applicant could build a patio with stairs to the side door, use the existing rear yard deck, or perhaps, reopen a boarded up porch attached to the reaz of the side deck. The e�sting side yazd deck is attached to the owners' unit. The rear yard deck is attached to the owners' work space. L'� 5. The proposed deck, if removed in the future, would not impair the form and integrity of the district. The subject structure is located two lots from the eastern boundary of the Dayton's Bluff District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Legislative Code § 73.06, Greg Lehman duly filed with the City Council an appeal from the determination made by the commission 1, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 arid requested that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering (� �„ � O�� the actions taken by the commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislafive Code § 73.06, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on July 10, 1996, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREA5, the Council, having heazd 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 reverse the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission in this matter based on the following findings of the Council: 1 2. 3 The home is non-contributing and neaz the boundary of the Dayton's Bluff Heritage Preservation District. The appellant has improved his home many times and followed the process in an area that is subject to declining property values. The existing deck needs to be removed and the proposed expansion is not significant. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Gregory Lehman be and is hereby granted; and AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Gregory Lehxnan, the Zoning Administrator and the Heritage Preservation Comxnission. f ? � � � � �� ,.,' s� t t..G f a a� s a�Tev — Bostrom Harris Guerin Meaar Rettman T lla� e Adopted by Council: Date � . � Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY� � � 1'� �.<.� _ Approved by Mayor: Date �`�� By: �l5- �� Requested by Department of: By: Form Approv d by City Attorney B � �� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: �1G- too9 DEP C1Cy TC011llC1]_ CIL DATE INITIATED GREEN SHEE N_ 3 6 3 6 0 � INIT7AVDATE INITIAL/DATE CONTACT PEHSON 8 PHONE — � DEPARTMENT DIRE � C(iY COUNCIL Council President Dave Thune p��+ �CITYATfOFiNEY �CIT1'CLERK MUST BE ON COUNCII AGENDA BY (DA7E) Rp�� BUOGET DIRECTOR � FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR. ORDEfl � MpYOR (OR ASSISTANT) � TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LQCATIONS POR SIGNATUR� ACTION REOUESTED: Finalizing City Council action taken on July 10 2o grant a appeal for a side yard deck at 839 East Fourth Street. The appeal is of Gregory Lehman. FiECOMMENDA710N5: Approve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONAL SERViCE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWINCa DUESTIONS: _ PLANNING CAMMiSSION _ CIVIL SERVICE CAMMISSION �� Has ttiis perso�rtn ever worked under a contrect for this Cepartrnent? - _ qBCAMMRTEE _ YES 'NO _ SinFF Z. Has this perso�rm ever been a c'rty employee? — YES NO _DIS7FiICTCAUR7 _ 3. Dcesthis ersonflirm p possess a skill not normally possessed by any curcent city emptoyee? SUPPORTSWHICNCOUNCILO&IECTIYE? YES NO Explain all yes answers on separete shcet and attach to green aheet INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE. OPPOFTUNIN (Who. What, When, W�ere. Why�: ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: DISADVANTACaES IFAPPqOVED: �'�`t�' y�� ?�� '�d''aY�;' Al�G � 1 1�g6 DISADVANTAGES IP NOTAPPROVED: �� ' ' " TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) VES NO FUNDIHG SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (E%PLAIN) OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Timothy E. Marx, City At[orney � CIT'Y OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co7eman, Mayor August 13, 1996 Nancy Anderson City Council Research 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Civil Division 400 City Ha[I �s wesr xeno� atvd Saint Pauj Mvviesom 55102 Telephone: 612 266-8710 Facsimile: 6l2 298-5679 RE: Appeal by Gregory Lehman of a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission heard by Council of July 10, 1996. Dear Nancy: Attached please find the signed original resolution finalizing the decision of the Council in the above referenced matter granting the appeal by Gregory Lehman of a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission. Sincerely, �� ✓�i,�,.�-., Peter W. Warner Attachment �� ;=�;� � �` � �(.� �`�5 � r.+�.s CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor 19 June 1946 OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND � W� � 0 � ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTTON RobertKessler, Drrecmr � O IAWRY PROFESS70NAL Te[ephone: 6/L2669090 BU/LDING Facsrmils: 6/2-2669099 Sui�e 300 350 St Petsr Sbeet Sain(Pav{M+nneso+a 55101-IS10 i�'�+�t Ilx• =;.c�,.. iFf f��;`i�1 _� JUN 1 9 1996 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota SS 102 Dear Ms. Anderson: I would like to request that Ciry Council hearings for two appeals of decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commission be scheduled for July 10, 1996. The two cases aze as follows: l. Appellants: Robert and Cherry Crrant Properry address: 415 Laurel Avenue (Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District; Wazd 1) Pmpose: appeal HPC decision denying approval for skylight (HPC File #2282) 2. Appellant: Gregory Lehman Property address: 839 East Fourth Street (Dayton's Bluff Heritage Preservation District Wazd 7) Purpose; appeal HPC decision denying approval for side-yazd deck (HPC File #2609) My understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda for the June 26, 1996 City Council meeting. These public hearings do not require published notice. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions. Sincerely, f ��,,, �.�,�� Aazon Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Robert Kessler, LIEP Robert Lunning, HPC Chair Peter Warner, CAO • r� L � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayror 2 July 1996 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: HPC File #2609: Ciry Council Hearing: OFFICE OF LtCENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVII20NMENTALPROTECTTON RobertKessler, Di�ector IAWRYPROFESS70NAL BUII.DING Suite 300 350 St Peter S[reer SmntPau7, Minnuota 55102-IS/0 Crreg I,ehman July 10, 1996 a�- 1d�9 Telephone: 672-266-9090 Factimi7e: 611-266-9099 PURPOSE: To consider an appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision to deny a building pernilt application for the construction of a 20' x 20' side yazd deck on the sWcture located at 839 East Fourth Street in the Dayton's Bluff Heritage Preservation District. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTION: DENIAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: DENIAI, SUPPORT None. OPPOSITIOI3: None. Deu Ms. Anderson: Mr. Gregory Lehman has appealed the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission to deiry a buiiding pemrit application for the construction of a side yazd deck on the structure he owns located at 839 East Fourkh Street. The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the pernrit application on May 23, 1996, at which time the applicant addressed the commission. At the close of the public hearing, the commission voted 6-1 to deny approval of the pernut. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on July 10, 1996. Please notify me if any Councilmember wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, �'r,�. ��'2ct^ � 2v Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Attachments cc: City Councilmembers Robert Kessler, LIEP Director Robert Lunning, HPC Chair Peter Warner, Ciry Attorney's Office Gregory Lehman Gregory A. Lehman 839 4th Street No. l St.Paul, MN 55106 Aaron Rubenstein Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 350 St.Peter Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 May 29, 1996 � � � �� -� � . .. , --, �" _ � o .�. � � � . .- � __ o-: To Whom It May Concern, This letter dated May 29, 199b is in response to the letter I received on May 29. I am appealing the decision of the HPC. The reason I am appealing is because the HPC denied me of building my deck that I proposed to build. The statement for setting forth the grounds for the appeal is "I would like to repiace my old rotted deck with a newer one".If you have any further questions please feet free to contact me at 776-2913 or 772-3857. Thank ;�o:z, � Owner � � OfflCE OF LICFNS$ INSPEC770NS AND ENVIRONMA.`TAL PROTEC'I70N RobertKeukr, Dbecmr O O � �-r � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coteman, Mayor 24 May 1996 Mr. Greg Izhman 839 East Fourth Street #tl Saint Paul, MN 55106 Deaz Mr. Lehman: IAKRY PROFFSSIONAL BUQDINC� Suite 300 350 St Peter Street SointPav7,Min�soto 35102-ISJO TelspFone: 6J 2-2669090 Facsimi/e: 6/1-2669099 As you Isow, the Saint Paul Heritage Psescrvstion Commission voted at iu May 23, 1996 meeting to deny approval of your building permit application to construct a new side yazd deck on your property ]ceated at 839 East Fourlh Street in the Day4on's Bluff Heritage Preservation District. I have enclosed a copy of the commission's resolution. You have the right to appeal this decision to the Saint Paul City CouncIl under Chapter 73 of ihe Saint Paul Legislative Caie. Such appeal must be filed by June 6, 1996. Chapter 73 requires that the following paragraph be included in all letters indicating denial of a pemilt: Section 73.06 (h) Appea! to the Ciry Council. The permit applicant or a�ry parry aggrieved by rhe decialon of the heritage preservation commission shall, wilhin fourleen (14) days oJ the date of the heritage prnservotion commrssion's order and decision, have a right to appeal such order and decision to the ciry council. The appeal shal! 6e deemed perfected upon receip[ by the division ofp7anning of two (2) copies oja notice ojappeal and statement setting fonh the grounds for the appeaL The division of planning shall transmit one copy of the notice ojoppeal and statement to rhe crty councif and one copy to the heritage preservation commission. The commission, in a�ry written order de�rying a permit epplication, shall advise rhe oppJicant of the right te appea! 10 the ciry caunciJ and include this pc�ragraph in a!! such orders. • Because the Heritage Preservation Commission is no longer staffed by the Plan:w�g Division, I would request that any letter of appeal be sent to me at LIEP instead of to the Planning Division. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions or concems. Sincerely, �.`� ��{�U.� ^ �v Aazon Rub�stein Heritage Preservadon P3anner cc: Tate Halvorson, LIEP Bob Kessler, LIEP CITY OF SAINT PAUL � HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION FILE NUMBER 2609 DATE 23 May 1996 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to review building �ermit applications for exterior alterarions, new construction or deanolirion on or wiffiin desigoated F3eaitage Preservation $ites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and WHEREAS, Greg I.s�an has applied for a bu�ding permit to construct a side yard deck attached to the structure lceated at 839 East Fourth Street within the Dayton's Bluff Heritage Presavation District; and WHEREAS, the subject strueture is a rivo and one-half story, Qucen Anne slyle house constructed in 1900 and categorized as noncontribvtmg to the district; and WHEREAS, the Dayton's Bluff Heritage Preservation Disirict guidelines for design review include the foltowing: General Principles: 1. All work should be oja character and qualiry rhat maintains the distinguishing features of the building and the emironment. General Principles: 4. 1Jew addidons or alteradon to structures should be constructed in such a manner � that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired. General Principles: 5. The impact ofalterations or additions on individual buildings as well as on the surrounding streetscape will be considered; major alteradons to buildings which occupy a corner lot or are otherwise prominently sited should be avoided Porches and Steps, 6. Decks: Decks should be conshucted only at the rear of the building or where most inconspicuous. Railings, steps, and other deck features and details should be compatible with the architectural character of the districY, and WHE1tEAS, the Sa� Paul Heritage Preservation Commi�ion, based upon the evidence presented at its May 23,1996 public heazing on said permit appli�oa, made the following Sndings of fact: l. The applicant proposes to replace the existing, rotYing deck on the west side of fhe building with a new, larger deck measuring approximately 20' x 20'. He is willing to reduce the size of the proposed deck The deck would not be painted or stained and would not have bottom rails or sidrling. The fioor of the deck would be 3.5' above gade. The applicant has stated that a roofed porch would cost taore thaa he cau affora 2. 'I'he proposed deck dces not conform to district guidelines: it would be located at the side, rather than rear, of the building where it would be lughly visible and it would not be in keeping with the chazacter of the disuict Porches, rather than decks, aze an important distina �iching feabue of the districk While the subject struchse has been greafly akered and retains litNe arcbitectural inteSrity, • future work and alterations should move ihe sh�ucture more into compliance with district guidelines, rather than further out of compliance, so that it might contribute to the character of the dislrict a� - t�� • Heritage Preservation Commission Kesolution: File #2609 Page Two 3. Removing the eacisting deck, if it is dilapidated, would not preclude use and eajoyment of the yard The applicant could build a patio with stairs to the side door, use the �isting rear yard deck, or perhaps reopen a boazded up porch attached to the rear of the side deck. The existing side yazd deck is attached to the owner's unit The rear yazd deck is attached to the owner's work space. 4. The proposed deck, if removed in the fuhue, would not impair the form and integrity of the structure. 5. The subject structure is lceated two lots from the eastem boundary of the Dayton's Bluff district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation Commission denies approval of a building permit for the proposed deck. MOVED BY SlQief SECONDED BY Albers IN FAVOR • AGAINST ABSTAIN Decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commiasion are Final, subject to appeal to t6e City Council within 14 days by anyone affected by the decision. TLis reaolution dces not obviate the need for meeting applicable building and wuing code requirements, and dcea not constitute approval for taa credita. u 839 East Fourth Street HPC File #2609 Summa�of 523.96 HPC MeetinQ n U Aazon Rubenstein showed slides of the site, s�mazized the staff report and recommendation, and stated that, if a deck is approved, it should at minimum be wmpatible with the traditionai style of the building, i.e., have a bottom rail and skirting and possibly be painted Greg I.ehman, applicant, showed a map with the historic dish�ict boundaries. He said that the exis[ing deck is approximately 10' x 10' and that the building is noncontributing and he wants to make it look better. Commissioner I3eade astced abovt the h�e shown in the photograph on page 4 of the staffreport. Mr. Lehman responded that be woufd bw']d tbe deck azound the tree. He said aLso that the de�k could have a bottom rail ffid lattice sldrting. Conun9sssaner Bakea: concer�d aboi¢ the size of the deck—a 20' wide deck would be very visible from the street. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Frame moved to grant approval of the proposed deck with a condition that it have a bottom rail and sidrting. The motion died for tack of a second Commissioner Albers: to ailow the deck as proposed would be counter to the district guidelines, would set a poor precedent. Acting Chair Buetow: rear yard is used for pazlang therefore a deck might be permissible e]secvhere. Commissionets Skrief and Albe.� moved aad seconded the draft resolution to deny approval of the proposed deck Heide: perhaps the commission should offer to meet with the applicant to look at alternafives. Buetow: explained to applicant how informal design review consultations work. T'he motion to deny approval passed 6-1 (Frame). Buetow encouraged the applicant to contact HPC staffto work with the commission on altemative solutions. • Mr. Lehman rejected the offer and said he would appeal the decisioa notes prepared by Aazon Rubenstein • � � - �n� � • HPC FILE #2609 CTfY OF SAINT PAUL HERTTAGE PRESERVATION COMIvIISSION STAFF REPORT � FILE NAME: Rebuild side yazd deck APPLICANT: Greg Lehman DATE OF APPLICATION: 422.96 DATE OF HEARING: 523.96 LOCATION: 839 Easc Fourth Street (north side between Hope and Meadota streets) HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Dayton's Bluff Disirict CLASSIFICATION: Moderate STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 520.96 CATEGORY: Noncontributing BY: Aaron Rubenstein A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The structure at 839 East Fourth Street is a two and one-half story, Queen Anne style house consWCted in 1900 and categorized as noncontributing to the district. It has a Iripped roof with cross gables and asphalt shingles, cement-asbestos siding over clapboazd, some three-over-one and mosdy one-over-one double-hung sash, side and reaz decks, numerous alteraflons and additions, and an added, enclosed, two-story front porch. Part of a reaz addition has vinyl siding. The structure is divided into four units--three dwelling units plus the owner's tattoo shop. B. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant proposes to remove an e�cisting side yazd deck that is deteriorating and rebuild a lazger one measuring approximately 20' x 20'. C. GUIDELINE CTTATIONS: The Dayton's Bluff Heritage Preservarion District guidelines for design review include the following: General Principles: 1. All work should be of a character and qualiry ihat maintains the distingurshing features of the building and rhe environmettt. General Principles: 4. New addirions or alteration to structures should be constructed in such a manner that ifsuch additions or alteradons were to be removed in the future, the form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired. General Principles: S. The impact of alterations or addidons on individual buildings as well as on the surrounding streetscape will be considered; major alterations to buildings which occupy a corner lot or are otherwise prominently sited should be avoided. Porches and Steps, 6. Decks: Decks should be constructed only ar the rear of the building or where most inconspicuous. Railings, steps, and other deck jeatures and details should be compatible with the architectural character of the district. • FIPC Staff Report: Fite #2604 Page Two D. BACKGROiIND: In 1993, the HPC approved the installation of aluminum soffit and fascia on the subject strudure subject to the condition that gooves in tfie soffits nm para[tel to t6e walLs. The owner (and c�ent applicaot) appealed that condition to the City Council which granted the appeal by a vote of 6-0. The applicant has stated iPnat next year he intends to apply for a building permit to remove the esisting cement-asbestos siding on the structure and install vinyl siding. E. FLNDINGS: 1. The applicant proposes to replace the existing, rotting deck on the west side of the buiiding with a new, larger deck measuring approximately 20' x 20'. He is willing to reduce the size of the proposed deck. The deck would not be painted � stained and would not have botYom rails or sidrting. The flaor af the cleck woald be 3.5' above gade. The applicant has stated that a roofed posch ww�id cost more than he can afford. r� LJ 2. The proposed deck does not confomi to district guidelines: it would be located at the side, rather than rear, of the building where it woutd be highly visible and it would not be in keeping with the character of the district Porches, rather tLan decks, are an important distin, �iching featine of the district. Wlrile tl�e subject structure has bee�► greatly altered and retains liule azclutectural integity, firture worlc aad a�teratioas shovtd move the st�ncture more into comgliance with district gnidelines, rather than fiutUer out of compliance, so that it might contribute to the chazacter of the district. � 3. Removing the e�cisting deck, if it is dilapidated, would not preclude use and enjoyment of the yazd. The appficant could build a pazio with stairs to the side door, use the �isting rear yazd deck, or perhaps reopen a boarded up porch attached ta the rear of the side deck. The eacisting side yazd deck is auached to the owner's imit. Tfie reaz yard deck is attached to tfie owner's work space. 4. The proposed deck, if removed in the future, would not impair the form and integrity of the strucfire. 5. The subject strucdue is located two lots from the eastera boimdary of the Dayton's Bluff districK. F. STAFF RECOM1YiL�NDATION: Based on the above findings, staffrecommends that the commission deny agproval of a permit for the proposed deck • C � _GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT DEPARTrv,Enr � CtTY OF SAINT PAUL �l i ' � CITY OF SAINT PAUL � or � E.NIRONMEi�'!qL PROTECf10N � BL'!IDlA'GN'SPECTIONM'ODESIGN } 350 St Peter S+reet - Suite 300 i P�m�it Mo. ri� Saint Pau( Mir�nemm 55102-I510 6l2-266-90�J' �� +"�L� PIAN N0. OESCRIPTION OFPROJECT / ( DATE - 4" I S — �� OWNER (�= �� `�' L��M� OWNERSADDRESS "� J � � S I • �T� I ❑ OlD j� ` v�/�7�{ TYPE OF � NEW TYPE CONST. �/� ��' �� OCCUPANCY GRADING $TUCCA OR �BUILD ❑ANDEXC. ❑PLASTER ❑DRYWALL ❑FENCE�� ❑ ADDITION C] ALTER r] REPAIR I MOVE ❑ WRECK Q ✓ (� r � 1 !'f V J WARD LOT BLO W�DTN LOT � STRUG w�o�N ; TURE �� 3 �i Q� �TZ Aoo � J� � LENGTM HEIGMT STORIE; O �l' ' J � t' � �'Y BASEMEN TOTALFLOOA AREA � VES NO SQ. FT. DETAILS b REMARKS: T�.1 � /�nw�✓ oLb Ge�� , �e B �,� �1� ,� ,/If� W'' /)��K ��. RP�'KfI,It� t/�� LqNS" 2Z` x ZZ' � , • iERMIT FEE '� 7 L � .� I yq�UATiON er i i v %A�a�EMlCIC� STATE ' a l�' SURCNARGE � TOTALFEE g q �� AGPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT ALl IN- FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT ALL PERTtNENT STATE REGUl0.TtONS CASMIEA USE ONLY AND CITV ORDINANCE$ WILI BE COM- WMEN VALID4TED THt515 YOUR PERMIT P�IEDWITHINPERFORMINGTHE WORK FOR WHICH THtS � MIT IS �SSUED. St. Code :1 X ADDRESS Q�� cyT� �' ,- � OF JOB (J ! /TO YOR DSIGNATVRE — r, � USE TYPEWRITER OR BALL POINT PEN � n (/� AND PRESS FIRMLY � L '� " � ��-lod� 3 ,� � � Deck Proposal To: Planning Examiner City of St.Paul Office Of License & Inspection Suite 300 350 St.Peter Street �t.Paul,1'��N 55102 From: Greg Lehman (612)772-3857 {612)776-2913 839 4th Street No.1 St.Paul, MN 55106 � � Preser�f Deck sta�sding (wi11 be tsr� dawn!. 3D View of Your Deck � � � � Top View of Your Deck The Scale is 1/4" : 1` V N ei e�l N n n{ O 1 � f`7 M � • Your deck is 3' 6" high � The deck is designed for a 40 PSF live load. i , , �� Z � 6n �� 3 � 9n � g � 2et ' 4 � "2� 6n Qty. 1 � 13 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S 5 1 1 1 1 7 23 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 � Len. 12' * * 20' * * 6' * * 20' * * 6' * * 6` ** 6` ** 8 , �� 8 , � � 6' * * 20' * * 10' 16' 20' 6' * * 6' * * 6' * * 6' * * 6' * * 6' * * 20' * * 10' * * 20' * * 20' * * 10' 16' 20' 20 2 0t �rr * 21'1"* 21' 6" * 22' * 22'1 6' * � �� ** Shopping List for Your Deck Description 2x2 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x2 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x2 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x2 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x4 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x4 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x4 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x4 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x4 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x4 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x4 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x4 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x4 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x4 No. 2 P.7. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.7. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.7. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x8 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x8 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine Price Ea 51.52 S 2.53 5.76 52.53 51.52 S 1.52 S 1.52 52.03 � 2.03 S 1.52 $5.06 52.53 $4.05 55.06 $2.28 52.28 52.28 52.28 52.28 52.28 57.60 $3.80 57.60 57.60 53.80 56.08 57.60 57.59 57.78 57.97 _.58.13 58.31 58.35 $3.04 53.04 R6 - ��9 Totai Price 51.52 532.88 $.76 $12.65 51.52 $1.52 S 1.52 52.03 S 2.03 S1.52 55.06 52.53 54.05 55.06 $2.28 52.28 $2.28 52.28 $2.28 52.28 537.99 53.80 57.60 57.60 53.80 542.55 S 174.75 57.59 57.78 57.97 58.13 58.31 558.42 53.04 53.04 / Shopping List far Your Deck c�ty. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 2 2�' 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 27 27 27 6 3 920 1 46 46 58 12 1 23 23 Len. 6' * * 6' * * 6' * * 6 � * 6' * * 10` 12' i 6' 20' 3 p ,� � 6' * * 20' * * 6' * * 20' * * 6' * * 20' * # 16' * � 18' * � 16' 20' 2'1"* 6' * * �, * � Description 2x8 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x8 No. 2 P.�. Ponderosa Pine 2x8 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x8 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x8 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x8 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x8 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x8 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa P+ne Zx8 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x8 No. 2 P.T. �ondernsa Pine 2x12 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 2x92 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 4x4 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 4x4 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 4x4 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 4x4 Na. 2 P.T. Ponderasa Pine 4x4 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 4x4 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 4x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 4x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 4x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 1 /2" nut 1 /2" washers 1 /2" J bolt 2x8 framing anchor 2x8 joist hanger 3" galvanized decking screws 2x8 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 3/8" nut 3/8" x 6" carriage bolt 3/8" washers 3/8" x 5-1 /2" lag screw 4x6 No. 2 P.T. Ponderosa Pine 4x4 post cap 4x4 adjustable post base Price Ea. 53.04 $3.04 53.04 53.04 53.04 55.06 S 6.08 58.10 510.13 �11.00 54.56 515.20 53.04 510.13 $ 3.04 510.13 58.10 59.11 512.16 S 15.20 S 7 6.76 $.10 5.10 51.00 5.93 5.52 5.08 53.04 5.06 5.34 _ 5.05 5.34 54.56 S 2.29 53.97 Total Price $3.04 S 3.04 S 3.04 $ 3.04 $ 3.04 $5.Q6 S 6.08 S 16.20 581.02 $ 22.00 S4.56 530.39 53.04 520.25 53.04 530.38 58.10 59.1 1 Si2.16 $4b.59 S 16.76 S 2.70 52.70 $27.00 $5.58 51.56 573.67 53.04 52.76 $15.64 52.90 $4.08 54.56 $52.67 $91.31 • � � lo Qty. 47 � 13 8 3 � � Shoppinr !..�st for Your Deck Len. Description 60 Ib. bags of concrete lbs. 3-'I /2" galvanized common nails Ibs. 2-1 /2" galvanized common naiis lbs. galvanized joist hanger nails Totai Price of Your Deck Price Ea S 6.00 $1.50 S 1.50 51.50 �G • /�9 Total Price $282.00 519.50 512.00 �4.50 $1491.35 * These boards are longer than the ones available at your supply store. _ You will need to use a combination of shorter boards. ** Cut these boards into lengths shorter than those sold at your supply store. Note: To specify which lengths are available, use the Lumber Price Dialog. 11 CITY OF SAINT PAUL � HERITAGE PRESERVATION OMMISSION RESOLUTION FILE NUMBER isos DATE Setpember 9, 1993 WIiEREAS, the Saiat Paul Iieritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint PauE I�gsiative Code tn review bwlding permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Herita�e Preservation Districts; and VYFIEREAS, Greg I.ehman and Anderson Roofing and Construction have appfied for a building permit to install aluminum trim, soffits and fascia at 839 E. Fourth Sueet which is located within the Dayton's Blvff Heritage Preservation Disuict; and WHEREAS, 839 E. Fourth Street is a 2 1/2 story Queen Anne style residence constructed in 2900 and categorized as non-contrtbuting to the Day[on's Blaff Preservation District; and WHEREAS, the Dayton's Bluff Heritage Freservation District Guidelines for Design Review include the foIIowing: 1. Wood Siding and Shingles "2. Vinyl and Aluminum Sidin� other Manufactured Products. Bu�dings originally cIad in wooden siding shouId not be re-surfaced with brick, stucco, art�cial stone or brick veneer, hardboard, or vinyl or aluminum siding. The commission . may consider the following exceptions to the installation of vinyl, metal, or hardboard siding on a case-by-case basis: A, In cases where e�tisting asphalt, asbestos, aluminum or vinyl siding is to be remwed and where the underlying original siding and decorative features are found to be siguficanlly deteriorated. Commission staff must conduct a site visit during the removal process and advise on appropriate treatment. B. In the resurfacing of non-contnbuting buildings constructed after 1930. If vinyl, metal, or hardboazd siding is used as described in A-G, it must be of a width appropriate to the style of the bu$ding, and all architectural deta�s including window trim, wood cornices, and omament must remain uacovered. Repiacement siding may crover only one layer of existing sid'mg. Window, entry, and other trim must be built up so that it projects from the wall to the same extent as the originai." Fj'#IEREAS, the Design Review Committee of the Iieritage Preservation Commission met on August 31, 1993, and voted unanimously to recommend denial of the bu�7ding pennit; and WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon evidence presented at their September 9, 1993, public hearing on said pemut application, made the following findings of fact: 1. The bwlding at $39 E. Fourth Sueet is categorized as non-contrbuting to the district. . � The bu�ding has been significantly altered and retains little integrity. {.2 a�-�ooy � � • Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: FIle #1803 Page 2 of 2 2. The structure is located near the edge of the Dayton's Bluff Heritage Preservation District. NOW,1'HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings the Heritage Preservation Commission approves a building permit to cover the so�t and fascia at 839 E. Fourth Street with aluminum with the following condition: 1. That the soffit material be installed so that the gooves in the soffit material run parallel to the exterior wall, not perpendicular as is typical of aluminum soffit installation. MOVED BY SECONDED BY IN FAVOR AGAINST ABSTAIN Rafferty Baker � Decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commission am fnal, subject to appeal to the City Council within 14 days by anyone affected hy the decision. This resolution dces not obriate the need for meeting applicable building and zoning code mquirements, and dces not constitute approvai for tax credits. 13 �3 y �. �a��C�} ST. qt-ro� �. . : . � .. - -- . ' _ 1��"�� `(1�Tl1�fI17ITl , -.� _ � � �� =,= i iii�i_�- -��;��ii»Trir� �1+_ _.,, � �� -.�� n ,�ti �0��]�5��' � ' " _ �� 1�I�=_= �� ` ,,� �: x�v�«�,��_�l. � �, �=�� ( �\ Dishict Boundary His�orie Drstriet bm�nAaries as apprnved 1992. 1� _ � �- l � . . 1 �u, � 11� _ 11.D =_ � i�i�� : -- .--; 26