The URL can be used to link to this page

97-745Council File # \�� Green Sheet # ��..5 �' � � � �;�� _ Presented By Referred To 3`�' CITY OF RESOLUTION PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date WHEREAS, Diane and Steven Anderson, 985 Summit Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105, made application to the Heritage Preservation Commission for approval of a building permit to install vinyl replacement windows on the main structure and carriage house of property located at 985 Summit Avenue in the Historic Hi11 Heritage Preservation District; and 8 WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission conducted a 9 public hearing on November 21, 1996, after having provided notice � 10 to affected property owners. The Commission, by its resolution No. 11 2810, adopted November 21, 1996, approved the building permit for 12 the proposed vinyl windows subject to the following three 13 conditions: The meeting rail height of new windows shall match that of existing windows (60-40 sash must be duplicated where they exit); 2 3 Existing divided-light windows sha11 be replaced by windows with exterior-applied grids or muntins matching the existing configurations; The exterior of the screen sash shall be smooth or flat;_ and � ` WHEREAS, the granting of the building permit with the conditions above stated was based upon the following findings and conclusions: The existing windows (prime sash and combination storms) are deteriorated beyond repair and are drafty and very energy-inefficient. Many of the storm windows are patched and held together with duct tape. They want new windows to make the house comfortable, to reduce heating costs, and to make the house quieter (one of the owners is a musician/composer who sometimes records in the house). They have done extensive epoxy repair to.many windows but the result does not look like wood and the epoxy makes a loud, disturbing, popping noise when expanding and contracting due to heat and cold. To replace the existing windows with new wooden windows would cost more than $100,000.00. They believe the house was originally painted white and intend to paint it white in the future. The vinyl windows have a lifetime warranty and a 20 year warranty on the seal (double insulated panes). ��=��, 2. The proposed windows are white vinyl with a wood core and the sash and frame for insulation. They have already been manufactured at a cost of $39,000.00. The applicant and property owner has stated that they were unaware that HPC approval is required to install new windows. The vinyl windows have a projecting profile rather than the flat profile of the original sash; this difference would be covered, however, by the sash of full-height screens. 3. The applicant has revised the original window replacement proposal as follows: a. Full screens instead of half screens. b. Seal and leave in place curved tower windows instead o£ replacing them with straight windows (the owners may want to replace these in the future with new curved windows). c. Install round-topped, instead of rectangular, screens on the three, east elevation, round topped window openings; prime windows were and will be rectangular. 4. Some important elements of the design of the existing windows would not be duplicated by the proposed windows; a. Many-approximately half-of the existing double hung windows have a larger lower sash, the window opening being divided perhaps 60-40. The proposed new windows have upper and lower sash of equal size. The meeting rails of the existing 60-40 and 50-50 windows on the house align and create a strong line around the house; this is a distinetive design element that should be retained. b. The existing divided-light windows on the front elevation and attic story of the house and the exiting 3-1 divided-light windows on the carriage house would be replaced by window sash with grids located between thermal panes. The proposed grids or muntins would not replicate the look of the existing windows and would read as false and inaccurate. c. The aluminum sash of the proposed full-height screens have a rigid, rather than flat, exterior profile. The original wooden screens would have had a flat profile and aluminum-sash screens with a smooth or flat profile are made. WHEREAS, Diane and Steven Anderson, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code Section 73.06, duly filed with the City Council an appeal from the determination made by the commission, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Section 73.06, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on January 8, 1997, where all interested parties were given �-�=��s an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the 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 overturn the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission in this matter, based on the following findings of the Council; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the appeal of Diane and Steven Anderson be and is hereby granted; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk sha11 mail a copy of this resolution to Diane and Steven Anderson, the Zoning Administrator, and the Heritage Preservation Commission. Requested by Department of: By: Appz By: By: Form Appxov by City AttoYney B ��1..��. c- ; -� � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Adopted by Council: Date �� q�� Adoption Certified by Counci Secretary �82�5�. DEP1lRi1�NTqFFlCE4COUNCIL DA7EINRIATED v`�. �� Cir counci� June 10 1997 GREEN SHEE CONTACT PERSON 8 PHONE INITIAUDATE INITIAL/DATE �DEPARTMENTDIRE �CRYCOUNCIL Councll PiCSident Thtltte, 266-8620 A��GN � CffYATTORNEY � CRYCLERK NUNBERFOR MUST BE ON CAUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) ROUTING � BUDGET OIflECTOR Q FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR. ONDEN O MAYOR (OR ASSISTAN'n � TOTAL # OP SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTION pEQUESTED: Finalizing City Council action taken 7anuary 8, 1997, granring the appeal of Diane and Steven Anderson to a decision of the Heritage Preservafion Commission which denied apptoval of the installation of vinyl reglacement windows, subject to three conditions, at 985 Sunuuit Avenue. PECOMMENDATiONS: Apprave (A) or Reject (R1 pER50NAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _ PLPNNMG CAMh115SfON _ qVIISERVIGE CqMMISSION 1. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contract for this department? _ CIB CqMMRTEE _ 1'ES NO 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? - _ SiAFF — YES NO _ DIS7RiC7COUR7 _ 3. Does this person/firm possass a skill not normally possessed by any current ciry emplayee? SUPPORTS WHICH GOUNCIL OBJECTIVEI YES NO Ezplain all yea anawers cn separate sheet anC attae� W green aheet INRIATING PflOBLEM. ISSUE, OPPORTUNIT' (Who, What, Whan, Where, WM1y)' ADVANTAGES IFAPPFOVED: DISAOVANTAGESIFAPPROVED. � �£�d:�]C� �.�?�� .,uN i a t�s� --_w____._�. �..�,.�_ DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPRWED: TOTAL AMOUNT OFTRANSACTION $ COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) VES NO FUNDIfiG SOURGE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORFnATION. (EXPLAIN) OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNE�� PegBirk CiryAnorney CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Caleman, Mayor civ� Dtvision 40D Ciry Hall IS YPest KelloggBtvd Saint Paul, Minnesofa 55102 Telephone: 612 266-8710 Facsimi7e: 612 298-5619 �3�inGF! ��r �`.�g��,° June 9, 1997 Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the Saint Paul City Council 310 City Ha11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 A � ��,� :S:J:�`d t, � i�� RE: Appeal of Diane and Steven Anderson, 985 Summit Avenue H.P.C. File No. 2810 Deaz Nancy: Attached please fmd a signed resolution formalizing the Council Decision to grant the above stated appeal. This is a house keeping measure as the appeal was granted. Sorry for the delay. The matter should be set on the consent agenda. Thanks. Sincerely, �� Peter W. Wamer Assistant City Attorney OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPEC170NS AND ENVIl20NMENTALPROTECfION RobertKessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Ma}nr 23 December 1996 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 Ciiy Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: I A N R P P R O FFS. S! O NA L B U I I, D I N G Swte 300 350St PeterSbeet SaintPau� Minnesota 55102-IS/0 G�l �`-�S Te[ephone: 612-266-9090 Facsimile: 612-2669P79 I would like to request that two City Council public hearings be scheduled for Wednesday, January 8, 1997 for the following appeals of Heritage Preservation Commission decisions: � 1. Appellants: HPC File: Purpose: Address: 2. Appellant: HPC Ffle: Purpose: Address: Diane and Steven Anderson #2810 Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to approve the installation of vinyl replacement windows subject to three conditions. 985 Siumnit Avenue Donald Cameron #2841 Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission to deny approval of a carport and front entry roof. 556-58 Ashland Avenue These public hearings do not require publisheti notice. Please call me at 266-9087 if you should have any questions. Sincerely, �'�a�2,�. l`�,�,n�,� Aazon Rubenstein Preservarion Planner cc: Robert Kessler, LIEP Robert Liwning, HPC Chair Petei Warner, CAO Diane and Steven Anderson Donald Cameron --- - --- � ' - - NOTICE OF PDBLIC,HEARII�IG � . � - • - - - , � The Saint Paul Ctty Councll' witYconducE a pubiic heazfng on Janvar-y $ 1997, � ai r130 p.m:, CIty Couacil Chambers, to consider theappeal of Diane and Steven Aadersoa to a decision.of the Heriqge Preservation Commission W�approve ffie installation of viayl replacement windows, subjec[ [o thcee condittons, at 985�,Sammit Avenue. - _ - � " - _ - Dated December 26, 1996 . - � � . , 'NANCY ANDERSON - � � � � � As'sistaat City Counc3l Secretary _ - � � - _FiJecember28, 1996) � - � � . • • OFFICE OF LICENSE, IIiSPECT10D15 AbID ENVII20NMEN1'AL PROTECfION RebertKuslar, Director CITY OF SAIN'£-PAUL Nam CoTeman, Ma}vr TAWRPPROFFSSIONAL BUII.DINYi Sutfe 300 330St PeterSdset Saint Pau1, Mimlesota SS702-1 SIO 2 January 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City CouncIl 3 io c�ry x�u Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: HPC Fde #2810: City Councfl Heazing: Diane and Steven Anderson S Ianuary 1997 q�� Telephore: 612-2659090 Faatimr7e: 611-2669099 PURPOSE: To cansider an appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission s approval of a building permit application, subject to three condi6ons, to install vinyl replacement windows at 985 Sumnut Avenue. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTION: Approval subject ta three conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial. 3UPPORT None. OPPOSITION None. Deaz Ms. Anderson: Diane and Steven Anderson have appealed the decision of the Heritage Preservadon Commission to grant approval, subject to conditions, of a building permit to install vinyi windows on their home at 985 Sumnut Avenue. The Heritage Preservation Commission held public hearings on the permit application on October 23, 1996 and November 21, 1996 at which the applicant and properry owners addressed the commission. At the close of the second public hearing, the commission voted 7- 2 to grant approval for the proposed vinyl windows subject to three conditions specified in the attached resolution. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on January 8,1947. I have enclosed pertinent information. Slides of the site will be available at the Council meeting if Cauncilmembers wish to view them. Sincerely, �, n� ��ti � ��iA/'� Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Attachments cc: City Councilmembers Robert Kessler, LIEP Peter Waznu, CAO Diane and Steven Anderson Gary Woods OfFiCEOf LICE?�SE, I!�SPECCI`vT�S A,\D EN VIRONMENI'AL PROTECTTON RobrliKusler, Dirutos CI3'Y OF SAINT-PAUL Nornt Caleman..Lla�ror IAIfRY PROFECSIONAL BUIIDR'G Suite 300 350ScPererSneet SaintPaul.��rasoto 55102-I510 Tekphona:�612d66-9090 „ Facsimiie: 612-2669099 C � J 22 Novembec 1996 Gary Woods Wellington Window and Door Co. 3938 Meadowbrook Road Saint Louis Parlc, MN 55426 fa�c: 933-2403 Dear Mr. Woods and Mr. and Ms. Anderson: BY FACSIMILE (4 pages) Diane and Stevea Anderson 985 Sunmtit Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55105 f�: 291-2712 As }°ou �.vow, the Saint Paul Heritage Presen�ation Commission voted at its November 21, 1996 meeting to approve your buitding pernut application for the insfaIlation of vinyI replacement windoc��s at 985 Summit Avenue subject to three conditions. I have enclosed a copy of the commission's resoIution which describes those conditions. I would be pleased to work with you to resolve any outstanding issues. You 6ave the right to appeal this decision to the Saint Paul City Councd under Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul L.egsiative Code. Such appeal must be filed by December 5, 1996. Chapter 73 requires that the following paragraph be included in all letiers indicating denial of a pemut: Section 73.06 (hJ Appeal to the Cig� Council. The permit appHcant or anyparty aggrieved by the decision of the heritage preserva6on commission shall, within fnuneen (14) doys ofthe date of the heritage preservarion commission's order and decisron, have a right to appeal such order and decision to the city cnuncil. The appeal shall be deemed perfected upon receipt by the division ofplanrring of two (Z) copies of a nodce of appeal and statement setting fonh fhe grounds for the appeal. The division ojplanningshall transmit one copy ojthe norice ofappeal and statement to the city council and one copy to the heritage preservairon commission. The commission, rn any wri#en order denying a permit applicadon, shalt advise the appticant of the right to appeal to the city council and include rhis paragraph in all such arde�s. Because the Heritage Preservation Commission is no longer staff'ed by the Ptanning Divisioa, T would request that any leuer of appeal be sent to me at LIEP (see letterhead) instead of to the Pianning Division. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions or concems. Sincerely, . _ .�,� l �, �.�; . a� xu�� Heritage Preservation Planner vc: Tate Aa�vorson, LIEP Robert KessIer, LIEP � • a��y� • CITY OF SAINT PAUL" HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION FILE NUMBER 2s10 DATE 21 Navember 1996 WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Tzgislative Code to review building permit applications for eaterior alterations, new construction or demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites rn Heritage Preservation Districts; and WTiEREAS, Wellington Window and Door Company has applied for a building permit to install vinyl replacement windows on the main structure and cazriage house on property located within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District at 985 5umuut Avenue; and VVHEREAS, the James A. Wilson House at 985 Summit Avenue is a two and one-half story, Queen Anne style residence constructed in 1895 and categorized as pivotal to the Hill District; and WHEREAS, the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the following: II. Restoration and Rehabilitation, A. General Principles: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a proper[y which requires minimal alteration for the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. • II. A.: 2. The disHnguishing original qualities or character of a building, struciure, or site and its environment sha11 nat be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic marerial or distinctive architectural fealures should be avoided when possible. Il. A.: 5. Distinctive stylistic features or ezamples ofskilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, strucfure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 77. A.: 6. Deteriorafed architecrural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessar}; the new materiat should match the material being replaced in composrtion, design, color, texture, and other visual qualitres. Repair or replacement ofmissing architectural features should be based on accurate duplicafions offeatures, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural desrgns or the availability ofdifferent architectural elements from other buildings or structures. Il., E. Windaws and Doors: ExisNng window and door openings should be retained. New window and door openings should not be introduced into principal elevations. Enlarging or reducing window or door openings to ftt stock windaw sash or new stock door sizes should not be done. The size ofwindow panes or sash should not be altered. Such changes destroy the scale and proportion of the building. Window sash, glass, lintels, sills, architraves, doors, pediments, hoods, steps and all hardware should be rerained. Discarding original dnors and door hardware, when they can be repaired and reused in place, shoutd be avoided. � The stylistic period(sJ a building represents should be respected. Ifreplacement ofwindow sash or doors Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #2820 Page Two is necessary, the replacement should duplicate the material, desrgn and hardware of the older windo�v sash or door. Inappropriate new window and door fecrtures such as aluminum storm and screen window combinations, plasric or meta! strip awnings, or fake shutters that disturb rhe character and appearance ofthe building should not be used. Combinarion storm windows should have wood frames or be painted to match trim colors; and WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon evidence presented at its October 23,1996 and November 21,1996 public hearings on said permit applicarion, made tfie following findings of fact: 1. The property owners have stated the following. The e7cisting wiudows (prime sash and combination storms) are deteriorated beyond repair and are drafty and very energy-inef3icient Mazry of the storm windows aze patchad and held together with duct tape. They want new windows to make the house comfortable, to reduce heating costs, and to make the house quieter (one of the owners is a musician/composer who sometimes records in the house). They have done extensive epoxy repair to many cvindaws but the resuit does not look like wood and the epoxy makes a loud, disturbing, popping noise when eacpanding and contracting due to heat and cold. To replace the existing windows with new wooden windows would cost more than $100,000. They beGeve the house was originally painted white and intend to repaint it in white in the fuhse. The vinyl windows have a lifetime warranty and a 20-year warranty on the seal (double, insulated panes). 2. The proposed windows aze wlvte vinyl with a wood core in the sash and frame for insulation. They have already been manufactured at a cost o£ $39,000. The app&cant and properiy owner have stated that they were unawaze that HPC approval is required to install new windows. The vinyl windows have a projecting profile rather than the flat profile of the original sash; tlus difference would be covered, however, by the sash of fu11-height sc�ens. 3. The applicant has revised the origival window replacement proposal as follows: a Full scrcens instead of half sarcens. b. Seal and leave in place curved tower windows instead of replacing them with straight windows (the owners may cvant to replace these in the future with new cucved windows). c. L�stall round-topped, instead of rectangulaz, screens on the tfiree, east elevation, round- topped window openings (prime windows were and will be rectangulaz). 4. Some important elements of the design of the exisYing windows woutd not be duplicated by the proposed windows: Many--appro�cimately half--of the existing double hung windows have a larger Iower sash, the window opening being divided perhaps 60/40. The proposed new windows have upper and lower sash of equal size. The meeting raiLs of the existing 60/40 and 50/50 windows on the house align and create a strong line around the house; this is a distincteve design element tfiat shouid be retained. . The e�cisting divided-light windows on the front elevation and atric story of the house and the e�sting 3/1 divided-light windows on the cazriage house would be replaced by window sash with grids located between thermal panes. The proposed grids or muntins would not a � � • � ��=1�c � • Heritage Preservation Comaussion Resolution: File #2810 Page Tlsree replicate the look of the e�sting windows and would read as false and inaccurate. c. The aluminum sash of the proposed full-height screens have a ridged, rather than flat, eacterior profile. The original wooden screens would have had a flat profile and aluminum- sash screens with a smooth or flat profile aze made. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that based on the above fmdings, the Heritage Preservation Commission grants approval oF a building permit for the proposed vitryl windows subject to three condirions: 1. The meeting rail height of new windows shall match that of e�cisting windows (60/40 sash must be duplicated where they eacist). 2. Existing divided-light windows shall be replaced by windows with eacterior-applied grids or muntins matc3vng the existing configurations. 3. The exterior of the screen sash shall be smooth or flat. MOVED BY Heide SECONDED BY Hauser � INFAVOR 7 AGAINST 2 ABSTAIN 0 Decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commission are £mal, subject to appeal to the City Council wit6in 14 days by anyone affected by the decision This resolution dcea not obviate the need for meeting appticable building and zoning code requirements, and does not constitute appmval for tax credits. • �'�G �2 ' 90 l?9: i i �R � I.°.S?HF, ROSEV i�Le 6i2 6si �:?E TO 2E69t795 �P.�2i�2 • I If29/96 . tlaron Rubenstein Lowry Professional B�rilding - Suite 300 350 3t Peter Sireet St. Paul, Mn 55102-1510 � • . .. As failow-np to our com�ersadon on Friday, November ZZ, I996, Steve and I wish to utilize the good advice that was �iven to us by the S� Paul I3PC memb�rs at fhe meeting on November 2I,1996. We zealize that some o£ the issues aze bettcr resolved in keeping the lustorie disrinetion of the house above modern convenience. With this in mind, we hope to move onward in our pmject without fiuther delay, for the cold weather has come upon us rathes qcrickly this seasoa We will not be able to receive conclusive pricing for the changes proposed until all research has been completed and compared by Gary Woods and ourselves. Unfo.rtunately, this factor will weigh heavily on ovr ability to fulfill the requirements within the time sllotte@ by our building permit. Because of the extensive restorazion that is necdcd to Be performed to the entire exterior foilowing tiie window project, we feeI that our limited means may prevent us from tepairing the decaying remainder of our home as necessary if we are not extremely cazeful. As I stressed an our fust meeting with the HPC, saving this house is of gceat importance to us And we must act sensibly in ordet ta accomplisfi it. For tt�is reasan, we find if necessary to appeal our case to the City Couneil, A sucessful appeai witl sIlow us the freedom to work through our window project, as well as, other immense problems we will be foreed to face as we continue on with our cnmmitment Respectfulty Xours, �C�GC�rzY �r��iW�t., /— Diane Andersott 985 Summii Ave, Sf. Paui, Mn SS I05 (ffie #2810) � • ....... . ... .. . . . _.. .... ._.. .._. . �rok 70TFlL PFlC�.92 , �q� . G�l=��kS � U • HPC FILE #2810 CITY OF SAINT PAUL AERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPOAT FILE NAME: Install vinyl windows APPLICANT: Wellington Window & Door Co. DATE OF APPLICATION: 10.21.96 LOCATION: 985 Summit Avenue (northwest corner at Chatsworth) HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Historic Hill District CLASSIFICATION: Moderate STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 1021.96 DATE OF HEARING: 1023.96 CATEGORY: Pivotal BY: Aazon Rubenstein A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The 7ames A. Wilson House at 985 Summ9t Avenue is a two and one-half stary, Queen Anne sty]e residence constructed in 1895 and categorized as pivotal to the Hill district. Its design combines Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, and Shingle Style elements. Features include: intersecting hipped and gabled roof; clapboazd siding; 1/1, 2/2, and 10/1 double hung sash as well as fixed, stained and leaded glass windows; red sandstone foundation; round corner tower with conical cap; full width front porch; shingled gable ends; and a t}uee-story west bay. The builder was J. H. Nickel and the designer is unknown. There is a very lazge west side yazd and a carriage house at the reaz of the site. B. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant proposes to replace practically all of the 68 windows on the house with $39,000 worth of new, white, vinyl windows. The new windows have already been manufactured and one of them has been installed on the west side of the house. C. GUIDELINE CITATION5: The Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the following: II. Restoradon and Rehabilifation, A. General Principles: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a properry which reguires minimal atteration for the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. II. A.: 2. The distinguishing original gualities or character af a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. Il: A.: S. Distinctive srylistic features or ezamples ofskilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. � II. A.: 6. Deteriorafed architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possibte. In the event reptacement is necessar}; the new materiat shoutd match the matsrial being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of HPC Staff Report: F�e #2810 Page Two missing architechrral features should be based on accurate duplicadons offeatures, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or zhe availability of difjerent architectural elements from other buildings or structures. Il., E. Windows and Doors: Existing window and door openings should be retained .New lvindow and door apenings sPrauld not be introduced into principal elevatiorrs. Enlarging or reducing window or door openings to fit stock window sash or new stock door sizes should not be done. The size ofwindow panes or sash should not be altered Such changes destroy the scale and proporrion of the building. Window sash, glass, lintels, sills, architraves, doors, pediments, hoods, steps and all hardware should be retained. Discarding original doors and daor hardware, svhen they can be repaired and reused in place, should be avoided. • The stylistic period(s) a building represents should be respected. If replacement of window sash or doors is necessary, ihe replacement should duplicate the material, design and hardware of the older window sash or door. Inappropriate new window and door features such as aluminum storm and screen window combinarions, plastic or metaT strip awnings, or fake shutters that dfsturb the character and appearance of the building should not be used. Combination storm windows should have wood frames or be painted to match trim colors. • D. FINDINGS: 1. The property owners have stated the following. The eacisting wiadows (prime sash and combination storms) ue deteriorated beyond repair and aze drafty and very energy-ineY�icient. Many of the storm windows aze patched and held together with duct tape. They want new windows to make the house comfortable, to reduce heating costs, and to make tke house quieter (one of the owners is a musiciacJcomposer who sometimes records in the house}. They have done extensive epoxy repair to many windows but the result does not look like wood and the epoacy makes a loud, disturbing, popping noise when eacpanding and contracting due to heat and cold. To replace the existing windows with new wooden windows would cost more than $100,000. They did not consider instailing jamb liners and new storm windows. They beGeve the house was originaIly painted white and intend to repaint it in white in the future. The vinyl windows have a lifetime wazranty and a 20- year wazrazity on the seal (double, insulated panes). 2. The applicant and properry owner have stated that they were unawaze that HPC approval is required to install new windows. 3. The applicant has not provided product information (cut sheet, section, etc.). The proposed windows aze wlrite vinyl with a wood core in the sash and frame for insulation. They have a screen on the lower kalf with an aluminum frame with a white, baked enamel finish. 4. Iwportant elements of the design of the e�cisting windows would not be duplicated by the proposed windows. A majority of the double hung windows have a smaller upper sash, the window opening � being divided roughiy one-third/two-thirds; the new windows have upper and lower sash of equal �` �k � . HPC Staff Report: File #2810 Page Three size. The house has a number of lazge, fixed windows with divided light storms that add interest and break up the scale of the lazge openings (on tower and elsewhere); the new windows would not have any division. There ue two, round azched topped windows recessed behind a third story balcony that would be zeplaced by rectangulaz windows and perhaps a round azched panel. The third stary, divided light sash would be replaced, it seems, by sash with grids between the panes, a generally unacceptable practice. Windows in one or two eyebrow dormers wouid remain as is. In addition, the proposed windows have a significandy different profile and appeazance compazed to traditional storm/screen windows: the latter have a sash that is flat and flush with the window casing; the former aze not flat and flush with the casing, which significantly alters one of the most important parts of a building. Tfie lower rail of the proposed windows is also higher or wider than the upper rail. The proposed windows do not match the design, materials, or appearance of the original windows. E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above fmdings, staffrecommends denial of a building pernut for the proposed vinyl windows. � � GENERA� BUtLt3[t�fG t'EFt�iT perqai.^.;=_;� CiTY OF SAINT PAUL � � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL � o�ccs oF ucExs�, c:srErno:as ni.n � II.M1'IRO�'��NTAL PRO'tECT10"7 BUIfDfNGlNSPECTIONA�'DDESIGN � 350 S+ Pe�er Streer - Suire?00 L Pcm�it No. Saim7aul, Minrsesatn 55102-ISJO 612-266-9090 �tJDQW C�EQ�-t+�I�'l�r PIANNO. DESCRfPT10N OFPROJECT_ [��' DATE I�" S�-�L�o OWNER �(�VE�DIJ�ETT�"�N OWNERSADDRESS �� ,rvE ` Y� ❑ OLD TYPE OF ❑ NEW TYPE CONST. OCCUPANCY GRADING STUCCO OR ❑ BUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALL Q fENCE Q ADDITION ❑ AL7ER ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE O WRECK � V s � 5U W1 N1lT �'��i 0 wiorH I oEPrH l0T WIDTH lENG1H 5"fRUG 7URE Q�� QYES U�a �SQFT. R AREA ARCHfTECT 0 S7ATE YEPMIT FEE VALUATtON . PLANCHECK STATE SVRCH4RGE TOTAIFEE MPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT AlL IN� FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT ALL AERTINENT STATE REGULATIONS CASN�ER USE ONLY � AND GITY ORDINANCE$ WILL BE COM- WNEN VAUDATED TH1515 YOUR PERMIT - Pl1EDWITHINPERFORMINGiHEWORK � FOR WHICH TFIIS PERMIT IS ISSUED. , $t. Code L j.j1YN �Y' , X yfil� �ADDRESS � oF ros °�; Pfivt Yh�v. �5l0 5 � �_AUTHOPl2EDSIGN�TVRE� � ° .. � � ' ___" ___ _'_'"_—._�'_ ___ _'_ '__"__" j _ , USE TYPEWRITER OR BAIL POINT PEN � AND PRESS FIRMLY �U"Z �' ��C/ 3� CJ � � �// a�=Z � S OFFIUE OF LICENSH, INSPECTIOYS A�'D ENZ'IRONMENTAL PROTECTION RoberlKessler, Director � LJ CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[emwy Mayor � IAWRYPROFFSSIONRL BUILDlNG Suite 300 350St PererStreet SaintPaul, Mtnnesota 55102-1510 Te[ephone: 612-266-9090 Facsrmile: 611-2669099 � 12 November 1996 Diane and Steven Anderson 985 Simunit Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55105 fax: 291-2712 Deaz Mr. Woods and Mr. and Ms. Anderson: SY FACSTMILE Gary Woods Wellington Window and Door Co. 3938 Meadowbrook Road Saint Louis Pazk, MN 55426 fax: 933-1403 With winter fast approaching, the new windows for 985 Stunmit already manufactured, and the Heritage Preservadon Commission, to my lmowledge, never having approved vinyl replacement windows on this scale, all of us are in a difficult posirion. The Commission, I believe, appreciates yow willingness to consider modifications to the window design. I spoke with Mr. Anderson after the October 23rd HPC and said I would put in writing the outstanding issues to be addressed at the November 21 st HPC meeting and information that would be useful to have. They are as follows: Vinyl Windows 1. Meeting rail height: can new sash be manufactured to match the existing meeting rail height? 2. Screen size: can full screens be manufactured that would be flush with the casing to more closely appro�mate the design of wood scrans and storms? 3. Curved tower windows: how can these be preserved? Could they be caulked and left closed? 4. Arched topped windows: can this design be repiicated? 5. Stairway windows: if the existing windows aze not original, is there evidence of the original design? (I will check with Tracey Baker about streetscape photogaphs at the Minnesota Historical Society.) 6. Muntin grids: can muntin grids be apptied to the exterior? How do design and dimensions compaze to eacisting divided light sash on house and camage house? 7. Dunensions: what aze the dimensions of the e�sting and proposed sash and glazing? 8. Window schedule: the HPC has requested a window schedule to ciearly specify what type of window goes where. 9. Material and profile: The HPC will need to decide if the proposed window materiai and profile conform to the district guidelines. Please provide sections as indicated in the attached specification requirements for window replacement and storm windows. If possible, bringing a sample window to the HPC meeting would be useful. Altematives Please provide whatever information you can about other alternatives such as new wood or aluminum-clad � windows; repair of existing windows plus new storms; jamb liners; and bronze weatherstripping. I would encourage you to consult with a historic building specialist about these and other ophons that may exist. I could provide you with several referrals if you wish. Woods and Andersons t2 November Y99& Page Two � Please pmvide the informaUon noted, if possible, by November 15 or 18 so that I can get it to HPC members prior to the November 21 meedng. I have enclosed notes of The discussion at the October 23 HPC meeting for your reference. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions or issues you wish to discuss. Sincerely, �.�j� ( G4�GC�'J Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner attachments cc: Robert Liumutg, HPC Chair i � Rev. �1ib6 Specification Requirements for Proposed �� indovc� Keplacement in Historl� Buildings . r Property Owners Seeking Federal Tax Benefits .. - HATZO`!AL PARK SERVICE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL OFFICE Prep2red by: Bonnie J. Halda Property ownersldevelopers undertaking re:�<bilitation projects under the Economic Recovery T�x Act of 1981, as a:.ended, and the iax Reform Act of i986, are encouraged to repzir and retain existing historic uindoKS. In some cases, replzcement windows c�zy be justified. 1n order to revieu replacecsent crindoxs for confor�,2nce with the Secretary of C�° In�erior's "Standards for Rehzbilitation," the National Park Service znd the St2te Historic Preservation Office should have the follocring minimua documentztion: 1. Cle2r photographs of existing uir.doris, h�hen windocrs are boarded over, renove bozrds from typiczl windc�:s in order to take ghotograghs, If the rehabilitation crork is complete, t2ke addition�l photographs of the replacement xindoxs. 2. Y•orizontal and vertical sections of existing uindoHS. 3.' Aorizontal and vertical sections oi proposed replacement Nindoxs. 4, When historic �:indous do not exist, sections of proposed replacement wir.dows should sti12 be subnitted. �For inform2tion about appropriate window design in this case, contact your State Office.) �eplacement xindous u�ust 2ccurztely replicate the appe2rance of existing historic windous. All too frequently, the profiles of muntins, sa�h, frames, znd moldings in replzcecaent Windows are different thsn those of historic vindoxs. For example, the muntins in a necr double—glazed uindoN may be much wider and flatter than the existing muntins. Even though the new crindow may duplicate the number of existing uindoN panes, the eharaeter of the histocic window is lost due to the change in desig❑ and relief. This can alter the overall character of the building. � Another problem uith many replacement uindows is the use of panning, a metal molding which is installed over the molding that surrounds a crindoc+, or Which replaces the existing molding_altogether. When panning does not match the existing molding, the design of the historic uindoN is further altered. Because of the potential problems in choosing an appropriate replacement xindocr, vindoc+ sections should be drawn. Cut both horizontal (a) and vertical (b) sections (fig. 1). The sections must be carefully detailed so that all parts of the uindor+ are shoxn and materials =re specified. Fig. I Windo��sections must shou the profiles'of muntYas, meeting rails, sash, frames, and croldings, Treatments such as replacement moldings or panning, as uell as � the windou's relationship to the existing xall'plane, nust also be detailed. Belou are examples of vertical uindow sections of a historic wood Window (fig.� 2) and a"uoad replacement uindow (fig. 3)• (Horizontal sections should be draFn similar to the vertical sections.) Because the sections are at the same scale, the two xindoKS ca❑ be compared. The replacement uindow in this case closely resembles the existing windou's desig❑ and therefore meets the Secretary of the Interior's �'Standards for Rehabilitation." � MOLDI f�:�t1`� SASH �� ■! I�� %' �'„ ��'� � � �a 11 -- �� Fi g. 2 _X�ST V1ALL SASH S1lL _ . Fg. 3 � For informaLion concerning this flyer, contact: � Branch of Project Revieu and Technical Assistance, National Park Service Rocky Mountain Regional Office; 655 P>rfet Street, P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 <3o33 236-8675 :�e� i1/45 G � Specification Requirements for Proposed , . - : � S f Q r ITl �1 Tl CI O W S in Historic Buildings - - � F o r P r o p e r t y O w n e r s S e e k i n g Federal Tax Benefits NATIONAL PARK SERVZCE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL OFFICE Prepared by: Bonnie J. Halda Property owners/developers undertaking rehabilitation projects under the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, as amended, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986, often propose energy conserving features as part of the rehabilitation. The National Park Service and the State Historic Preservation Offices encourage such decisions, provided the treatments meet the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." Installation of storm windoxs is often proposed. This treatment can be beneficial not only when it saves energy, but when it results in retaining the historic Windous, rather than"replacing them with new double—glazed units. Appropriate storm windocrs must be visually compatible with the historic windows over which they will be installed. The following criteria should be taken into consideration Nhen choosing storm winoous: 1. Interior vs Exterior. Interior storm windows are often prefer2ble because they may be the least visually obtrusive. Also, maintenance is • easier.and installation is less expensive from the interior. 2. Material Ideally, the material of storm windows should match the material of the windows over which they will be installed. 3, Finish. The color of storm srindoWS should match the color of the windows, �nless documentation shows an alternate color scheme. Shiny or metallic finishes are never appropriate. 4, Glass Storm window glass should be clear. 5, Design. Storm xindows should match the size and overall design of the historic windorrs. This can be accomplished by lining up major divisions of the storm windows with major divisions of the historic windows. If historie storm uindows exist, they should be retained, or used as a basis for the design of replzcement storm windoas. 6. Placement. Storm windows cannot cover significant historic trim or moldings, and should be as flush as possible t+ithin the opening. Storm uindoNS xhich radically step outward from the existing plane of the moldings are not appropriate. ' In order to tevieW proposed storm xindoNS for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation," the National Park Service and the State Histaric Preservation Office should have the folloaing documentation: • 1. Complete sections of storm uindows integrating the existing openings, existing or replacement uindows, and moldings (fig. 1). 2, Specifications for the material, finish, color „ and type of glass. Belox is an example of a Window section showing both an existing (or replacement) windou and a storm windox, Hote in the drawing that the storm xindowTS r.elationship to the existing wall plane is.shawn. The storm window's major. divisions, such as the meeting rail, line up with the major divisions of . the existing Cor replacement) windox, This storm window appears to meet the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehab3litation." _ � F1$llT6 1 For iaformation concerning this flyer, contact: Braneh of Project Reviex and Technical Assistance, National Park Service Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 655 Parfet Street, P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 8o22S (3�3) 236-8675 • G�1=1`�5 � Meefin¢ Notes HPC 10.23.96 File #2810/FVellington Window and Door Co.11nstall vinyl windows/985 Summit Av. Present: Lunning, Heide, Buetow, Vojacek, Hauser, Frame, Larson; Rubenstein. Rubenstein showed slides of the site and noted the following while reviewing the slides: • Most existing windows are oriel--60(40 lower and upper sash proportion; new windows aze divided 50/50; applicant says new lower sash, if 60l40, would be heavy and difficult to operate and clean. • E�sting, divlded light attic windows would be replaced by windows with grids be[ween panes and some would have fixed sash--very high; two-light basement sash would be replaced by one-light sash; and stairvray windows may change to double-hung. • Three round-azch-topped windows on east elevation, 2@ 3rd story and 1@ lst story--pzoposed treatrnent not clear. • Comer tower windows now double hung, curved, inoperable, with divided light storms; wouid become 1/1 straight double hung (not curved). • Existing windows on carriage house have divided upper sash; replaced by grids behveen panes. Rubenstein noted the following information as well: • New window frames would be inserted within the existing frames; detailed information of the dimensions of e�sting and proposed sash and glazing is not available. • 81 windows, including those on the carriage house, wouid be repiaced (68 noted in staff report}. • Commissioner Buetow and HPC staff visited the house with owner and Weilington rep. this aftemoon to examine condition of existing windows and talk about details of replacement windows; � owner said that existing windows have high lead content. • One new window has been installed, after the permit was applied for but not issued, to show as an example; it appeazs that new sash is one inch wider on each side. • Last sentence of finding #4 states "The proposed windows do not match the design, materials, or appeazance of the original windows' ; suggested adding "and would have an adverse impact on the azchitectural and historic chazacter and integriry of the building". Lazson: asked about costs of alternatives other than new wood and vuryi windows. Heide: asked about condirion of existing sash. Buetow: some sagging (1/4 - 1/2") of lower rail of lazger sash because of size of glazing; some glazing loose; a lot need to be reputtied, remortised; generally not rotted; are loose; part of problem is lazge size of windowslsash. Diane Anderson, w-owner: • House is eactremely deteriorated, has been poorly maintained and repaired; believe main view of windows is casing wluch would remain as is. • Our intent is to restore and maintain the house to its original splendor and to not alter its appearance. • Windows are rotting on the outside and, therefore, new storms cannot be installed; jamb liners and new storms were originally considered. • Epo�ry repaiz to e7cisting sash has not worked adequately--creates loud popping noise; have been told majority of windows are rotted. • NSP bill was $800 per month last winter; windows are drafry; have boiler that would heat a hotel but sometimes last winter temperature would not rise above 56 degrees; believe new �vood storms would � not solve the problem adequately. Hauser: asked Ms. Mderson if willing to leave some original windows, e.g., curved tower windows. HPC Meeting Notes 1023.96/File #2810/985 Summit Av. Page Two Anderson: thought new windows would look like oId ones; alsa believe house originally had some stained glass and that would be redone. Buetow: the proposed vinyl windows look alright from the inside; it seems that sash replacement is- an appropriate strategy, though perhaps not the best one--a lot of damaged and loose sash; proposed windows have tl�ree major problems: 1. Change of ineeting rail height (from 6Q/4Q to 50/50); e�stmg meeting rail height creates a strong line azound the exterior and is a strong and unique design element; but these are big windows--some lower sash aze IS sq. $, and Marvin tilt-pacs have 10 sq. ft. maximum. 2. Exterior profile is not flush with casing (showed sketch and noted that blind stop gets covered with vinyl). 3. Curved tower windows would be replaced with 4'-wide straight windows--a profound affect; suggested possibly caulking existing windows and leaving closed. �1 U Gary Woods, Wellington President and designer of the windows, addressed Buetow's three concems and showed a small seciion of the window materiat (wood core with vinyl skin): k. Owners prefer 50/�0 sash; most houses in area have 50/50 sash (Hauser asked if he can make 60/40 sash; Woods responded "yes".) 2. Re: profile/flush look: can monnt screen wider, ezcisting screen track remains behind it; can � invent a full screen (existing new windows have half screens); screens have narrow bottom rail like rest of screen sash (not wider bottom rail like wooden storms and screens). Woods: cannot use jamb liners because of rot; different options for divided liP.,,ht grids--can located on top or inside, can be 1l4, 3/8, 1l2, 5l8, 7/8, or 1-1/8 inches wide (of ahnninum). Heide: asked Woods about awazeness of historic distdct; asked staff to get him maps of districts. Woods: can make arched top sasfi if owners want buf not curved sash. Buetow: meeting rails line up on much of building; lights were cazefully divided at proportion they were as part of the original design. Larson moved to deny approval of a buiiding permit for the proposed vinyl windows; Heide seconded the motion. Hauser talked about the contractor's willingness to come up with altemative solutions. Buetow: would be willing to approve the vinyl windows with a new screen scheme (it may conceal enough of window so that it would look appropriate} and if curved windows retained but meeting raii height stiil not resoived. Woods: could make new 60/40 sash. Larson: uncomfortable with ]ack of deiail and soluUons, wonders about layover rather than denial. Frazne: would vote for denial if several exceptions to the denial--maintain 60l40 configuration, retain rocmd azched desigu, new screen scheme. Heide: good intenfions of owners cleaz but lack of understanding of some important elements; uncomfortable about approval without additional information--more detailed rvindow schedule with screen design, screen sash dimensions, curved and uched window solations. Vojacek agreed: need specific information and resolution of issues to avoid misunderstandings. Buetow suggested layover; discussion followed about layover versus denial. � � • HPC MeeUng Notes 10.23.96/File #28101985 Summit Av. Page T1uee Lunning: suggested withdrawal and reconsideration in 2 or 4 weeks to address outstanding issues-- meeting rail height, esterior profile and full screen, curved windows, arched topped windows, muntin design. Woods: fine with me--need time to address these issues. Anderson: divided stair windows do not appeaz to be original. Rubenstein made these points: • Owners apparently thought HPC approval not necessary if replacing windows in kind; but I met with them last sunmier and advised that I could not approve glass block for basement windows (high foundation, visible corner location) and HPC had recently denied approval for similar case of glass block. • Approving vinyl windows would set an important precedent, particularly for this pivotal house. • HPC perhaps needs more information about other alternatives ihat would more closely approximate the original windows. Heide: yes; can e�sting windows be repaired? Frame: aze there historic photographs, perhaps showing the side windows? (Andersons: one photo at MHS.} Perhaps Tracey Baker could fmd more under streetscapes. � Lunning called the question on the motion to deny approval. Aeide withdrew his second af that motinn. Buetow moved to lay over the case; Vojacek seconded; motion passed 7- 0. Lunning laid over the case to the November 21 meeting. Woods: what should happen with stair windows? Lunning: if there is evidence that they aze not original, I would be willing to entertain altematives in keeping with the design of the house (and I personally believe that the e�cisting windows are not particularly suited to the openings). notes prepared by Aazon Rubenstein • Notes from 10.25:96 meeting of Charles Nelson, State Historic Aiclut"ect, and Aaron Rulienstein re: rvindows . on fiistoric build'mgs (questions/issues posed by Rubenstein; responses by Nelson) 1. When to repair and when to replace windows? Repair difficult and cosfly if lower rail is rotted. - 2. What criteria/guideiines dces SHPO use for window replacement? Match e�sting--see National Pazk Service pieces on window replacement and storm windows. 3. What kind of replacement window materials do you pemut--wood, vinyl, clad, aluminimi (anodized and baked enamel finish)? Vinyl noY acceptable: can't match original profile, susceptible Yo . Ultraviolet and starts to deteriorate after about 15 years. Metal okay if painted and not anodized. Metal-clad and polymer-clad (Iatter made by Marvin, production now suspended} are okay; vuryi- clad is not acceptable_ Need to look at profile, glass setback, all proportions. 4. Whai about applied meeting rail on casemeuts for egress, replacing double hungs? Marvin makes inward-swinging casement simulating a double hung--upper and lower parts are offset. 5. What about muntins and grids? Only a) true divided lights and b) grids inside, outside, and between panes are acceptable. b. What about storncs and screens? Having stomu or screens with thermal pane windows is not essential; originatly many houses did not have them. Hatf screens are not acceptable. Aluminum storms/screens okay if flusfi witfi casing. Mainfaining pattem of divided Iight stomis not so � important--they often were not original—but design should match that of prunary window, e.g., double hung with matching meeting rails. Marvin and Kolbe make wood combinations. 7. What about jamb tiners? Colors are limited—white, brown Prefer rolled brass; woulc3 also need good stomu and weatherstripping; can use pulley covers. 8. What about profile, dimensions, and insert windows? Profile of replacement windows should not look as Yhough boazd has been added azowd the edges. Dimensions of sash and glazing okay if they are close. Insert replacement windows okay if no more than one-half inch lost on each side. 9. What about low-E coating? Some types aze reflective. Only Iow-E by CazdinaI and Northem Light by Marvin aze acceptable types, have &tde reflectivity. � ' � ��i„ ' ..l �. . (` ,/( � � ' �' } �i,f. � :l ' .�' n i��. i J t �',°� Z �.6� vu ;�E� .w�?' : ��V�u�JQ� UJl ^cic'rti'S �i,1P, ll�� W,�� k�eV�,K� G_ wce�'�+bP'r��ciyr.�J' L'•�1 st�wda�"/�lastic) c:b..ti�;e�ii'��- �hy Fib�ex�` Yndte�i� ? r f ; 4 � � j�trC �'.,'rjy lro�r�� ; � �C.Ct.,.�t_t '0 ��c, t5V �'� i ��Lt,2 1 ( 11 " , y{ 1 1ti 1 1`�C-I.Ly Qwd tn�t D F�r��e �d2.�r.r, ��u��wS- � ��=,�� `ellf danveri6ed 6y m indcpenden� la6oruory using induscry savdu3 mahods. Thermal Expansion Durable and reliable. 4.0 `_ s o Thermal ezpansion is the degree co which a given mawrial expands and contntts wi[h : Z a � � 3 �anges in tempereture. As you can see, pine has a very low [hermal ezpansion ra[e. �� a �ch a ca[e oE 1.2, Fibrex material, like aluminum, expands and contraca very licde. •ZS �nyl, however, wirh a chermal espansion race of4.0, expands and contraas markedly, o.o resuleing over time in bowing, crecks and, evenmally, leakage of air and wa[er. Fbra Ynyi P�nc .Uum�wu �try!'s properssity w ezparuf and mnaacr rest�(n� over time in traclu baunngand ltakage. Stiffness i.zoo.ouo ' 7,000,000 a � soo.000 soo,000 aoo,000 � 40V.000 � F�bre. Ynyl Wood Fibr� offen twire the ngidiry afvirry! fm long-term ttability. �Thermal Conduc[ivity i.za U 9u o.Ga 0 3a o.ao Fibrex inrulater l,000 times benn tban a[uminum. Stable and predictable. Modulus is che scienci6c cerm for a macerial's sciffness. The 6igher che numbec, che stiffer the matecial. The average modulus for Fibrex macerial is cwice the avecagt for vinyl, making it a far moce stable and rigid macerial (or windows. Md thongh wood's average s[iffness is higher, it is far less predictable [han Fibre�c ma�erial since wood possesses namral variations such az grain, knots and moisture conrenc A11 of which means we can make Renewal"" window frames and sash narrower than competicive windows-gaining more glass area and more light From che same size space in your wall. An excellent insulator. Fibrex composice material has a very low [hermal conducciviry ratio-or in other wocds, escellen[ insulating proper[ies-that puc it on a par wi[h pine oc vinyl. Unlike aluminum, Renewal windows, made of Fibrex macerial, wont cransfer 6eat ouc of your home or allow cold temperatures outdoors ro chi11 the window areas inside. DecayofMaterials 50% Impervious to decay. so a j ' Evencually, wichout main[enance, even aeazed wood can be subjecc co decay. 9 3 � For�unacely for busy homeowners, Fibrex composite material is nor. Our special poly- n _ zo mer formulaxion surrounds and coacs each wood fiber in che manufaccuring process, °° � � �a % ensuring unsurpu;ed resistance to roc. Md Renewal windows made of Fibrex material � o �% �°� are wartanced noc m flake, nuc, bliscer, peel, crack, pic or mcrode, Eor chat mattec' Pibaz Yayl T.eued PiK Unuveed Pin� ' $ce �he Rcnewai produ<c warrJnry £or d<nils. Whi1e nxn deated vood �an de�uys Fibrex is imprrviour to rot. Heat Distortion Resistance W9�numperaiviee+pniercMq wiMOw me1NU1 in d�e+l mr�tOnmm[ +uo 180° �� F �w xe.a vo� Fibrex withstunds urrsperatum ofovo 200°Fin tetu, wbile viny! begint to distort at 167°F. Won t go soft in the heat. As anyo�e who has ever ]ef[ a vinyl record in the sun knows, high [emperamres can resul[ in distonion. In che full heat oFsummer, windows receiving direct afremoon sun can heac up to 175°F or more. At chese temperamres, t6e weight of the window frame and glass can cause ordinary hollow vinyl kames co bow and sag. Fibrex composi[e, however, remains rigid and stable m temperamru oFover 200°F in cescs-cemperamres far higher than your window wiU ever experience. �°PYn6'��9Mde�un G.Nniw. BaYWrvMN 1991..M n8F'u mnM.3M�Na t ftinrcd in US A NmA.�RL1�1 Fibrcz �oyl Pme Alumf�wn xpc rub�,� xear;ng s�mmazy re: 985 S�munit Avenue HPC File #2810 Instali vinyI windows 11.21.96 Rubenstein reviewed the stafus of the case and noted the following: • A full screen has been installed, reptacing a haif screeq on the one vinyl k�ndow that has already been installed on the house; the screen sash is sort of nbbed and not flaL • 'I'fie HPC has never approved vinyl repiacement windows with the e�ccepiion of one case approximately one yeaz ago on Marshall Avenue in the Hill District where three-quarcers of the windows had been replaced in prior years without permits. Gary Woods, applicant, showed a lazge samp]e of an enfire wiadow, with fiill screen, said he would try to find a 4at screen, and reviewed their revised proposal as follows: • Andersons, the owners, insist on 50/50 rather than 60/40 sash for safery reasons--aft'ects abovt 12 windows. • • Reaz etevation: no change to existing window configuration. • East elevation: tt�ree windows have azch-topped screens with rectangulaz sash behind; no change proposed • Tower: leave windows as is for now; nea�t yeaz will be able to curve glass and sash, will want 50/50. • Front elevation: propose 50/50 double hungs with grids in top sash. • West elevation: stair windows not orignial, make double flung or leaded ta match front transom. Comcuissioner Heide: how many windows are divided 60/40? . Woods: 39 new windows on main house, 18 are 60/40. Heide: feels strongly that 50/40 sash is an important design element; not convinced that change in weight is sigwficanL. Chair Li¢uung: can windows be secared to prevent harm? Woods responded but didn't seem to answer directly; mentioned a type of child guard Commissioner Buetow moved to deny approval of the permit; said a flat screen woutd work okay but there is the muntin problem and the change to 50/50 cvindows dces not conform to the district guidelines. Commissioner Miller seconded the motioa Commissioner Albers reviecved the guidelines peitaining Yo the case. Woods: muntin grids would be betweeu panes; widfh of existing muntins varies. Commissioner Frame: asked Chair Lunning abouf the vinyl window precedenf; Lunning responded. Buetow: most important issues are window profile, shape, and sfieen. Miller: has significant reservations about setting a precedent for approval of vinyl windows. Heide: would be in favor o£ approval--cvith 60/40 sash, flat screen, and, if possible, exterior mimtins--in ttris case because windows already manufactured. Commissioner Slmef agreed with Mr. Heide. Lunning: approval would not set a precedent necessarily, a uniqae exception has already beeu made. Albers: the fact that the windows are already manufactured is irreIevant; how mazry times will this fiappen?; work must conform to the guidelines; do not want to set precedent for approving work after it has been done. Coaunissioner Hauser: HPC had asked the applicanUowners for a comparative analysis of different options; tlils has not been done. Rubenstein suggested the commission consider a motion stating what it would approve; appeal to Ci1y Council likely. � �� S • HPC Public Hearing S�mary/File #2810/11.21.96/Page Two Buetow called the question. The mution to deny approval passed 9- 0. Hauser moved to reconsider; Skrief seconded; discussion followed. Heide called the question; motion ta reconsider passed 7- 2. Lunning: no motion is now on the floor. Heide moved to grant approval subject to three conditions: 1) the meeting rail height shall match the existing, 2) the esterior of the screens shall be flat or smooth, and 3) new sash shall have exterior applied muntins where they replace eaiisting divided light sash; Hauser seconded. Buetow called the quesrion. The motion to approve subject to three conditions stated above passed 7- 2(Miller, Albers). summary by Aazon Rubenstein � �J c�EN�R�,L st��..€�t�� tt�� eG t,RrnaE,wr CFTY OF SAIP3T PAt3L .,r ' .w. CPI'Y OF SAINL PAUL t OFFICEOFLICENSE,INSPECTIONSAND � ENVIRONMENfALPROTECTION � BUfLDING/NSPECTfONANODESIGN � 350 St Peter Srreet - Suite 300 LPermit No. �,�,+ S¢int Paul. MLu�esom 55(02-I510 612d66-9090 wlnwVw ttc.y�r+�cvnc �v i PLAN NO. ° OF PROJEGTt /�� {- DA E t .�W ER� Si�✓E�DI�ETP"1/�K-�AJ :�.:� � /� �WNERSADORESS' `"i��T � �� rA{l�` ❑ 0 O � NPE OF ❑ NEW -TYPECONST. OCCUPANCY GRADING STUCCOOR ❑ BUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALI. ❑ FENCE ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTER ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ WRECK � q �� WARD l07 Sf RUC- 4 TURE ��ESTI _., _� J - ."'oeTn��s a -;[I.1')n - mwtiT WIDTH �� 5 1 SIDE LOT CLEARANCE BVILDING UNE FRONT qEAF LFNGTH HEIGHT STORIES ' BASEMENT TOTALF�OOR AREA �YES '❑NO SQFT.- _, . . � , . �-'x.INCLUDEBASEMENT a� �. =: _a-r ., z= 2 D �r � �o .k��glv�°(i�z4; ��r�{,:: - -�- - -� �V1�;U✓S�,v� . � _ �. _ .. 3z,=z1�7 � � ARCNI7ECT- = �--.�`�� - — 300 . ._WEw►�ru :ww s g oaa � i ' �auFnxcroa� E�DO+N i3�61G RD l.OviS k�- Fi �47�k � - . - . fA00flE556Y1P� - ,� � MASONRY�.; � : ,-- ' � ' ' .- , _ ._,. _ _ � � - - . ' STATE :' . ' " _ �' PERM�T FEE _ � � yqLUAT10N � i 1 P�AN CHECK ' � _ ,- ' � STATE - . - .. '. _. � . . " SVRCHARGE ' - • � . FEE . ' ,. � - . - . I ' APGLlCANT CERAFIES THA7 ALL IN- " � -� - _..FORMA710N IS CORFiECT �AND jHAT - ' � � - - ��-' �ALL PERTINENT STATE REGULATIONS "' � ansHlEn oNLr � AN6 CITY ORDINANCES WILL BE COM- WHEN YALIDATED TH1515 `/OVR PENMIT � :P�IEDWITHINPfRFORMINGTHEWORK - „ ' FOR WHICH 7HIS PERMIT IS ISSUED. . - - - .' � ` • _ . . St. Code " � � -' � ' .X �/�y�,. ADDRESS � V m� m • oF:,ios`=� �OsN�L LYrN. �'SloS + �TNORI2EOSIGNA?UREt � �' , . � USE TYPEWRITER OR BALI POIN7 PEN - � � � �' AND PRESS FIRMI.Y r D• Z 1' �� . • � �� e � � � � 0 � � � � � � o� � .,,, p � : •y � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �4 N �k � .�, w � 4� �O F� � � � � � .�" O � � �'' O ^`� � A o � � �� v T � � �q � - � � � � c� •��' � � � � '� � ° "' �s �, ,,�ti �0 M � � •� r..� . � �_ � .�. � � � � � E.. � U s _ .:� _ . � .. � � ' � ' ? ; t ��. i : r'� i� '� ' f S a ii� � �_� _ � € f( e � �� =. ;i � z € _. ` { �.: _ .:�: ...�,.,:,�.� _� �� ;` � :a::f:::.. :'fS�xia � IfM .� , �� ? z, � x " , E^ �` �' . �_ . � �y l.� a � .+. -. � 2 3' i� ,s �� . .� • =t;: :��: :° n c � . J __...._. . .,,_ . . . . . . _ .,._...��.�-_.� . .. _..�--- � . . .,...__.._..._ _... . . i . . . . ... . . � { : e � � � �I� . . �.. � . .. E � � . . � . . . ' . " .. � { t L . f l L � � � � . � 1 g 1 Z � � g � � . . �.. . _ .. . � , �� . .. . . . . . _�� I --_._--- - ;, ,- z . �-�-�..z�r��. ' 4 ..,:"�" ' ?z?,-�^�,.'v. � 3 r �+ : ��: 1 � � � , : 'F'Si�` r� t'��' 'F�} �� f` .�.��.�:.� �y� �} �_ rc .. �= � .�.�,., �,._: -� _ } ` �.�_ 4 SW^'F�-�e�y" . � �..LwK` . _ . . .. . r � yT � s .�"�:... - +._. -...,.._ . _ ) r_� �, �. - - i -Z- 4 - � •'. � r 4 ��.` ` . j� .. � _. . i st,' L � : i �� `� . ._. ,. � ; �..� `_ � �- � _�: � � ��-�} ,. ;. , ; _ : _, _ . . . ��.� Y ___ . ( � � y . 1 ._ . . � � _: r � . e��` - j _ � r �' � o.�a�a"a-.a�•r . '{. � �'cTwt>zaeY.w'44a:e"s.•• � t � } �_ 5 � � t ,y N y . . ,` 1 � . . Y:.vsn'art.e`kY.�^�: . . . j !r' $j $ 3. �! . . . / } � A� 7 �: �� . �./ � . ��__ � a t a.`';.v>N� �. , . / Q �� . . ( .. j d' �� . . i i -. ;� .� � . ,,.` �- _ ,� � ;. t�� _ � i. �� i . �� _ ._ . �. .� . ...,w : �� Ci.. >.� .:., _. Ir � -.� • ;;. �. /: ` �<<�� ,� r; 1 j � � � ' � i:� � _' � ' ..,..r � �; . . . - - �E �. ' '� � E � .� .. =,S � . '� . .'i . . -. ..ar—. ��er^ �� " �:�� \T �ie . .. � �. �..'S - r; ' � �•��+•.-;� v��i � ti'. e . � � .e+.� S.`a� � � -. . � .. � ' �-` . j' �;`, ��R� 6 � . fy `` ` . '�� , , �. :. _ � +.' . �� ... �.�i �° ' '��f� ' ` ��:' . ar1`� � o� � =° � ''.-�� ' �`s.T..�7 . . ��,� . . -. � - �,.,. : ... j � r . - ,_. � ..._: ��"f - . t� q . . / .�` , :Iw��« �F�6%i. "��..�\;t.� / ��.. �i*��" " "r, �� t �! T � i L Y t; i ;.,,�%� � '��/� .-'� � • µ�, -�. -� f s : " �r'$ !:?�" "�` � ,,.� t�s � -fi � F' 1� �;� ' �' F�3�� j '� f -,,.�.: . � , � ,��--.._ . � . � -�.; F : � , c . * � y 4 ��,��i� � `� _'� • �. �;•.. _' .�, .. .:•� r,i _.�i" `, �q . ��N � i•�� : �f '• i r J sy 4 � � ' �,;, � cT . I 4 t� � a �.'�- ��,.'�' :t �.-s r.;. _,: .' �:�� i e .;' -a s .' . 3. _ - .. . �': ► � . ."�"_"' { . .. : � ..1 O s _ � _." ,., --1 . �, � � '�• _ `a t �$� +T�i�f Z� iS �Y `! "�'L9'M1y�- � . W R f�' . �' � a a .� : � " . i�a �"li^�; -' -s h I � r _ v i J�< r�.� S �C� �.x . 4�y � � � ` � .: , . T .�` '. \ ,�� . � , � ` 4 =�Y1' \ � � � ". � �Zi !4�ti . t , .: �'� si`i� .. a .' � �;'a � ; . . . � . ,. � �. � �. . . �� ;� � < �•� � 5 . ! . +1 � • �� r � • _ �'�i� YY•t.' � ,. -�E�� _ � . �. i � '�, ��` ,� '�.:• _ :f 'S;`:'" ' S �• �' . � � ` � . .{ �►. r' � � ��i . `� 4i '- _ . __ � . r, s.• :, "� s . s r . +1. ...�- - - '�w�._ V' - . � - .. . . . �. .. v _ Y - � /� f � � -$ . . _� �aiC_ � �;�,�, . �o�. �{.: � _ !�� ' . .... . . - V .y : q . . . . . . �� f i .�Y" :`� � '- � . .1� � . 4 � ^E . . . ;<� � 1 . . . . k � t �' � � � '� �� ' I a xt . t� � . . . x , o ? ` 'I i t ; ��. ,l'1 ./ r. t . . `'_ / .'�. i. � . .'t�+�� ir' � �: Y 1' )� � 5 �' F�' � f . . . f T� z � � � .. . . . . � ' � � � �'-'� , � � � . '. � ' e � . . � / �� 1 { �� . � � J I t F ". sx � � ;. '� _, �,- ; -� . _. �., �. , � , - I '�i�; _ . � .. . r � � $ �: °�� . i 5g�a� � � � � c . � . � " r� � : 4 .. �. .. _ t a m �{ � 1 7 � ` i 1 � \ �• k ! � } � � r { , 5 i 4 1 .. � . �� . i. . t ' ;'� s7 � I�" ., � ' . , . - _ ;, . ,- .� - - r,. ,. «;' � ; , ; ; ,:._ ,W_ .. � `,,,, . } � '. � Y �� $ .�.� �, � ,;A . a. rnr�c �'� ` , ��+ . �. � n ` . t Z • ? " � �� _: � �+ . . . �L� 1 R �,� a� �.�� .. • �� T� �..' �,'\ :,- ar�� .� � ` .' 3 "—" �a � "a+s';t.� x - ., `< <c�� ' ?�- :.. . ,�' �� { � � 1 }j � ' ��i "� �i, ;, 4 � `=_ � E �{r�� — � , �� r: .� t ,� �, ; � f .. ; � , . :r/ ■' � 1 �,_ . _ , i s-. - � ..�.��.,_. . :r. . . . ... F' � . • a+L7C c>--. 'i'5..�......__. � : i � f � � �� 1�� ` � � � ..� . .� s � j: � •_ � _� � _ � .. - �3.s,,,r-_ t , ...- , t`r.�.....�__ ��_� ....-�.�c� , - s�, �� .. r � `+�� x,.�..., ,� �; . _ ._�:. -- � � � " .Sr;° "�`' - .�n'" , o �,��; � ..�._.� =�- �`..� ---- � ��- � , �"��_ ; - � � � � ; � ` S� � � ' � Y � �',. � . � � f � .' . l' . i , } i � �� ' .� s . `. � � 3�r�Y�.� �°- � . � � : ` � t � y,sac� y� ° � � .. . � . . . :;�� v-�� '� �r�� . �� } Z��$"`x . . . l�1ri .� .. . . . � . . $'£ � .. . _ .� .. . � � � _� } �� . . : ..� . � : . . S 3 .. � - .. . . .. � ....d�� , < r---�- .ra � $ � � � ;,. 't - . - � � �:L�.. Council File # \�� Green Sheet # ��..5 �' � � � �;�� _ Presented By Referred To 3`�' CITY OF RESOLUTION PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date WHEREAS, Diane and Steven Anderson, 985 Summit Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105, made application to the Heritage Preservation Commission for approval of a building permit to install vinyl replacement windows on the main structure and carriage house of property located at 985 Summit Avenue in the Historic Hi11 Heritage Preservation District; and 8 WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission conducted a 9 public hearing on November 21, 1996, after having provided notice � 10 to affected property owners. The Commission, by its resolution No. 11 2810, adopted November 21, 1996, approved the building permit for 12 the proposed vinyl windows subject to the following three 13 conditions: The meeting rail height of new windows shall match that of existing windows (60-40 sash must be duplicated where they exit); 2 3 Existing divided-light windows sha11 be replaced by windows with exterior-applied grids or muntins matching the existing configurations; The exterior of the screen sash shall be smooth or flat;_ and � ` WHEREAS, the granting of the building permit with the conditions above stated was based upon the following findings and conclusions: The existing windows (prime sash and combination storms) are deteriorated beyond repair and are drafty and very energy-inefficient. Many of the storm windows are patched and held together with duct tape. They want new windows to make the house comfortable, to reduce heating costs, and to make the house quieter (one of the owners is a musician/composer who sometimes records in the house). They have done extensive epoxy repair to.many windows but the result does not look like wood and the epoxy makes a loud, disturbing, popping noise when expanding and contracting due to heat and cold. To replace the existing windows with new wooden windows would cost more than $100,000.00. They believe the house was originally painted white and intend to paint it white in the future. The vinyl windows have a lifetime warranty and a 20 year warranty on the seal (double insulated panes). ��=��, 2. The proposed windows are white vinyl with a wood core and the sash and frame for insulation. They have already been manufactured at a cost of $39,000.00. The applicant and property owner has stated that they were unaware that HPC approval is required to install new windows. The vinyl windows have a projecting profile rather than the flat profile of the original sash; this difference would be covered, however, by the sash of full-height screens. 3. The applicant has revised the original window replacement proposal as follows: a. Full screens instead of half screens. b. Seal and leave in place curved tower windows instead o£ replacing them with straight windows (the owners may want to replace these in the future with new curved windows). c. Install round-topped, instead of rectangular, screens on the three, east elevation, round topped window openings; prime windows were and will be rectangular. 4. Some important elements of the design of the existing windows would not be duplicated by the proposed windows; a. Many-approximately half-of the existing double hung windows have a larger lower sash, the window opening being divided perhaps 60-40. The proposed new windows have upper and lower sash of equal size. The meeting rails of the existing 60-40 and 50-50 windows on the house align and create a strong line around the house; this is a distinetive design element that should be retained. b. The existing divided-light windows on the front elevation and attic story of the house and the exiting 3-1 divided-light windows on the carriage house would be replaced by window sash with grids located between thermal panes. The proposed grids or muntins would not replicate the look of the existing windows and would read as false and inaccurate. c. The aluminum sash of the proposed full-height screens have a rigid, rather than flat, exterior profile. The original wooden screens would have had a flat profile and aluminum-sash screens with a smooth or flat profile are made. WHEREAS, Diane and Steven Anderson, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code Section 73.06, duly filed with the City Council an appeal from the determination made by the commission, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Section 73.06, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on January 8, 1997, where all interested parties were given �-�=��s an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the 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 overturn the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission in this matter, based on the following findings of the Council; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the appeal of Diane and Steven Anderson be and is hereby granted; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk sha11 mail a copy of this resolution to Diane and Steven Anderson, the Zoning Administrator, and the Heritage Preservation Commission. Requested by Department of: By: Appz By: By: Form Appxov by City AttoYney B ��1..��. c- ; -� � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Adopted by Council: Date �� q�� Adoption Certified by Counci Secretary �82�5�. DEP1lRi1�NTqFFlCE4COUNCIL DA7EINRIATED v`�. �� Cir counci� June 10 1997 GREEN SHEE CONTACT PERSON 8 PHONE INITIAUDATE INITIAL/DATE �DEPARTMENTDIRE �CRYCOUNCIL Councll PiCSident Thtltte, 266-8620 A��GN � CffYATTORNEY � CRYCLERK NUNBERFOR MUST BE ON CAUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) ROUTING � BUDGET OIflECTOR Q FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR. ONDEN O MAYOR (OR ASSISTAN'n � TOTAL # OP SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTION pEQUESTED: Finalizing City Council action taken 7anuary 8, 1997, granring the appeal of Diane and Steven Anderson to a decision of the Heritage Preservafion Commission which denied apptoval of the installation of vinyl reglacement windows, subject to three conditions, at 985 Sunuuit Avenue. PECOMMENDATiONS: Apprave (A) or Reject (R1 pER50NAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _ PLPNNMG CAMh115SfON _ qVIISERVIGE CqMMISSION 1. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contract for this department? _ CIB CqMMRTEE _ 1'ES NO 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? - _ SiAFF — YES NO _ DIS7RiC7COUR7 _ 3. Does this person/firm possass a skill not normally possessed by any current ciry emplayee? SUPPORTS WHICH GOUNCIL OBJECTIVEI YES NO Ezplain all yea anawers cn separate sheet anC attae� W green aheet INRIATING PflOBLEM. ISSUE, OPPORTUNIT' (Who, What, Whan, Where, WM1y)' ADVANTAGES IFAPPFOVED: DISAOVANTAGESIFAPPROVED. � �£�d:�]C� �.�?�� .,uN i a t�s� --_w____._�. �..�,.�_ DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPRWED: TOTAL AMOUNT OFTRANSACTION $ COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) VES NO FUNDIfiG SOURGE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORFnATION. (EXPLAIN) OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNE�� PegBirk CiryAnorney CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Caleman, Mayor civ� Dtvision 40D Ciry Hall IS YPest KelloggBtvd Saint Paul, Minnesofa 55102 Telephone: 612 266-8710 Facsimi7e: 612 298-5619 �3�inGF! ��r �`.�g��,° June 9, 1997 Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the Saint Paul City Council 310 City Ha11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 A � ��,� :S:J:�`d t, � i�� RE: Appeal of Diane and Steven Anderson, 985 Summit Avenue H.P.C. File No. 2810 Deaz Nancy: Attached please fmd a signed resolution formalizing the Council Decision to grant the above stated appeal. This is a house keeping measure as the appeal was granted. Sorry for the delay. The matter should be set on the consent agenda. Thanks. Sincerely, �� Peter W. Wamer Assistant City Attorney OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPEC170NS AND ENVIl20NMENTALPROTECfION RobertKessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Ma}nr 23 December 1996 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 Ciiy Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: I A N R P P R O FFS. S! O NA L B U I I, D I N G Swte 300 350St PeterSbeet SaintPau� Minnesota 55102-IS/0 G�l �`-�S Te[ephone: 612-266-9090 Facsimile: 612-2669P79 I would like to request that two City Council public hearings be scheduled for Wednesday, January 8, 1997 for the following appeals of Heritage Preservation Commission decisions: � 1. Appellants: HPC File: Purpose: Address: 2. Appellant: HPC Ffle: Purpose: Address: Diane and Steven Anderson #2810 Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to approve the installation of vinyl replacement windows subject to three conditions. 985 Siumnit Avenue Donald Cameron #2841 Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission to deny approval of a carport and front entry roof. 556-58 Ashland Avenue These public hearings do not require publisheti notice. Please call me at 266-9087 if you should have any questions. Sincerely, �'�a�2,�. l`�,�,n�,� Aazon Rubenstein Preservarion Planner cc: Robert Kessler, LIEP Robert Liwning, HPC Chair Petei Warner, CAO Diane and Steven Anderson Donald Cameron --- - --- � ' - - NOTICE OF PDBLIC,HEARII�IG � . � - • - - - , � The Saint Paul Ctty Councll' witYconducE a pubiic heazfng on Janvar-y $ 1997, � ai r130 p.m:, CIty Couacil Chambers, to consider theappeal of Diane and Steven Aadersoa to a decision.of the Heriqge Preservation Commission W�approve ffie installation of viayl replacement windows, subjec[ [o thcee condittons, at 985�,Sammit Avenue. - _ - � " - _ - Dated December 26, 1996 . - � � . , 'NANCY ANDERSON - � � � � � As'sistaat City Counc3l Secretary _ - � � - _FiJecember28, 1996) � - � � . • • OFFICE OF LICENSE, IIiSPECT10D15 AbID ENVII20NMEN1'AL PROTECfION RebertKuslar, Director CITY OF SAIN'£-PAUL Nam CoTeman, Ma}vr TAWRPPROFFSSIONAL BUII.DINYi Sutfe 300 330St PeterSdset Saint Pau1, Mimlesota SS702-1 SIO 2 January 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City CouncIl 3 io c�ry x�u Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: HPC Fde #2810: City Councfl Heazing: Diane and Steven Anderson S Ianuary 1997 q�� Telephore: 612-2659090 Faatimr7e: 611-2669099 PURPOSE: To cansider an appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission s approval of a building permit application, subject to three condi6ons, to install vinyl replacement windows at 985 Sumnut Avenue. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTION: Approval subject ta three conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial. 3UPPORT None. OPPOSITION None. Deaz Ms. Anderson: Diane and Steven Anderson have appealed the decision of the Heritage Preservadon Commission to grant approval, subject to conditions, of a building permit to install vinyi windows on their home at 985 Sumnut Avenue. The Heritage Preservation Commission held public hearings on the permit application on October 23, 1996 and November 21, 1996 at which the applicant and properry owners addressed the commission. At the close of the second public hearing, the commission voted 7- 2 to grant approval for the proposed vinyl windows subject to three conditions specified in the attached resolution. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on January 8,1947. I have enclosed pertinent information. Slides of the site will be available at the Council meeting if Cauncilmembers wish to view them. Sincerely, �, n� ��ti � ��iA/'� Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Attachments cc: City Councilmembers Robert Kessler, LIEP Peter Waznu, CAO Diane and Steven Anderson Gary Woods OfFiCEOf LICE?�SE, I!�SPECCI`vT�S A,\D EN VIRONMENI'AL PROTECTTON RobrliKusler, Dirutos CI3'Y OF SAINT-PAUL Nornt Caleman..Lla�ror IAIfRY PROFECSIONAL BUIIDR'G Suite 300 350ScPererSneet SaintPaul.��rasoto 55102-I510 Tekphona:�612d66-9090 „ Facsimiie: 612-2669099 C � J 22 Novembec 1996 Gary Woods Wellington Window and Door Co. 3938 Meadowbrook Road Saint Louis Parlc, MN 55426 fa�c: 933-2403 Dear Mr. Woods and Mr. and Ms. Anderson: BY FACSIMILE (4 pages) Diane and Stevea Anderson 985 Sunmtit Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55105 f�: 291-2712 As }°ou �.vow, the Saint Paul Heritage Presen�ation Commission voted at its November 21, 1996 meeting to approve your buitding pernut application for the insfaIlation of vinyI replacement windoc��s at 985 Summit Avenue subject to three conditions. I have enclosed a copy of the commission's resoIution which describes those conditions. I would be pleased to work with you to resolve any outstanding issues. You 6ave the right to appeal this decision to the Saint Paul City Councd under Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul L.egsiative Code. Such appeal must be filed by December 5, 1996. Chapter 73 requires that the following paragraph be included in all letiers indicating denial of a pemut: Section 73.06 (hJ Appeal to the Cig� Council. The permit appHcant or anyparty aggrieved by the decision of the heritage preserva6on commission shall, within fnuneen (14) doys ofthe date of the heritage preservarion commission's order and decisron, have a right to appeal such order and decision to the city cnuncil. The appeal shall be deemed perfected upon receipt by the division ofplanrring of two (Z) copies of a nodce of appeal and statement setting fonh fhe grounds for the appeal. The division ojplanningshall transmit one copy ojthe norice ofappeal and statement to the city council and one copy to the heritage preservairon commission. The commission, rn any wri#en order denying a permit applicadon, shalt advise the appticant of the right to appeal to the city council and include rhis paragraph in all such arde�s. Because the Heritage Preservation Commission is no longer staff'ed by the Ptanning Divisioa, T would request that any leuer of appeal be sent to me at LIEP (see letterhead) instead of to the Pianning Division. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions or concems. Sincerely, . _ .�,� l �, �.�; . a� xu�� Heritage Preservation Planner vc: Tate Aa�vorson, LIEP Robert KessIer, LIEP � • a��y� • CITY OF SAINT PAUL" HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION FILE NUMBER 2s10 DATE 21 Navember 1996 WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Tzgislative Code to review building permit applications for eaterior alterations, new construction or demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites rn Heritage Preservation Districts; and WTiEREAS, Wellington Window and Door Company has applied for a building permit to install vinyl replacement windows on the main structure and cazriage house on property located within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District at 985 5umuut Avenue; and VVHEREAS, the James A. Wilson House at 985 Summit Avenue is a two and one-half story, Queen Anne style residence constructed in 1895 and categorized as pivotal to the Hill District; and WHEREAS, the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the following: II. Restoration and Rehabilitation, A. General Principles: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a proper[y which requires minimal alteration for the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. • II. A.: 2. The disHnguishing original qualities or character of a building, struciure, or site and its environment sha11 nat be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic marerial or distinctive architectural fealures should be avoided when possible. Il. A.: 5. Distinctive stylistic features or ezamples ofskilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, strucfure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 77. A.: 6. Deteriorafed architecrural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessar}; the new materiat should match the material being replaced in composrtion, design, color, texture, and other visual qualitres. Repair or replacement ofmissing architectural features should be based on accurate duplicafions offeatures, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural desrgns or the availability ofdifferent architectural elements from other buildings or structures. Il., E. Windaws and Doors: ExisNng window and door openings should be retained. New window and door openings should not be introduced into principal elevations. Enlarging or reducing window or door openings to ftt stock windaw sash or new stock door sizes should not be done. The size ofwindow panes or sash should not be altered. Such changes destroy the scale and proportion of the building. Window sash, glass, lintels, sills, architraves, doors, pediments, hoods, steps and all hardware should be rerained. Discarding original dnors and door hardware, when they can be repaired and reused in place, shoutd be avoided. � The stylistic period(sJ a building represents should be respected. Ifreplacement ofwindow sash or doors Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #2820 Page Two is necessary, the replacement should duplicate the material, desrgn and hardware of the older windo�v sash or door. Inappropriate new window and door fecrtures such as aluminum storm and screen window combinations, plasric or meta! strip awnings, or fake shutters that disturb rhe character and appearance ofthe building should not be used. Combinarion storm windows should have wood frames or be painted to match trim colors; and WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon evidence presented at its October 23,1996 and November 21,1996 public hearings on said permit applicarion, made tfie following findings of fact: 1. The property owners have stated the following. The e7cisting wiudows (prime sash and combination storms) are deteriorated beyond repair and are drafty and very energy-inef3icient Mazry of the storm windows aze patchad and held together with duct tape. They want new windows to make the house comfortable, to reduce heating costs, and to make the house quieter (one of the owners is a musician/composer who sometimes records in the house). They have done extensive epoxy repair to many cvindaws but the resuit does not look like wood and the epoxy makes a loud, disturbing, popping noise when eacpanding and contracting due to heat and cold. To replace the existing windows with new wooden windows would cost more than $100,000. They beGeve the house was originally painted white and intend to repaint it in white in the fuhse. The vinyl windows have a lifetime warranty and a 20-year warranty on the seal (double, insulated panes). 2. The proposed windows aze wlvte vinyl with a wood core in the sash and frame for insulation. They have already been manufactured at a cost o£ $39,000. The app&cant and properiy owner have stated that they were unawaze that HPC approval is required to install new windows. The vinyl windows have a projecting profile rather than the flat profile of the original sash; tlus difference would be covered, however, by the sash of fu11-height sc�ens. 3. The applicant has revised the origival window replacement proposal as follows: a Full scrcens instead of half sarcens. b. Seal and leave in place curved tower windows instead of replacing them with straight windows (the owners may cvant to replace these in the future with new cucved windows). c. L�stall round-topped, instead of rectangulaz, screens on the tfiree, east elevation, round- topped window openings (prime windows were and will be rectangulaz). 4. Some important elements of the design of the exisYing windows woutd not be duplicated by the proposed windows: Many--appro�cimately half--of the existing double hung windows have a larger Iower sash, the window opening being divided perhaps 60/40. The proposed new windows have upper and lower sash of equal size. The meeting raiLs of the existing 60/40 and 50/50 windows on the house align and create a strong line around the house; this is a distincteve design element tfiat shouid be retained. . The e�cisting divided-light windows on the front elevation and atric story of the house and the e�sting 3/1 divided-light windows on the cazriage house would be replaced by window sash with grids located between thermal panes. The proposed grids or muntins would not a � � • � �'�G �2 ' 90 l?9: i i �R � I.°.S?HF, ROSEV i�Le 6i2 6si �:?E TO 2E69t795 �P.�2i�2 • I If29/96 . tlaron Rubenstein Lowry Professional B�rilding - Suite 300 350 3t Peter Sireet St. Paul, Mn 55102-1510 � • . .. As failow-np to our com�ersadon on Friday, November ZZ, I996, Steve and I wish to utilize the good advice that was �iven to us by the S� Paul I3PC memb�rs at fhe meeting on November 2I,1996. We zealize that some o£ the issues aze bettcr resolved in keeping the lustorie disrinetion of the house above modern convenience. With this in mind, we hope to move onward in our pmject without fiuther delay, for the cold weather has come upon us rathes qcrickly this seasoa We will not be able to receive conclusive pricing for the changes proposed until all research has been completed and compared by Gary Woods and ourselves. Unfo.rtunately, this factor will weigh heavily on ovr ability to fulfill the requirements within the time sllotte@ by our building permit. Because of the extensive restorazion that is necdcd to Be performed to the entire exterior foilowing tiie window project, we feeI that our limited means may prevent us from tepairing the decaying remainder of our home as necessary if we are not extremely cazeful. As I stressed an our fust meeting with the HPC, saving this house is of gceat importance to us And we must act sensibly in ordet ta accomplisfi it. For tt�is reasan, we find if necessary to appeal our case to the City Couneil, A sucessful appeai witl sIlow us the freedom to work through our window project, as well as, other immense problems we will be foreed to face as we continue on with our cnmmitment Respectfulty Xours, �C�GC�rzY �r��iW�t., /— Diane Andersott 985 Summii Ave, Sf. Paui, Mn SS I05 (ffie #2810) � • ....... . ... .. . . . _.. .... ._.. .._. . �rok 70TFlL PFlC�.92 , �q� . G�l=��kS � U • HPC FILE #2810 CITY OF SAINT PAUL AERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPOAT FILE NAME: Install vinyl windows APPLICANT: Wellington Window & Door Co. DATE OF APPLICATION: 10.21.96 LOCATION: 985 Summit Avenue (northwest corner at Chatsworth) HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Historic Hill District CLASSIFICATION: Moderate STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 1021.96 DATE OF HEARING: 1023.96 CATEGORY: Pivotal BY: Aazon Rubenstein A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The 7ames A. Wilson House at 985 Summ9t Avenue is a two and one-half stary, Queen Anne sty]e residence constructed in 1895 and categorized as pivotal to the Hill district. Its design combines Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, and Shingle Style elements. Features include: intersecting hipped and gabled roof; clapboazd siding; 1/1, 2/2, and 10/1 double hung sash as well as fixed, stained and leaded glass windows; red sandstone foundation; round corner tower with conical cap; full width front porch; shingled gable ends; and a t}uee-story west bay. The builder was J. H. Nickel and the designer is unknown. There is a very lazge west side yazd and a carriage house at the reaz of the site. B. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant proposes to replace practically all of the 68 windows on the house with $39,000 worth of new, white, vinyl windows. The new windows have already been manufactured and one of them has been installed on the west side of the house. C. GUIDELINE CITATION5: The Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the following: II. Restoradon and Rehabilifation, A. General Principles: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a properry which reguires minimal atteration for the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. II. A.: 2. The distinguishing original gualities or character af a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. Il: A.: S. Distinctive srylistic features or ezamples ofskilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. � II. A.: 6. Deteriorafed architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possibte. In the event reptacement is necessar}; the new materiat shoutd match the matsrial being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of HPC Staff Report: F�e #2810 Page Two missing architechrral features should be based on accurate duplicadons offeatures, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or zhe availability of difjerent architectural elements from other buildings or structures. Il., E. Windows and Doors: Existing window and door openings should be retained .New lvindow and door apenings sPrauld not be introduced into principal elevatiorrs. Enlarging or reducing window or door openings to fit stock window sash or new stock door sizes should not be done. The size ofwindow panes or sash should not be altered Such changes destroy the scale and proporrion of the building. Window sash, glass, lintels, sills, architraves, doors, pediments, hoods, steps and all hardware should be retained. Discarding original doors and daor hardware, svhen they can be repaired and reused in place, should be avoided. • The stylistic period(s) a building represents should be respected. If replacement of window sash or doors is necessary, ihe replacement should duplicate the material, design and hardware of the older window sash or door. Inappropriate new window and door features such as aluminum storm and screen window combinarions, plastic or metaT strip awnings, or fake shutters that dfsturb the character and appearance of the building should not be used. Combination storm windows should have wood frames or be painted to match trim colors. • D. FINDINGS: 1. The property owners have stated the following. The eacisting wiadows (prime sash and combination storms) ue deteriorated beyond repair and aze drafty and very energy-ineY�icient. Many of the storm windows aze patched and held together with duct tape. They want new windows to make the house comfortable, to reduce heating costs, and to make tke house quieter (one of the owners is a musiciacJcomposer who sometimes records in the house}. They have done extensive epoxy repair to many windows but the result does not look like wood and the epoacy makes a loud, disturbing, popping noise when eacpanding and contracting due to heat and cold. To replace the existing windows with new wooden windows would cost more than $100,000. They did not consider instailing jamb liners and new storm windows. They beGeve the house was originaIly painted white and intend to repaint it in white in the future. The vinyl windows have a lifetime wazranty and a 20- year wazrazity on the seal (double, insulated panes). 2. The applicant and properry owner have stated that they were unawaze that HPC approval is required to install new windows. 3. The applicant has not provided product information (cut sheet, section, etc.). The proposed windows aze wlrite vinyl with a wood core in the sash and frame for insulation. They have a screen on the lower kalf with an aluminum frame with a white, baked enamel finish. 4. Iwportant elements of the design of the e�cisting windows would not be duplicated by the proposed windows. A majority of the double hung windows have a smaller upper sash, the window opening � being divided roughiy one-third/two-thirds; the new windows have upper and lower sash of equal �` �k � . HPC Staff Report: File #2810 Page Three size. The house has a number of lazge, fixed windows with divided light storms that add interest and break up the scale of the lazge openings (on tower and elsewhere); the new windows would not have any division. There ue two, round azched topped windows recessed behind a third story balcony that would be zeplaced by rectangulaz windows and perhaps a round azched panel. The third stary, divided light sash would be replaced, it seems, by sash with grids between the panes, a generally unacceptable practice. Windows in one or two eyebrow dormers wouid remain as is. In addition, the proposed windows have a significandy different profile and appeazance compazed to traditional storm/screen windows: the latter have a sash that is flat and flush with the window casing; the former aze not flat and flush with the casing, which significantly alters one of the most important parts of a building. Tfie lower rail of the proposed windows is also higher or wider than the upper rail. The proposed windows do not match the design, materials, or appearance of the original windows. E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above fmdings, staffrecommends denial of a building pernut for the proposed vinyl windows. � � GENERA� BUtLt3[t�fG t'EFt�iT perqai.^.;=_;� CiTY OF SAINT PAUL � � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL � o�ccs oF ucExs�, c:srErno:as ni.n � II.M1'IRO�'��NTAL PRO'tECT10"7 BUIfDfNGlNSPECTIONA�'DDESIGN � 350 S+ Pe�er Streer - Suire?00 L Pcm�it No. Saim7aul, Minrsesatn 55102-ISJO 612-266-9090 �tJDQW C�EQ�-t+�I�'l�r PIANNO. DESCRfPT10N OFPROJECT_ [��' DATE I�" S�-�L�o OWNER �(�VE�DIJ�ETT�"�N OWNERSADDRESS �� ,rvE ` Y� ❑ OLD TYPE OF ❑ NEW TYPE CONST. OCCUPANCY GRADING STUCCO OR ❑ BUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALL Q fENCE Q ADDITION ❑ AL7ER ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE O WRECK � V s � 5U W1 N1lT �'��i 0 wiorH I oEPrH l0T WIDTH lENG1H 5"fRUG 7URE Q�� QYES U�a �SQFT. R AREA ARCHfTECT 0 S7ATE YEPMIT FEE VALUATtON . PLANCHECK STATE SVRCH4RGE TOTAIFEE MPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT AlL IN� FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT ALL AERTINENT STATE REGULATIONS CASN�ER USE ONLY � AND GITY ORDINANCE$ WILL BE COM- WNEN VAUDATED TH1515 YOUR PERMIT - Pl1EDWITHINPERFORMINGiHEWORK � FOR WHICH TFIIS PERMIT IS ISSUED. , $t. Code L j.j1YN �Y' , X yfil� �ADDRESS � oF ros °�; Pfivt Yh�v. �5l0 5 � �_AUTHOPl2EDSIGN�TVRE� � ° .. � � ' ___" ___ _'_'"_—._�'_ ___ _'_ '__"__" j _ , USE TYPEWRITER OR BAIL POINT PEN � AND PRESS FIRMLY �U"Z �' ��C/ 3� CJ � � �// a�=Z � S OFFIUE OF LICENSH, INSPECTIOYS A�'D ENZ'IRONMENTAL PROTECTION RoberlKessler, Director � LJ CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[emwy Mayor � IAWRYPROFFSSIONRL BUILDlNG Suite 300 350St PererStreet SaintPaul, Mtnnesota 55102-1510 Te[ephone: 612-266-9090 Facsrmile: 611-2669099 � 12 November 1996 Diane and Steven Anderson 985 Simunit Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55105 fax: 291-2712 Deaz Mr. Woods and Mr. and Ms. Anderson: SY FACSTMILE Gary Woods Wellington Window and Door Co. 3938 Meadowbrook Road Saint Louis Pazk, MN 55426 fax: 933-1403 With winter fast approaching, the new windows for 985 Stunmit already manufactured, and the Heritage Preservadon Commission, to my lmowledge, never having approved vinyl replacement windows on this scale, all of us are in a difficult posirion. The Commission, I believe, appreciates yow willingness to consider modifications to the window design. I spoke with Mr. Anderson after the October 23rd HPC and said I would put in writing the outstanding issues to be addressed at the November 21 st HPC meeting and information that would be useful to have. They are as follows: Vinyl Windows 1. Meeting rail height: can new sash be manufactured to match the existing meeting rail height? 2. Screen size: can full screens be manufactured that would be flush with the casing to more closely appro�mate the design of wood scrans and storms? 3. Curved tower windows: how can these be preserved? Could they be caulked and left closed? 4. Arched topped windows: can this design be repiicated? 5. Stairway windows: if the existing windows aze not original, is there evidence of the original design? (I will check with Tracey Baker about streetscape photogaphs at the Minnesota Historical Society.) 6. Muntin grids: can muntin grids be apptied to the exterior? How do design and dimensions compaze to eacisting divided light sash on house and camage house? 7. Dunensions: what aze the dimensions of the e�sting and proposed sash and glazing? 8. Window schedule: the HPC has requested a window schedule to ciearly specify what type of window goes where. 9. Material and profile: The HPC will need to decide if the proposed window materiai and profile conform to the district guidelines. Please provide sections as indicated in the attached specification requirements for window replacement and storm windows. If possible, bringing a sample window to the HPC meeting would be useful. Altematives Please provide whatever information you can about other alternatives such as new wood or aluminum-clad � windows; repair of existing windows plus new storms; jamb liners; and bronze weatherstripping. I would encourage you to consult with a historic building specialist about these and other ophons that may exist. I could provide you with several referrals if you wish. Woods and Andersons t2 November Y99& Page Two � Please pmvide the informaUon noted, if possible, by November 15 or 18 so that I can get it to HPC members prior to the November 21 meedng. I have enclosed notes of The discussion at the October 23 HPC meeting for your reference. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions or issues you wish to discuss. Sincerely, �.�j� ( G4�GC�'J Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner attachments cc: Robert Liumutg, HPC Chair i � Rev. �1ib6 Specification Requirements for Proposed �� indovc� Keplacement in Historl� Buildings . r Property Owners Seeking Federal Tax Benefits .. - HATZO`!AL PARK SERVICE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL OFFICE Prep2red by: Bonnie J. Halda Property ownersldevelopers undertaking re:�<bilitation projects under the Economic Recovery T�x Act of 1981, as a:.ended, and the iax Reform Act of i986, are encouraged to repzir and retain existing historic uindoKS. In some cases, replzcement windows c�zy be justified. 1n order to revieu replacecsent crindoxs for confor�,2nce with the Secretary of C�° In�erior's "Standards for Rehzbilitation," the National Park Service znd the St2te Historic Preservation Office should have the follocring minimua documentztion: 1. Cle2r photographs of existing uir.doris, h�hen windocrs are boarded over, renove bozrds from typiczl windc�:s in order to take ghotograghs, If the rehabilitation crork is complete, t2ke addition�l photographs of the replacement xindoxs. 2. Y•orizontal and vertical sections of existing uindoHS. 3.' Aorizontal and vertical sections oi proposed replacement Nindoxs. 4, When historic �:indous do not exist, sections of proposed replacement wir.dows should sti12 be subnitted. �For inform2tion about appropriate window design in this case, contact your State Office.) �eplacement xindous u�ust 2ccurztely replicate the appe2rance of existing historic windous. All too frequently, the profiles of muntins, sa�h, frames, znd moldings in replzcecaent Windows are different thsn those of historic vindoxs. For example, the muntins in a necr double—glazed uindoN may be much wider and flatter than the existing muntins. Even though the new crindow may duplicate the number of existing uindoN panes, the eharaeter of the histocic window is lost due to the change in desig❑ and relief. This can alter the overall character of the building. � Another problem uith many replacement uindows is the use of panning, a metal molding which is installed over the molding that surrounds a crindoc+, or Which replaces the existing molding_altogether. When panning does not match the existing molding, the design of the historic uindoN is further altered. Because of the potential problems in choosing an appropriate replacement xindocr, vindoc+ sections should be drawn. Cut both horizontal (a) and vertical (b) sections (fig. 1). The sections must be carefully detailed so that all parts of the uindor+ are shoxn and materials =re specified. Fig. I Windo��sections must shou the profiles'of muntYas, meeting rails, sash, frames, and croldings, Treatments such as replacement moldings or panning, as uell as � the windou's relationship to the existing xall'plane, nust also be detailed. Belou are examples of vertical uindow sections of a historic wood Window (fig.� 2) and a"uoad replacement uindow (fig. 3)• (Horizontal sections should be draFn similar to the vertical sections.) Because the sections are at the same scale, the two xindoKS ca❑ be compared. The replacement uindow in this case closely resembles the existing windou's desig❑ and therefore meets the Secretary of the Interior's �'Standards for Rehabilitation." � MOLDI f�:�t1`� SASH �� ■! I�� %' �'„ ��'� � � �a 11 -- �� Fi g. 2 _X�ST V1ALL SASH S1lL _ . Fg. 3 � For informaLion concerning this flyer, contact: � Branch of Project Revieu and Technical Assistance, National Park Service Rocky Mountain Regional Office; 655 P>rfet Street, P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 <3o33 236-8675 :�e� i1/45 G � Specification Requirements for Proposed , . - : � S f Q r ITl �1 Tl CI O W S in Historic Buildings - - � F o r P r o p e r t y O w n e r s S e e k i n g Federal Tax Benefits NATIONAL PARK SERVZCE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL OFFICE Prepared by: Bonnie J. Halda Property owners/developers undertaking rehabilitation projects under the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, as amended, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986, often propose energy conserving features as part of the rehabilitation. The National Park Service and the State Historic Preservation Offices encourage such decisions, provided the treatments meet the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." Installation of storm windoxs is often proposed. This treatment can be beneficial not only when it saves energy, but when it results in retaining the historic Windous, rather than"replacing them with new double—glazed units. Appropriate storm windocrs must be visually compatible with the historic windows over which they will be installed. The following criteria should be taken into consideration Nhen choosing storm winoous: 1. Interior vs Exterior. Interior storm windows are often prefer2ble because they may be the least visually obtrusive. Also, maintenance is • easier.and installation is less expensive from the interior. 2. Material Ideally, the material of storm windows should match the material of the windows over which they will be installed. 3, Finish. The color of storm srindoWS should match the color of the windows, �nless documentation shows an alternate color scheme. Shiny or metallic finishes are never appropriate. 4, Glass Storm window glass should be clear. 5, Design. Storm xindows should match the size and overall design of the historic windorrs. This can be accomplished by lining up major divisions of the storm windows with major divisions of the historic windows. If historie storm uindows exist, they should be retained, or used as a basis for the design of replzcement storm windoas. 6. Placement. Storm windows cannot cover significant historic trim or moldings, and should be as flush as possible t+ithin the opening. Storm uindoNS xhich radically step outward from the existing plane of the moldings are not appropriate. ' In order to tevieW proposed storm xindoNS for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation," the National Park Service and the State Histaric Preservation Office should have the folloaing documentation: • 1. Complete sections of storm uindows integrating the existing openings, existing or replacement uindows, and moldings (fig. 1). 2, Specifications for the material, finish, color „ and type of glass. Belox is an example of a Window section showing both an existing (or replacement) windou and a storm windox, Hote in the drawing that the storm xindowTS r.elationship to the existing wall plane is.shawn. The storm window's major. divisions, such as the meeting rail, line up with the major divisions of . the existing Cor replacement) windox, This storm window appears to meet the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehab3litation." _ � F1$llT6 1 For iaformation concerning this flyer, contact: Braneh of Project Reviex and Technical Assistance, National Park Service Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 655 Parfet Street, P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 8o22S (3�3) 236-8675 • G�1=1`�5 � Meefin¢ Notes HPC 10.23.96 File #2810/FVellington Window and Door Co.11nstall vinyl windows/985 Summit Av. Present: Lunning, Heide, Buetow, Vojacek, Hauser, Frame, Larson; Rubenstein. Rubenstein showed slides of the site and noted the following while reviewing the slides: • Most existing windows are oriel--60(40 lower and upper sash proportion; new windows aze divided 50/50; applicant says new lower sash, if 60l40, would be heavy and difficult to operate and clean. • E�sting, divlded light attic windows would be replaced by windows with grids be[ween panes and some would have fixed sash--very high; two-light basement sash would be replaced by one-light sash; and stairvray windows may change to double-hung. • Three round-azch-topped windows on east elevation, 2@ 3rd story and 1@ lst story--pzoposed treatrnent not clear. • Comer tower windows now double hung, curved, inoperable, with divided light storms; wouid become 1/1 straight double hung (not curved). • Existing windows on carriage house have divided upper sash; replaced by grids behveen panes. Rubenstein noted the following information as well: • New window frames would be inserted within the existing frames; detailed information of the dimensions of e�sting and proposed sash and glazing is not available. • 81 windows, including those on the carriage house, wouid be repiaced (68 noted in staff report}. • Commissioner Buetow and HPC staff visited the house with owner and Weilington rep. this aftemoon to examine condition of existing windows and talk about details of replacement windows; � owner said that existing windows have high lead content. • One new window has been installed, after the permit was applied for but not issued, to show as an example; it appeazs that new sash is one inch wider on each side. • Last sentence of finding #4 states "The proposed windows do not match the design, materials, or appeazance of the original windows' ; suggested adding "and would have an adverse impact on the azchitectural and historic chazacter and integriry of the building". Lazson: asked about costs of alternatives other than new wood and vuryi windows. Heide: asked about condirion of existing sash. Buetow: some sagging (1/4 - 1/2") of lower rail of lazger sash because of size of glazing; some glazing loose; a lot need to be reputtied, remortised; generally not rotted; are loose; part of problem is lazge size of windowslsash. Diane Anderson, w-owner: • House is eactremely deteriorated, has been poorly maintained and repaired; believe main view of windows is casing wluch would remain as is. • Our intent is to restore and maintain the house to its original splendor and to not alter its appearance. • Windows are rotting on the outside and, therefore, new storms cannot be installed; jamb liners and new storms were originally considered. • Epo�ry repaiz to e7cisting sash has not worked adequately--creates loud popping noise; have been told majority of windows are rotted. • NSP bill was $800 per month last winter; windows are drafry; have boiler that would heat a hotel but sometimes last winter temperature would not rise above 56 degrees; believe new �vood storms would � not solve the problem adequately. Hauser: asked Ms. Mderson if willing to leave some original windows, e.g., curved tower windows. HPC Meeting Notes 1023.96/File #2810/985 Summit Av. Page Two Anderson: thought new windows would look like oId ones; alsa believe house originally had some stained glass and that would be redone. Buetow: the proposed vinyl windows look alright from the inside; it seems that sash replacement is- an appropriate strategy, though perhaps not the best one--a lot of damaged and loose sash; proposed windows have tl�ree major problems: 1. Change of ineeting rail height (from 6Q/4Q to 50/50); e�stmg meeting rail height creates a strong line azound the exterior and is a strong and unique design element; but these are big windows--some lower sash aze IS sq. $, and Marvin tilt-pacs have 10 sq. ft. maximum. 2. Exterior profile is not flush with casing (showed sketch and noted that blind stop gets covered with vinyl). 3. Curved tower windows would be replaced with 4'-wide straight windows--a profound affect; suggested possibly caulking existing windows and leaving closed. �1 U Gary Woods, Wellington President and designer of the windows, addressed Buetow's three concems and showed a small seciion of the window materiat (wood core with vinyl skin): k. Owners prefer 50/�0 sash; most houses in area have 50/50 sash (Hauser asked if he can make 60/40 sash; Woods responded "yes".) 2. Re: profile/flush look: can monnt screen wider, ezcisting screen track remains behind it; can � invent a full screen (existing new windows have half screens); screens have narrow bottom rail like rest of screen sash (not wider bottom rail like wooden storms and screens). Woods: cannot use jamb liners because of rot; different options for divided liP.,,ht grids--can located on top or inside, can be 1l4, 3/8, 1l2, 5l8, 7/8, or 1-1/8 inches wide (of ahnninum). Heide: asked Woods about awazeness of historic distdct; asked staff to get him maps of districts. Woods: can make arched top sasfi if owners want buf not curved sash. Buetow: meeting rails line up on much of building; lights were cazefully divided at proportion they were as part of the original design. Larson moved to deny approval of a buiiding permit for the proposed vinyl windows; Heide seconded the motion. Hauser talked about the contractor's willingness to come up with altemative solutions. Buetow: would be willing to approve the vinyl windows with a new screen scheme (it may conceal enough of window so that it would look appropriate} and if curved windows retained but meeting raii height stiil not resoived. Woods: could make new 60/40 sash. Larson: uncomfortable with ]ack of deiail and soluUons, wonders about layover rather than denial. Frazne: would vote for denial if several exceptions to the denial--maintain 60l40 configuration, retain rocmd azched desigu, new screen scheme. Heide: good intenfions of owners cleaz but lack of understanding of some important elements; uncomfortable about approval without additional information--more detailed rvindow schedule with screen design, screen sash dimensions, curved and uched window solations. Vojacek agreed: need specific information and resolution of issues to avoid misunderstandings. Buetow suggested layover; discussion followed about layover versus denial. � � • HPC MeeUng Notes 10.23.96/File #28101985 Summit Av. Page T1uee Lunning: suggested withdrawal and reconsideration in 2 or 4 weeks to address outstanding issues-- meeting rail height, esterior profile and full screen, curved windows, arched topped windows, muntin design. Woods: fine with me--need time to address these issues. Anderson: divided stair windows do not appeaz to be original. Rubenstein made these points: • Owners apparently thought HPC approval not necessary if replacing windows in kind; but I met with them last sunmier and advised that I could not approve glass block for basement windows (high foundation, visible corner location) and HPC had recently denied approval for similar case of glass block. • Approving vinyl windows would set an important precedent, particularly for this pivotal house. • HPC perhaps needs more information about other alternatives ihat would more closely approximate the original windows. Heide: yes; can e�sting windows be repaired? Frame: aze there historic photographs, perhaps showing the side windows? (Andersons: one photo at MHS.} Perhaps Tracey Baker could fmd more under streetscapes. � Lunning called the question on the motion to deny approval. Aeide withdrew his second af that motinn. Buetow moved to lay over the case; Vojacek seconded; motion passed 7- 0. Lunning laid over the case to the November 21 meeting. Woods: what should happen with stair windows? Lunning: if there is evidence that they aze not original, I would be willing to entertain altematives in keeping with the design of the house (and I personally believe that the e�cisting windows are not particularly suited to the openings). notes prepared by Aazon Rubenstein • Notes from 10.25:96 meeting of Charles Nelson, State Historic Aiclut"ect, and Aaron Rulienstein re: rvindows . on fiistoric build'mgs (questions/issues posed by Rubenstein; responses by Nelson) 1. When to repair and when to replace windows? Repair difficult and cosfly if lower rail is rotted. - 2. What criteria/guideiines dces SHPO use for window replacement? Match e�sting--see National Pazk Service pieces on window replacement and storm windows. 3. What kind of replacement window materials do you pemut--wood, vinyl, clad, aluminimi (anodized and baked enamel finish)? Vinyl noY acceptable: can't match original profile, susceptible Yo . Ultraviolet and starts to deteriorate after about 15 years. Metal okay if painted and not anodized. Metal-clad and polymer-clad (Iatter made by Marvin, production now suspended} are okay; vuryi- clad is not acceptable_ Need to look at profile, glass setback, all proportions. 4. Whai about applied meeting rail on casemeuts for egress, replacing double hungs? Marvin makes inward-swinging casement simulating a double hung--upper and lower parts are offset. 5. What about muntins and grids? Only a) true divided lights and b) grids inside, outside, and between panes are acceptable. b. What about storncs and screens? Having stomu or screens with thermal pane windows is not essential; originatly many houses did not have them. Hatf screens are not acceptable. Aluminum storms/screens okay if flusfi witfi casing. Mainfaining pattem of divided Iight stomis not so � important--they often were not original—but design should match that of prunary window, e.g., double hung with matching meeting rails. Marvin and Kolbe make wood combinations. 7. What about jamb tiners? Colors are limited—white, brown Prefer rolled brass; woulc3 also need good stomu and weatherstripping; can use pulley covers. 8. What about profile, dimensions, and insert windows? Profile of replacement windows should not look as Yhough boazd has been added azowd the edges. Dimensions of sash and glazing okay if they are close. Insert replacement windows okay if no more than one-half inch lost on each side. 9. What about low-E coating? Some types aze reflective. Only Iow-E by CazdinaI and Northem Light by Marvin aze acceptable types, have &tde reflectivity. � ' � ��i„ ' ..l �. . (` ,/( � � ' �' } �i,f. � :l ' .�' n i��. i J t �',°� Z �.6� vu ;�E� .w�?' : ��V�u�JQ� UJl ^cic'rti'S �i,1P, ll�� W,�� k�eV�,K� G_ wce�'�+bP'r��ciyr.�J' L'•�1 st�wda�"/�lastic) c:b..ti�;e�ii'��- �hy Fib�ex�` Yndte�i� ? r f ; 4 � � j�trC �'.,'rjy lro�r�� ; � �C.Ct.,.�t_t '0 ��c, t5V �'� i ��Lt,2 1 ( 11 " , y{ 1 1ti 1 1`�C-I.Ly Qwd tn�t D F�r��e �d2.�r.r, ��u��wS- � ��=,�� `ellf danveri6ed 6y m indcpenden� la6oruory using induscry savdu3 mahods. Thermal Expansion Durable and reliable. 4.0 `_ s o Thermal ezpansion is the degree co which a given mawrial expands and contntts wi[h : Z a � � 3 �anges in tempereture. As you can see, pine has a very low [hermal ezpansion ra[e. �� a �ch a ca[e oE 1.2, Fibrex material, like aluminum, expands and contraca very licde. •ZS �nyl, however, wirh a chermal espansion race of4.0, expands and contraas markedly, o.o resuleing over time in bowing, crecks and, evenmally, leakage of air and wa[er. Fbra Ynyi P�nc .Uum�wu �try!'s properssity w ezparuf and mnaacr rest�(n� over time in traclu baunngand ltakage. Stiffness i.zoo.ouo ' 7,000,000 a � soo.000 soo,000 aoo,000 � 40V.000 � F�bre. Ynyl Wood Fibr� offen twire the ngidiry afvirry! fm long-term ttability. �Thermal Conduc[ivity i.za U 9u o.Ga 0 3a o.ao Fibrex inrulater l,000 times benn tban a[uminum. Stable and predictable. Modulus is che scienci6c cerm for a macerial's sciffness. The 6igher che numbec, che stiffer the matecial. The average modulus for Fibrex macerial is cwice the avecagt for vinyl, making it a far moce stable and rigid macerial (or windows. Md thongh wood's average s[iffness is higher, it is far less predictable [han Fibre�c ma�erial since wood possesses namral variations such az grain, knots and moisture conrenc A11 of which means we can make Renewal"" window frames and sash narrower than competicive windows-gaining more glass area and more light From che same size space in your wall. An excellent insulator. Fibrex composice material has a very low [hermal conducciviry ratio-or in other wocds, escellen[ insulating proper[ies-that puc it on a par wi[h pine oc vinyl. Unlike aluminum, Renewal windows, made of Fibrex macerial, wont cransfer 6eat ouc of your home or allow cold temperatures outdoors ro chi11 the window areas inside. DecayofMaterials 50% Impervious to decay. so a j ' Evencually, wichout main[enance, even aeazed wood can be subjecc co decay. 9 3 � For�unacely for busy homeowners, Fibrex composite material is nor. Our special poly- n _ zo mer formulaxion surrounds and coacs each wood fiber in che manufaccuring process, °° � � �a % ensuring unsurpu;ed resistance to roc. Md Renewal windows made of Fibrex material � o �% �°� are wartanced noc m flake, nuc, bliscer, peel, crack, pic or mcrode, Eor chat mattec' Pibaz Yayl T.eued PiK Unuveed Pin� ' $ce �he Rcnewai produ<c warrJnry £or d<nils. Whi1e nxn deated vood �an de�uys Fibrex is imprrviour to rot. Heat Distortion Resistance W9�numperaiviee+pniercMq wiMOw me1NU1 in d�e+l mr�tOnmm[ +uo 180° �� F �w xe.a vo� Fibrex withstunds urrsperatum ofovo 200°Fin tetu, wbile viny! begint to distort at 167°F. Won t go soft in the heat. As anyo�e who has ever ]ef[ a vinyl record in the sun knows, high [emperamres can resul[ in distonion. In che full heat oFsummer, windows receiving direct afremoon sun can heac up to 175°F or more. At chese temperamres, t6e weight of the window frame and glass can cause ordinary hollow vinyl kames co bow and sag. Fibrex composi[e, however, remains rigid and stable m temperamru oFover 200°F in cescs-cemperamres far higher than your window wiU ever experience. �°PYn6'��9Mde�un G.Nniw. BaYWrvMN 1991..M n8F'u mnM.3M�Na t ftinrcd in US A NmA.�RL1�1 Fibrcz �oyl Pme Alumf�wn xpc rub�,� xear;ng s�mmazy re: 985 S�munit Avenue HPC File #2810 Instali vinyI windows 11.21.96 Rubenstein reviewed the stafus of the case and noted the following: • A full screen has been installed, reptacing a haif screeq on the one vinyl k�ndow that has already been installed on the house; the screen sash is sort of nbbed and not flaL • 'I'fie HPC has never approved vinyl repiacement windows with the e�ccepiion of one case approximately one yeaz ago on Marshall Avenue in the Hill District where three-quarcers of the windows had been replaced in prior years without permits. Gary Woods, applicant, showed a lazge samp]e of an enfire wiadow, with fiill screen, said he would try to find a 4at screen, and reviewed their revised proposal as follows: • Andersons, the owners, insist on 50/50 rather than 60/40 sash for safery reasons--aft'ects abovt 12 windows. • • Reaz etevation: no change to existing window configuration. • East elevation: tt�ree windows have azch-topped screens with rectangulaz sash behind; no change proposed • Tower: leave windows as is for now; nea�t yeaz will be able to curve glass and sash, will want 50/50. • Front elevation: propose 50/50 double hungs with grids in top sash. • West elevation: stair windows not orignial, make double flung or leaded ta match front transom. Comcuissioner Heide: how many windows are divided 60/40? . Woods: 39 new windows on main house, 18 are 60/40. Heide: feels strongly that 50/40 sash is an important design element; not convinced that change in weight is sigwficanL. Chair Li¢uung: can windows be secared to prevent harm? Woods responded but didn't seem to answer directly; mentioned a type of child guard Commissioner Buetow moved to deny approval of the permit; said a flat screen woutd work okay but there is the muntin problem and the change to 50/50 cvindows dces not conform to the district guidelines. Commissioner Miller seconded the motioa Commissioner Albers reviecved the guidelines peitaining Yo the case. Woods: muntin grids would be betweeu panes; widfh of existing muntins varies. Commissioner Frame: asked Chair Lunning abouf the vinyl window precedenf; Lunning responded. Buetow: most important issues are window profile, shape, and sfieen. Miller: has significant reservations about setting a precedent for approval of vinyl windows. Heide: would be in favor o£ approval--cvith 60/40 sash, flat screen, and, if possible, exterior mimtins--in ttris case because windows already manufactured. Commissioner Slmef agreed with Mr. Heide. Lunning: approval would not set a precedent necessarily, a uniqae exception has already beeu made. Albers: the fact that the windows are already manufactured is irreIevant; how mazry times will this fiappen?; work must conform to the guidelines; do not want to set precedent for approving work after it has been done. Coaunissioner Hauser: HPC had asked the applicanUowners for a comparative analysis of different options; tlils has not been done. Rubenstein suggested the commission consider a motion stating what it would approve; appeal to Ci1y Council likely. � �� S • HPC Public Hearing S�mary/File #2810/11.21.96/Page Two Buetow called the question. The mution to deny approval passed 9- 0. Hauser moved to reconsider; Skrief seconded; discussion followed. Heide called the question; motion ta reconsider passed 7- 2. Lunning: no motion is now on the floor. Heide moved to grant approval subject to three conditions: 1) the meeting rail height shall match the existing, 2) the esterior of the screens shall be flat or smooth, and 3) new sash shall have exterior applied muntins where they replace eaiisting divided light sash; Hauser seconded. Buetow called the quesrion. The motion to approve subject to three conditions stated above passed 7- 2(Miller, Albers). summary by Aazon Rubenstein � �J c�EN�R�,L st��..€�t�� tt�� eG t,RrnaE,wr CFTY OF SAIP3T PAt3L .,r ' .w. CPI'Y OF SAINL PAUL t OFFICEOFLICENSE,INSPECTIONSAND � ENVIRONMENfALPROTECTION � BUfLDING/NSPECTfONANODESIGN � 350 St Peter Srreet - Suite 300 LPermit No. �,�,+ S¢int Paul. MLu�esom 55(02-I510 612d66-9090 wlnwVw ttc.y�r+�cvnc �v i PLAN NO. ° OF PROJEGTt /�� {- DA E t .�W ER� Si�✓E�DI�ETP"1/�K-�AJ :�.:� � /� �WNERSADORESS' `"i��T � �� rA{l�` ❑ 0 O � NPE OF ❑ NEW -TYPECONST. OCCUPANCY GRADING STUCCOOR ❑ BUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALI. ❑ FENCE ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTER ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ WRECK � q �� WARD l07 Sf RUC- 4 TURE ��ESTI _., _� J - ."'oeTn��s a -;[I.1')n - mwtiT WIDTH �� 5 1 SIDE LOT CLEARANCE BVILDING UNE FRONT qEAF LFNGTH HEIGHT STORIES ' BASEMENT TOTALF�OOR AREA �YES '❑NO SQFT.- _, . . � , . �-'x.INCLUDEBASEMENT a� �. =: _a-r ., z= 2 D �r � �o .k��glv�°(i�z4; ��r�{,:: - -�- - -� �V1�;U✓S�,v� . � _ �. _ .. 3z,=z1�7 � � ARCNI7ECT- = �--.�`�� - — 300 . ._WEw►�ru :ww s g oaa � i ' �auFnxcroa� E�DO+N i3�61G RD l.OviS k�- Fi �47�k � - . - . fA00flE556Y1P� - ,� � MASONRY�.; � : ,-- ' � ' ' .- , _ ._,. _ _ � � - - . ' STATE :' . ' " _ �' PERM�T FEE _ � � yqLUAT10N � i 1 P�AN CHECK ' � _ ,- ' � STATE - . - .. '. _. � . . " SVRCHARGE ' - • � . FEE . ' ,. � - . - . I ' APGLlCANT CERAFIES THA7 ALL IN- " � -� - _..FORMA710N IS CORFiECT �AND jHAT - ' � � - - ��-' �ALL PERTINENT STATE REGULATIONS "' � ansHlEn oNLr � AN6 CITY ORDINANCES WILL BE COM- WHEN YALIDATED TH1515 `/OVR PENMIT � :P�IEDWITHINPfRFORMINGTHEWORK - „ ' FOR WHICH 7HIS PERMIT IS ISSUED. . - - - .' � ` • _ . . St. Code " � � -' � ' .X �/�y�,. ADDRESS � V m� m • oF:,ios`=� �OsN�L LYrN. �'SloS + �TNORI2EOSIGNA?UREt � �' , . � USE TYPEWRITER OR BALI POIN7 PEN - � � � �' AND PRESS FIRMI.Y r D• Z 1' �� . • � �� e � � � � 0 � � � � � � o� � .,,, p � : •y � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �4 N �k � .�, w � 4� �O F� � � � � � .�" O � � �'' O ^`� � A o � � �� v T � � �q � - � � � � c� •��' � � � � '� � ° "' �s �, ,,�ti �0 M � � •� r..� . � �_ � .�. � � � � � E.. � U s _ .:� _ . � .. � � ' � ' ? ; t ��. i : r'� i� '� ' f S a ii� � �_� _ � € f( e � �� =. ;i � z € _. ` { �.: _ .:�: ...�,.,:,�.� _� �� ;` � :a::f:::.. :'fS�xia � IfM .� , �� ? z, � x " , E^ �` �' . �_ . � �y l.� a � .+. -. � 2 3' i� ,s �� . .� • =t;: :��: :° n c � . J __...._. . .,,_ . . . . . . _ .,._...��.�-_.� . .. _..�--- � . . .,...__.._..._ _... . . i . . . . ... . . � { : e � � � �I� . . �.. � . .. E � � . . � . . . ' . " .. � { t L . f l L � � � � . � 1 g 1 Z � � g � � . . �.. . _ .. . � , �� . .. . . . . . _�� I --_._--- - ;, ,- z . �-�-�..z�r��. ' 4 ..,:"�" ' ?z?,-�^�,.'v. � 3 r �+ : ��: 1 � � � , : 'F'Si�` r� t'��' 'F�} �� f` .�.��.�:.� �y� �} �_ rc .. �= � .�.�,., �,._: -� _ } ` �.�_ 4 SW^'F�-�e�y" . � �..LwK` . _ . . .. . r � yT � s .�"�:... - +._. -...,.._ . _ ) r_� �, �. - - i -Z- 4 - � •'. � r 4 ��.` ` . j� .. � _. . i st,' L � : i �� `� . ._. ,. � ; �..� `_ � �- � _�: � � ��-�} ,. ;. , ; _ : _, _ . . . ��.� Y ___ . ( � � y . 1 ._ . . � � _: r � . e��` - j _ � r �' � o.�a�a"a-.a�•r . '{. � �'cTwt>zaeY.w'44a:e"s.•• � t � } �_ 5 � � t ,y N y . . ,` 1 � . . Y:.vsn'art.e`kY.�^�: . . . j !r' $j $ 3. �! . . . / } � A� 7 �: �� . �./ � . ��__ � a t a.`';.v>N� �. , . / Q �� . . ( .. j d' �� . . i i -. ;� .� � . ,,.` �- _ ,� � ;. t�� _ � i. �� i . �� _ ._ . �. .� . ...,w : �� Ci.. >.� .:., _. Ir � -.� • ;;. �. /: ` �<<�� ,� r; 1 j � � � ' � i:� � _' � ' ..,..r � �; . . . - - �E �. ' '� � E � .� .. =,S � . '� . .'i . . -. ..ar—. ��er^ �� " �:�� \T �ie . .. � �. �..'S - r; ' � �•��+•.-;� v��i � ti'. e . � � .e+.� S.`a� � � -. . � .. � ' �-` . j' �;`, ��R� 6 � . fy `` ` . '�� , , �. :. _ � +.' . �� ... �.�i �° ' '��f� ' ` ��:' . ar1`� � o� � =° � ''.-�� ' �`s.T..�7 . . ��,� . . -. � - �,.,. : ... j � r . - ,_. � ..._: ��"f - . t� q . . / .�` , :Iw��« �F�6%i. "��..�\;t.� / ��.. �i*��" " "r, �� t �! T � i L Y t; i ;.,,�%� � '��/� .-'� � • µ�, -�. -� f s : " �r'$ !:?�" "�` � ,,.� t�s � -fi � F' 1� �;� ' �' F�3�� j '� f -,,.�.: . � , � ,��--.._ . � . � -�.; F : � , c . * � y 4 ��,��i� � `� _'� • �. �;•.. _' .�, .. .:•� r,i _.�i" `, �q . ��N � i•�� : �f '• i r J sy 4 � � ' �,;, � cT . I 4 t� � a �.'�- ��,.'�' :t �.-s r.;. _,: .' �:�� i e .;' -a s .' . 3. _ - .. . �': ► � . ."�"_"' { . .. : � ..1 O s _ � _." ,., --1 . �, � � '�• _ `a t �$� +T�i�f Z� iS �Y `! "�'L9'M1y�- � . W R f�' . �' � a a .� : � " . i�a �"li^�; -' -s h I � r _ v i J�< r�.� S �C� �.x . 4�y � � � ` � .: , . T .�` '. \ ,�� . � , � ` 4 =�Y1' \ � � � ". � �Zi !4�ti . t , .: �'� si`i� .. a .' � �;'a � ; . . . � . ,. � �. � �. . . �� ;� � < �•� � 5 . ! . +1 � • �� r � • _ �'�i� YY•t.' � ,. -�E�� _ � . �. i � '�, ��` ,� '�.:• _ :f 'S;`:'" ' S �• �' . � � ` � . .{ �►. r' � � ��i . `� 4i '- _ . __ � . r, s.• :, "� s . s r . +1. ...�- - - '�w�._ V' - . � - .. . . . �. .. v _ Y - � /� f � � -$ . . _� �aiC_ � �;�,�, . �o�. �{.: � _ !�� ' . .... . . - V .y : q . . . . . . �� f i .�Y" :`� � '- � . .1� � . 4 � ^E . . . ;<� � 1 . . . . k � t �' � � � '� �� ' I a xt . t� � . . . x , o ? ` 'I i t ; ��. ,l'1 ./ r. t . . `'_ / .'�. i. � . .'t�+�� ir' � �: Y 1' )� � 5 �' F�' � f . . . f T� z � � � .. . . . . � ' � � � �'-'� , � � � . '. � ' e � . . � / �� 1 { �� . � � J I t F ". sx � � ;. '� _, �,- ; -� . _. �., �. , � , - I '�i�; _ . � .. . r � � $ �: °�� . i 5g�a� � � � � c . � . � " r� � : 4 .. �. .. _ t a m �{ � 1 7 � ` i 1 � \ �• k ! � } � � r { , 5 i 4 1 .. � . �� . i. . t ' ;'� s7 � I�" ., � ' . , . - _ ;, . ,- .� - - r,. ,. «;' � ; , ; ; ,:._ ,W_ .. � `,,,, . } � '. � Y �� $ .�.� �, � ,;A . a. rnr�c �'� ` , ��+ . �. � n ` . t Z • ? " � �� _: � �+ . . . �L� 1 R �,� a� �.�� .. • �� T� �..' �,'\ :,- ar�� .� � ` .' 3 "—" �a � "a+s';t.� x - ., `< <c�� ' ?�- :.. . ,�' �� { � � 1 }j � ' ��i "� �i, ;, 4 � `=_ � E �{r�� — � , �� r: .� t ,� �, ; � f .. ; � , . :r/ ■' � 1 �,_ . _ , i s-. - � ..�.��.,_. . :r. . . . ... F' � . • a+L7C c>--. 'i'5..�......__. � : i � f � � �� 1�� ` � � � ..� . .� s � j: � •_ � _� � _ � .. - �3.s,,,r-_ t , ...- , t`r.�.....�__ ��_� ....-�.�c� , - s�, �� .. r � `+�� x,.�..., ,� �; . _ ._�:. -- � � � " .Sr;° "�`' - .�n'" , o �,��; � ..�._.� =�- �`..� ---- � ��- � , �"��_ ; - � � � � ; � ` S� � � ' � Y � �',. � . � � f � .' . l' . i , } i � �� ' .� s . `. � � 3�r�Y�.� �°- � . � � : ` � t � y,sac� y� ° � � .. . � . . . :;�� v-�� '� �r�� . �� } Z��$"`x . . . l�1ri .� .. . . . � . . $'£ � .. . _ .� .. . � � � _� } �� . . : ..� . � : . . S 3 .. � - .. . . .. � ....d�� , < r---�- .ra � $ � � � ;,. 't - . - � � �:L�.. Council File # \�� Green Sheet # ��..5 �' � � � �;�� _ Presented By Referred To 3`�' CITY OF RESOLUTION PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date WHEREAS, Diane and Steven Anderson, 985 Summit Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105, made application to the Heritage Preservation Commission for approval of a building permit to install vinyl replacement windows on the main structure and carriage house of property located at 985 Summit Avenue in the Historic Hi11 Heritage Preservation District; and 8 WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission conducted a 9 public hearing on November 21, 1996, after having provided notice � 10 to affected property owners. The Commission, by its resolution No. 11 2810, adopted November 21, 1996, approved the building permit for 12 the proposed vinyl windows subject to the following three 13 conditions: The meeting rail height of new windows shall match that of existing windows (60-40 sash must be duplicated where they exit); 2 3 Existing divided-light windows sha11 be replaced by windows with exterior-applied grids or muntins matching the existing configurations; The exterior of the screen sash shall be smooth or flat;_ and � ` WHEREAS, the granting of the building permit with the conditions above stated was based upon the following findings and conclusions: The existing windows (prime sash and combination storms) are deteriorated beyond repair and are drafty and very energy-inefficient. Many of the storm windows are patched and held together with duct tape. They want new windows to make the house comfortable, to reduce heating costs, and to make the house quieter (one of the owners is a musician/composer who sometimes records in the house). They have done extensive epoxy repair to.many windows but the result does not look like wood and the epoxy makes a loud, disturbing, popping noise when expanding and contracting due to heat and cold. To replace the existing windows with new wooden windows would cost more than $100,000.00. They believe the house was originally painted white and intend to paint it white in the future. The vinyl windows have a lifetime warranty and a 20 year warranty on the seal (double insulated panes). ��=��, 2. The proposed windows are white vinyl with a wood core and the sash and frame for insulation. They have already been manufactured at a cost of $39,000.00. The applicant and property owner has stated that they were unaware that HPC approval is required to install new windows. The vinyl windows have a projecting profile rather than the flat profile of the original sash; this difference would be covered, however, by the sash of full-height screens. 3. The applicant has revised the original window replacement proposal as follows: a. Full screens instead of half screens. b. Seal and leave in place curved tower windows instead o£ replacing them with straight windows (the owners may want to replace these in the future with new curved windows). c. Install round-topped, instead of rectangular, screens on the three, east elevation, round topped window openings; prime windows were and will be rectangular. 4. Some important elements of the design of the existing windows would not be duplicated by the proposed windows; a. Many-approximately half-of the existing double hung windows have a larger lower sash, the window opening being divided perhaps 60-40. The proposed new windows have upper and lower sash of equal size. The meeting rails of the existing 60-40 and 50-50 windows on the house align and create a strong line around the house; this is a distinetive design element that should be retained. b. The existing divided-light windows on the front elevation and attic story of the house and the exiting 3-1 divided-light windows on the carriage house would be replaced by window sash with grids located between thermal panes. The proposed grids or muntins would not replicate the look of the existing windows and would read as false and inaccurate. c. The aluminum sash of the proposed full-height screens have a rigid, rather than flat, exterior profile. The original wooden screens would have had a flat profile and aluminum-sash screens with a smooth or flat profile are made. WHEREAS, Diane and Steven Anderson, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code Section 73.06, duly filed with the City Council an appeal from the determination made by the commission, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said commission; and WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Section 73.06, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on January 8, 1997, where all interested parties were given �-�=��s an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the 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 overturn the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission in this matter, based on the following findings of the Council; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the appeal of Diane and Steven Anderson be and is hereby granted; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk sha11 mail a copy of this resolution to Diane and Steven Anderson, the Zoning Administrator, and the Heritage Preservation Commission. Requested by Department of: By: Appz By: By: Form Appxov by City AttoYney B ��1..��. c- ; -� � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Adopted by Council: Date �� q�� Adoption Certified by Counci Secretary �82�5�. DEP1lRi1�NTqFFlCE4COUNCIL DA7EINRIATED v`�. �� Cir counci� June 10 1997 GREEN SHEE CONTACT PERSON 8 PHONE INITIAUDATE INITIAL/DATE �DEPARTMENTDIRE �CRYCOUNCIL Councll PiCSident Thtltte, 266-8620 A��GN � CffYATTORNEY � CRYCLERK NUNBERFOR MUST BE ON CAUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) ROUTING � BUDGET OIflECTOR Q FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR. ONDEN O MAYOR (OR ASSISTAN'n � TOTAL # OP SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTION pEQUESTED: Finalizing City Council action taken 7anuary 8, 1997, granring the appeal of Diane and Steven Anderson to a decision of the Heritage Preservafion Commission which denied apptoval of the installation of vinyl reglacement windows, subject to three conditions, at 985 Sunuuit Avenue. PECOMMENDATiONS: Apprave (A) or Reject (R1 pER50NAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: _ PLPNNMG CAMh115SfON _ qVIISERVIGE CqMMISSION 1. Has this persoNfirm ever worked under a contract for this department? _ CIB CqMMRTEE _ 1'ES NO 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? - _ SiAFF — YES NO _ DIS7RiC7COUR7 _ 3. Does this person/firm possass a skill not normally possessed by any current ciry emplayee? SUPPORTS WHICH GOUNCIL OBJECTIVEI YES NO Ezplain all yea anawers cn separate sheet anC attae� W green aheet INRIATING PflOBLEM. ISSUE, OPPORTUNIT' (Who, What, Whan, Where, WM1y)' ADVANTAGES IFAPPFOVED: DISAOVANTAGESIFAPPROVED. � �£�d:�]C� �.�?�� .,uN i a t�s� --_w____._�. �..�,.�_ DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPRWED: TOTAL AMOUNT OFTRANSACTION $ COS7/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) VES NO FUNDIfiG SOURGE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORFnATION. (EXPLAIN) OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNE�� PegBirk CiryAnorney CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Caleman, Mayor civ� Dtvision 40D Ciry Hall IS YPest KelloggBtvd Saint Paul, Minnesofa 55102 Telephone: 612 266-8710 Facsimi7e: 612 298-5619 �3�inGF! ��r �`.�g��,° June 9, 1997 Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the Saint Paul City Council 310 City Ha11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 A � ��,� :S:J:�`d t, � i�� RE: Appeal of Diane and Steven Anderson, 985 Summit Avenue H.P.C. File No. 2810 Deaz Nancy: Attached please fmd a signed resolution formalizing the Council Decision to grant the above stated appeal. This is a house keeping measure as the appeal was granted. Sorry for the delay. The matter should be set on the consent agenda. Thanks. Sincerely, �� Peter W. Wamer Assistant City Attorney OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPEC170NS AND ENVIl20NMENTALPROTECfION RobertKessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Ma}nr 23 December 1996 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 Ciiy Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: I A N R P P R O FFS. S! O NA L B U I I, D I N G Swte 300 350St PeterSbeet SaintPau� Minnesota 55102-IS/0 G�l �`-�S Te[ephone: 612-266-9090 Facsimile: 612-2669P79 I would like to request that two City Council public hearings be scheduled for Wednesday, January 8, 1997 for the following appeals of Heritage Preservation Commission decisions: � 1. Appellants: HPC File: Purpose: Address: 2. Appellant: HPC Ffle: Purpose: Address: Diane and Steven Anderson #2810 Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to approve the installation of vinyl replacement windows subject to three conditions. 985 Siumnit Avenue Donald Cameron #2841 Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission to deny approval of a carport and front entry roof. 556-58 Ashland Avenue These public hearings do not require publisheti notice. Please call me at 266-9087 if you should have any questions. Sincerely, �'�a�2,�. l`�,�,n�,� Aazon Rubenstein Preservarion Planner cc: Robert Kessler, LIEP Robert Liwning, HPC Chair Petei Warner, CAO Diane and Steven Anderson Donald Cameron --- - --- � ' - - NOTICE OF PDBLIC,HEARII�IG � . � - • - - - , � The Saint Paul Ctty Councll' witYconducE a pubiic heazfng on Janvar-y $ 1997, � ai r130 p.m:, CIty Couacil Chambers, to consider theappeal of Diane and Steven Aadersoa to a decision.of the Heriqge Preservation Commission W�approve ffie installation of viayl replacement windows, subjec[ [o thcee condittons, at 985�,Sammit Avenue. - _ - � " - _ - Dated December 26, 1996 . - � � . , 'NANCY ANDERSON - � � � � � As'sistaat City Counc3l Secretary _ - � � - _FiJecember28, 1996) � - � � . • • OFFICE OF LICENSE, IIiSPECT10D15 AbID ENVII20NMEN1'AL PROTECfION RebertKuslar, Director CITY OF SAIN'£-PAUL Nam CoTeman, Ma}vr TAWRPPROFFSSIONAL BUII.DINYi Sutfe 300 330St PeterSdset Saint Pau1, Mimlesota SS702-1 SIO 2 January 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City CouncIl 3 io c�ry x�u Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: HPC Fde #2810: City Councfl Heazing: Diane and Steven Anderson S Ianuary 1997 q�� Telephore: 612-2659090 Faatimr7e: 611-2669099 PURPOSE: To cansider an appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission s approval of a building permit application, subject to three condi6ons, to install vinyl replacement windows at 985 Sumnut Avenue. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTION: Approval subject ta three conditions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Denial. 3UPPORT None. OPPOSITION None. Deaz Ms. Anderson: Diane and Steven Anderson have appealed the decision of the Heritage Preservadon Commission to grant approval, subject to conditions, of a building permit to install vinyi windows on their home at 985 Sumnut Avenue. The Heritage Preservation Commission held public hearings on the permit application on October 23, 1996 and November 21, 1996 at which the applicant and properry owners addressed the commission. At the close of the second public hearing, the commission voted 7- 2 to grant approval for the proposed vinyl windows subject to three conditions specified in the attached resolution. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on January 8,1947. I have enclosed pertinent information. Slides of the site will be available at the Council meeting if Cauncilmembers wish to view them. Sincerely, �, n� ��ti � ��iA/'� Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Attachments cc: City Councilmembers Robert Kessler, LIEP Peter Waznu, CAO Diane and Steven Anderson Gary Woods OfFiCEOf LICE?�SE, I!�SPECCI`vT�S A,\D EN VIRONMENI'AL PROTECTTON RobrliKusler, Dirutos CI3'Y OF SAINT-PAUL Nornt Caleman..Lla�ror IAIfRY PROFECSIONAL BUIIDR'G Suite 300 350ScPererSneet SaintPaul.��rasoto 55102-I510 Tekphona:�612d66-9090 „ Facsimiie: 612-2669099 C � J 22 Novembec 1996 Gary Woods Wellington Window and Door Co. 3938 Meadowbrook Road Saint Louis Parlc, MN 55426 fa�c: 933-2403 Dear Mr. Woods and Mr. and Ms. Anderson: BY FACSIMILE (4 pages) Diane and Stevea Anderson 985 Sunmtit Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55105 f�: 291-2712 As }°ou �.vow, the Saint Paul Heritage Presen�ation Commission voted at its November 21, 1996 meeting to approve your buitding pernut application for the insfaIlation of vinyI replacement windoc��s at 985 Summit Avenue subject to three conditions. I have enclosed a copy of the commission's resoIution which describes those conditions. I would be pleased to work with you to resolve any outstanding issues. You 6ave the right to appeal this decision to the Saint Paul City Councd under Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul L.egsiative Code. Such appeal must be filed by December 5, 1996. Chapter 73 requires that the following paragraph be included in all letiers indicating denial of a pemut: Section 73.06 (hJ Appeal to the Cig� Council. The permit appHcant or anyparty aggrieved by the decision of the heritage preserva6on commission shall, within fnuneen (14) doys ofthe date of the heritage preservarion commission's order and decisron, have a right to appeal such order and decision to the city cnuncil. The appeal shall be deemed perfected upon receipt by the division ofplanrring of two (Z) copies of a nodce of appeal and statement setting fonh fhe grounds for the appeal. The division ojplanningshall transmit one copy ojthe norice ofappeal and statement to the city council and one copy to the heritage preservairon commission. The commission, rn any wri#en order denying a permit applicadon, shalt advise the appticant of the right to appeal to the city council and include rhis paragraph in all such arde�s. Because the Heritage Preservation Commission is no longer staff'ed by the Ptanning Divisioa, T would request that any leuer of appeal be sent to me at LIEP (see letterhead) instead of to the Pianning Division. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions or concems. Sincerely, . _ .�,� l �, �.�; . a� xu�� Heritage Preservation Planner vc: Tate Aa�vorson, LIEP Robert KessIer, LIEP � • a��y� • CITY OF SAINT PAUL" HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION FILE NUMBER 2s10 DATE 21 Navember 1996 WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Tzgislative Code to review building permit applications for eaterior alterations, new construction or demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites rn Heritage Preservation Districts; and WTiEREAS, Wellington Window and Door Company has applied for a building permit to install vinyl replacement windows on the main structure and cazriage house on property located within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District at 985 5umuut Avenue; and VVHEREAS, the James A. Wilson House at 985 Summit Avenue is a two and one-half story, Queen Anne style residence constructed in 1895 and categorized as pivotal to the Hill District; and WHEREAS, the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the following: II. Restoration and Rehabilitation, A. General Principles: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a proper[y which requires minimal alteration for the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. • II. A.: 2. The disHnguishing original qualities or character of a building, struciure, or site and its environment sha11 nat be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic marerial or distinctive architectural fealures should be avoided when possible. Il. A.: 5. Distinctive stylistic features or ezamples ofskilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, strucfure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 77. A.: 6. Deteriorafed architecrural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessar}; the new materiat should match the material being replaced in composrtion, design, color, texture, and other visual qualitres. Repair or replacement ofmissing architectural features should be based on accurate duplicafions offeatures, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural desrgns or the availability ofdifferent architectural elements from other buildings or structures. Il., E. Windaws and Doors: ExisNng window and door openings should be retained. New window and door openings should not be introduced into principal elevations. Enlarging or reducing window or door openings to ftt stock windaw sash or new stock door sizes should not be done. The size ofwindow panes or sash should not be altered. Such changes destroy the scale and proportion of the building. Window sash, glass, lintels, sills, architraves, doors, pediments, hoods, steps and all hardware should be rerained. Discarding original dnors and door hardware, when they can be repaired and reused in place, shoutd be avoided. � The stylistic period(sJ a building represents should be respected. Ifreplacement ofwindow sash or doors Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #2820 Page Two is necessary, the replacement should duplicate the material, desrgn and hardware of the older windo�v sash or door. Inappropriate new window and door fecrtures such as aluminum storm and screen window combinations, plasric or meta! strip awnings, or fake shutters that disturb rhe character and appearance ofthe building should not be used. Combinarion storm windows should have wood frames or be painted to match trim colors; and WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon evidence presented at its October 23,1996 and November 21,1996 public hearings on said permit applicarion, made tfie following findings of fact: 1. The property owners have stated the following. The e7cisting wiudows (prime sash and combination storms) are deteriorated beyond repair and are drafty and very energy-inef3icient Mazry of the storm windows aze patchad and held together with duct tape. They want new windows to make the house comfortable, to reduce heating costs, and to make the house quieter (one of the owners is a musician/composer who sometimes records in the house). They have done extensive epoxy repair to many cvindaws but the resuit does not look like wood and the epoxy makes a loud, disturbing, popping noise when eacpanding and contracting due to heat and cold. To replace the existing windows with new wooden windows would cost more than $100,000. They beGeve the house was originally painted white and intend to repaint it in white in the fuhse. The vinyl windows have a lifetime warranty and a 20-year warranty on the seal (double, insulated panes). 2. The proposed windows aze wlvte vinyl with a wood core in the sash and frame for insulation. They have already been manufactured at a cost o£ $39,000. The app&cant and properiy owner have stated that they were unawaze that HPC approval is required to install new windows. The vinyl windows have a projecting profile rather than the flat profile of the original sash; tlus difference would be covered, however, by the sash of fu11-height sc�ens. 3. The applicant has revised the origival window replacement proposal as follows: a Full scrcens instead of half sarcens. b. Seal and leave in place curved tower windows instead of replacing them with straight windows (the owners may cvant to replace these in the future with new cucved windows). c. L�stall round-topped, instead of rectangulaz, screens on the tfiree, east elevation, round- topped window openings (prime windows were and will be rectangulaz). 4. Some important elements of the design of the exisYing windows woutd not be duplicated by the proposed windows: Many--appro�cimately half--of the existing double hung windows have a larger Iower sash, the window opening being divided perhaps 60/40. The proposed new windows have upper and lower sash of equal size. The meeting raiLs of the existing 60/40 and 50/50 windows on the house align and create a strong line around the house; this is a distincteve design element tfiat shouid be retained. . The e�cisting divided-light windows on the front elevation and atric story of the house and the e�sting 3/1 divided-light windows on the cazriage house would be replaced by window sash with grids located between thermal panes. The proposed grids or muntins would not a � � • � ��=1�c � • Heritage Preservation Comaussion Resolution: File #2810 Page Tlsree replicate the look of the e�sting windows and would read as false and inaccurate. c. The aluminum sash of the proposed full-height screens have a ridged, rather than flat, eacterior profile. The original wooden screens would have had a flat profile and aluminum- sash screens with a smooth or flat profile aze made. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that based on the above fmdings, the Heritage Preservation Commission grants approval oF a building permit for the proposed vitryl windows subject to three condirions: 1. The meeting rail height of new windows shall match that of e�cisting windows (60/40 sash must be duplicated where they eacist). 2. Existing divided-light windows shall be replaced by windows with eacterior-applied grids or muntins matc3vng the existing configurations. 3. The exterior of the screen sash shall be smooth or flat. MOVED BY Heide SECONDED BY Hauser � INFAVOR 7 AGAINST 2 ABSTAIN 0 Decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commission are £mal, subject to appeal to the City Council wit6in 14 days by anyone affected by the decision This resolution dcea not obviate the need for meeting appticable building and zoning code requirements, and does not constitute appmval for tax credits. • �'�G �2 ' 90 l?9: i i �R � I.°.S?HF, ROSEV i�Le 6i2 6si �:?E TO 2E69t795 �P.�2i�2 • I If29/96 . tlaron Rubenstein Lowry Professional B�rilding - Suite 300 350 3t Peter Sireet St. Paul, Mn 55102-1510 � • . .. As failow-np to our com�ersadon on Friday, November ZZ, I996, Steve and I wish to utilize the good advice that was �iven to us by the S� Paul I3PC memb�rs at fhe meeting on November 2I,1996. We zealize that some o£ the issues aze bettcr resolved in keeping the lustorie disrinetion of the house above modern convenience. With this in mind, we hope to move onward in our pmject without fiuther delay, for the cold weather has come upon us rathes qcrickly this seasoa We will not be able to receive conclusive pricing for the changes proposed until all research has been completed and compared by Gary Woods and ourselves. Unfo.rtunately, this factor will weigh heavily on ovr ability to fulfill the requirements within the time sllotte@ by our building permit. Because of the extensive restorazion that is necdcd to Be performed to the entire exterior foilowing tiie window project, we feeI that our limited means may prevent us from tepairing the decaying remainder of our home as necessary if we are not extremely cazeful. As I stressed an our fust meeting with the HPC, saving this house is of gceat importance to us And we must act sensibly in ordet ta accomplisfi it. For tt�is reasan, we find if necessary to appeal our case to the City Couneil, A sucessful appeai witl sIlow us the freedom to work through our window project, as well as, other immense problems we will be foreed to face as we continue on with our cnmmitment Respectfulty Xours, �C�GC�rzY �r��iW�t., /— Diane Andersott 985 Summii Ave, Sf. Paui, Mn SS I05 (ffie #2810) � • ....... . ... .. . . . _.. .... ._.. .._. . �rok 70TFlL PFlC�.92 , �q� . G�l=��kS � U • HPC FILE #2810 CITY OF SAINT PAUL AERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPOAT FILE NAME: Install vinyl windows APPLICANT: Wellington Window & Door Co. DATE OF APPLICATION: 10.21.96 LOCATION: 985 Summit Avenue (northwest corner at Chatsworth) HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Historic Hill District CLASSIFICATION: Moderate STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 1021.96 DATE OF HEARING: 1023.96 CATEGORY: Pivotal BY: Aazon Rubenstein A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The 7ames A. Wilson House at 985 Summ9t Avenue is a two and one-half stary, Queen Anne sty]e residence constructed in 1895 and categorized as pivotal to the Hill district. Its design combines Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, and Shingle Style elements. Features include: intersecting hipped and gabled roof; clapboazd siding; 1/1, 2/2, and 10/1 double hung sash as well as fixed, stained and leaded glass windows; red sandstone foundation; round corner tower with conical cap; full width front porch; shingled gable ends; and a t}uee-story west bay. The builder was J. H. Nickel and the designer is unknown. There is a very lazge west side yazd and a carriage house at the reaz of the site. B. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant proposes to replace practically all of the 68 windows on the house with $39,000 worth of new, white, vinyl windows. The new windows have already been manufactured and one of them has been installed on the west side of the house. C. GUIDELINE CITATION5: The Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the following: II. Restoradon and Rehabilifation, A. General Principles: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a properry which reguires minimal atteration for the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. II. A.: 2. The distinguishing original gualities or character af a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. Il: A.: S. Distinctive srylistic features or ezamples ofskilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. � II. A.: 6. Deteriorafed architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possibte. In the event reptacement is necessar}; the new materiat shoutd match the matsrial being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of HPC Staff Report: F�e #2810 Page Two missing architechrral features should be based on accurate duplicadons offeatures, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or zhe availability of difjerent architectural elements from other buildings or structures. Il., E. Windows and Doors: Existing window and door openings should be retained .New lvindow and door apenings sPrauld not be introduced into principal elevatiorrs. Enlarging or reducing window or door openings to fit stock window sash or new stock door sizes should not be done. The size ofwindow panes or sash should not be altered Such changes destroy the scale and proporrion of the building. Window sash, glass, lintels, sills, architraves, doors, pediments, hoods, steps and all hardware should be retained. Discarding original doors and daor hardware, svhen they can be repaired and reused in place, should be avoided. • The stylistic period(s) a building represents should be respected. If replacement of window sash or doors is necessary, ihe replacement should duplicate the material, design and hardware of the older window sash or door. Inappropriate new window and door features such as aluminum storm and screen window combinarions, plastic or metaT strip awnings, or fake shutters that dfsturb the character and appearance of the building should not be used. Combination storm windows should have wood frames or be painted to match trim colors. • D. FINDINGS: 1. The property owners have stated the following. The eacisting wiadows (prime sash and combination storms) ue deteriorated beyond repair and aze drafty and very energy-ineY�icient. Many of the storm windows aze patched and held together with duct tape. They want new windows to make the house comfortable, to reduce heating costs, and to make tke house quieter (one of the owners is a musiciacJcomposer who sometimes records in the house}. They have done extensive epoxy repair to many windows but the result does not look like wood and the epoacy makes a loud, disturbing, popping noise when eacpanding and contracting due to heat and cold. To replace the existing windows with new wooden windows would cost more than $100,000. They did not consider instailing jamb liners and new storm windows. They beGeve the house was originaIly painted white and intend to repaint it in white in the future. The vinyl windows have a lifetime wazranty and a 20- year wazrazity on the seal (double, insulated panes). 2. The applicant and properry owner have stated that they were unawaze that HPC approval is required to install new windows. 3. The applicant has not provided product information (cut sheet, section, etc.). The proposed windows aze wlrite vinyl with a wood core in the sash and frame for insulation. They have a screen on the lower kalf with an aluminum frame with a white, baked enamel finish. 4. Iwportant elements of the design of the e�cisting windows would not be duplicated by the proposed windows. A majority of the double hung windows have a smaller upper sash, the window opening � being divided roughiy one-third/two-thirds; the new windows have upper and lower sash of equal �` �k � . HPC Staff Report: File #2810 Page Three size. The house has a number of lazge, fixed windows with divided light storms that add interest and break up the scale of the lazge openings (on tower and elsewhere); the new windows would not have any division. There ue two, round azched topped windows recessed behind a third story balcony that would be zeplaced by rectangulaz windows and perhaps a round azched panel. The third stary, divided light sash would be replaced, it seems, by sash with grids between the panes, a generally unacceptable practice. Windows in one or two eyebrow dormers wouid remain as is. In addition, the proposed windows have a significandy different profile and appeazance compazed to traditional storm/screen windows: the latter have a sash that is flat and flush with the window casing; the former aze not flat and flush with the casing, which significantly alters one of the most important parts of a building. Tfie lower rail of the proposed windows is also higher or wider than the upper rail. The proposed windows do not match the design, materials, or appearance of the original windows. E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above fmdings, staffrecommends denial of a building pernut for the proposed vinyl windows. � � GENERA� BUtLt3[t�fG t'EFt�iT perqai.^.;=_;� CiTY OF SAINT PAUL � � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL � o�ccs oF ucExs�, c:srErno:as ni.n � II.M1'IRO�'��NTAL PRO'tECT10"7 BUIfDfNGlNSPECTIONA�'DDESIGN � 350 S+ Pe�er Streer - Suire?00 L Pcm�it No. Saim7aul, Minrsesatn 55102-ISJO 612-266-9090 �tJDQW C�EQ�-t+�I�'l�r PIANNO. DESCRfPT10N OFPROJECT_ [��' DATE I�" S�-�L�o OWNER �(�VE�DIJ�ETT�"�N OWNERSADDRESS �� ,rvE ` Y� ❑ OLD TYPE OF ❑ NEW TYPE CONST. OCCUPANCY GRADING STUCCO OR ❑ BUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALL Q fENCE Q ADDITION ❑ AL7ER ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE O WRECK � V s � 5U W1 N1lT �'��i 0 wiorH I oEPrH l0T WIDTH lENG1H 5"fRUG 7URE Q�� QYES U�a �SQFT. R AREA ARCHfTECT 0 S7ATE YEPMIT FEE VALUATtON . PLANCHECK STATE SVRCH4RGE TOTAIFEE MPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT AlL IN� FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT ALL AERTINENT STATE REGULATIONS CASN�ER USE ONLY � AND GITY ORDINANCE$ WILL BE COM- WNEN VAUDATED TH1515 YOUR PERMIT - Pl1EDWITHINPERFORMINGiHEWORK � FOR WHICH TFIIS PERMIT IS ISSUED. , $t. Code L j.j1YN �Y' , X yfil� �ADDRESS � oF ros °�; Pfivt Yh�v. �5l0 5 � �_AUTHOPl2EDSIGN�TVRE� � ° .. � � ' ___" ___ _'_'"_—._�'_ ___ _'_ '__"__" j _ , USE TYPEWRITER OR BAIL POINT PEN � AND PRESS FIRMLY �U"Z �' ��C/ 3� CJ � � �// a�=Z � S OFFIUE OF LICENSH, INSPECTIOYS A�'D ENZ'IRONMENTAL PROTECTION RoberlKessler, Director � LJ CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co[emwy Mayor � IAWRYPROFFSSIONRL BUILDlNG Suite 300 350St PererStreet SaintPaul, Mtnnesota 55102-1510 Te[ephone: 612-266-9090 Facsrmile: 611-2669099 � 12 November 1996 Diane and Steven Anderson 985 Simunit Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55105 fax: 291-2712 Deaz Mr. Woods and Mr. and Ms. Anderson: SY FACSTMILE Gary Woods Wellington Window and Door Co. 3938 Meadowbrook Road Saint Louis Pazk, MN 55426 fax: 933-1403 With winter fast approaching, the new windows for 985 Stunmit already manufactured, and the Heritage Preservadon Commission, to my lmowledge, never having approved vinyl replacement windows on this scale, all of us are in a difficult posirion. The Commission, I believe, appreciates yow willingness to consider modifications to the window design. I spoke with Mr. Anderson after the October 23rd HPC and said I would put in writing the outstanding issues to be addressed at the November 21 st HPC meeting and information that would be useful to have. They are as follows: Vinyl Windows 1. Meeting rail height: can new sash be manufactured to match the existing meeting rail height? 2. Screen size: can full screens be manufactured that would be flush with the casing to more closely appro�mate the design of wood scrans and storms? 3. Curved tower windows: how can these be preserved? Could they be caulked and left closed? 4. Arched topped windows: can this design be repiicated? 5. Stairway windows: if the existing windows aze not original, is there evidence of the original design? (I will check with Tracey Baker about streetscape photogaphs at the Minnesota Historical Society.) 6. Muntin grids: can muntin grids be apptied to the exterior? How do design and dimensions compaze to eacisting divided light sash on house and camage house? 7. Dunensions: what aze the dimensions of the e�sting and proposed sash and glazing? 8. Window schedule: the HPC has requested a window schedule to ciearly specify what type of window goes where. 9. Material and profile: The HPC will need to decide if the proposed window materiai and profile conform to the district guidelines. Please provide sections as indicated in the attached specification requirements for window replacement and storm windows. If possible, bringing a sample window to the HPC meeting would be useful. Altematives Please provide whatever information you can about other alternatives such as new wood or aluminum-clad � windows; repair of existing windows plus new storms; jamb liners; and bronze weatherstripping. I would encourage you to consult with a historic building specialist about these and other ophons that may exist. I could provide you with several referrals if you wish. Woods and Andersons t2 November Y99& Page Two � Please pmvide the informaUon noted, if possible, by November 15 or 18 so that I can get it to HPC members prior to the November 21 meedng. I have enclosed notes of The discussion at the October 23 HPC meeting for your reference. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions or issues you wish to discuss. Sincerely, �.�j� ( G4�GC�'J Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner attachments cc: Robert Liumutg, HPC Chair i � Rev. �1ib6 Specification Requirements for Proposed �� indovc� Keplacement in Historl� Buildings . r Property Owners Seeking Federal Tax Benefits .. - HATZO`!AL PARK SERVICE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL OFFICE Prep2red by: Bonnie J. Halda Property ownersldevelopers undertaking re:�<bilitation projects under the Economic Recovery T�x Act of 1981, as a:.ended, and the iax Reform Act of i986, are encouraged to repzir and retain existing historic uindoKS. In some cases, replzcement windows c�zy be justified. 1n order to revieu replacecsent crindoxs for confor�,2nce with the Secretary of C�° In�erior's "Standards for Rehzbilitation," the National Park Service znd the St2te Historic Preservation Office should have the follocring minimua documentztion: 1. Cle2r photographs of existing uir.doris, h�hen windocrs are boarded over, renove bozrds from typiczl windc�:s in order to take ghotograghs, If the rehabilitation crork is complete, t2ke addition�l photographs of the replacement xindoxs. 2. Y•orizontal and vertical sections of existing uindoHS. 3.' Aorizontal and vertical sections oi proposed replacement Nindoxs. 4, When historic �:indous do not exist, sections of proposed replacement wir.dows should sti12 be subnitted. �For inform2tion about appropriate window design in this case, contact your State Office.) �eplacement xindous u�ust 2ccurztely replicate the appe2rance of existing historic windous. All too frequently, the profiles of muntins, sa�h, frames, znd moldings in replzcecaent Windows are different thsn those of historic vindoxs. For example, the muntins in a necr double—glazed uindoN may be much wider and flatter than the existing muntins. Even though the new crindow may duplicate the number of existing uindoN panes, the eharaeter of the histocic window is lost due to the change in desig❑ and relief. This can alter the overall character of the building. � Another problem uith many replacement uindows is the use of panning, a metal molding which is installed over the molding that surrounds a crindoc+, or Which replaces the existing molding_altogether. When panning does not match the existing molding, the design of the historic uindoN is further altered. Because of the potential problems in choosing an appropriate replacement xindocr, vindoc+ sections should be drawn. Cut both horizontal (a) and vertical (b) sections (fig. 1). The sections must be carefully detailed so that all parts of the uindor+ are shoxn and materials =re specified. Fig. I Windo��sections must shou the profiles'of muntYas, meeting rails, sash, frames, and croldings, Treatments such as replacement moldings or panning, as uell as � the windou's relationship to the existing xall'plane, nust also be detailed. Belou are examples of vertical uindow sections of a historic wood Window (fig.� 2) and a"uoad replacement uindow (fig. 3)• (Horizontal sections should be draFn similar to the vertical sections.) Because the sections are at the same scale, the two xindoKS ca❑ be compared. The replacement uindow in this case closely resembles the existing windou's desig❑ and therefore meets the Secretary of the Interior's �'Standards for Rehabilitation." � MOLDI f�:�t1`� SASH �� ■! I�� %' �'„ ��'� � � �a 11 -- �� Fi g. 2 _X�ST V1ALL SASH S1lL _ . Fg. 3 � For informaLion concerning this flyer, contact: � Branch of Project Revieu and Technical Assistance, National Park Service Rocky Mountain Regional Office; 655 P>rfet Street, P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 <3o33 236-8675 :�e� i1/45 G � Specification Requirements for Proposed , . - : � S f Q r ITl �1 Tl CI O W S in Historic Buildings - - � F o r P r o p e r t y O w n e r s S e e k i n g Federal Tax Benefits NATIONAL PARK SERVZCE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGIONAL OFFICE Prepared by: Bonnie J. Halda Property owners/developers undertaking rehabilitation projects under the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, as amended, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986, often propose energy conserving features as part of the rehabilitation. The National Park Service and the State Historic Preservation Offices encourage such decisions, provided the treatments meet the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation." Installation of storm windoxs is often proposed. This treatment can be beneficial not only when it saves energy, but when it results in retaining the historic Windous, rather than"replacing them with new double—glazed units. Appropriate storm windocrs must be visually compatible with the historic windows over which they will be installed. The following criteria should be taken into consideration Nhen choosing storm winoous: 1. Interior vs Exterior. Interior storm windows are often prefer2ble because they may be the least visually obtrusive. Also, maintenance is • easier.and installation is less expensive from the interior. 2. Material Ideally, the material of storm windows should match the material of the windows over which they will be installed. 3, Finish. The color of storm srindoWS should match the color of the windows, �nless documentation shows an alternate color scheme. Shiny or metallic finishes are never appropriate. 4, Glass Storm window glass should be clear. 5, Design. Storm xindows should match the size and overall design of the historic windorrs. This can be accomplished by lining up major divisions of the storm windows with major divisions of the historic windows. If historie storm uindows exist, they should be retained, or used as a basis for the design of replzcement storm windoas. 6. Placement. Storm windows cannot cover significant historic trim or moldings, and should be as flush as possible t+ithin the opening. Storm uindoNS xhich radically step outward from the existing plane of the moldings are not appropriate. ' In order to tevieW proposed storm xindoNS for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehabilitation," the National Park Service and the State Histaric Preservation Office should have the folloaing documentation: • 1. Complete sections of storm uindows integrating the existing openings, existing or replacement uindows, and moldings (fig. 1). 2, Specifications for the material, finish, color „ and type of glass. Belox is an example of a Window section showing both an existing (or replacement) windou and a storm windox, Hote in the drawing that the storm xindowTS r.elationship to the existing wall plane is.shawn. The storm window's major. divisions, such as the meeting rail, line up with the major divisions of . the existing Cor replacement) windox, This storm window appears to meet the Secretary of the Interior's "Standards for Rehab3litation." _ � F1$llT6 1 For iaformation concerning this flyer, contact: Braneh of Project Reviex and Technical Assistance, National Park Service Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 655 Parfet Street, P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 8o22S (3�3) 236-8675 • G�1=1`�5 � Meefin¢ Notes HPC 10.23.96 File #2810/FVellington Window and Door Co.11nstall vinyl windows/985 Summit Av. Present: Lunning, Heide, Buetow, Vojacek, Hauser, Frame, Larson; Rubenstein. Rubenstein showed slides of the site and noted the following while reviewing the slides: • Most existing windows are oriel--60(40 lower and upper sash proportion; new windows aze divided 50/50; applicant says new lower sash, if 60l40, would be heavy and difficult to operate and clean. • E�sting, divlded light attic windows would be replaced by windows with grids be[ween panes and some would have fixed sash--very high; two-light basement sash would be replaced by one-light sash; and stairvray windows may change to double-hung. • Three round-azch-topped windows on east elevation, 2@ 3rd story and 1@ lst story--pzoposed treatrnent not clear. • Comer tower windows now double hung, curved, inoperable, with divided light storms; wouid become 1/1 straight double hung (not curved). • Existing windows on carriage house have divided upper sash; replaced by grids behveen panes. Rubenstein noted the following information as well: • New window frames would be inserted within the existing frames; detailed information of the dimensions of e�sting and proposed sash and glazing is not available. • 81 windows, including those on the carriage house, wouid be repiaced (68 noted in staff report}. • Commissioner Buetow and HPC staff visited the house with owner and Weilington rep. this aftemoon to examine condition of existing windows and talk about details of replacement windows; � owner said that existing windows have high lead content. • One new window has been installed, after the permit was applied for but not issued, to show as an example; it appeazs that new sash is one inch wider on each side. • Last sentence of finding #4 states "The proposed windows do not match the design, materials, or appeazance of the original windows' ; suggested adding "and would have an adverse impact on the azchitectural and historic chazacter and integriry of the building". Lazson: asked about costs of alternatives other than new wood and vuryi windows. Heide: asked about condirion of existing sash. Buetow: some sagging (1/4 - 1/2") of lower rail of lazger sash because of size of glazing; some glazing loose; a lot need to be reputtied, remortised; generally not rotted; are loose; part of problem is lazge size of windowslsash. Diane Anderson, w-owner: • House is eactremely deteriorated, has been poorly maintained and repaired; believe main view of windows is casing wluch would remain as is. • Our intent is to restore and maintain the house to its original splendor and to not alter its appearance. • Windows are rotting on the outside and, therefore, new storms cannot be installed; jamb liners and new storms were originally considered. • Epo�ry repaiz to e7cisting sash has not worked adequately--creates loud popping noise; have been told majority of windows are rotted. • NSP bill was $800 per month last winter; windows are drafry; have boiler that would heat a hotel but sometimes last winter temperature would not rise above 56 degrees; believe new �vood storms would � not solve the problem adequately. Hauser: asked Ms. Mderson if willing to leave some original windows, e.g., curved tower windows. HPC Meeting Notes 1023.96/File #2810/985 Summit Av. Page Two Anderson: thought new windows would look like oId ones; alsa believe house originally had some stained glass and that would be redone. Buetow: the proposed vinyl windows look alright from the inside; it seems that sash replacement is- an appropriate strategy, though perhaps not the best one--a lot of damaged and loose sash; proposed windows have tl�ree major problems: 1. Change of ineeting rail height (from 6Q/4Q to 50/50); e�stmg meeting rail height creates a strong line azound the exterior and is a strong and unique design element; but these are big windows--some lower sash aze IS sq. $, and Marvin tilt-pacs have 10 sq. ft. maximum. 2. Exterior profile is not flush with casing (showed sketch and noted that blind stop gets covered with vinyl). 3. Curved tower windows would be replaced with 4'-wide straight windows--a profound affect; suggested possibly caulking existing windows and leaving closed. �1 U Gary Woods, Wellington President and designer of the windows, addressed Buetow's three concems and showed a small seciion of the window materiat (wood core with vinyl skin): k. Owners prefer 50/�0 sash; most houses in area have 50/50 sash (Hauser asked if he can make 60/40 sash; Woods responded "yes".) 2. Re: profile/flush look: can monnt screen wider, ezcisting screen track remains behind it; can � invent a full screen (existing new windows have half screens); screens have narrow bottom rail like rest of screen sash (not wider bottom rail like wooden storms and screens). Woods: cannot use jamb liners because of rot; different options for divided liP.,,ht grids--can located on top or inside, can be 1l4, 3/8, 1l2, 5l8, 7/8, or 1-1/8 inches wide (of ahnninum). Heide: asked Woods about awazeness of historic distdct; asked staff to get him maps of districts. Woods: can make arched top sasfi if owners want buf not curved sash. Buetow: meeting rails line up on much of building; lights were cazefully divided at proportion they were as part of the original design. Larson moved to deny approval of a buiiding permit for the proposed vinyl windows; Heide seconded the motion. Hauser talked about the contractor's willingness to come up with altemative solutions. Buetow: would be willing to approve the vinyl windows with a new screen scheme (it may conceal enough of window so that it would look appropriate} and if curved windows retained but meeting raii height stiil not resoived. Woods: could make new 60/40 sash. Larson: uncomfortable with ]ack of deiail and soluUons, wonders about layover rather than denial. Frazne: would vote for denial if several exceptions to the denial--maintain 60l40 configuration, retain rocmd azched desigu, new screen scheme. Heide: good intenfions of owners cleaz but lack of understanding of some important elements; uncomfortable about approval without additional information--more detailed rvindow schedule with screen design, screen sash dimensions, curved and uched window solations. Vojacek agreed: need specific information and resolution of issues to avoid misunderstandings. Buetow suggested layover; discussion followed about layover versus denial. � � • HPC MeeUng Notes 10.23.96/File #28101985 Summit Av. Page T1uee Lunning: suggested withdrawal and reconsideration in 2 or 4 weeks to address outstanding issues-- meeting rail height, esterior profile and full screen, curved windows, arched topped windows, muntin design. Woods: fine with me--need time to address these issues. Anderson: divided stair windows do not appeaz to be original. Rubenstein made these points: • Owners apparently thought HPC approval not necessary if replacing windows in kind; but I met with them last sunmier and advised that I could not approve glass block for basement windows (high foundation, visible corner location) and HPC had recently denied approval for similar case of glass block. • Approving vinyl windows would set an important precedent, particularly for this pivotal house. • HPC perhaps needs more information about other alternatives ihat would more closely approximate the original windows. Heide: yes; can e�sting windows be repaired? Frame: aze there historic photographs, perhaps showing the side windows? (Andersons: one photo at MHS.} Perhaps Tracey Baker could fmd more under streetscapes. � Lunning called the question on the motion to deny approval. Aeide withdrew his second af that motinn. Buetow moved to lay over the case; Vojacek seconded; motion passed 7- 0. Lunning laid over the case to the November 21 meeting. Woods: what should happen with stair windows? Lunning: if there is evidence that they aze not original, I would be willing to entertain altematives in keeping with the design of the house (and I personally believe that the e�cisting windows are not particularly suited to the openings). notes prepared by Aazon Rubenstein • Notes from 10.25:96 meeting of Charles Nelson, State Historic Aiclut"ect, and Aaron Rulienstein re: rvindows . on fiistoric build'mgs (questions/issues posed by Rubenstein; responses by Nelson) 1. When to repair and when to replace windows? Repair difficult and cosfly if lower rail is rotted. - 2. What criteria/guideiines dces SHPO use for window replacement? Match e�sting--see National Pazk Service pieces on window replacement and storm windows. 3. What kind of replacement window materials do you pemut--wood, vinyl, clad, aluminimi (anodized and baked enamel finish)? Vinyl noY acceptable: can't match original profile, susceptible Yo . Ultraviolet and starts to deteriorate after about 15 years. Metal okay if painted and not anodized. Metal-clad and polymer-clad (Iatter made by Marvin, production now suspended} are okay; vuryi- clad is not acceptable_ Need to look at profile, glass setback, all proportions. 4. Whai about applied meeting rail on casemeuts for egress, replacing double hungs? Marvin makes inward-swinging casement simulating a double hung--upper and lower parts are offset. 5. What about muntins and grids? Only a) true divided lights and b) grids inside, outside, and between panes are acceptable. b. What about storncs and screens? Having stomu or screens with thermal pane windows is not essential; originatly many houses did not have them. Hatf screens are not acceptable. Aluminum storms/screens okay if flusfi witfi casing. Mainfaining pattem of divided Iight stomis not so � important--they often were not original—but design should match that of prunary window, e.g., double hung with matching meeting rails. Marvin and Kolbe make wood combinations. 7. What about jamb tiners? Colors are limited—white, brown Prefer rolled brass; woulc3 also need good stomu and weatherstripping; can use pulley covers. 8. What about profile, dimensions, and insert windows? Profile of replacement windows should not look as Yhough boazd has been added azowd the edges. Dimensions of sash and glazing okay if they are close. Insert replacement windows okay if no more than one-half inch lost on each side. 9. What about low-E coating? Some types aze reflective. Only Iow-E by CazdinaI and Northem Light by Marvin aze acceptable types, have &tde reflectivity. � ' � ��i„ ' ..l �. . (` ,/( � � ' �' } �i,f. � :l ' .�' n i��. i J t �',°� Z �.6� vu ;�E� .w�?' : ��V�u�JQ� UJl ^cic'rti'S �i,1P, ll�� W,�� k�eV�,K� G_ wce�'�+bP'r��ciyr.�J' L'•�1 st�wda�"/�lastic) c:b..ti�;e�ii'��- �hy Fib�ex�` Yndte�i� ? r f ; 4 � � j�trC �'.,'rjy lro�r�� ; � �C.Ct.,.�t_t '0 ��c, t5V �'� i ��Lt,2 1 ( 11 " , y{ 1 1ti 1 1`�C-I.Ly Qwd tn�t D F�r��e �d2.�r.r, ��u��wS- � ��=,�� `ellf danveri6ed 6y m indcpenden� la6oruory using induscry savdu3 mahods. Thermal Expansion Durable and reliable. 4.0 `_ s o Thermal ezpansion is the degree co which a given mawrial expands and contntts wi[h : Z a � � 3 �anges in tempereture. As you can see, pine has a very low [hermal ezpansion ra[e. �� a �ch a ca[e oE 1.2, Fibrex material, like aluminum, expands and contraca very licde. •ZS �nyl, however, wirh a chermal espansion race of4.0, expands and contraas markedly, o.o resuleing over time in bowing, crecks and, evenmally, leakage of air and wa[er. Fbra Ynyi P�nc .Uum�wu �try!'s properssity w ezparuf and mnaacr rest�(n� over time in traclu baunngand ltakage. Stiffness i.zoo.ouo ' 7,000,000 a � soo.000 soo,000 aoo,000 � 40V.000 � F�bre. Ynyl Wood Fibr� offen twire the ngidiry afvirry! fm long-term ttability. �Thermal Conduc[ivity i.za U 9u o.Ga 0 3a o.ao Fibrex inrulater l,000 times benn tban a[uminum. Stable and predictable. Modulus is che scienci6c cerm for a macerial's sciffness. The 6igher che numbec, che stiffer the matecial. The average modulus for Fibrex macerial is cwice the avecagt for vinyl, making it a far moce stable and rigid macerial (or windows. Md thongh wood's average s[iffness is higher, it is far less predictable [han Fibre�c ma�erial since wood possesses namral variations such az grain, knots and moisture conrenc A11 of which means we can make Renewal"" window frames and sash narrower than competicive windows-gaining more glass area and more light From che same size space in your wall. An excellent insulator. Fibrex composice material has a very low [hermal conducciviry ratio-or in other wocds, escellen[ insulating proper[ies-that puc it on a par wi[h pine oc vinyl. Unlike aluminum, Renewal windows, made of Fibrex macerial, wont cransfer 6eat ouc of your home or allow cold temperatures outdoors ro chi11 the window areas inside. DecayofMaterials 50% Impervious to decay. so a j ' Evencually, wichout main[enance, even aeazed wood can be subjecc co decay. 9 3 � For�unacely for busy homeowners, Fibrex composite material is nor. Our special poly- n _ zo mer formulaxion surrounds and coacs each wood fiber in che manufaccuring process, °° � � �a % ensuring unsurpu;ed resistance to roc. Md Renewal windows made of Fibrex material � o �% �°� are wartanced noc m flake, nuc, bliscer, peel, crack, pic or mcrode, Eor chat mattec' Pibaz Yayl T.eued PiK Unuveed Pin� ' $ce �he Rcnewai produ<c warrJnry £or d<nils. Whi1e nxn deated vood �an de�uys Fibrex is imprrviour to rot. Heat Distortion Resistance W9�numperaiviee+pniercMq wiMOw me1NU1 in d�e+l mr�tOnmm[ +uo 180° �� F �w xe.a vo� Fibrex withstunds urrsperatum ofovo 200°Fin tetu, wbile viny! begint to distort at 167°F. Won t go soft in the heat. As anyo�e who has ever ]ef[ a vinyl record in the sun knows, high [emperamres can resul[ in distonion. In che full heat oFsummer, windows receiving direct afremoon sun can heac up to 175°F or more. At chese temperamres, t6e weight of the window frame and glass can cause ordinary hollow vinyl kames co bow and sag. Fibrex composi[e, however, remains rigid and stable m temperamru oFover 200°F in cescs-cemperamres far higher than your window wiU ever experience. �°PYn6'��9Mde�un G.Nniw. BaYWrvMN 1991..M n8F'u mnM.3M�Na t ftinrcd in US A NmA.�RL1�1 Fibrcz �oyl Pme Alumf�wn xpc rub�,� xear;ng s�mmazy re: 985 S�munit Avenue HPC File #2810 Instali vinyI windows 11.21.96 Rubenstein reviewed the stafus of the case and noted the following: • A full screen has been installed, reptacing a haif screeq on the one vinyl k�ndow that has already been installed on the house; the screen sash is sort of nbbed and not flaL • 'I'fie HPC has never approved vinyl repiacement windows with the e�ccepiion of one case approximately one yeaz ago on Marshall Avenue in the Hill District where three-quarcers of the windows had been replaced in prior years without permits. Gary Woods, applicant, showed a lazge samp]e of an enfire wiadow, with fiill screen, said he would try to find a 4at screen, and reviewed their revised proposal as follows: • Andersons, the owners, insist on 50/50 rather than 60/40 sash for safery reasons--aft'ects abovt 12 windows. • • Reaz etevation: no change to existing window configuration. • East elevation: tt�ree windows have azch-topped screens with rectangulaz sash behind; no change proposed • Tower: leave windows as is for now; nea�t yeaz will be able to curve glass and sash, will want 50/50. • Front elevation: propose 50/50 double hungs with grids in top sash. • West elevation: stair windows not orignial, make double flung or leaded ta match front transom. Comcuissioner Heide: how many windows are divided 60/40? . Woods: 39 new windows on main house, 18 are 60/40. Heide: feels strongly that 50/40 sash is an important design element; not convinced that change in weight is sigwficanL. Chair Li¢uung: can windows be secared to prevent harm? Woods responded but didn't seem to answer directly; mentioned a type of child guard Commissioner Buetow moved to deny approval of the permit; said a flat screen woutd work okay but there is the muntin problem and the change to 50/50 cvindows dces not conform to the district guidelines. Commissioner Miller seconded the motioa Commissioner Albers reviecved the guidelines peitaining Yo the case. Woods: muntin grids would be betweeu panes; widfh of existing muntins varies. Commissioner Frame: asked Chair Lunning abouf the vinyl window precedenf; Lunning responded. Buetow: most important issues are window profile, shape, and sfieen. Miller: has significant reservations about setting a precedent for approval of vinyl windows. Heide: would be in favor o£ approval--cvith 60/40 sash, flat screen, and, if possible, exterior mimtins--in ttris case because windows already manufactured. Commissioner Slmef agreed with Mr. Heide. Lunning: approval would not set a precedent necessarily, a uniqae exception has already beeu made. Albers: the fact that the windows are already manufactured is irreIevant; how mazry times will this fiappen?; work must conform to the guidelines; do not want to set precedent for approving work after it has been done. Coaunissioner Hauser: HPC had asked the applicanUowners for a comparative analysis of different options; tlils has not been done. Rubenstein suggested the commission consider a motion stating what it would approve; appeal to Ci1y Council likely. � �� S • HPC Public Hearing S�mary/File #2810/11.21.96/Page Two Buetow called the question. The mution to deny approval passed 9- 0. Hauser moved to reconsider; Skrief seconded; discussion followed. Heide called the question; motion ta reconsider passed 7- 2. Lunning: no motion is now on the floor. Heide moved to grant approval subject to three conditions: 1) the meeting rail height shall match the existing, 2) the esterior of the screens shall be flat or smooth, and 3) new sash shall have exterior applied muntins where they replace eaiisting divided light sash; Hauser seconded. Buetow called the quesrion. The motion to approve subject to three conditions stated above passed 7- 2(Miller, Albers). summary by Aazon Rubenstein � �J c�EN�R�,L st��..€�t�� tt�� eG t,RrnaE,wr CFTY OF SAIP3T PAt3L .,r ' .w. CPI'Y OF SAINL PAUL t OFFICEOFLICENSE,INSPECTIONSAND � ENVIRONMENfALPROTECTION � BUfLDING/NSPECTfONANODESIGN � 350 St Peter Srreet - Suite 300 LPermit No. �,�,+ S¢int Paul. MLu�esom 55(02-I510 612d66-9090 wlnwVw ttc.y�r+�cvnc �v i PLAN NO. ° OF PROJEGTt /�� {- DA E t .�W ER� Si�✓E�DI�ETP"1/�K-�AJ :�.:� � /� �WNERSADORESS' `"i��T � �� rA{l�` ❑ 0 O � NPE OF ❑ NEW -TYPECONST. OCCUPANCY GRADING STUCCOOR ❑ BUILD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑ DRYWALI. ❑ FENCE ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTER ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE ❑ WRECK � q �� WARD l07 Sf RUC- 4 TURE ��ESTI _., _� J - ."'oeTn��s a -;[I.1')n - mwtiT WIDTH �� 5 1 SIDE LOT CLEARANCE BVILDING UNE FRONT qEAF LFNGTH HEIGHT STORIES ' BASEMENT TOTALF�OOR AREA �YES '❑NO SQFT.- _, . . � , . �-'x.INCLUDEBASEMENT a� �. =: _a-r ., z= 2 D �r � �o .k��glv�°(i�z4; ��r�{,:: - -�- - -� �V1�;U✓S�,v� . � _ �. _ .. 3z,=z1�7 � � ARCNI7ECT- = �--.�`�� - — 300 . ._WEw►�ru :ww s g oaa � i ' �auFnxcroa� E�DO+N i3�61G RD l.OviS k�- Fi �47�k � - . - . fA00flE556Y1P� - ,� � MASONRY�.; � : ,-- ' � ' ' .- , _ ._,. _ _ � � - - . ' STATE :' . ' " _ �' PERM�T FEE _ � � yqLUAT10N � i 1 P�AN CHECK ' � _ ,- ' � STATE - . - .. '. _. � . . " SVRCHARGE ' - • � . FEE . ' ,. � - . - . I ' APGLlCANT CERAFIES THA7 ALL IN- " � -� - _..FORMA710N IS CORFiECT �AND jHAT - ' � � - - ��-' �ALL PERTINENT STATE REGULATIONS "' � ansHlEn oNLr � AN6 CITY ORDINANCES WILL BE COM- WHEN YALIDATED TH1515 `/OVR PENMIT � :P�IEDWITHINPfRFORMINGTHEWORK - „ ' FOR WHICH 7HIS PERMIT IS ISSUED. . - - - .' � ` • _ . . St. Code " � � -' � ' .X �/�y�,. ADDRESS � V m� m • oF:,ios`=� �OsN�L LYrN. �'SloS + �TNORI2EOSIGNA?UREt � �' , . � USE TYPEWRITER OR BALI POIN7 PEN - � � � �' AND PRESS FIRMI.Y r D• Z 1' �� . • � �� e � � � � 0 � � � � � � o� � .,,, p � : •y � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �4 N �k � .�, w � 4� �O F� � � � � � .�" O � � �'' O ^`� � A o � � �� v T � � �q � - � � � � c� •��' � � � � '� � ° "' �s �, ,,�ti �0 M � � •� r..� . � �_ � .�. � � � � � E.. � U s _ .:� _ . � .. � � ' � ' ? ; t ��. i : r'� i� '� ' f S a ii� � �_� _ � € f( e � �� =. ;i � z € _. ` { �.: _ .:�: ...�,.,:,�.� _� �� ;` � :a::f:::.. :'fS�xia � IfM .� , �� ? z, � x " , E^ �` �' . �_ . � �y l.� a � .+. -. � 2 3' i� ,s �� . .� • =t;: :��: :° n c � . J __...._. . .,,_ . . . . . . _ .,._...��.�-_.� . .. _..�--- � . . .,...__.._..._ _... . . i . . . . ... . . � { : e � � � �I� . . �.. � . .. E � � . . � . . . ' . " .. � { t L . f l L � � � � . � 1 g 1 Z � � g � � . . �.. . _ .. . � , �� . .. . . . . . _�� I --_._--- - ;, ,- z . �-�-�..z�r��. ' 4 ..,:"�" ' ?z?,-�^�,.'v. � 3 r �+ : ��: 1 � � � , : 'F'Si�` r� t'��' 'F�} �� f` .�.��.�:.� �y� �} �_ rc .. �= � .�.�,., �,._: -� _ } ` �.�_ 4 SW^'F�-�e�y" . � �..LwK` . _ . . .. . r � yT � s .�"�:... - +._. -...,.._ . _ ) r_� �, �. - - i -Z- 4 - � •'. � r 4 ��.` ` . j� .. � _. . i st,' L � : i �� `� . ._. ,. � ; �..� `_ � �- � _�: � � ��-�} ,. ;. , ; _ : _, _ . . . ��.� Y ___ . ( � � y . 1 ._ . . � � _: r � . e��` - j _ � r �' � o.�a�a"a-.a�•r . '{. � �'cTwt>zaeY.w'44a:e"s.•• � t � } �_ 5 � � t ,y N y . . ,` 1 � . . Y:.vsn'art.e`kY.�^�: . . . j !r' $j $ 3. �! . . . / } � A� 7 �: �� . �./ � . ��__ � a t a.`';.v>N� �. , . / Q �� . . ( .. j d' �� . . i i -. ;� .� � . ,,.` �- _ ,� � ;. t�� _ � i. �� i . �� _ ._ . �. .� . ...,w : �� Ci.. >.� .:., _. Ir � -.� • ;;. �. /: ` �<<�� ,� r; 1 j � � � ' � i:� � _' � ' ..,..r � �; . . . - - �E �. ' '� � E � .� .. =,S � . '� . .'i . . -. ..ar—. ��er^ �� " �:�� \T �ie . .. � �. �..'S - r; ' � �•��+•.-;� v��i � ti'. e . � � .e+.� S.`a� � � -. . � .. � ' �-` . j' �;`, ��R� 6 � . fy `` ` . '�� , , �. :. _ � +.' . �� ... �.�i �° ' '��f� ' ` ��:' . ar1`� � o� � =° � ''.-�� ' �`s.T..�7 . . ��,� . . -. � - �,.,. : ... j � r . - ,_. � ..._: ��"f - . t� q . . / .�` , :Iw��« �F�6%i. "��..�\;t.� / ��.. �i*��" " "r, �� t �! T � i L Y t; i ;.,,�%� � '��/� .-'� � • µ�, -�. -� f s : " �r'$ !:?�" "�` � ,,.� t�s � -fi � F' 1� �;� ' �' F�3�� j '� f -,,.�.: . � , � ,��--.._ . � . � -�.; F : � , c . * � y 4 ��,��i� � `� _'� • �. �;•.. _' .�, .. .:•� r,i _.�i" `, �q . ��N � i•�� : �f '• i r J sy 4 � � ' �,;, � cT . I 4 t� � a �.'�- ��,.'�' :t �.-s r.;. _,: .' �:�� i e .;' -a s .' . 3. _ - .. . �': ► � . ."�"_"' { . .. : � ..1 O s _ � _." ,., --1 . �, � � '�• _ `a t �$� +T�i�f Z� iS �Y `! "�'L9'M1y�- � . W R f�' . �' � a a .� : � " . i�a �"li^�; -' -s h I � r _ v i J�< r�.� S �C� �.x . 4�y � � � ` � .: , . T .�` '. \ ,�� . � , � ` 4 =�Y1' \ � � � ". � �Zi !4�ti . t , .: �'� si`i� .. a .' � �;'a � ; . . . � . ,. � �. � �. . . �� ;� � < �•� � 5 . ! . +1 � • �� r � • _ �'�i� YY•t.' � ,. -�E�� _ � . �. i � '�, ��` ,� '�.:• _ :f 'S;`:'" ' S �• �' . � � ` � . .{ �►. r' � � ��i . `� 4i '- _ . __ � . r, s.• :, "� s . s r . +1. ...�- - - '�w�._ V' - . � - .. . . . �. .. v _ Y - � /� f � � -$ . . _� �aiC_ � �;�,�, . �o�. �{.: � _ !�� ' . .... . . - V .y : q . . . . . . �� f i .�Y" :`� � '- � . .1� � . 4 � ^E . . . ;<� � 1 . . . . k � t �' � � � '� �� ' I a xt . t� � . . . x , o ? ` 'I i t ; ��. ,l'1 ./ r. t . . `'_ / .'�. i. � . .'t�+�� ir' � �: Y 1' )� � 5 �' F�' � f . . . f T� z � � � .. . . . . � ' � � � �'-'� , � � � . '. � ' e � . . � / �� 1 { �� . � � J I t F ". sx � � ;. '� _, �,- ; -� . _. �., �. , � , - I '�i�; _ . � .. . r � � $ �: °�� . i 5g�a� � � � � c . � . � " r� � : 4 .. �. .. _ t a m �{ � 1 7 � ` i 1 � \ �• k ! � } � � r { , 5 i 4 1 .. � . �� . i. . t ' ;'� s7 � I�" ., � ' . , . - _ ;, . ,- .� - - r,. ,. «;' � ; , ; ; ,:._ ,W_ .. � `,,,, . } � '. � Y �� $ .�.� �, � ,;A . a. rnr�c �'� ` , ��+ . �. � n ` . t Z • ? " � �� _: � �+ . . . �L� 1 R �,� a� �.�� .. • �� T� �..' �,'\ :,- ar�� .� � ` .' 3 "—" �a � "a+s';t.� x - ., `< <c�� ' ?�- :.. . ,�' �� { � � 1 }j � ' ��i "� �i, ;, 4 � `=_ � E �{r�� — � , �� r: .� t ,� �, ; � f .. ; � , . :r/ ■' � 1 �,_ . _ , i s-. - � ..�.��.,_. . :r. . . . ... F' � . • a+L7C c>--. 'i'5..�......__. � : i � f � � �� 1�� ` � � � ..� . .� s � j: � •_ � _� � _ � .. - �3.s,,,r-_ t , ...- , t`r.�.....�__ ��_� ....-�.�c� , - s�, �� .. r � `+�� x,.�..., ,� �; . _ ._�:. -- � � � " .Sr;° "�`' - .�n'" , o �,��; � ..�._.� =�- �`..� ---- � ��- � , �"��_ ; - � � � � ; � ` S� � � ' � Y � �',. � . � � f � .' . l' . i , } i � �� ' .� s . `. � � 3�r�Y�.� �°- � . � � : ` � t � y,sac� y� ° � � .. . � . . . :;�� v-�� '� �r�� . �� } Z��$"`x . . . l�1ri .� .. . . . � . . $'£ � .. . _ .� .. . � � � _� } �� . . : ..� . � : . . S 3 .. � - .. . . .. � ....d�� , < r---�- .ra � $ � � � ;,. 't - . - � � �:L�..