The URL can be used to link to this page

98-213Council File # /O '2�3 ORIGINAL Presented By Referred To Green sheet # (0857 RESOLUTION SAINT_P/�1L, MINNESOTA COmmittee: Date zy 1 WHEREAS, Paul Baillon, d/b/a Baillon Company, 332 Miuuesota Street, Suite E-1404, 2 Saint Paul, Minuesota 55101, made application to the Heritage Preservation Commission [the 3 Commission] pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06(a)(4) to approve an application for 4 a demolifion permit to demolish a building located at 281 East Fifth Street, Saint Paul, 5 Miunesota, commonly lrnown as the Crane Building, a historical building within the Lowertown 6 Heritage Preservation District; and 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing on the applicafion of Paul Baillon on December 1 l, 1997 at which all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard. In its Resolution No. 3172, adopted December 11, 1997, the Commission, denied the applicarion for a demolition permit for the following reasons: 1. Architectural and historical merit of the building. The Crane Building is architecturally and historically significant for the following reasons: It is characterized as supportive to the local district; it is categorized as contributing to the national dishict; its architectural design contains distinctive features; it was designed by Reed and Stem, prominent local architects; it is the former warehouse of the Crane Ordway Company; and a significant individual, Lucius P. Ordway, is associated with the building as well as with the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3N�. 2. AfFect of the demolition on surrounding buildings. Demolition of the Crane Building may physically jeopardize surrounding buildings, namely the adjacent Markethouse and Rayette Buildings. In addition, demolition would greatly adversely affect the appearance and quality of the historic Lowertown district. Specifically of concern is the interruption of the building or street wall -- one of the most disringuishing characteristics of Lowertown. Removal of the building would erode a very cleazly defined edge and create a lazge opening in the street wall at the northern end of the Fanner's Mazket. Affect of any�roposed new construction on ... surrounding buildin *�s. Construction of a pazking lot on the subject site does not conform to any of the new construction guidelines far the district, including scale, massing, and rhytlun. 4. The economic value or usefulness of the buildin¢ as it now e�sts or if altered or modified in comparison with the value or usefulness of any proposed struchxres designated to re�lace the present buildine. Despite two written requests by staff, the applicant has not provided detailed economic information about the building either as it exits or as it might be modified (rehabbed). The applicant has not definitively stated the use to which the properiy would be put after demolition. The applicant has speculated that the site might be used for surface pazking. The applicant has supplied no financial informarion about future use of the property. 98-2 i3 1 5. New use for the site. The burden for demonstrating the value or usefulness of the site 2 after demolition falls not on the Commission but on the applicant. The applicant did not 3 supply a plan for the site or any economic data. Nevertheless, the Commission, on its 4 own initiative, considered three alternatives: 6 (a) Do nothine. The applicant was asked at the public hearing the applicant's 7 purchase price of the building. The applicant responded that he did not know. 8 County taY records indicate a$100,000.00 contact for deed for the properry in 9 1978, the yeaz in which the applicant purchased the properry. Since that time, 10 according to the applicant, the property has appreciated to $1,400,000.00. The 11 applicant states that annual maintenance expenses for the property aze $20,000.00 12 or more. The applicant did not supply a net figure (after tas deductions, etc.). If 13 the applicanPs assessment of the building's current value is correct, the building 14 could reasonably be preserved as a rapidly appreciating asset. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44� 45 46 47 48 49 It is in the City's interest that the building survive until it can be rehabilitated, as many similaz buildings in Lowertown ha�e been rehabilitated. (b) Vacant Land. Although specifically asked at the hearing, the applicant did not estimate the value of vacant land in Lowertown. Expert testnnony indicated a maxiuium value of $20.00 sq. ft. T'he lot size is 9,377 sq. ft. The value of the land may be generously estimated to be $187,000.00. Applicant states demolition costs will be $145,000.00. The net value to the applicant to the vacant land after demolition is $42,000.00. The value to the City of vacant land is negligible. There is already and significant supply of vacant or unbuilt land in Lowertown. (c) Surface Parkin¢. The applicant has indicated the properiy may be used for surface parking. The applicant did not supply a site plan or economic figures. The applicant stated no pro form of budget has been prepazed. Staff estnnates the lot would contain 28 or 29 pazking spaces. This would increase the land azea in the eastern half of the Lowertown district that is devoted to surface parking by 2%. The Commission estimates that the applicanY s net income from pazking may be approximately $10,000.00 (after ta�ces, management fees, site preparation costs, etc.). This return seems inadequate on an asset applicant values at $1,400,000.00. The 2% increase in Lowertown parking is a slight benefit to the City when compared to the economic value of a rehabbed building. (d) Rehabilitation of the Crane Building. The applicant cannot reasonably claim that ownership of the building is an econoxnic hardship if the applicant is responsible for the hazdship. In particulaz, the applicant, in its 20 yeaz ownership of the building, has never requested or been issued a building permit, indicating that the applicant has made no effort to maintain the structure. The building's elevator does not work. This fact alone may explain the applicanY s stated inability to rent the six story building. The applicant has precluded sale of the building by setting an unrealistically high asking price. The applicant has mazketed the properiy for 1.4 million dollars ( appro�mately 2 9� ai3 1 $23 per sq. ft.). The applicant did not, in response to questions from the Cominission, 2 supply names of compazable Lowertown properties selling for a similaz amount. Expert 3 testimony showed comparable buildings in Lowertown are selling for $2.00 to $10.00 per 4 sq. ft. Mr. Lu tesfified that three compazable buildings in Lowertown have sold recently 5 for $2.10 to $5.00 per sq. ft. Based on this expert testimony, the fair mazket value of the 6 59,500 sq. ft. Crane Building is $119,000.00 to $595,000.00. The applicanY s stated 7 inability to sell the properiy stems from the applicanYs unreasonably high asking price. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 41F 45 46 47 48 49 Mr. Weiming Lu of the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation testified extensively about the economic value to the City of the redevelopment of Lowertown and of individual buildings. He said that since 1978, $428,000,000.00 has been invested in Lowertown, resulting in 3,000 residents and 8,000 jobs. He expressed optixnism on the basis of his 18 yeaz experience as executive director of the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation that a suitable and economically successful reuse could be found for the Crane Building. The applicant stated, "there may be people in this world, and there probably are, more clever and more creadve than we are in finding a new use for the building." The burden of fmding a new use for the building does not rest on the Commission. Nevertheless, the Commission recommends to the applicant that the applicant consider at least the following options: 1. Accept offers of technical assistance from the City of Saint Paul Planning and Economic Development (PED), Heritage Preservation Commission, Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation, the Minnesota Historical Society, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2. Invest in long-delayed maintenance to make the building rentable. 3. Offer the building for sale at a price established by the market. 4. Investigate offers of financial assistance from Lowertown Redevelopment Corparation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 5. Consider development alternatives other than apartments (the only alternative about which the applicant supplied any fmancial information). 6. Investigate statements of developer interest in the building by Artspace Projects and PED; and WIIEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Paul Baillon, d/b/a Baillon Company, duly filed with the Council an appeal from the determination made by the Heritage Preservation Commission, and requested that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and WHEREAS, acting pucsuant to § 73.06, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on February 11, 1998, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; � 9�- 2 �3 WHEREAS, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Commission, the Council does hereby; RESOLVE, to affirm the decision of the Commission having found no error in fact, finding or procedure and incorporates the findings of the Commission as its own; and BE IT FURTI�R RESOLVED, that the appeal of Paul Baillon, d/b/a Baillon Company, is in all things denied; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Paul Baillon, the Zoning Adnunistrator and the Heritage Preservation Commission. ORIGlNAL Requested by Department of: By: Form Appr ed by Ci y Attorney B �!✓�<r-r.nG+ 3�.f/'f� Adoption Certified by Council Secretasy Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council �Y� a a . a ..--.�� By: Approved by Mayor: D �- � ! By: Adopted by Council: Date �{7/� /�-� /Y� �%JY i �r DATE Chris Coleman March 18. 1998 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES 9�-2/3 GREEN SHEET No 60857 u �,.�,�.� u �„�- ❑ �,,,,,.�„ ❑ �.� ❑wuwcu�aEaxccESme. ❑wuxw�tmiw�eno ❑ wraeldiumraxrl ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE� Finalizing City Council action taken February 11, 1998 denying the appeal of Baillon Company to a decision of the Heritage Preservation Co�ission denying approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building at 281 East Fifth Street (Lowertown). PLANNING COMMISSION d6 CAMMITTEE . CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ��. RSONALSERVICE CONTRIIC7S MUSTANSWER iHE FOLLOWING QUESiIONSs Ha6 �hi6 pelSONfirtn e✓ef Vrotked u11dM a conlra4i fof tltis depaRment? YES NO Has thb Pe�soNfirm erer been a citY emGbYee7 YES NO Does this persoNPom possess a sldll nd �wmiallypossecceU Dy arry curreM dqr employee? YES NO Is Mis D�� a tar0eted vendoYl YES NO t✓�� <�`'t��°�C'.�C;f:� �,�e': �._�..� { t �;: OF TRANSACTION S SOURCE (CIRCLEONfl YES NO ACTIYITY NUMBER (IXPWN) OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY PegBirlSCityAttorney /�Q - "� j� �� Q d f CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co7eman, Mayor Civil Divisian 400 Ciry Ha11 IS West Kellogg BHd Saint Paul, Mi�mesom SSIO2 Telephone: 612 266-87I0 Facsimile: 672 298-56I9 i,�ur�E R�search Center � . � � t,;� Mazch 6, 1998 Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary, Saint Paul City Council 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paui, MN 55102 Hand Delivered Re: Appeal of Paul Baillon d/b/a Baillon Company Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution No. 3172 Public Hearing Date: Febn�ary 11, 1998 Deaz Ms. Anderson: Attached please find the signed original of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-en6tled matter. The resolution should be placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Very truly yours, //.r/lV�" _ �AM^Q--� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemm', Mayor 13 January 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMEN'IAL PROTECTION ( / � � Rober! Kessler, Director c� $. a r 3 7 � IAA'RYPROFESSIONALBUILDING Telephone:612-266-9090 Sui1e 300 Facr"vnile: 672-2669099 350 S[ Peter Sdeet Saint Pau1, Minnesota 55102-I570 I would like to request that a public heazing before the City Council be scheduled for Wednesday, February 11, 1998 for the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision: Appellant: Baillon Company HPC File: #3172 Purpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to deny approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building at 281 E. Fifth St. (Lowertown ). The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public hearing on this matter and voted 9- 0 on December 11, 1997 to deny approval of the requested permit. This City Council public hearing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions. Sincerely, �,�,�-�, i�� Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Kessler, Halvorson, LIEP Chazles Skrief, HPC Chair Peter Warner, CAO Paul Baillon .y. F . _., . . _ �� 14 i5�8 BAILLON COMPANY 332 Minnesota Street Suite E-1404 Saint Pau1,11rnnesota 55101 Telephone {612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 February 11, 1995 St. Paul City Council City of St. Paul Court House St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: 281 East Sth Street St. Paul, Minnesota �� q� -a �3 Dear Council Members, Dan Bostrom, Jerry Blakey, Kathy Lantry, Jim Reiter, Jay Benanav, Chris Coleman, and Mike Harris: As you may know, a hearing in connection with the above property is scheduled for a meeting of the City Council later today to vote on whether a permit wi11 be issued to us in connection with our application to demolish the above building. We would like to respectfully request that this hearing be postponed until the council meeting on March 4, 1998. The scheduling of this meeting has been exclusively in the hands of the Heritage Preservation Commission, which has refused our request to postpone today's meeting and has adopted an accelerated time frame that, while it may suit their interests, has not allowed us time to prepare adequately. In addition, this time schedule has not allowed sufficient time for both sides to meet and explore possible methods to attempt to resolve some of the differences. From our perspective, and hopefully from yours, laying this matter over for a short period of time won't be harmful and might be beneficial to all concerned. We appreciate your consideration. Our Company has been in business in St. Paul for over 45 years. we have been long term investors in downtown St. Paul real estate for over 40 years. We have owned and been active in helping to preserve several historically significant downtown St. Paul buildings which are now on the National Register. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY ,o��,��:� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj Delivered by Hand cc: Norm Coleman, Mayor Tom Fabel, Deputy Mayor � � CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Nonrs Coleman, Mayor 13 January 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 CiTy Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND �� ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION n Robert Kessler, Director I}G -"} j� �I O C� f LOWRYPROF£SSIONALBUILO7.NG Telephone:611d66-9090 Suite 300 Facsimile: 672-166-9099 350 St. Peier Street Saint Paul, Minnesam 55102-I510 I would like to request t6at a public heazing before the City Council be scheduled for Wednesday, February 11, 1998 for the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision: Appellant: Baillon Company HPC File: #3172 Pucpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to deny approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building at 281 E. Fifth St. (I,owertown ). The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public heazing on this matter and voted 9- 0 on December 11, 1997 to deny approval ofthe requested permit. This City Council public heazing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-908 7 if you have any questions. Sincerely, r ° Yc"�i-�ti � `�a.�;��' �c4 �.; Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Kessler, Halvorson, LIEP Chazles Skrief, HPC Chair Peter Wamer, CAO Paul Baillon Ce�diFlC� ��i�? '�p��? J��4 1 E iS;;3 � • • • OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION Ro6er[ Kessles, Drrec[or CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor LOWRYPROFFSSIONAL BUILDING Suite 300 350 St. Peter Saeet Saini Paul, Minnesota 55102-ISIO 5 February 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: HPC File #3172: Cit� Council Hearing: Baillon Company 11 February 1998 -a �3 Telephone: 611-266-9090 Facsimile: 612d 66-9099 PURPOSE: To consider an appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's denial of a peanit to demolish the Crane Building located at 281 East Fifth Street. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTTON: Denial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. SUPPORT: One person spoke. OPPOSITION: Four people spoke. Dear Ms. Anderson: The Baillon Company has appealed the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission to deny approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building. The subject building is located within the Lowertown Heritage Preservation District at 281 East Fifth Street. The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the permit application on December 11, 1997 at which time Mr. Paul Baillon, representing the property owner, addressed the commission. In public testimony, one person spoke in support of the proposed demolition and four people spoke against it. Following the close of the pub(ic hearing; the commission voted 9- 0 to deny approval of the demolition permit. The commission's findings aze stated in its resolution, which is attached. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February I 1, 1998. I have attached pertinent information. Slides of the Crane Buiiding and surrounding azea will be available at the Council meeting if Councilmembers wish to view them. Very truly yours, t ��ti i'��C��'� Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Attachments cc: City Councilmembers; Robert Kessler, LIEP; Peter Wamer, CAO; Paul Baillon • r1 LJ u CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemm�, Mayor OFF7CE OF LICENSE, INSPEC170NS AND ENVIItON[vgNTAL PROTECTfON Robert Kessler, Director LOIVRYPROFESSIONAL BUZLD7NG Suite 300 350 Sr. Perer Srreer Saint P¢v1, Mirsnesata SS[01-ISIO 19 December 1997 Mr. Paul Baillon Baillon Company 332 Minnesota Street #E1404 Saint Paul, MN 55101 By Fax: 222-5556 9 pages Deaz Mr. Baillon: �� Telephone: 612-2669090 Facsimile: 612-2669099 The Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission voted at its December I 1, 1997 meeting to deny approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building located at 281 East Fifth Street. I have enclosed a copy of the commission's resolution. You have the right to appeal this decision to the Saint Paul City Council under Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Such appeal must be filed by December 25, 1977. Chapter 73 requires that the following pazagaph be included in all letters indicating denial of a permit: Section 73.06 (h) Appeal to the City Council. The permit applicant or any party aggrieved by the decision of the heritage preservation commission shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of the heritage preservation commission's order and decision, have a right to appeal such order and decision to the ciry council. The appeal shall be deemed perfected upon receipt by the division ofplanning of two (2) copies of a notice of appeal and statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal. The division of planning shall transmit one copy of the notice of appeal and statement to the ciry council and one copy to the heritage preservation commission. The commission, in arry written order denying a permit application, shall advise the applicant of the right to appeal to the city council and include this paragraph in all such orders. Because the Heritage Preservation Commission is no longer staffed by the Planning Division, I would request that any letter of appeal be sent to me at LIEP instead of to the Planning Division. If you do appeal the decision, please indicate in your letter the grounds for the appeal and, in particulaz, any errors of fact, finding or procedure you believe the commission made. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions or concems. Very truly your� ��,ti.�, /�,�.�; Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner cc: Kessler and Halvorson @ LIEP BAILLON COMPANY 332 Minnesota Strcet Suite E-1404 Saint Pau1,11Tinnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 December 19, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein Aeritage Preservation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections and Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Environmental Protection Re: Crane Building, 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MN Your File # 3172 Dear Mr. Rubenstein: 2 am writing in regard to the Demolition Permit Application for the Crane Building at 281 East 5th Street in St. Paul, which was filed on October 29, 1997. As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed our permit application at their December 11, 1997 meeting and voted to deny the application. Please take this letter as written notice that we wish to exercise our right to appeal the matter to the St. Paul City Council and to exercise any other appeal rights that we may have. If anything further is required in this regard, please let me know right away. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY �� e� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj Sent via fax 266-9099 and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested � • � �i� - d l 3 • BAILLON CaMPANY 332 Diinncmta St�eet Sulte E-140d Saint Paal, l►iinn�ts 55101 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Faettmile (612) 222-5556 December 19. 1997 Mr. Aaron RubensY.ein Heritage Preaervation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections and Lowry Professional Buildin9 Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 A/a+t�e 6�F /�pPeul � � c � � v -o � w � Environmental ProteCtion Re: Crane Building, 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MII�1 Your File # 3172 Dear Mr. Rubenstein: I am writing in regard to the Demolition Permit Application for the Crane Building at 281 East 5th Street in St. Paul, . which was filed on October 29, 1997. As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed our permit application at their December 11, 1997 meeting and voted to deny the application. �: ;;� .. . = r l� Please take this letter as written notice that we wish to exercise our right to appeal the matter to the St. Paul City Council and to exercise any other appeal rights that we may have. If anything further is required in this regard, please let �d Yhut me know right away. y �.,n• '+��•«s+a.� — A° y�« K�ow, y� 0 ��9�^"��> Sf"'t youwo„,J$4 I�UUJANRVte1`M u fp7ea y w Very truly yours, - M��Y Y � � BAILLON COMPANY QaNO+ fttcivt �.wy7k�wr { Y by 3�aSpYtn '�oCla� � faF¢/1 Yvµ 'tL�.a ako�e 4¢iltr n,t 3:TS P•v� aKJ wtso M.itstl yvti c.. coiy a� ��/��'� The PoS�r p4Fice �wM��t�W�ft�y .rhereaFter.Tkis GvRS A�nl Yrs �� °""' 7rotee+ au.r e.PP�at f�RAts ,�.u��tv F��e 6y �rtv. de.u[u�e. SNLSeAKQwi�t� A`F S�:HI �M 7Ui�Ky /2�l'J�'/7� W� {INl1��y Paul A. Ba7.11on reca��ed y�Kr �e�Ne ; +�� !�4�9✓ by fa%. zn rs«ae�.:� y�ur�tfft� �.� now wpPawrS 'W�at My t evas �.1eo.t+Pleft and s wstl h¢ ,�¢�, y s ,,.pPKw�tnt��y it �h kw.,ctw�iHte {or.+� Vecause our SecrtrRr� PAB:lsj �S Y+Uw gar¢ kdw�e a'F �`s La'+e huN✓. x a.a k,ise fe-r�ail��y ywa caP�el 04 „ Mis L�'�t✓ -ryyuN -tedaq a�t'r� l.sEP oif�ce a,e yau Awv� /e4wrstvd Sent via f3x 266-9099 �'" $ a.H a15n faY�aS �+ . �ic�.R. Bw,a�i�+� (3w.�l�n Go.yoR��' and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested !z.!! 1 �47 �tow.Qs for i�PP'�a� �f'�'`a �Ppi�twu.+,Ra�4loh Conn�aKy t3 4OPPa/�nt a� '1Z`� 6/oaKdS ecisiiv. o F `f�`R ffer� �tayr.P/Psarva+e� comn*rss��•1 n+4�Ce on o ��h�p t Yv hPP��Qa•a'�s -ptrv�o�tttw� Ra�Mit A�P!<<a'��•�y� Wus ,4r��'treVy� ucp/'cc�suS� t "' ¢r�} bres� av� ince.µPt�te �nfnrn�a�� bkud oN ��naccurwtc lnFO/MU��rN� W ��n.uKt M � G„7�toar /��e/�er /'tfnicl Yr� based o+� �'rrettrvRnt �Kfo�,n�f�ur�, bas�d u� heresay, a� � �er��«y� P�aaerda+�i�n 6arde(�.�r� . BAILLON COMPANY 332 Minnesota Strcet Suite E-1404 Saint Paul,llTinnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 December 23, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Re: Appeal from the Heritage Preservation Commission's 12/11/97 denial of Baillon Company's Demolition Permit Application for the Crane Building, located at 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MN Your File # 3172 Dear Mr. Rubenstein: In follow up to my letter of December 19, 1997, (copy enclosed) which contained our Notice of Appeal and Grounds for Appeal in the above matter, I am submitting herewith some additional grounds for appeal. The applicant, Baillon Company, is appealing on the additional grounds that the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission made on December il, 1997, with respect to Applicant's Demolition Permit Application was based on errors of law and fact, erroneous findings, erroneous procedures, conclusions that were based on assumptions, conclusions based on information that lacked proper foundation, and the failure to properly consider information and facts provided by the Applicant. If you need anything further, please let me know. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY �''��r�Gd•!.�'� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj Sent via fax 266-9099 and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested C� � J � q� • CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMIVIISSION RESOLUTION FII.E NUMBER 3172 DATE 11 beecember 1997 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul L,egislative Code to review building permit applications for exterior alterations, new conshvction or demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and WHEREAS, the Baillon Company and A. Kamish and Sons have applied for a permit to demolish the Crane Building located at 281 East FiRh Street within the Lowertown Heritage Preservation District; and WHEREAS, the Crane Build'mg is a six story, brick, wuehouse building designed by the firm of Reed and Stem, constructed in 1904, and categorized as supportive to the character of the Lowertown District; and WHEREAS, the Lowertown Heritage Preservation District guidelines refer to the HPC ordinance, Chapter 73 of the Legislative Code, concerning demolition: In the case of the proposed demolition of a 6uilding, prior to approval of said demolition, the � commission shall make written findings on the following: Architectural and historical merit of the bui[ding, the effect of the demolirion on sunounding buildings, the e,�'ect of arry proposed new construcrion on the remainder of the building (in case of partial demolition) and on surrounding buildings, and the economic value or usefulness of the building as it now exists or if altered or rraodified in comparison with the value or usefulness of arry proposed structures designated to replace the present building or buildings; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its December 11, 1997 public hearing on said permit application, made the following findings of fact: 1. Architectural and historical merit ofthe buildine. The Crane Building is azchitecturally and historically significant for the following reasons: it is categorized as supportive to the local district; it is categorized as contributing to the national district; its architectural design contains distinctive features; it was designed by Reed and Stem, prominent local azchitects; it is the former wazehouse of the Crane and Ordway Company; and a significant individual, Lucius P. Ordway, is associated with the building as well as with the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M). • 2. Effect of the demolition on surrounding buildings. Demolition of the Crane Building may physically jeopazdize surrounding buildings, namely the adjacent Mukethouse and Rayette buildings. In addition, demolition would geatly adversely affect the appearance and quality of the historic Lowertown district. Specifically of concern is the interruption of the building or street wall--one of the most distinguishing characteristics of I,owertown. Removal of the building would erode a very cleazly defined edge and create a lazge opening in the street wall at the northern end of the Fazmers Mazket. Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #3172 Page Two 3. Effect of any �roposed new construction on ... surroundin� buildings. Construction of a pazking lot on the subject site dces not conform to any of the new construction guidelines for the district, including scale, massing, and rhythm. 4. The economic value or usefulness of the buildin�as it now exists or if altered or modified in comparison with the value or usefulness of anv proposed structures designated to replace the present building Despite two written requests by staffthe applicant 6as not provided detailed economic information about the building either as it e�cists or as it might be modified (rehabbed). The applicant has not defmitively stated the use to which the property would be put after demolition. The applicant has speculated that the site might be used for surface pazking. The app}icant has supplied no financial information about future use of the property. New Use for the Site. The burden for demonstrating the value or usefulness of the site after demolition falls not on the commission but on the applicant. The applicant did not supply a plan for the site or any economic data. Nevertheless, the commission, on its own initiative, considered three altemarives: � a) Do nothing. The applicant was asked at the public hearing the applicanYs purchase price of � the building. The applicant responded that he did not know. County tax records indicate a $100,000 contract for deed for the property in 1978, the year in which the applicant purchased the property. Since that time, according to the applicant, the property has appreciated to $1,400,000. The applicant states that annual maintenance e�cpenses for the property aze $20,000 or more. The appFicant did not supply a net figure (after tas deductions, etc.). If the applicant's assessment of the building's current value is correct, the building could reasonably be preserved as a rapidly appreciating asset. It is in the city's interest that the building survive unril it can be rehabilitated, as many similaz buildings in Lowertown have been rehabilitated. b) Vacant land. Although specifically asked at the heazing, the applicant did not estimate the value of vacant land in Lowertown. Expert testunony indicated a marcimum value of $20/sq. ft. The lot size is 9,377 sq. ft. The value of the land may be generously estimated to be $187,000. Applicant states demolition costs will be $145,000. The net value to the applicant of the vacant land affer demolition is $42,000. The value to the city of vacant land is negligible. There is already a significant supply of vacant or unbui$ land in Lowertown. c) Surface pazking. The applicant has indicated the property may be used for surface pazking. The applicant did not supply a site plan or economic figures. The applicant stated no pro forma budget has been prepazed. Staff estimates the lot would contain 28 or 29 pazking spaces. This • would increase the land azea in the eastem half of the Lowertown district that is devoted to surface pazking by two percent. The Commission estimates that the applicant's net income from q8 � Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #3172 Page T1uee pazking may be approximately $10,000 (after taxes, management fees, site preparation costs, etc.). This return seems inadequate on an asset applicant values at $1,400,000. The two percent increase in Lowertown pazking is of slight benefit to the city when compazed to the economic value of a rehabbed building. Rehabilitation of the Crane BuildinQ. The applicant cannot reasonably claim that ownership of the building is an economic hazdship if the applicant is responsible for the hazdship. In particulaz, the applicant, in its riventy yeaz ownership of the building, has never requested or been issued a building permit, indicating that the applicant has made no effort to maintain the structure. The building's elevator does not work. This fact alone may explain the applicanYs stated inability to rent the six-story building. The applicant has precluded sale.of the building by setting an unrealisrically high asking price. Ti�e applicant has mazketed the property for $1,400,000 (approxitnately $23/sq. ft.} The applicant did not, in response to questions from the commission, supply names of compazable Lowertown properties selling for a similaz amount. ExpeR testimony showed compazable buildings in I,owertown aze selling for $2-$10/sq. ft. Mr. Lu testified that three comparable buildings in Lowertown have sold recently for $2.10-$5.00/sq. ft. Based on this expert • testimony, the fair mazket value of the 59,500 sq. ft Crane Building is $119,000-$595,000. The applicanYs stated inability to sell the property stems from the applicant's unreasonably high asking price. Mr. Weiming Lu of the I.owertown Redevelopment Corporation testified extensively about the economic value to the city of the redevelopment of Lowertown and of individual buildings. He said that, since 1978, $428 million has been invested in Lowertown, resulting in 3,000 residents and 8,000 jobs. He expressed optimism on the basis of his 18 yeaz experience as executive director of the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation that a suitable and economically successful reuse could be found for the Crane Building. The applicant stated, "There may be people in this world, and there probably are, more clever and more creative than we are [in fmding a new use for the building]:' The burden of finding a new use for the building does not rest on the commission. Nevertheless, the commission recommends to the applicant that the applicant consider at least the following options: Accept offers of technical assistance from the City of St. Paul (Planning and Economic Development (PED), Heritage Preservation Commission), Lowertown Redevelopment Corporafion, the Minnesota Historical Society, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2. Invest in long-delayed maintenance to make the building rentable. • 3. Offer the building for sale at a price established by the mazket. Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #3172 Page Fow 4. Investigate offers of financial assistance from Lowertown Redevelopment Corpotarion and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 5. Consider development alternatives other than apartrnents (the only alternative about which the applicant supplied any financial information). 6. Investigate statements of developer interest in the building by Artspace Projects and PED. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that the fmdings in the staff report be appended to this resolution; and BE TT FTNALLY RESOLVED that the Heritage Preservation Commission, based on these findings, denies approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building at 281 East Fifth Street. MOVED BY Cermak SECONDED BY Skrief IN FAVOR AGAINST ABSTAIN Decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commission are finay subject to appeal to the City Council within 14 days by anyone affected by the decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting applicable building and zoning code requirements, and does not constitute approval for tax credits. � . C J q�-a�3 • PROPOSED DEMOLTTION OF THE CRANE BUII.DII3G STAFF REPORT FINDINGS I. Background/introducrion: a. The applicant has owned the building for almost 20 years, during w}uch time it has been essenrially vacant with minor exceprions. The gross azea is 65,000 square feet and the net (usable or rentable) azea is 54,000 square feet. The lot azea and building footprint aze 9,3�7 square feet. The building is of reinforced concrete construction. The first floor is currently leased by Allright Pazking for equipment s[orage. b. The applicant proposes to demolish the building because it is economically burdensome, i.e., costs for tases, insurance, and maintenance in excess of $20,000 annually, yet it provides little to no income. The applicant has tried to lease or sell the building for yeazs with no takers. c. The building is in fair condition, though it is essentially a shell. It needs a new roof (leaking has caused some damage to the brick on the Wall Street elevation). The freight elevator is appro�cimately 25 years old but not operational. The boiler is not functional, and existing radiators would provide only enough heat for a wazehouse-type use. District Aeat runs through the building. d. The applicant claims that it is not economically feasible to reuse or rehabilitate the building and notes these particular problems: high windows, column spacing, lack of pazking, and obsolete or non-existent mechanicals. e. The applicant owns a 93-stall parking lot to the north of the Crane Building. The • applicant has stated that the Crane Building site would probably be used for surface pazking also. A parking lot on the Crane Building site would accommodate 28 or 29 stalls (nonstacked). A site plan for such use has not been submitted. £ CounTy tax records indicate a$100,000 conVact for deed on the property recorded in 1978, the yeaz in which the applicant purchased the property. The terms of the contract are not known and this is not necessazily the purchase price. g. Because the Crane Building is a contributing structure in a National Register historic district, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAV1� would need to be prepazed if the HPC denies approval of the demolition permit and the applicant appeals this decision to the City Council. An EAW would delay the City Council public hearing by several months. 2. The Crane Building is azchitecturally and historically significant. It is categorized as supportive to the local disirict and contributing to the national district. The building's design is rather unusual in Lowertown, with banded piers, regulazly spaced though smallish windows (taller at the second story), orange brick, and a recessed entry stairway with glass risers. The building is cleazly distinctive in the azchitectural landscape of Lowertown. The building is also significant as the work of the prominent Saint Paul architectural firm of Reed and Stem (ca. 1890-1910). The fum specialized in railroad stations and designed over 100 of them across the country, including a collaboration with Warren & Witmore on New York's Grand Central Station. Saint Paul buildings by Reed and Stem include the Saint Paul Hotel (1910), the Goodkind Houses at 5 and 7 Heather Place (1910), the Minnesota Boat Club on Raspberry Island, the University Club at 420 Summit (1912), and residences at 340 Summit � Avenue and 530 Grand Hill. Stem designed the building at 282 East Siarth Street which houses SeestedYs Carpets. Staff Report Findings/Crane Building Demolition Page Two The Crane Building is also significant for its associations with the Crane and Ordway Company and Lucius P. Ordway. By 1897, the company was the world's lazgest manufacturer of valves, fittings, and steam supplies. The subject building served as a warehouse. Lucius Ordway and a partner acquired conh�ol of the three-year old 3M Company in 1905 and he was its president from 1906 to 1909. The Lowertown building that the Crane and Ordway Company occupied prior to completion of the subject building is no longer extant and is the site of a parking tot. 3. In the most narrow physical terms, it appears that replacing the Crane Building with a pazking lot would not have a detrimental physical effect on surrounding buildings. The northeast side wall of the Crane Building is actually the southwest wall of Mazkethouse (the Tighe Building, constructed 1902). In demolishing the Crane Building, care would have to be taken to not damage the Mazkethouse building. � In most significant terms, however, demolition of.the_building and replacing it with a surface pazking lot would be tembly detrimental to the context of surrounding buildings and to the character, integriry, and quality of the I.owertown Heritage Preservation District. A very important part of the character of this warehouse district is the city blocks filled up with small and lazge warehouse and manufacturing buildings, one aRer the other, creating strong lines of building walls enclosing the street. This fundamental building paLtem is already unfortunately � eroded in Lowertown. These historic buildings, in isolation, separated by pazking lots, lose their contexi and impact. The Lowertown dishict cannot afford to lose more historic buildings. Many have already been demolished, leaving a somewhat spotty fabric of buildings. The Crane Building has a pivotal location, helping to enclose the north end of the Fazmers Mazket. The mazket is an important civic space strongly enclosed at the two ends by warehouse buildings. T'he rivo sides of the mazket aze enclosed weakly; two comers previously occupied by buildings are now surface pazking lots. The character and integrity of the eastern half of the Lowertown district, in particulaz, has been eroded by the replacement of historic buildings with parking lots. On the eight blocks in the eastern half of the district, bounded by Kellogg, Seventh, Wacouta and Broadway (Northem Warehouse and Tilsner buildings excluded), there aze thirteen surface parking lots, ten of which sites were previously occupied by buildings, most of them three to five stories in height. ('I'he Fazmers Mazket, which is used for contract pazking during the week, is counted as one of the thirteen lou.) These pazking lots account for 22 percent of the land azea in this eight block azea (public right-of-way excluded) if the mazket is not counted as pazking and for 31 percent of the land azea if the mazket is counted as pazking. Putting a pazking lot on the Crane Building site would increase these figures by rivo percent. (All figures aze approximate.) Previous demolitions are unfortunate. Additional demolirion would also be unfortunate. The chazacter of the district that warranted local and federal designarion remains unchanged. To lose another I,owertown building at this edge of downtown would have a significant adverse r �8�ac3 • Staff Report Findings/Crane Building Demolition Page Three impact on the character and integrity of the district (and provide only 28 or 29 pazking spaces). If the district is to thrive as a neighborhood, a place to work and live, and as a historic area, it needs buildings and more people and uses in and azound them rather than more pazking lots. 4. The Crane Building as it is currently being used is not generating a positive cash flow. The 1997 assessed value of the land and building is $207,500 (building has six stories, assessed value based on five stories). To demolish the building, however, would destroy the potential for future economic value which e�sts. The key problem appears to be that the applicant is asking, and has asked, far too high a price for the building--$1.4 million--which precludes reuse and rehabilitation (numerous knowledgeable sources have suggested that this is the case). Some figures: a. The asking price for the building is $23.53/sq. ft. (based on the average of the gross and net floor areas, which is 59,500 sq. ft., as suggested by the applicanY s reahor). The $1.4 million asking price does not include the adjacent parking lot to the north. b. Knowledgeable sources have suggested that compazable buildings in Lowertown aze selling for two to ten dollazs per squaze foot and that the Crane Building should sell for a price in this range--and probably less than ten dollars. A very recent appraisal of the • 90,000 sq. ft, vacant, James J. Hill Building values the building at $278,500, or $3/sq. ft. gross. c. Several sources have suggested that land values in I,owertown aze in the $10-12/sq. ft. range, while several others have suggested the figure could be as high as $20/sq. R. A supervisor in the County Assessor's office estimates Lowertown land values at $10- 15/sq. ft. or three to four thousand dollazs per pazking stall. d. The cost to demolish the Crane Building is $112,000 according to the property owner and demolition contractor. Some sources have questioned this figure, particulazly for a concrete building, and one source estimated the cost could be$300,000 or more depending on hazardous materials. It appeazs that a new use for the Crane Building might very well be found if the sale price reflected the mazket reality for unimproved warehouse space and the condition of the building. Potenrial uses might include light industrial, artists studios (nonresidential), business incubator, mini-storage, indoor mazket, raw, low-tech space like the Rossmoor Building, or some combination of these uses. Office and residenrial uses would likely require a greater investment and therefore might be more difficult to accomplish. In addition, residential uses would probably require enlazging the existing widow openings which would be expensive and significantly alter the design and character of the building. Several developers consulted by HPC stafF said they had looked at the Crane Building in the past but were deterred by the price and/or that they would be interested in the building if the price reflected the reality of the mazketpiace. The Allen Building, to the north of the Crane Building across Sixth Street, is somewhat similaz to the Crane Building. It also has high windows, though more of them. It was rehabilitated ten • years ago and is now occupied by a variety of warehouse, light industrial, and Class C office uses. Many wazehouse and manufacturing buildings in Lowertown have been rehabilitated for Staff Report FindingslCrane Building Demolition Page Four contemporary use. Though some buildings are underurilized, only a few aze vacant. By proposing demolirion of the Crane Building, its owner is saying that iu value is the land value, because what they will have after demolirion is a piece of land, minus the cost of demolition. Such an equation might look like this: land value is 9,377 sq. ft times $20 = $187,540, minus demolition cost of $ I 12,000, leaves net value of $'75,540. If the building were worth anywhere neaz $1.4 million, the owner would not be paying to demolish it, with a pazcel of land worth $187,540 as a resuk. Demolifion would be premature until a fair price is asked for the building and there aze no takers. Perhaps the applicant would be willing to sell the building for fl�e real value they appear to place on it, e.g., $75,540 plus three months' carrying costs and a five percent realtor's fee,...or even $187,540. T'hese figures aze e�camples and estimates rather than appraisals. Options to facilitate the rehabilitation of the Crane Building might include 1) the City's STAR program, 2) a ta�c inccement £mancing (TIF) district, 3) historic ta�c credits, 4) a facade easement, and 5) working with City staff in PED. PED staff are willing to work with the applicant but believe that previous proposals for the building have been unrealistic. � It appears that the high sale price of the Crane Building has been a very significant obstacle to its reuse. A realis6c, market-based price could result in significant investment in the building . which would result in much greater economic value and usefulness than would a pazking lot. � a�-al3 • • HPC FILE #3 ] 72 CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL HERTTAGE PRESERVATION COMII�SSION STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: Demolish Crane Building APPLICANT: Baillon Company (and A. Kamish & Sons) DATE OF APPLICATION: 10.29.97 DATE OF HEARING: 12.11.97 LOCAITON: 281 East Fifth Street (north comer at Wall Street) HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Lowertown district CLASSIFICATION: Major CATEGORY: Supportive STAFF INVESTIGAITON AND REPORT: DATE: 12.8.97 BY: Aazon Rubenstein A. STTE DESCRIPTION: The Crane Building is a six-story, orange brick, wazehouse building designed by the firm of Reed and Stem and constructed in 1904. Features include banded piers, small windows, radiating brickwork at the entrance, and a corbeled brick comice. B. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant proposes to demolish the structure. C. GUIDELINE CTTATIONS: The Lowertown Heritage Preservation District guidelines refer to the HPC ordinance, Chapter 73 of the Legislative Code, concerning demolition: In the case of the proposed demolition of a building, prior to approval of said demolirion, the commission shall make written findings on the following: Architectural and historical merit of the building, the effect of the demo[ition on surrounding buildings, the effect of arry proposed new construction on the remainder of the building (in case of partial demolition) and on surrounding buildings, and the economic value or usefulness of the building as it now exists or if altered or modifzed in comparison with the value or usefulness of arry proposed structures designated to replace the present building or buildings. D. FINDINGS: 1. Background/introduction: � a. � The applicant has owned the building for almost 20 years, during which time it has been essentially vacant with minor exceptions. The gross azea is 65,000 square feet and the net (usable or rentable) azea is 54,000 square feet. The lot azea and building footprint aze 9,377 squaze feet. The building is of reinforced concrete construction. The fust floor is curtently leased by Allright Pazking for equipment storage. The applicant proposes to demolish the building because it is economically burdensome, i.e., costs for tazes, insurance, and maintenance in excess of $20,000 annually, yet it provides little to no income. The applicant has tried to lease or sell the building for years with no takers. HPC Staff Report: File #3172 Page Two � c. The building is in fair condition, though it is essentially a shell. Ii needs a new roof (leaking has caused some damage to the brick on the Wall Street elevarion). The freight elevator is approximately 25 years old but not opentional. The boiler is not functional, and e�tisting radiators would provide only enough heat for a wazehouse-type use. District Heat runs through the building. d. The applicant claims that it is not economically feasible to reuse or rehabilitate the building and notes these particulaz problems: high windows, column spacing, lack of pazking, and obsolete or non-e�stent mechanicals. e. The applicant owns a 73-stall parking lot to the north of the Crane Building. The applicant has stated that the Crane Building site would probably be used for surface parking also. A pazking lot on the Crane Building site would accommodate 28 or 29 stalls (nonstacked). A site plan for such use has not been submitted. f. County taY records indicate a$100,000 contract for deed on the property recorded in 1978, the yeaz in which the applicant purchased the property.- The terms of-the contract aze not known and this is not necessarily the purchase price. g. Because the Crane Building is a contributing shvcture in a National Register historic district, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA� wouid need to be prepazed ifthe HPC denies approval of the demolifion permit and the applicant appeals this decision to the CiTy Council. An EAW would delay the City Council public heazing by several months. • 2. The Crane Building is azchitecturally and historically significant. It is categorized as supportive to the ]oca] disirict and contributing to the national district. The building's design is rather unusual in I,owertown, with banded piers, regulazly spaced though smallish windows (taller at the second story), orange brick, and a recessed entry stairway with glass risers. The building is cleazly distinctive in the azchitectural landscape of I.owertown. The building is also significant as the work of the prominent Saint Paul architectural firm of Reed and Stem (ca. 1890-1910). The firm specialized in railroad stations and desigied over 100 of them across the country, including a collaboration with Warren & Witmore on New York's Grand Central Station. Saint Paul buildings by Reed and Stem include the Saint Paul Hotel (1910), the Goodkind Houses at 5 and 7 Heather Place (1910), the Minnesota Boat Club on Raspberry Island, the University Club at 420 Summit (1912), and residences at 340 Summit Avenue and 530 Grand Hill. Stem designed the building at 282 East Sixth Street which houses Seestedt's Carpeu. The Crane Building is also significant for its associations with the Crane and Ordway Company and Lucius P. Ordway. By 1897, the company was the world's lazgest manufacturer of valves, fittings, and steam supplies. The subject building served as a warehouse. Lucius Ordway and a paztner acquired control of the three-year old 3M Company in 1905 and he was its president from 1906 to 1909. The Lowertown building that the Crane and Ordway Company occupied prior to completion of the subject building is no longer extant and is the site of a parking lot. 3. In the most narrow tetms, it appeazs that replacing the Crane Building with a parking lot would . not have a detrimental effect on surrounding buildings. The northeast side wall of the Crane a8 - a l� � HPC Staff Report: File #3172 Page Three Building is actually the southwest wall of Mazkethouse (the Tighe Building, constructed 1902). In demolishing the Crane Building, care would have to be taken to not damage the Mazkethouse building. In most significant terms, however, demolition of the building and replacing it with a surface parking lot would be terribly detrimental to the context of sucmunding buildings and to the chazacter, integity, and quality of the L,owertown Heritage Preservation District. A very important part of the chazacter of this wazehouse district is the city blocks filled up with small and large warehouse and manufacturing buildings, one after the other, creating strong lines of building walls enclosing the street. This fundamental building pattem is already significantly eroded in Lowertown. These historic buildings, in isolation, sepazated by pazking lots, lose their context and impact. The Lowertown district cannot afford to lose more historic buildings.. Many have already been demolished, leaving a somewhat spotty fabric of buildings. The Crane Building has a pivotal location, helping to enclose the north end of the Farmers Mazket. The mazket is an important civic space sffongly enclosed at the two ends by warehouse buildings. The rivo sides of the mazket are enclosed weakly; two corners previously occupied by buildings are now surface parking lots. � The character and integrity of the eastem half of the Lowertown district, in particulaz, has been eroded by the replacement of historic buildings with pazking lots. On the eight blocks in the eastern half of the district, bounded by Kellogg, Seventh, Wacouta and Broadway (Northern W azehouse and Tilsner buildings excluded), there aze thirteen surface pazking lots, ten of which sites were previously occupied by buildings, most of them three to five stories in height. (The Farmers Mazket, which is used for contract pazking during the week, is counted as one of the thirteen lots.) These parking lots account for 22 percent of the land azea in this eight block azea (public right-of-way excluded) if the mazket is not counted as parking and for 31 percent of the land azea if the mazket is counted as pazking. Putting a pazking lot on the Crane Building site would increase these figures by two percent. (All figures aze approximate.) To lose another Lowertown building at this edge of downtown would have a significant adverse impact on the character and integrity of the district (and provide only 28 or 29 pazking spaces). If the district is to thrive as a neighborhood, a place to work and live, and as a historic azea, it needs buildings and more people and uses in and azound them rather than more pazking lots. 4. The Crane Building, as it now stands, has little economic value or usefulness. The 1997 assessed value of the land and building is $207,500 (building has six stories, assessed value based on five stories). To demolish the building, however, would desuoy the potential for future economic value which e�cists. The key problem appeus to be that the applicant is asking, and has asked, faz too high a price for the building--$1.4 million--which precludes reuse and rehabilitation (numerous knowledgeable sources have suggested that this is the case). Some • figures: HPC StaffReport: Fi]e #3172 Page Four a. The asking price for the building is $23.53/sq. ft. (based on the average of the gross and net floor azeas, which is 59,500 sq. ft., as suggested by the applicanYs realtor). The $1.4 million asking price does not include the adjacent pazking lot to the north. b. Knowledgeable sources have suggested that compazable buildings in Lowertown aze selling for two to ten dollazs per square foot and that the Crane Building should sell for a price in this range--and probably less than ten dollars, A very recent appraisal of the 90,000 sq. ft, vacant, James J. Hill Building values the building at $278,500, or $3/sq. ft. gross. c. Several sources have suggested that land values in Lowertown aze in the $10-12/sq. ft. range, while several others have suggested the figure could be as high as $20/sq. ft. A supervisor in the County Assessor's office estimates I.owertown land values at $10-15/sq. ft. or three to four thousand dollazs per pazking stall. d. The cost to demolish the Crane Building is $112,000 according to the property owner and demolition contractor. Some sources have questioned this figure, particularly for a concrete building, and one source estimated the cost could be $300,000 or more depending on hazardous materials. u It appears that a new use for the Crane Building might very well be found if the sale price reflected the market realiTy for unimpmved wazehouse space and the condition of the building. Potential uses might include Iight industrial, artists studios (nonresidential), business incubator, � mini-storage, indoor mazket, raw, low-tech space like the Rossmor Building, or some combination of these uses. Office and residential uses would likely require a greater investment and therefore might be more difficult to accomplish. In addition, residential uses would probably require enlarging the e�cisting widow openings which would be e�cpensive and significantly alter the design and character of the building. Several developers consulted by HPC staff said they had looked at the Crane Building in the past but were deterred by the price and/or that they would be interested in the building if the price reflected the reality of the mazketplace. The Allen Building, to the north of the Crane Building across Sixth Street, is somewhat similar to the Crane Building. It also has high windows, though more of them. It was rehabilitated ten yeazs ago and is now cecupied by a variery of warehouse, light industrial, and CIass C office uses. Many wazehouse and manufacturing buildings in Lowertown have been rehabilitated for contemporary use. Though some buildings aze underutilized, only a few aze vacant. By proposing demolition of the Crane Building, its owner is saying that its value is the land value, because what they will have after demotidon is a piece of land, inutus the cost of demolition. Such an equation might look like ttus: land value is 9,377 sq, ft times $20 = $187,540, minus demolition cost of $112,000, leaves net value of $75,540. If the building were worth anywhere neaz $1.4 million, the owner would not be paying to demolish it, with a pazcel of land worth $187,540 as a result. Demolition would be premature until a fair price is asked for the building and there are no takers. Perhaps the applicant would be willing to seil the building for the real value they appear to place on it, e.g., $75,540 plus three months' carrying costs and a five percent realtor's fee,...or even $187,540. These figures are examples and • estimates rather than appraisals. �g-a 13 � HPC Staff Report: File #3172 Page Five Options to facilitate the rehabilitation of the Crane Building might include 1) the City's STAR program, 2) a taY increment financing (TIF) district, 3) historic taz credits, 4) a facade easement, and 5) working with City staff in PED. PED staff aze willing to work with the applicant but believe that previous proposals for the building have been unrealistic. It appears that the high sale price of the Crane Building has been a very sign�cant obstacle to its reuse. A realistic, mazket-based price could result in significant investment in the building which would result in much greater economic value and usefulness than would a pazking lot. E. STAFF RECODII�fENDATION: Based on the above fmdings, staffrecommends denial of the requested demolition permit for the Crane Building. r� L_J \ J SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION SITES AND DISTRICTS DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION SITE ADDRESS: Name of applicant: Company: Address (include Zip Code): Phone number: ;Z�l �ast- Stk Streei- 5}. Pawt.yp�lnyesu+a. aa� I.l.ov� cow.paKy � /yoy Eusf � m�n.uso � 6«-ZZZ-ssss, ��z-xzz-rssb Fax Applicant's signature: /,�� `� �i....P.!•�i�-� �,wF�'^� Date /�/io/t � , Type of application: ❑ Repair/Rehabilitation ❑ New Construction ❑ Other �j Demolition � Sign � Moving ❑ Concept Review Only I understand that it is my responsibility as the applicanf stated above to contact Zoning Administration at 266-9008 to determine any further reviews required p�ior to issuance of a building permit by the Ciiy of Saint Paul. � (initial) of Work: (or aftach copy of written description of '�jevwe��t�o� of �c.�l�(iKf at 2S1 Eaf� SYt+ Sf. SE.pGHI�n1iKHPSa �cKOwn at y�tee C�a✓.e l3K�lc(�Kq _ 5+}e -to be Lev{1P� rtl� yfar�l �..pu.� C�Nn��2f�tl� o� GPP4�*ult�'tt/n oF (sui/��sfy Attach addiiiona/ sheeis i! neccessary Conditions and Materials: Materiais included (See reverse side for requiremenfs) ❑ 3 copies of plans ❑ Site plan ❑ Buiiding permit application�� Photographs , ❑Other �¢„,�ot;f�en P�rruit was pie�aks�r swo��fi"`�"!bY A.Ka'1a�3h+5on5. � File Number: � l / �-� Category: ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Major GJ CITY OF SAINT PAUL - OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 PROJECT z g � Number Street Name s ♦�♦ DEMOLITION . ��1I PERMITAPPLICATION . SecSon I - INFORMATIONAL - o StA�e,Etc. N,S,E,W Building Name St, �asr C�tqN� l34;)JI4..� Add (v�aW�ioa�a�ov,acamaaor�� PhOne Contrector [� �� S•ps �'�„c. � �� (IncludeContactPenon) 5�?wat y4�so PropertyOwner QA�}jo �,,,P,a.y d Residential Garage � ress `�� p �pwcon.c , City .� Nu�/t � P.au� t�}s State,Zip+4 yy�,� , S$'07L Address J �I � y ��s7 / — ,nk��po.�c �< city 332 1'Y1;N...:et� st, State,Zip+q Sf• Ppi,� y►�„r, a^5'/O/ I 12{L2 �yo�.S f. --.....-•-- Commercial � Date �1 �� 9 7 Enrer type of Strucmre ro be W recked: [o be Description: LOT V` , � the Contract 1 WIDTH LENGTH w �+da�.s � � Lo {� BLOCK ADDITIOY OR TRACT ] � c�(� w l� i?N�y � L c ,�' � �f To[al 2 o �� ,� � � p-� � HEIGHT 7� Date � a-zs-� 6�2 /3�A lv / 2 - 222 - SSSS $ >>z.00a TOTAL CUBIC FEET G93,oan cr c � ��1.• R 'CO�� Y a. 1� Does the Structure have a Basement? � � YES �NO � ��r, � Properry ^ � � � � ��^ � IDNumber }� (pm) � 3� One(1) Foot 4❑ Ot6er (Explaio ii Relnw (:rade the Cnmmmt Are Applicant certifies that all information is correct and that all pertinent state regulations and city ordinances will be compiied w� h in perFprming the work for which this permi�� 1l4ti,c C, � l►�. /.�/�A-�--- 5�S/ -13 8 � � Aoolicant'scSianature Phone# Publi � wailabili Credit THIS MUST BE PART OF ALL WRECIQNG � p�'1'g. Ca11Pub1icWorksInspec 40 Ci� Hdll ` >_Ilogg Bivd W qg'-4700 24 houn in advance oE work. voids in City rightof-way mustbe filled and Reviewer for SAC) sealed.CzIl2Kr _..__,_,ailabilityCharges Number of Credik �wer Dept•City Hall Annex-t0th FI 25 4th St W �� `� , �� ater Department-Commerce Building 2nd Ftoo�th StrQet E / /i 1/ %�l% (/( � � � U- �5-5 Two(2) Feet 300, Lowry Peter Street App�ed Extermination FAX � T � Permit Fee $ � . (Minimum $42.00) Would you like your Make check payable to CiTy of St. Paul permit faxed if yes, enter your fax number: t0 YOU� ► YES � NO � PAYMENT MAY BE MADE BY CREDIT CARD! If paying by credit card, piease complete the following information: MasterCard � Expiration Date:❑ ❑ I a❑ V/SA� qccount Number: Name of Cardholder (please print) � I OFFICE OF LICE\SE, f�SPECT1055 A\D ENVIROV�tE\TAL PROTECTIOV Ro6er1 Kessler, Di�ecmr CITY OF SAINT PAUL A'orm Coleman, Afapar LOfi'RY PROFESSIO.NAL BG'ILDIA'G Suite 300 350 Sf. Peter Street Sain1 Pau{ A4irmesom 5510?-I5/0 7elephone: 6/2-266-9090 Facsimile: 612-76b9099 � 5 A'ovember 1997 Mr. Paul Baillon Baillon Company 332 Minnesota Street #E1404 Saint Paul, MN 55101-] 317 Dear Mr. Baillon: As rve discnssed by telephone on October 37, the Heritage Preser�ation Commission (HPC) tivill need addicionat information from you, conceming the status ofthe Crane Building and any proposed use ofthe site, in order to consider and make a decision on the demolition permit. Please provide the following information: 1. The reason for the proposed demolition. 2. Sufficient information to determine «�hether it is or is not economically feasible to reuse or rehabilitate the buildin�. 3. Efforts ;�ou have made over the years to sell or lease the building and why they have failed, e.g., why prospective buyers have tumed away. 4. Plans for any new use or bui]ding on the site, e.g., detailed plans for a parking lot including fencing or tanc3scaping. 5. R'hat is the asking price for sale of the building and why is it so much greater than the assessed value? Are you a�i�are of other comparable buildings in the area that have sold for a compazable amount? 6. Have you considered using historic tax credits or low income housing tax credits to rehabilitaTe the buildin�? 7. How long has the building been vacant and w�hat were previous uses? When did your company buy the building and how did you expect it to be used at that time? 8. What do you believe would be necessary to successfully reuse or rehabilitate the building? 9. Any other information to help the HPC understand the building and your situation. As I mentioned when we spoke by phone, I believe the HPC will be very concemed about the economic viability ofreuse and rehabilitation. P1eaze provide whatever information you can, such as pro formas, etc., about this issue. In order for the commission to consider the demolition application at its November 20, 1997 meeting, I wil] need to have this information by November 13th and sooner if possible. As you requested, I have enclosed the Lowertown district design review guidelines, a map of the National Register district, a list of HPC members, and an HPC information sheet Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, `�� Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner . • � � � BAII,LON COMPANY 332 Minnesota Street Suite E-1404 Saint Paul DTinnesota 55101 (^ t ("( � a��di3 Y�L� �1�v I-SJ -��= �,� �.� C'=: __. _. ' G7 ii�; 12 P;l 2� 17 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 November 10, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Protection Re: Demolition Permit for building located at 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MN, also known as the Crane Building Dear Mr. Rubenstein: In response to your letter of November 5, 1997, regarding the above (copy enclosed), we are enclosing below our answers to your 9 questions. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES 1) QUESTION: The reason for the proposed demolition. ANSWER: We have owned the building for approximately 20 years. Over the years numerous, repeated efforts to lease, develop and/or sell the building have been unsuccessful. As a result, the building is and has been an economic burden and a financial liability for many years, and it has experienced substantial physical deterioration. The building is now essentially only a shell. • 2) QUESTION: or is not building. ANSATER : Sufficient information to determine whether it is economically feasible to reuse or rehabilitate the See answer to Questions 3 and 8. 1 � 3) QIIESTION: Efforts you have made over the years to sell or � lease the building and why they have failed, e.g., why prospective buyers have turned away. 4) ANSWSR: The Owner, Baillon Company, is also a Real Estate Broker and has attempted to sell or lease the building itself. Several developers have submitted plans to the City of St. Paul over the years and attempted to obtain City financing and other funding for development of the property as housing, including low income housing, and no funding has been available. In addition, through the years, Baillon Company listed the building with several different Commercial Real Estate Brokers, including Zehring & Angleson, Garfield Clark Associates, Welsh Companies, and Kohns Commercial Real Estate. The building has also been marketed through for sale signs, listings in the Commercial Multiple Listing, direct mail and ads in various trade publications. Also, we have had several teams oP experts study the building for possible development uses. The prospective buyers, tenants, developers and e�erts who have considered the building have cited several reasons for not proceeding, including but not limited to: lack of economic feasibility, lack of cooperation from the City of St. Paul and other influential quasi political City of St. Paul entities, federal income tax law changes, difficult column spacing within the building, unworkable window sizes and high window heights, The extensive amount of remodeling which would � be required to gain win8ow functionality, mechanical obsolescence of the building, functional obsolescence, high cost to remodel, lack of air conditioning, lack of updated electric service, lack of updated plumbing system, lack of passenger elevator, lack of adequate heating system, worn out roof, energy inefficiency, worn out windows, need cornice repairs, non-functional chimney, possibility of asbestos. QUESTION: Plans for e.g., detailed plans landscaping. any new use or building on the site, for a parking lot including fencing or ANSWER: After the demolition of the building, we are considering using the underlying land for parking. We plan to submit any required detailed plans to the City at such time that we apply for a parking lot permit. 5) QtJEST20N: What is the asking price for sale of the building and why is it so much greater than the assessed value? Are you aware of other comparable buildings in the area that have sold for a comparable amount? ANSWER: The asking price is $1,400,000. In our experience as a Real Estate Broker, asking prices and sales prices are typically higher than assessed values. The building has also • been offered extensively for rent at $1.50 per square foot rental, which is a very competitive rate, with no takers. 2 �� q�-��3 • • � 6) 7) � 9) QIIESTION: i-iave you considered using historic tax credits or low income housing tax credits to rehabilitate the building? ANSWER Yes. QIIESTION: How long has the building been vacant and what were previous uses? When did your company buy the building and how did you expect it to be used at that time? A23SWER: `Phe building was built by Crane Company in 1904 as a plumbing warehouse and has been vacant since Rayette Company ceased using it as a warehouse for their beauty products in 1950. We bought the building in 1978 for development and investment purposes. The building has been vacant since we bought it 20 years ago, except that the second floor was rented for a couple of years in the 1970s as unheated storage to Buckbee Mears, and except for one short term month to month tenant who began renting one floor for unheated storage in October 1997. QUESTION: What do you believe would be necessary to successfully reuse or rehabilitate the building? ANSWER: At this point, we do not believe we can successfully or profitably reuse or rehabilitate the building, which is why we wish to take it down. QUESTION: Any other information to help the HPC understand the building and your situation. ANSWER: The present cost to operate the building (property taxes, insurance, maintenance, management) is over $20,000.00 per year. Baillon Company has incurred these operating costs every year for the past 20 years; yet has had no rental income except for the nominal amounts received during the years noted above. If you still wish to do a walk through viewing of the building, please let me know so that we may schedule a time. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY ��wQ/�. // �/,r.t� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj Enclosure File: Heritage 3 '1 OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTION$ AND ENV[RONMENTALPROTECTfON Robert Kessleq Direcror CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor 26 November 1997 Mr. Paul Baillon Baillon Company 332 Minnesota Street #E1404 Saint Paul, MN 55 7 O 1 Dear Mr. Baillon: LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUILDING Suite 300 350 St. Peter So-eet Sain� Paul, Minnesota 55l01-l510 BY FAX TO: 222-5556 Telephone: 6/2-266-9090 Facsimile: 672-266-9099 Thank you for your letter of November l Oth and for arranging for the tour of the Crane Building last Friday. As we have discussed several times, I believe the members of the Heritage Preservation Commission will be quite concemed about the economic feasibility of using or rehabilitating the Crane Building. The Lowertown Heritage Preservation District guidelines make reference to the HPC's ordinance conceming demolition, which states that the commission shall make findings about "the economic value or usefulness of the building as it now exists or if altered or modified in compazison with the value or usefulness of any proposed structures designated to replace the present building." Your letter of November l Oth does not include any specific data conceming the feasibility of rehabilitation. Please feel free to provide additional information. It would be preferable to provide any additional information to me by December 3rd. If you wish to provide additional information but cannot do so by December 3rd, please let me know. Sincerely, 7�'1�9t1 G 1 �4��/��{1J� " V Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner C J • ►2 a�-�l3 � BAILLON COMPANY 332 Minncsota Street Suite �1404 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 i � December 2, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Iaspections and Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Environmental Protection Re: Demolition Permit for building located at 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MN, also known as the Crane Building Dear Mr. Rubenstein: I am responding to your letter of 13ovember 26, 1997, wherein you have requested information regarding the economic feasibility of rehabilitating the Crane Building. As I have mentioned, we do not believe it is economically feasible or sensible to rehab the building. This becomes even more self-evident when you consider that during the past ten years over 50 prospects represented by numerous real estate brokers have looked at and studied the building for purchase and developmer.t and have reached the same conclusion. In addition, in 1984, we hired a consultant who studied the feasibility of converting the building into apartments, and she came up with a total project cost of $4,400,000, and based on projected rentals, the project would not amortize the debt. In 1996, when the property was listed for sale with Welsh Companies, they had their affiliate, Welsh Construction Company, do cost estimates on converting the building into apartments, and they arrived at a total project cost of $4,603,000, again a number that could not be amortized by projected rentals. F� /3 We have recently talked to commercial real estate brokers and Architects who tell us that the cost to build a new apartment building comparable in size to the Crane Building would be in the range of $4,000,000 to $4,300,000, not including the cost of the land to build it on. The above facts indicate why it is not economically feasible to rehab the Crane Building. On an economic basis, it is our belief that most investors would prefer to construct a new building rather than rehab the Crane Building because they would end up with a new building of the same size for less money than it would cost to rehab the Crane Building. In addition, a new building would be more efficient to operate, would yield more usable space, would yield an increased net income and cash flow, and could include such amenities as indoor parking, light and air from al1 sides, normal window heignts, etc. I think the lack of economic feasibility explains why none of the many developers who have looked at the building have proceeded. If you need anything further, please let me know. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY ��..p�_ /�'� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj File:Hertage2 2 � � i �¢ FHR�JW (11-06� United States Department of the Interior Heritage C�nservation and Recreation Service �ationai Register of Histo�ic Places Inventory—tdomination Form q�-a,l� For HCRS use onty received date entered Continuation sh:-et Item number 7 page 17 2. HISTORIC NA;; : Rayette Building COPi10:� NAPfE; Control Corpora[ion Building ADDRESS: 261-279 E. Sth Street D�1TE: 1909 ARCHITECT: Postle, Mahler and Denson SLPPORTI�'E This large seven story mildly Classical Revival style building was built in 1909 as a manu- acturing building at a cost of $143,000. The building was constructed for David C. Shepard, a eading railroad contractor and longtime member of the board of directors of the First National :3nk. It was probably built as a manufacturing building for a client uith a long term lease. n 1916 it c.�as the home of the Stronge and Warner Company and for many years the building housed :�c Rayette Company. It was designed by Postle, Plahler and Denson and was constructed by F. J. �,,:�er. 'Ihe building is faced in cream colored brick and has a symmetrical facade with a central ncrance flanked by columns in antis. Ttie buildinb }ias been purchased recently by Control Data orporation. They have converted the building to office space at a cost of $1.5 .million and ave replaced [he windows with more energy efficient tinted glass. 3. H1S"IURIC NA,�tE: Crane Buildino �—+ CO?L�10S rAME: Crane Buildino .�DURESS: 281-287 E. Sth Street DA'CE: 1904 �CHITECT: Reed and Stem SUPPOFTIGE This large brick building was built in 1904 at a cost of $60,000 as a warehouse for the rane and Ord�aay Company. The firm had previously been located at 248-252 E. 4th Street. The rane an3 Ordway Company was established in 1893 with its original partners being Lucius P. Ord- �ay of St. Paul and R. T. Crane of Chica�o. The company was formed to consolidate the firms of ;odgers and Orway of St. Paul and Duluth and a Plinneapolis brancli of the Crane Company. The Rod- ;ers and Ordway Company was the successor to the firm of t:ilson and Rodgers which was the oldest 'irm in the Northwest which specialized in valves, fittings, and steam supplies. By 1897, the :rane Company was the largest nanufacturer of these supplies in the world and employed over 3,000 �eople at their Chicago plant. In :�linnesota the firr.i maintained offices in St. Paul, Minneapolis ind Duluth. Lucius P. Ordway came to St. Paul from 1'rovidence, Rhode Island in 1883. In 1905 he �nd Edgar Ober acquired control of the Minnesota :fining and Planufacturing Company (3rf) which was :stablished in 1902. Shortly therea[ter they occupied a plant in Duluth where sandpaper and �ther abrasive products were manufactured. Ordway served as the president of 3M from 1906-09. le was also one of the founders of the t.'f�ite Bear Lake Yacht Club and was instrumental in buildin; -he Hotel St. Paul. The Crane Building was designed by the nationally known architects, Reed and Stem, who also lesigned the Hotel St. Pau1 and the building at 282 E. 6th Street which now houses Seestedt Car- �et Company. The Crane Building is a utilitarian commercial building �ahich features unusual poly- :hromatic brickwork, quoin-like motifs, a corbelled brick cornice, and a carved stone plaque read- �ng "Crane" between the fifth and sixth stories. Due to its location on a hill, the building has ;ix stories on its Sth Street facade and five stories on the north side of the building facing ith Street. The building is presently underutilized but is basically intact and in good conditio: ia ixth Street--south side from vacant lot at southwest corner of 6th and Sibley to Broadwav Street. )4. HISTORIC NAME: Unknown COI�itON NAME: Seestedt Carpets ADDRESS: 282 E. 6th Street DATE: 1859 �� ARCHITECT: Allen H. Stem SUPPORTIVE `� � � '� .`§ ��; s�� .r w r � _ �: `� `c;�'�� i .:� �' �. - 5 a�` k: E�i e �' i ��. �4 a � �g � '��.� �F a � �e x ` z �R J �� . � ' .; 'r: � �� <� �-F /%4�#"� � � r�.�� :�'�-,. : o � � '- _ �� u^ � � � aW . � �� "� �` ��} s . . . . 3� 3. w �� §i s �fS '�:y,f , _ � :� "''�� `` � i s �..�.�.J.� ..�. �. .... �u.��....v��.�� r - C � � .�'.��.t a � ID-32-29-22-33-0042-0 �■ OWNER ■� BPILLON COMPANY FIRST NHTIONRL BRRIK BLDG 332 MINNESOTA ST SIIITE E 1404 ST PHIJL MN 551011317 �� H57DR/PROP ADDRESS �� 287 STH ST E ST. PAUL MN 551011904 _ _ _ TRRNS..O6/30/83 IPISTR..06/26/83 ■■ DESCRIPTION �� T.00833 WHITPIEY AP1D SHITHS ADDITION TO ST. PAUL SWLY 64 6T/700 FT OF LOTS 4 5 RNO lOT 6 BLK 12 � QPI i(024,002) u � qs-al3 COMMENTS—NO 10/31/97 4:21 PM MKT URLU TRX CRP DIST 03 1996 L 75,000 9,545 SD 625 B 132,SOD CI FD USE B T 207,500 IdTR C 199T L 75,000 6,350 TI B 132,500 CH SkRt T 207,500 SWR2 1997 TAX PAYABLE . __ LC_ ORIG 15,659.44 DLG ADJ .00 CJ PRID 15,859.44 YB BAL .00 LOT R HSSMTS PRINC & INTEREST 41 0032 741.00 .00 D 0050 46.00 .00 SQ FT 0070 99.00 .00 9377 0080 786.00 .00 SQ FT 0097 54.54 .00 GROUtdD 0546 217.57 257.7T 2164 40.00 28.60 TYPE TOTL 7.3T8.71 280.37 '� z� � I i��'+�!�•� �--I';.; s t ''�'. y• I'; li � E. 7 PL ��. E. 7 T� 5 ' C - . ZB � � � o '� R �`, �� S _ : 6 t? F-2 � ------- STa " � �'...�i. : � � _*� (,OV�tE�.1'Ou�� 4�f� (TtF(r� +::::::;� t.::+;i:::..:;_<; ::,:-��_ r :;:;;;;:. ...::::.. `:::.._:' . P�S��il�T(oN b I ST �� cr , : : ::; ; '° `.: : . ,::::;:_::.::: • : �, � � : -::: -. : : :'° : : �: __: . ; N E.>= :::::.:.::::::::.:::;.:;::.... E. r �5tt: L::.>. ; :.t; i,} •_...,>��... ..... - .�. .-r�.,,, �.--i.:;_ "' . . . .. . �:�:.-...:: .:: . � _.�.-L.`.. `. �'"`��.• ...1 T T_ _ �* shaded areas aze parking lots ;* 4B indicates that a 4 story building formerly occupied the parcel, SB = 5 stories, etc. — _� �."�� — :.:i-::.. _. : . _..._... E' � � • � � ---�'R RAILWAY & MILL SUPPLIES, PIPE & FITTINGS, WELL MACHINERY, WIND �LLS, PUMPS ETC � t � � ��e. � q �t� �'� � S � !�++ � _ MINING,MILL, CONTRACTORS & LUMBERMENS SUPPLIES PLUMBERS & STEAM FITTERS GOODS. MAiN OFFICE 248.250,252 E FOt1RTH ST.ST PAUL. �fL�V1aUS ��'�`�'� �� U�'�trdf�y �o- Butt,Dt�U — �1�h.t7t,l S�t�I>� 1�6ot/� i("t� � F� {'F�n-K� i�14- UaT � � S�utz�,� = G�tn��z�� t,.��i�t�- T�v6Z ��c,�u� �9 T � DACOTAH • COMPANIES 287 E. Sixth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 • Tel (612) 224-29Q7 • Fax (612) 291-7074 December 4, 1997 Tracy Baker Chair, Heritage Preservation Commission c/o Aaron Rubenstein City of St. Paul 350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 Beaz Ms. Baker: c� � 0 � c� i U'� -� 0 It has come to our attenrion that the owners of the Crane Building, located on the corner of Wall and 5'� Street, has filed for a demolition pernut. We have owned the Allen Building, located between Wall and Broadway on the north side of 6'� Street, since 1946. We strongly object to the demolition of any further buildings in the Lowertown area. While we concede there is a strong need for additional pazking for the area, tearing down buildings for surface parldng is not a solution. There is no reason the Crane Building can not be suitably renovated and put back into economic use. Five years ago there may have been an argument that the building had little commercial viability, but now is not the case. Our building is a mixture of office/warehouselbigh tech space that is nearly 90% fiill. I understand that other buildings, that aze properly kept up and managed, aze equally successful. Other than parking, wtrich is a result of the azea's success, what the area needs is more critical mass, more buildings, and more activity to achieve long term stability. Since there is finite supply of buildings, the demolirion of this asset would be very counter productive. Parking is a concern. However, I believe it is best addressed by using un-built land east of Broadway. Ttris azea is presently being surface parked or is vacant. This is the ideal location for mega raznps ala Minneapolis 2� StreetlI-394 corridor. With its excellent freeway access, the construction of ramps in this area would enable the continue growth of the St. Paul core, retain the historic buildings of the area, and give the Lowertown azea a giganYic boast in commercial growth. I urge you to deny the demolition pernut for the Crane Building, and instead encourage you to work with the owner, or future developer, to residentially or commercially develop the property. Yo \ u}ily, C� ��i<�� Chazles W. Erickson = �„ _;�, _;:� � � s Zv 12�09�9? 12�20 $ 612 223 5706 P• �� -a l� • December 9, 2997 Commissioner Tkacey Baker, Chair Heritage Preseroallon Commission C/o Aaron Rubenstein Office of License, Inspec8ons & Environmental ProtecHon 350 St. Peter St. Suite 310 St. Pau2, MN 55102 Dear Ms, Baker: �� Rt�6ex f.'. Hcu Afe�orAF+rm GNrman .VkrmNl. Aamrt te�eam+ [bin �p� H. Nftla+n 6nIj�•RSnrsef G. Rk6ard 5(aGe WWmN7g Lu Fresldex( I just learned from your staff about the request for the demolition of the Crane Building. AS this is historically one of the most important buildings remaining in St. Paul, I do hope that in the interest of preserving St. Paul's heritage, you will help to persuade the owner not to demoiish it, but to make azwther effort to save lt. � Built 3n 1904, the Crane Building was designed by the nationally known architects Reed and Stem, who also designed the Tiotel St. Paul. The build'zng featured unusual polychromatic brickwork, quoin-like motifs, a wrbelled brick cornice, and a carved stone plaque reading "Crane" between the fifth and sixth stories. It was used as a warehouse by the Crane and Ordway Co., a successor to the Wilson and Rodgers Company, which wes the oldest firm in the Northwest. By 1897, the Crane Company was the largest manufacturer of steam valves, fittings and supplies in the world, Luctus Ordway, one of the owners, was one of the original fpunders of the 3M Company. AS you know, Lowertown is a historic dtstrict with some 39 buildings on the National Register. When we first began the Lowertown pro$ram under the Ciry's inidative and the McKnight Foundation's support, many of these buildings were empty and deteriorati.ng. Taday, through the efforts of many - inciuding the City of St. Paul, private initiatives ar►d pnbTic/private partnerships - almost 3/4 of the buildings have been successfully rehabilitateci to office, housing, artists' lvfts, galleries, cafes, retail and other uses. More than �426 miilion has been invested in Lowertown. I do hope that this building will be saved, so that it may be similarly rehabilitated foz a good use. if the Secretary of the Interior`s Ttehabilitation Standaxds are met, 20°k of the rehabilitation cost can be claimed as tax credit by the owner. LpW6R7DWN RPDBSP.LQP�IFM'O�RPOILtT/ON � �n�,rsrnsr,�� Gah�aataz�a/su�n 7so Safn/ Poul, MA'SS70] G7??t79t i] I'vtz 67JYZ35708 2�` 12i09�97 12:21 S 612 223 5?08 C J �i P.B3 Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation (LRC) would be interested, as it has in the past, in working with buiiding owners, investors and clty staff to help ffnd appropriate use for tMa building. If there is a gap in the financing that can't be filled by private lenders and public agenaes, if it should meet LRC's gap financing guidelines, we would certainly be hagpy to consider it. I do hope that this fine building will be saved and new uses found for it, so that an important pazt of St. Paul's heritage can be preserved fpr today, as well as for future generations. Sincerely, � Weiming Lu , President `�-. � WL/mb � 22 • . �� P RESERVATION A LLIANCE of Minnesota `U�. •�� December 9, 1997 Commissioner Tracey Baker, Chair St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission cJo Aaron Rubenstein Office of License, Inspections & Environmental Protection 350 St. Peter St., Suite 310 St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Baker: It has come to our attention that the owners of the Crane Building, 281 E. Sth Street, ha�e applied for a permit to demolish the building and put up a parking lot. We strongly urge the Heritage Preservation Commission to deny this request and work with the owners to find an alternative reuse for this important structure. � (,"CG �e�e�r vv�,5 �a.� c� � C i' ;e _�' j rJ The Crane Building is an important part of the Lowertown neighborhood, which is both a St. Paul and National Heritage Preservation District. Lowertown is one of the most intact 19th Century warehouse districts in the nation, a truly unique resource for St. Paul. While the integrity of the historic district dces not derive from any single building, it depends on retaining the basic azchitectural fabric of the neighborhood. Since there are only 39 historic structures in Lowertown, the loss of any one threatens the historic conteat of them a11. Second, St. Paul (through the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation) has made exemplary progress in restoring the I,owertown district to life over the past 15 years and it would be a significant setback to lose this important structure now. Many national urban experts think that St. Paul's relative success in iceeping its downtown vital is due to the effort to create housing for thousands of residents in Lowertown and elsewhere. But Lowertown will lose. its appeal as a residential neighborhood if the remaining historic structures are razed. L_ J Finally, the Crane Building is an important historic structure in its own right and deserves to be saved. Built in 1904 by the noted azchitects Reed and Stexn, the building housed the Crane and Ordway Company, which at one time was the world's lazgest supplier of steam valves and plumbing supplies. One of the owners, Lucius P. Ordway, was one of the founders of the 3M Company and one of St. Paul's most notable citizens. Intemationat Mazket Squaze 275 Mazket Street Suite 54 Minneapolis MN 55405-1621 612- 338-6763 FAX: 612338-7981 Commissioner Tracey Baker December 9, 1997 The Preservation Alliance of Minnesota urges the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission and the City Council of St. Paul to deny the request to demolish the Crane Building. We encourage the City to work with the owners to find a reuse for the building. The federal goverrunent will grant tax credits for suitable rehabilitation by the owner. Please let us Irnow if we can be of assistance. S�ely, f � � ! � Roger Brooks President � � • a$�2,13 • Historic Photo�raphs of L,owertown The photographs on the following pages are keyed to the map on the following page. Pl: Crane Building, circa 1906-07. P2: Brokerage Building, south side of East Fifth Street between Wall and Broadway streets, circa 1910-20. At the left edge of the photograph is the Crane Building. In the background at left is a Gotzian Shoe Company factory, now the site of the Gillette Company building. Behind the Brokerage Building is the seven story Lindeke, Wamer & Sons Building. This block is currently occupied by the Farmers Market. P3: Lindeke, Warner & Sons Building, cuca 1908-10. P4: Employees in front of Minnesota Shoe Company Building, circa 1887-88, kitty corner from the Crane Building; site is now a gravel pazking lot. P5: Hackett, Gates and Hurty Company Building, southwest comer of Fourth and Wall streets, 1924. The portion of the building to the right still remains standing; the four bays to the left, approaching the comer of Fourth and Wall, aze no longer extant and this portion of the site is occupied by a parking lot. P6: Two buildings at southeast comer of Fourth and Wacouta streets. The second building from the � corner was the home of the Crane and Ordway Company prior to construction of their 1904 building. Both of these buildings at the Fourth and Wacouta corner were demolished in 1935 and the site is now a parking lot. P7: North side of East Fourth Street, looking west from Wacouta Street, circa 1896-1902. This photograph shows the strong, continuous street wall that is an important part of the historic character of Lowertown. All photographs from the collections of the Minnesota Historical SocieTy. � �,��n5(313A��c� "tc��ou�'�w�'('2��TA Pa,�� Wt,VP� (��"�'oa�.� � �2� II �J f �P�� ."�','et'�+1 J � z I � � �� I"�I�I•\ �-r�.� • 1 � E. 7t" PI,. �—� E. 7 �. . �g � � � �� i G -� , •o � _� ��250 `J� � a t � ' E• 6T`� St. . f �-�- ; ::. , — .., _.. ;. p t ( � �� `MEARS , ';� � � Vl��`�� \� 4 � � :' . o P �-R2� m � RARK ; '.- �,. Z. � � i-- �, F ;� .. ` .� ' .�, ti.," ST, % ` E. 5"tK S'G , . � .e .� . � • es � I R � � �s � � � LOv�IE(�?OW�1 �E� ttl4frE �:`:::: r::; PR.�S��11�4'CroN b I St e� cT ;: �:::; p � �..::.: [:..:: N k:;;:: F., :. " shaded azeas aze pazking lots ; 4B indicates that a 4 story buiiding formerly occupied the parcel, SB = 5 stories, etc. — _ � _ w : �,; ::.<,,.:::. —.:�:�-:^. ........ __.._. _:. . _ �"►�►•� `' • �;; !�IJ D O � � , o:� �� r � r.. � � r ' �R � • • PI , � I �, ca.a�rap) 45 >� P 6 fi� �T ry{ i µ' 1 . � � _ � � E. � ., � . - `� '' � � ti \ . < f � �r . �- �' ' � . �� \ � j J , ( ' a _ . � ; .�. o �-° , 4 �, � � ;- ; ,��`� ` �, a ,, � :F � �� { � f "�/ �`� L -� ; f - � '� `4. _� � � � : �, � � s�"' ' •� i � i � ' � , � .¢- �F� �. �� : ; : '� ; �� >� � � �� ; � F � �- � ��:��' - -t� � � . . �. �� x� � : � �� . . : . p- � . 4 . ... _ . y R3 ��,, s :-�� -� �� f � �. ��, � .: t �_ � '� ' , �� ` �� $ - �� Y.. � � � F � � . � [ ,�: � ��-� �- � - y � y. , � p � •�h � ��''�',�- S+. � . �,�y � 3.. � �� .� � _ �,.. � _ F �--ir2v"� .� ^ - � �,;! � ' : '� ti '3�r>'- .,�� w ' 4 ' � _r a = i 4 ��-�. R . . � Yi •r ". �: l ,.+^ y -v.� p � �,,, . f� «� � _ �...,. � - � 'l�v.A.-.�.� � 1�;..�'� , _ ` q �� i �� ,; �. � S��r�� ^ I � � . � � �pi� m P °... ♦ _°� � � � � a� ��.�-# � �_�� ' � �� -� � �� "�=`•�� °c , r. t �� . . .. � _ 3� � S.5 r�. � {- - � . � ' y � _i,i�,�€ s �`j�_:.'" * � � �Q�.�-�{� � � � a' � 5 � �`� ' � � ,�f i � � � } � ..: �x.��'�� .3 � �_�-� �� - � '�' �� 4F F- .. C � � _ .. _ � ;_ _ -� -. Y � � � _ � � �� v i �.^'' - ! a - _ � � `� ^ `� � J ' • •` ..._'._ ! t � ..a -:. �-i..:�_ ... -_ n � 1 5 � �l _ �� \ { y, ` � *0.e� � ; '��-' . [ , s ° �.�:._ ' -�: °_,K-�"��`" � -.. ... _ �,.,� _ ` � __— — �; . _ _. , �.. � ;`— _ , ._ - --- ,. _- � ` - __ - x �,, _:;: _ , �--- . _ ,.. _.e_�- -,-, � _�- __--_ _ � _ �•r � � � �-� � _ � �� k . . -, _ ___ _ . � i � , � � ` �� ' - _. . �_ _ " � �`,� ' � .�-'� ; 4 , ,, s � �'�°x� � ��'��7� �-.. � . i �� Y2't , �= � . . � `� � ,r � . . -. . . , _ . . �: : a - � : . . . . _ _ . � . . . . � �,�"' i � �� .. . � " � +#ASo . - �. � .. . .. . ., . �� . �, j y . � �. -._?� �I �-�- � j � t (1 I l� `,; � ��: ; , � .�, � t �- �: ._ _ .- i _ 1 -- Y'eL .` —� _.� ' l � �_ - __ _- . _-^ A -3_ , � '� _ I '4. . . ��— _ — _ a _ _ _. .�—' � J ---. .i — _.z _ _ _-� _ _ _ . - � �— � ._ _.— a� Y �. i� 6i . !.� _ — � , � .. t� - �t t-" _ " �� ^{ • � r � � � �s � �-� --+_ -_� `_ —� �" `� - . �� , �. _ s-t• : i�'S - % � . i Y . O �. • i _ _. � Fr V3 L L _ t . t ' :.��i ' � �� : r ■ _ ' < i � _. �' <' . s --- . - _ ` s i : 1 _ �f � � _ i _ _ � � -. __ v��'' - 3 e��.i��...-..��.�. . • V � � .. .� �. �- � ; -. � -- � �� M� o�� r � ✓� � .�ti �� } �� i :. ��y �' � i =,� 3 �- -} �� ;' � . � = � � '� ��,� a� '��," �'�' i1'� �4 t��'� g �++c Y, S�`..� � � y,. � 3 : � -g � �r � r..3Y -r, � i � . . �' ��: - � � : � -: ' �'�; � 1 , +� `, t �`:-,i�;_ ` c;,�^- . �. _ .._: j,` , �t � � � � '.�� ' - �',� 1, .� _ a �...�, _ �! ..�; - 'b. �� .,,� � � �� ,,, .� ,� � �,au �,. . ,,- � > /"T'� � �r, �4� �B . . . �. �4+ . �� M � � :... „� ;�;+�.... �.� , — � ;�' ' .. —r � � _`" — �g �.'.:� . � "?�>4� �� i� .... _ ' � .1 4 . _ . ±! . �,. � . !. e �- . � �. � r � t ' ��, - , r__ �— c�_. � � � v ' . __, �. , i � � �- , ' � . � '�- ' ; � . r �� -�. _ �E h -,�� _ � �N�� .� � � �` ° ::% „ � �:�� Y �.. .. �.. i � ' � x� �`�' . , �'. �� . � " - ,,-F' .'. a ,s� e " Y f' a . �'': r "y� .m ;S �,=� + � � � p �� G ; i 'Y � � :: �?�. i ' �r�� t S � � F ..: t 1 � 4 i� � ,.� 'j �e� ?� � i C + �. > `._._ � -�� < a � r <r �� .� ; _ � �� , �, ; _ � _ �„ �` . . . , �-� � :� �. fr � . ,. gr� r : t ` f � a " - `— � � }f �_. - � n � �y�1` ��4 ° "� � I� ; �` � ' � �" °°'' i � 3 $ y j t f�Ya.-. � .. ! � .. e `C 1 •� i . ._ ,{� � 1 1� ` i � � � � �� t � �� _ . - . ' ` � � _," � �, J E '� �� :,��_ a r _�, ., - ,� �Y°m. . �;, � c,�- ' � � - „� �.` i , a �� c -� :,-'� q -�.3, S . �.. � � � j � 2`*.ri�' �.� �... ':. -+r a ' . . - . L � r *,_ �va y'•.- e .a.- � � . . . �i: . ' . . . � i. 1 • , , � t �� e' ��._ .. y �r .�'� � �E`.:: � A :. _.....,. .o. _� . a�.... � � � . � t � ,. . . . . . - = � � f .. .. � . . . _ � . „� .. � . . , .. . . , ... �_�..ys._. �. { '�" �.. " � ,�. .'��'i„ � ,.e z. . "� �` v . � . i: � _ - ,� ..-,...�. ,�, _:.x�-:�,,,�, M .a : �: . � _ ' `� � �,'- ' � . gs" � 2 � ?��. " � �� .t� , .<� ' - . +l- K A� �",; _ � i } � ..m ....a�... - k ,. . . ' . �__ .� _%'�._ �� a � : ' . -..' �'-� . � �s '.. ,. - . . c �.° � 1"' � - � � � = � � � #-� ' { .� c � r ��'�� 1 ♦ , - rz � � t vy� .a v ` , s s . s3 � '� 1 ' �q..:' ! � _ . • �' :`�. A y� y X� i .. i � . . - nb 3 _ � � " . .� f .''�,�t� E % n �' _ µ � ��€ 3 � � � ` ��.�� S � �p.'°- �.-t> � r� .. � � � . . yS � �� i.' r �i ' , � � � � •;: � � � ��,� � _. ,, >#. , � 4, �_ ' � , � . � , 3 - , � � �� • � �'��,� , � + � L ( � ' � a . ,, ��"_ � �_-- _ . .._ . ._ -. - " � �{ `s t !' - .r� � • ' , � .. ea4�� Ti � .�..�� , � �3 � — � � : �,�- � � � : L�` . r , � f � r � , � _ _ .: F „ �,Y 'e � ! �D �' �� _�� ._ _, - � � ��' � � : -' � - � � Q .`K � � y � � �: �� . �� '� � � %. ,�'t:�� 3 fi 1� �. - �- �,� _..F ; ;, � <y� � � � �`:--- .-x �� r�` �� f' � # <,= � ! �; ---_�..�„,_, _—�-�- ' � :� ��€ �� i�:s� `�- �` '��. .. _- ,',� e h`3. ... . :�� '� —, � � �� ^ +- •� : � `�. � rj `'"�'� : � � c . .° r R , � . . ".�. �� t' �� .� �a , �..�..� � Y ' , � ., yi- � _ � V . � r .� � � � � v �' �.� . � � � � �xP f� '" . ' �r " . 'i 2 `� , . . - �'" �..� F .. � F' : � . � � �� . � � � y r _ � �� , I �`� � ��.,,� � rt ��' � � +� ..'# w� � ,. � � 1y� , � + , �� .-� . .� � __. � i��+�' . . • .:. ` � . � � _ ;.. � . . � � � . �� i�� 4 �� . ,.y ��. �`�� .� � � F:. a� ; � ,� �l , � � � �� _ _ � p � r: � �� r 3` � �� 'h � .d .� e � _ �� S g� y .. � �.x....e .K !'�y�..# .°:'�i'.:.+RS.-'-. . � ..:- ... -. �_ r . ` . ._ ; . �... _. ._ .: �..- �.:i k a:.�.., �, . :.. � __ =.`� - - �- _ � �,,. ��_ = � �� _� � . r },..�� :: ,� � v� - .... - �: � � - - - �.,... �.-�.�, �+- - - � ��: X .. �:�,' - �� _ _ y 1 � � A t ; � .�'� ''� =., � - �- _ Y . �:�- <'�; - .::k-- _ ' � _ = .. _�. � �•- `-., ,� � '`� ...<. =� ��a�- �` � _ .'_� - '-�_- - '.a � .,.a .'.. :Y. - _ 'Y_'.-� ::,`�,��s,:.. - �..�.,-�- _ - - ..y�, . Rz: _: � . �y i _ _ , _ _ :"�;�' - "`�"2 _� `::. ; ` t'` ' " - ' ��t. _ i _�- _ � � r s: . "' , �_ - . _ _ ��`1?�S. ' ..� ;tit". - " _ � ' �`..'`- y -.. i- - - �; , .s w .. .. .--` . _ .6 1 �' , . i,.. �,. ��. . . _ �: �: � : �1 � �ixl ��,_ _ ... " _ - � �� . __ � - _----- :� � - � _ ' t _ . , z �> ' � �-�-�--- -- -- �! � -� � � � � #r: .. . Y � � � .'f _ ' � . '._ � `-?a._ _�. .. .. Q ..-.. ,-� - } < .�} �` � � � * _- � _ Z � _ ( .. ' 4 , . > � �� = j� � z � ` �,_�, a � � a�`, _ � �. j" " ��.�T� � � Q _ . ij �!� } .. � . :,V � .. . ' � - Y.�.' J �' S: 1 ! �' : I 4 - _ . . � . . . . r � . S � . �l� � � . 1 � . : . '. i , - � . � _._. ;� �� . . LL .�. -` �is � . . �i -' y„ . _ �� . �'.:� e's � ; ' � - ' � 1 � c r. z ° � � �_ ,( � � �- � � f � � �� f � � � � � i� . . .i �� '. � " - F N �'J� r �'� R _° � . _. . .: �a � . �E _ sy �� . . - : � + . . : R � / , �r l . � v{ r '' . .> ' ! . n � ° �� , -� ,' - .�•-,_ - ; � , , , �' �� — �_� ,, � -. - — - — �• � � ^� _.. . ' "'�— s.. �'� . --_ � Q 1 � � �� -- ... - --- . / ' Q9 . 1 , � _ _ a� __ . . � �� It _' ` ' __'. _ � — . '� - � . � . . � _ — ._.. � . . - -_— - � . . . _ � � � ' � �� ,' � .. '. . . _ . . . . . , �. �.. . .. . . .' � _ . . . � � .? - .�% � '� � .. . � /_. � - � � - � .F - i i,,. . t e' .�,s4# . ' ' _< �+' � . �' ':�S . . � "� �' � , � �� x � �. �� ;�. u � x `' ' ��.:.. � ^�� , � � , z..� . .�. � >�r- . � µ . �� . �y -�- �-�� _ :, ,� •� ; w - - ,rJ+�i � - � h .. � � ..� s:�? �� .. - . - . . rfF'� � c ° �' -_`'."' a :.� - s ;-,-.. , , / .s . r��_i-L! i'I � t . `� !' _r .. :.i��11��'.Yt : ' � :'� y . . . ��. - � = r . �� _ __ . , � 6 : � } i .� p ' " . .... ... . ' .. � •,� � 1T » �T �. { ^ r - . . _ . �._. _ ... . .. !'+-.��.. - _ '1' e�� } �; _ � � '. _� A��` . . . . ... r i 4 t# � � �._ � :s�4y� i. �. - . .. . . _ . . � _�...�li � i ( � . � . . � �' � ___� �i S +, [ � '. IT r r � ` .-� . � .. - . � ' .. � ± - � . E� . .` fri � . , .-� ' _`� f �� r �, ,� ,�� • _a.� , _ � ` - <� ; � � #� � F ' ' � � 3, ' _�_ � ' � � •..r.. . i y l+.��i� ��'�.��1 �' - � 4"i. _ .. •a ._ �. � 3� .� y� �jV3M6� t�a �'' ? 4 � 1..... 1! }� ��v' �� '. °` AS � f h . . i . , . .. �. . � 1 � � -� t j � _ ' `� . ��" � � � � 4 , � � . � � - ' �. ' e. .., . . .... ...... . . � . -�, , . . . . F ' i ( � . . '� -- ' t � � -.�- � ` . � r: ! _ . \ �r � � , � -- : ` E � ' �. � - . \ y . .ti' � ' . . • r 4 - �. ,� � �,� . . -., =:, ��. Y ' � �� y _-s ' �;� x e � � { y �� lnLs .��.«��..�. r-....w�►J cr -._ �.�' . ��#r �r ��Z � �� „ �,,,.,.>... flt C —}q � ( ,y: �t r (� \ IVv4S l�Qd L x��tvQ� Q.� Ttf� �°�Q'�I�i�' National Trust for Historic Preservation • December 11, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein, Heritage Preservation Pianner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections & Environmental Profection City of Saint Paul 350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, blinnesota 55102-1510 Deaz Mr. Rubenstein: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal to demolish the Crane Building in the Lowertown Historic District of Saint Paul. The Lowertown area of Saint Paul, and the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation, have received narional attention regazding the revitalization of this sixteen block azea. In i 995, the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporarion was awarded a National Preservarion Honor Award for its role along with the City of Saint Paul and others for the economic turn-around in this azea. From 1978 to 1995, the year of the award, Lowertown revitalization efforts included $400 million in private investment, 2,900 construcrion jobs and 4,600 new permanent jobs. Because of the historic significance of this area and the revitalization efforts, we believe that any demolirion proposal should be subject to cazeful review to determine that it is indeed economically jusrified. In this case, ow review of the materials submitted leads us to question whether adequate mazketing efforts have been undertaken to sell the Crane Building. Typicaliy, marketing a building such as the Crane Building successfully requires a marketing packet that includes: building descriprion and condition, squaze footage per floor, potential uses, economic incentives available, and identification of potential public/private partners and their programs. A thorough economic fesaiblity study should be conducted and that informarion used to mazket the Crane Building, before any consideration of demolirion. In a lustoric district like L,owertown, there is a great potential for public/private partnerships and adaptive use of this signifcant historic structure. � Tkere are a number of eaperts and outside sonrces, both within Minnesota and elsewhere, to assist in the conduct of a thorough economic feasibility study. The National Trust itself provides information on rehabilitation and adaptive reuse, and can also assist in identifying outside � expertise on various aspects of re-use, including taY incentives for developing historic properties. Midwest Regional Office National Office: 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1135 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Chicago, Ill. 60604 Washington, D.C. 20036 �312� 939-5547 / FAX (312� 939-5651 (202� 588-6000 a��al3 • Page 2 The National Trust also serves as one of several possible sources for rehabilitarion gants and low interest loans for the rehabilitation of commercial historic properties such as the Crane Building through its financial assistance pmgrams. If we can be of help in providing further information on this matter, please let us lrnow. Sincerely, �� unes E. Mann egional Director . • �� _ .,.� ` ti " a> w,.� _: - � _ � eu � �.�.� ��_ _a.�au,��,..�.�� W� �..._. - �a,._ �, = � � (�er ��.�,��e.d �L k� C MIn�ESOTa HISTORIC�L SOCIETI' December 11, 1497 Ms. Tracey Baker, Chair St. Paul IIeritage Preservarion Commission 1868 Sazgent Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 Dear Ms. Baker, It has come to our attenrion that the Crane Building, located in St. Paul's I,owertown, is being considered for demoliuon. I would strongly urge the Heritage Preservauon Commission to deny the request. IYs my understanding that the building is currenUy vacant and that the owner's application for a demolition permit is based, in part, on an economic hardship argument. While economic considerations are important factors in deternuning whether a building, or any property, should be retained, these must be weighed with a number of other considerations which are just as important. The Crane Building is a significant resource in I.owertown and the city of St. Paul, historically and architecturally. Built in 1904, it was designed by the St. Paul arclutectural firm of Reed and Stem, whose designs include a number of other National Register buildings within St. Paul as well as dozens of buildings across the country. The significance of the Crane Building was recognized in 1983 when it was inciuded as a contributing element in the Lowertown Historic District which is listed on the Narional Register of Historic Places. The following year the Ciry Council approved the designation of the area as a heritage preserva6on district. The designation is intended to protect and enhance the unique character of Lowertown, a remarkably intact warehouse district dating from before the 1880s. The Crane Building originally served as a wazehouse, and its distinctive arclutectural features and prominent location at the north end of the Lowertown District enhance its significance. We understand that the property owners would use the site for a surface parking lot to accommodate 28 or 29 parking stalls. In our experience, tearing down a historic building such as the Crane Building for a surface pazking lot almost never makes economic sense. Donovan Rypkema, a nationally recognized real estate and economic development consultant and the author of The Econo»zics of Historic Preservation, outlined a scenario strikingly similar to that of the Crane Building: A five-story building sits vacant in the heart of the downtown on a 10,000 square foot lot. Land in downtown is worth $20 per squaze foot. Merchants and property owners aze demanding that city hall acquire the building and raze it for parking. In fact, the building owner is willing to sell the entire properry for the value of the land only. How can the city refuse? , � 6t'F�x J-1 • • • 3�5 6GLLOGG BOCLEC�IRD �S EST ! SaIST P.AL�I.. AIIS\ESOT.4 55103-1906 / TELEPHO\E: 613-396-61Y6 12/11/971etter to Tracey Baker, page 2 u Value of the land: Cost of demolition: Cost of paving & striping: Total costs of parking lot: # of parking spaces provided: Cost per space: � � � $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 60,000 $ 510,000 -25 - 30 $ 17,000 to $ 20,400 q�s-��3 When asked, "would you be willing to pay $17,000 for a pazking space?" even the most vociferous advocates for addirional parking will say "no!" And yet this most simple of analyses is rarely conducted in these situations. It is a fiscally uresponsible and economically irrational act to demolish for pazking in this situation independent of the architectural or historic importance of the building. The Economics of Rehabilitation, 1991 While the above scenario is not identical to the present situation, the illustration is instructional. From an economic standpoint, it is clearly not in the city's best interest to demolish the Crane Building for a surface parking lot. The State Historic Preservation Office urges the owners to reconsider the future of the Crane Building. Potential uses which are economically viable should be studied and evaluated. � Delaying demolition until all avenues have been considered could actually result in saving a significant historic resource and an unportant part of Lowertown's and St. Paul's past. Our office has developed a format for conducting reuse studies and has participated in a number of studies in recent years. Should the commission or the owners desire, we would be happy to discuss how such a study may be useful in exploring reuse options for the Crane Building. In addition, it is important to note that State of Minnesota Rules for the environmental review program of the Environmental Qualiry Board stipulate that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) shall be prepared as part of the demolition pernut process for properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Since the Crane Building is a contributing property within the I.owertown Historic District, this provision applies. C� The Crane Building has been a distinctive local landmark for over ninety yeazs. Before an action is taken that cannot be reversed, I urge you to take the time to explore all the altematives. Sincerely, �/ � - `'d'` - � `�� Britta L. Bloomberg d1 �� J � Deputy State Historic Preservarion OfFicer 10,000 s.f. x $20 50,000 s.f. x $ 5 10,000 s.f. x $ 6 �L�/ � � � ^ � � � 0 � � � � � � O � N W K W 0 a x U ¢ O m � U Y • V � '� Y d � m M � w ro c_� 3Ra r3m m 9 O � C .y j R w ��E .°.. w a N O tp p L qD— w � C � V d Y Y R � a m CL � U t" � hOC c 'as ot N� L b➢ 3 d � � N � Y 9 � O U c m o m � t �:, N �,,, � _ �;? t0 ��0 S d:. L 'O O R Y C� C V C _ �3 ,.� Y ._. �9 � V .� � .0 � y R' inL Q � tQ LL' �+.a CS '�.°3E�g�o ° '—''°��" � �°a�i d �:S'O Vl N V m ` F � '� �� Q Cb �a [0 �+ U E a'�wo"-�a` L�'°J c.' �3 U �� R G� c R C.� '� p >� o 00 � a o t3c,3'.> .�i R:�� r� 5 �c c� °�.c a m°� � m•� 3 d c o.s�, v m � U � . ti v�i cC ,c � y '� r. �' ` � ,�ii �+� c v� �'.n roonw y v�m "�o` "c� >''v°��°.o n"� �cwR>=.aE 3°d �a�� c» o u� O G N N` O� �� ti�� QL d S O CJ � ' f Eo+�.c,a 3 �,d �,mx3 4 9 V' �� C=� C c�G y C.Y ` ri� w ow c.�a y�m ovio� � c, — ; 9 i� G�C� V).�9 0 N � � A R � Q ._. C!. C y a � _. '� y ,.� :., ��CN��tlUVCC.p,..ti.G RRa n G U-.. V L� 'f J F'O " � >a 5 O�^> N CJ i.r ��"' G C t r y C 0. �� G O O� in w� R d U.r.....+ G.�.r 07 O.r �n'_�. N O N O �� Y� � � � � 3+ � � � y � . � � � 0 a V i s K w r 3 a � J � � � 5 � 0 m Z O � w � z O w Z Q C U = N ... U .... a ti i ;� ° o." 3 � w �'�- u p '� y N r CJ , N N _� E U �r � [3c'� C E bDC�Q ��"L1. �N W�Ou Q u C O t�p F � p G ' O d R s�o •� o> 0., c `o y o,,., ��c`'3v�� u°m ccaia�ia`ai va,3�so° w c ° ��' o � : � a yraONV C � � O�" i� F � d GL Vl O tC � y�..y L N O � O y � C 3 .'O.. C.U�Yj F� 6 . � m="7"' v� h c � d�sm, �w m � y'C .�C y . � F aa Y N O'CJ r-+ O.. C C y- �" G c, o C� �y c. � u . w m �'� �� 't9sQ�. y.' o eo Q �s u � ��,_ c� �� u a�ic""" o m c . � a.5 'Sc.nm v� mc3c la � � b L1- r �1 � .r �/1 � 0� � � O Q� � 7 d4 5"' Z Q .r � � Q7 �y `j+ � � � C� �V 1� � �� '�.� � � � ,� � � � � Q: .� a v v • . a m-^ >, a ....-. d �- d _ L L�. �y..� O e6 C 0... s G� p p+�j O� C"� �� a 'O .�aip N v�i j� T O C V'C O E� O. � 9 C F y' 'y, V y�,p y C a'�+ �. G� O O .a ° d ' � u �.p a. C� y G• y a° �y� V��a � o d � .., e ao m a;; <¢ 3 a� ° o m � y u�x Q' o� E.°n� m.-°'a>i °'R �?, o^= o�:° a��v�� aay�a"iva ., � �a + eco G o. yy cd�aa>o.,., a t n0 00..�� r"' .: G�R � U� C U q 00 C y N� k p d V,'r ++ �E� ° u�m� �oc'�°� , �'�= 4 C 'm nd ^ r �°'S� �c'om Oe�'va�'i.: f0 � L L i�. F'� R N a d^ d •�'.� � Ci U H W *+ d T d C` V °``° `° � °•"'__�'� io y 0� g c ai m �er ° o +.. 4 ti(r N L1�'O � w� W>> �l t0 `. t0 L 4.+ m n+ a+ aa ..�w U C�� G C"j�'i O A O N� O � p a�a'� ...�'. � O N ad3`�w3o�".t7 dEw(S.a y��'8��x . u °° o � d m=� � a a i °°w �v�U w � a ° � p+ i coc 3"• ov y ' L C") .G O'3 U � 'O 4! ` O y .d. a.�'� e6 •'O • F L�F t0 'J' C a"i � fV � �� N O•Y �� l. ai y N d..r"'i C N in (1a' Rvi�r �N�4CUd Nd OR'�OOC L � +..� c�yOcqa�'�.�� ycsia`Ci��ciaU'°'u.e�„°^G,ac oo m . ❑ m �> > H.,'.. u'C.... i�� N'O CD V O a'�+ �� ai L.-. �>'� d C a�a N ��.+ O c�. � y o � N°c �� 4� 3C" � o aw o°'�°�� s��. os =� i �. �N w vi .ti v� Y O . t6 .� 0� .p C C cE a U aa T�W wada Gdv�ooFya�i'YC.y��oo �a�i.aodq�'v � �� w m o o� R�. �fL 3xv� :� 3w ° R'��:; s .c o" ea � w a o �� Td � � «. �,.", c v m�'y o V y° w� y B v", dm�o ca'�i=v3 N � COw U Laa'C.� S ^. S" 7 p � j. 0 C t9 N ui C a N N /" N G� f+.0 7 � i.� +..+ y O [9 T�..�.� U� � i d., w � > y C t w�._. 6> U O'C �9 y y O 3 O y R RS � V C U Y O Dp"' � y r�i, pG C b0 �..�+ ' � v R C E�'.0 3 [. C .0 � O'O t .Q �p , d s' G O.y �� v�� U � y� � p i d i = '�y. y V�•�.' O y��' c. � � C N � R�s e ai� �� a��s ^ y•' mw U'ONaa 00 'J'.:[ 1 O61.7� y � J�+"�y �£ � 4 L y� C rA N w �"� tC � L C) �� G�+.�' N� Y O NZ �� c3 . ..v. .,._,�wu>Ea °'m. � �� U � � �CS � 0� U� d�� d G U O F p G L y^ � V � >O 4°'„". C0.'� `a c m �'tl:vo a�s'�,?' a � `° 3�; d v�i N R m.�.. � O d.. pp i c. Y ..w.. <C w y y� N i' N i� 6� C�:� L O C1 K= a+ L ' y c" f'n � y� l. W �a� 'Od 4G�... 7� U U l. �� 7��' f0 �^ d 3=� 6y ?£ y (� C C> O.e6 w" NO iyU+�'(�LFCy �o��dR=y�a�"� 0 C-.-. G L p'T++ _.-� ..a Vl y�'�>. � m N> �_ � (6 N y� y�N Y� V N Y. � � G O � � �+' - y +�+ f �j � � r o. o_. a`� y a e'G a"i o F.�,�R o»ada>3 R�-a�� The following report, prepared by Lowertown Redevelopment � Corporation, was submitted into the record at the 11 December 1997 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting. �1 LJ � _ _�� WELCOME TO LOYVFRI�WN: ��, �. . SAINTPAUL'SEXCITINGNEW URBANVILIAGE � ' , � _, , � -=� :��'�� f � 't -->�' � �_� � f' ' � _ ��;�_ - - , - ,�;� �.o-,. � - __ �_'_��- ` �,. ,: _ - � -�_ _ -� - - " � - _� .. _ -- . �: �, � � - OWERIl�WN'S ROOTS LIE DEEP IN THE F,ARLIES"1' DAYS OF THE CITY, WI12II St22ri1)J02YS docked at the Lower Landing. As the city grew, its financial and retail center became� known as "Downtown", while the raikoad and wholesale area of its beginnings came to be known as "I owertown." From the be nnin these two distinctly different sides of the cit}�s character were complementary and synergistic, each conh to the other's strength. Boommg in the 1900's, Lowertown faded after the tum of the cenhuy and languished for years, a place that time and commerce passed by until the early `70's when efforts to renew the area began. In 1978, under the leadership of then-Mayor George Iatimer, the city articu- lated plans for a bold, new public/private partriership that would tap Lowertown's tremen- dous potential. The McKnight Foundation responded enthusiasfically by providing $10 mil- lion in seed capital, and an innovative public/private partnership called Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation (I,RC) was created to act as a catalyst for the area's redevelo�r ment.'Ihe goal was to use the $10 million to attract $100 million in investment I�ZC was chaiged with three criticat responsibilities: design, marketing and fivancing. LRC would provide limited gap financing to help get projects started; manage design issues to assure that new development harmonized with the historic character of the ne�ghborhood; and aggressively market the area to potenfial residents, investors, developers and the public. In a unique partnership with the City and the private sector, LRC planned and executed a development sh and design framework for the 17- block neighborhood, a program which has succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. LRC's original vision, which continues to evolve to this day, called for a rr� of housing, offices, retail stores, services, restaurants, theaters, parks and public spaces, combined with� a sh that has brought back people, business and development, and created a new neighborhood in the heart of the ciry. After years of work and investment, Lowertown has become a national role model for cities across the country, showing how public and private interests sharing a common vision can work together in hazmony to draznatically alter the future of a neighborhood. Aundreds of civic leaders from across the country and officials from 20 counh have visited Lowertown and stories about Lowertown's success have been published in a number of languages, including French, Japanese and Chinese. AN URBAN VILLAGE DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE Toda�s Lowertown provides a comfortable and attractive living and working environment In increasing numbers, people are discovering its special charm — some come to just visit, more to work or shop and many to live here permanenfly. I owertown is a dynamic area, offering a wide raqge of housing choices and amenities to serve the needs of both residents and workers, including a YMCA, numerous restaurants, pazks, theaters, shops and every lflnd of needed convenience. struction jobs, with another 4,600 permanentjobs created or retained. During the same • period, Lowertown's tas base grew by more than 400 percent New invesiment in the form of private capital has come from a variety of investors and developers, both local and national — from 5rms like Frauenshuh Companies of the Twin Cities, Carley Capital Group of Madison, �sconsin; Historic Iandmarks for Living, Inc. of Philadelphia; Boston Bay Capital, Inc., of Massachusetts; Ameritas of Atlanta; Zaidan Holdings of Montreal; and many more. LRC's role as a gap finaucier made the critical d�erence, especially in the early years of Lowertown's revitaliTaflon. Far eYample, in the case of Heritage House, an investment of $12Q000 each from LRC and the Ciry made a$3 million project a reality. It was a$520,000 guarantee from LRC which trig�ered the Union Depot renovation, and a$22 mil- lion LRC loan launched the development of Galfier Plaza, which today towers over the neigh- borhood and is a center for entertainment and shopping. More recenfly, a$20Q000 loan filled the gap in financing for'Ihe Tilsner building's housing for arlists and their families. Sh developers and investors wntinue to be ath�acted by Lowertown's potenfial. The Frauenshuh Company, for eYample, renovators of the First Trust Building, acquired the Park Square Court Building. Zaidan Holdings acquired and revitalized Galtier Plaza and Lowertown Business Center. Boston Bay Capital acquired The Cosmopolitan building, rapid- ly leasing up its 254 apartments. I eeann Chin, Inc. located one of its restaurants and catering services in the Union Depot. Artspace Projects, Inc., with LRC and city financial assistance, developed the 66unit TIlsner building. Risk is inherent in any effort as large and as visionary as Lowertown. A handful of develo� ments have failed to live up to es�pectalions. But in almost every case, stronger owners have emerged who have been able to realize the potenUal that was originally envisioned. Lowertown's economy coniinues to expand and grow. Architectural, design, advertis- ing, and communica5ons firms and related "sofY' indush have made it a regional focus for such services and companies. KTCA TV's new studios enhance the area's reputation as a national center for the video and film indushy. IndependentTelevision Services, created by PBS to foster independent productions nationwide, has chosen to locate its national head- quarters here. Continental Cable's Lowertown headquarters has added to the area's reputa- tion. Lowertown is also an attractive location for new and growing compazries in emerging areas of high technology, biotechnology and medical products and services. Such firms aze drawn by the neighborhood's chann and availabi]ity of lowcost loft space for research, office and manufacturing use, as well as its proximity to hospitals, the University of Minnesota, and major corporafions such as 3M Company. Lowertowu enjoys escellent access to every part of the Twiu Cities, provided by the I-94 and 35E freeways, and other major sh�eets and I�ighways, such as Warner Road and Jackson Slreet, as well as most of the bus lines serving the Twin cities. Vast amounts of parlflng space are available in lots scattered around the neighborhood, which also serve as `land banks" for future development� � Most warehouses in the I.owertown Historic Dish are designated landmarks and qualify �or rehabilitation ta�c credits, maldng them desirable for fuhu deuelopment 11xe neighborhood is served by the Saint Paul Disirict Heating System, which assures a competitive and secure source of energy. Lowertown has also benefited from its closeness to the downtown core, linldng it to every financial, legal, and governmental service. Today's Lowertown is the resutt of a unique and higl�ly successfiil parfnership between Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation and many public sector offices and organi- zations, including the Office of the Mayor, City Council, Department of Planning & Economic Development, Department of Fublic Works, Parks & Recreation Department, Saint Paul Port Authority, Downtown Council, Saint Paul Chamber of Commerce, and many other private organizations and foundations. Through the years, dedicated leaders from Lowertown and the City have continued to envision the future, for the overall benefit of Saint Pau1, in sh for the benefits of imagina tive, wellconceived and wellexecuted development. In the years ahead, the neighborhood will continue to be receptive to new businesses, new de�elopers and new opportunities. And LRC will continue its efforts in overall plazu�ing, urban design, marketing, and gap financing for the area, while providing a range of personalized services to companies maldng reloca- tion and investment decisions. 11u�ough the public/private partnership, LRC hopes to reduce risks and maavnize reiurns for investors, to provide a competitive edge in area-wide marketing over other districts, and to create a sense of place for the new neighborhood. • A DYNAMIC NEW NEIGNBORIIOOD Life in I,owertown is lively and exciting.'Ilie growing numbers of people who live and work here have brought with them new activities and a greater appreciation of its distinctive character. The azea's reputation as a haven for painters, sculptors, photographers, writers, and artists of all kinds preceded its revitalization, and I.owertown Redevelopment Corporation and community leaders have taken pains to retain and support them. For e�mple, new artist studio housing has been deueloped Nurough various cre- ative combinations of Suaucing. The neighborhood is filled with arts organizations, both ffaditional and `bn the cutting edge," who serve as magnets for at1ists and their patrons. V'isitors and residents alike are attracted to the growing numbers of galleries, such as the Art Resource and Master Framer galleries, while coffee- houses such as Kuppernicus add literary life to the scene. Annual arts, crafts and music festivals draw ]u crowds.'Ilie Great Hall at F�ust Trust Center, the Atrium at the Union Depot, and the Palm Court at Galtier offer wonderfizl spaces for large gatherings and public performances. Tempoiary outdoor public art installations have been presented by FORECASI' and other arts groups. Developers and investors aze encouraged to find ways to include the arts in their plantring. ag-a �� Important to Lowertown's vitality is its growing reputation as a center for all ldnds � of entertaiuwent Lowertown is Saint Paul's theater district, with first run movies at the new Cinema 4 in Galtier. Residents and workers can choose from a wide variety of restau- rants, popular entertainment centers, and even an indoor miniature golf course. Education also plays a role in Lowertown's diverse cultural life, through the Globe College of Business at Galtier Plaza, and the nearby Saturn School of Tomorrow. Part of the fun of the ne�ghborhood is its distinctive tumof-thecentury "look." Extensive lighting, fiunished by ornate �ctorian streetlights, brightens the sh and provides a fes- tive evening glow. The newly-renovated Mears Park, a popular lmmch- time gathering place, serves as Lowertown's `�illage green", with trees, flowers, benches, sculptures and fountains. Suuunertime brings outdoar concerts, performances, events and festivals, while in winter the park is beautifiilly lighted for the holiday season 'Ihe new bridges across I-94, each with enhanced historic lighting, railings and/or sidewalks, provide beautiful new gateways to Lowertown. The special richness of life in Lowertown is demonstrated in many ways.'Ihe historic Farmers Market, located in the heart of the neighborhood, attracts more than 50,000 visitors every summer. I,owertown's churches draw large crowds from throughout the metro azea. You'll also find antique stores, hixiuy aparlments, and coffee- houses side-by-side, and the ever present posibility of discovering a unique store or shop tucked in some comer you haven't noticed before. LOWERTOWN IN TFIE NINEilES: A RETURN i0 i11E RIVER Lowertown's future is even more exciting than its past Similarly, the coming of a new city adminish�ation to Saint Paul has signaled a new optimism and energy as well. As Mayor Norm Coleman has said, "Saint Paul's best days are yet to come." The vision for the neigh- borhood is clear: a place where families feel secure, walk to work, and have access to reliable daycare; where older people can remain active in a busy, interesting environment; where new businesses thrive; where the arts are alive; and where people meet in cafes, parks and galleries, stroll along the streets or the river&ont, or go for an euening boah Mini-parks, pedestriau greenways, enclosed wintergardens, daycare centers, con- venience stores and other neighborhood aznenities will be developed. Special atten- tion will be given to the needs of the elderly and women and children, with new housing designs tailored to changing urban demographics and work pattems. Energy conservation continues to be a major part of the future vision for Lowertown. Housing clustering and superinsula6on will be emphasized. Dishict heating will extend to every part of the neighborhood. Solar energy will be tapped, acfively or passively, while new zoning provisions will assure solar access for every resident � ��-a Each of the four districts that make up Lowertown—the North Quadrant, Mears Pa �iverfi and the East Quadrant — has clearly different potenfials. Taken together, i hold promise of an additional $400 million in development On the River&ont, fliree possible approaches to necv development aze envisi One plan emphasizes housing, with terrace-style townhouses and apartments built a river's edge, with underground parking, and a marina for residents' use. An alternative approach would capitalize on Lowertown's e�ctensive arts and cultural ties, using the riverfi as a location for the new Science Museum or the National Paz Service's river interpretive center. Yet another vision involves an expansion of the post office facility and consh o large plaza or park over it Whichever plan is ultnnately adopted, it is clear that future Lowertown residents will be able to enjoy a new and intimate relationship with the part of the river for which their neighborhood is named. A new riverfront park, currently under construction, is within relatively easy walk- ing and biking distance of the center of Lowertown, while new stairways, walkways, and an e�ctension of the skyway system will make Lambert Landing and the long- dreamed- of "river garden" readfly accessible to residents and visitors alike. In the 12-block Mears Park area, rehabilitation of historic structures as well as new infill construction will continue. A dozen buildings with historic landmark �esignation remain to be adapted for new uses. The Arts continue to be an important part of Lowertown's appeal, and the neighborhood will play a sigttificant role in establishing downtown Saiut Paul as a cultural dislric�t. More ezchibits, performances, and events will be encouraged. Quality art, including outdoor sculpture and fountains, will be placed in public places. Collaboration among artists, landscape designers and architects in the public arts will be fostered. Awareness of the value of the arts will grow, with excellence being the goal of every project More artists' housing to provide affordable living and working spaces is envisi for the area arommd Mears Park, and near the riverfi 11ie arts will conhibute to, as as benefit from, Lowertown's ongoing renewal. Economic growth will continue in Lowertocvn, with the abundance of architectu unique, yet lowcost, space ath new and growing businesses. "Ihe ready availabil land in the North Quadrant will allow for the conslruction of new buildings to be built to meet the need of new or existing businesses. Targeted marketing efforts aimed at regional growth indushies such as high technology, biotechnology, information services, and health- care, and the development of a new technology park, will bring growth and jobs. "Ihe presence of KI'CA, with its excellent facilities for video and film, and PTVS, a PBS company dedicated to encouraging new and innovative film and videos, will make Lowertown burgeon as a center for video, film and related `cukural" indushies. � �� ,; « � � :�. : � �.- ��". � �.' _ ? + . lR� \ �- � . . �,. w,. �' �- � � � . � �. i �'� � ce ,..' __ . , ��, N � �:. , ,: . -�-�=��_ �� ;. � �.��, � ��.� � � . . :.� .� -t ' � � ` � �- � �f yp { �€: ,�: t r i�'� �f ' �"^ �� s�� . ��_-�,� �� , _ ;,; . � s, , .� .� �� J r , � . , .,. ... �-- . , _ - � , _, :�-=s `; J . 5 / a" . � . F ��.�f G S F� "`.a!'y,.a� � . ��. . .�:M - ¢'. f TR �.: F' _ �v . � � t , . Y _ �' ..i�1 • , , '� �'°`" , p � .: . w Y.. . .�. ... . . ' � f. � ,..: . • L � r _.- .. � '.. �` .. - �' . _ Y 2 :. . .. , .... v. � Svw:i_._ r+ / - /b .� � . . . �� .. .. : . -. . � � "� �, � � J � ' :' �r - . "� � . ' -' - • % ` ' � � �� ' \Z\ ' - _ � j _. f K . . +`.�� l . '. � ." .� ' _ . � � . ' . � .�. ... �. � � . . . a i _ � c. _ . � ._ . . � ' ',i �. . ! .. ' ' � ' � . . � . . � . �� _ . . �. F %: � � �% - _ �: , .� �. � � .,'.\ �'-� .. ' i �:V`��°-'��!�� ..,�` \ !ti � . � , �, '� .,1 '. ' .- :. . '� � ` G" v . - - �. E . ' . .' .. �� /'�� ,,:r l.,EC"! � �_ . . ^J`'�.� r ., G '��. y \ ,' �..1 �; �� _ ..� . � . ,�� .� �"Q.*hF. v,3�na �'f,��-y�" .. � if � '. ' �,.' .,. - . ..t 1 �'f . \!. . .J � . � ��- . l - " — . . y .. ._.. Y .... . , _ <,' ♦ � �-� �� / < R / r/ ��' .-•. ,. .. . . . . l' a . �'" Y � 1 �.,� ,� - =� % �� -� � ,� -� �t- , ' �� 4 S �: � ' . . ..�� \ /_ ^ . \ � N:� � � � } '1' -.� . ' ��..v 4 1 ,� 5; : c4 ' �1,:. .e"�, -�` �''� "'v. .� ' .. � . �.v�� '-"�cN�F+�•.,�„ . ' r 1`y,��__'��,Y,bs . �... . . . � ... �ae r s � . ' �" v'�# . =��i,r . � . . � � . Kr ��`��'�� J -_/ : . _ _ . . � . � T iF�(`Jl' . . . . . �; ,+^ - "��s�> �� r . . . - .� , �y� . � .. . .. � � . � ... . - .. � . . ✓ � ��'r ,.� . . : _ . e � ; „�..., �'�• z , _ ��r''„�� uc, " � �r.. �' �st .� . s "'. ' � � � _. �. �� . � '�`"� -�, ��. ,.� - . .�-.., - �. �.^ �= � >_�? � ,- . `t� `'', ' "` ..� • .� � "� : � � � �,. , ' . _ " ' =�,.�` �.. - '�. \ �: ,_ �`. " . ' _ ": ,. . - _ , ar��, . ; \'\ �-�' : � - F � II2C WIId. '' ° ` �. ,� �'= "E` �< .., ., :�:, . `: -.ar.. ' "� � � ��:' - ".k-' COl�°11NUE TO ACC � : s �-� IN ITS ROIE t�S A �'�:= �% ` � ,. � , � _ _> �, � y . «. ,, . _ . . o- r �i� � � - .; : CATALYST, IDEA- � p m � ,� ". � � � . � GBNERATORAND ' �;r� �� .� '�-; - -, r..,.�;� � IMPIEMENIER � ,. � J ��.;� 4 r �_ ., F �' . . !.n; . . i. ° . '1 a � . . �.�� , . 11 Feb 1998 2:SSPM CapitolRiver Council FRX: 2218581 • W CapitolRiver Council District 17 PpGE 1 OF 1 �� Post-it° Fax Note 7671 �a« p,�es� To ,\ From � � �... onone s vno�e x a a _(S4 k`t Fa:a r7.�¢l¢ V Faxx -- —_ . __. _. . - - ------ - �. 3 33Z Minnesota Saeec Suite N150 Sa;nt Pav1, b11V 55101 612 721 Q488 Fqy,; 612 2210551 Webs+tewww.capitolrivecptg flrnaiypPriveKbioneerplanetinfi.nec 7 7 February 1998 Council President Dan Bostrom 15 Wesi Keliogg Bivd. 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Mn 55'102 Dear Council President Bostrom, We write to support the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission s decision to deny a demoliGon permit Tor the Crane Building located at 281 East Fifth Street in the Lowertown Historic Preservalion District. ' The CapitolRiver Council's Development and Review Committee at iYs February 5, 1998 meeling • • discussed this matter and believe that lha Crane BuBding possess the architectural charsder and integrity that creates our Historic Lowertown Neighborhood. We cannot afford to loss anaher historic structure. Demolition of the Crane Buildi�g, io provide a 2B or 29 surtace parking lot, would have a negative impact on the appeara�ce and the distinctive attributes that make the Lowertown Neighborhood renowned, It has been brought to our arieniion that there are several legitimate otfers by repulable developers to purchase and rerwvate the Crane 8uilding. We believe lhese offers shoWd be explored. The CapitoiRiver Cou�cil's Development and Review Committee and ths Executive Committee member's ask that you uphold the decision of the Heritage Preservetion Commission and deny ihe demolition permit for tha Crane 8uilding. Thank you tor your oonsideration. Sincerely, • ( t � � I�o-Y� �,. r -- �. Mary Nelson, Community Organizer cc: Aaron Rubenstein, LIEP Ail City Council Members „--- � Council File # /O '2�3 ORIGINAL Presented By Referred To Green sheet # (0857 RESOLUTION SAINT_P/�1L, MINNESOTA COmmittee: Date zy 1 WHEREAS, Paul Baillon, d/b/a Baillon Company, 332 Miuuesota Street, Suite E-1404, 2 Saint Paul, Minuesota 55101, made application to the Heritage Preservation Commission [the 3 Commission] pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06(a)(4) to approve an application for 4 a demolifion permit to demolish a building located at 281 East Fifth Street, Saint Paul, 5 Miunesota, commonly lrnown as the Crane Building, a historical building within the Lowertown 6 Heritage Preservation District; and 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing on the applicafion of Paul Baillon on December 1 l, 1997 at which all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard. In its Resolution No. 3172, adopted December 11, 1997, the Commission, denied the applicarion for a demolition permit for the following reasons: 1. Architectural and historical merit of the building. The Crane Building is architecturally and historically significant for the following reasons: It is characterized as supportive to the local district; it is categorized as contributing to the national dishict; its architectural design contains distinctive features; it was designed by Reed and Stem, prominent local architects; it is the former warehouse of the Crane Ordway Company; and a significant individual, Lucius P. Ordway, is associated with the building as well as with the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3N�. 2. AfFect of the demolition on surrounding buildings. Demolition of the Crane Building may physically jeopardize surrounding buildings, namely the adjacent Markethouse and Rayette Buildings. In addition, demolition would greatly adversely affect the appearance and quality of the historic Lowertown district. Specifically of concern is the interruption of the building or street wall -- one of the most disringuishing characteristics of Lowertown. Removal of the building would erode a very cleazly defined edge and create a lazge opening in the street wall at the northern end of the Fanner's Mazket. Affect of any�roposed new construction on ... surrounding buildin *�s. Construction of a pazking lot on the subject site does not conform to any of the new construction guidelines far the district, including scale, massing, and rhytlun. 4. The economic value or usefulness of the buildin¢ as it now e�sts or if altered or modified in comparison with the value or usefulness of any proposed struchxres designated to re�lace the present buildine. Despite two written requests by staff, the applicant has not provided detailed economic information about the building either as it exits or as it might be modified (rehabbed). The applicant has not definitively stated the use to which the properiy would be put after demolition. The applicant has speculated that the site might be used for surface pazking. The applicant has supplied no financial informarion about future use of the property. 98-2 i3 1 5. New use for the site. The burden for demonstrating the value or usefulness of the site 2 after demolition falls not on the Commission but on the applicant. The applicant did not 3 supply a plan for the site or any economic data. Nevertheless, the Commission, on its 4 own initiative, considered three alternatives: 6 (a) Do nothine. The applicant was asked at the public hearing the applicant's 7 purchase price of the building. The applicant responded that he did not know. 8 County taY records indicate a$100,000.00 contact for deed for the properry in 9 1978, the yeaz in which the applicant purchased the properry. Since that time, 10 according to the applicant, the property has appreciated to $1,400,000.00. The 11 applicant states that annual maintenance expenses for the property aze $20,000.00 12 or more. The applicant did not supply a net figure (after tas deductions, etc.). If 13 the applicanPs assessment of the building's current value is correct, the building 14 could reasonably be preserved as a rapidly appreciating asset. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44� 45 46 47 48 49 It is in the City's interest that the building survive until it can be rehabilitated, as many similaz buildings in Lowertown ha�e been rehabilitated. (b) Vacant Land. Although specifically asked at the hearing, the applicant did not estimate the value of vacant land in Lowertown. Expert testnnony indicated a maxiuium value of $20.00 sq. ft. T'he lot size is 9,377 sq. ft. The value of the land may be generously estimated to be $187,000.00. Applicant states demolition costs will be $145,000.00. The net value to the applicant to the vacant land after demolition is $42,000.00. The value to the City of vacant land is negligible. There is already and significant supply of vacant or unbuilt land in Lowertown. (c) Surface Parkin¢. The applicant has indicated the properiy may be used for surface parking. The applicant did not supply a site plan or economic figures. The applicant stated no pro form of budget has been prepazed. Staff estnnates the lot would contain 28 or 29 pazking spaces. This would increase the land azea in the eastern half of the Lowertown district that is devoted to surface parking by 2%. The Commission estimates that the applicanY s net income from pazking may be approximately $10,000.00 (after ta�ces, management fees, site preparation costs, etc.). This return seems inadequate on an asset applicant values at $1,400,000.00. The 2% increase in Lowertown parking is a slight benefit to the City when compared to the economic value of a rehabbed building. (d) Rehabilitation of the Crane Building. The applicant cannot reasonably claim that ownership of the building is an econoxnic hardship if the applicant is responsible for the hazdship. In particulaz, the applicant, in its 20 yeaz ownership of the building, has never requested or been issued a building permit, indicating that the applicant has made no effort to maintain the structure. The building's elevator does not work. This fact alone may explain the applicanY s stated inability to rent the six story building. The applicant has precluded sale of the building by setting an unrealistically high asking price. The applicant has mazketed the properiy for 1.4 million dollars ( appro�mately 2 9� ai3 1 $23 per sq. ft.). The applicant did not, in response to questions from the Cominission, 2 supply names of compazable Lowertown properties selling for a similaz amount. Expert 3 testimony showed comparable buildings in Lowertown are selling for $2.00 to $10.00 per 4 sq. ft. Mr. Lu tesfified that three compazable buildings in Lowertown have sold recently 5 for $2.10 to $5.00 per sq. ft. Based on this expert testimony, the fair mazket value of the 6 59,500 sq. ft. Crane Building is $119,000.00 to $595,000.00. The applicanY s stated 7 inability to sell the properiy stems from the applicanYs unreasonably high asking price. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 41F 45 46 47 48 49 Mr. Weiming Lu of the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation testified extensively about the economic value to the City of the redevelopment of Lowertown and of individual buildings. He said that since 1978, $428,000,000.00 has been invested in Lowertown, resulting in 3,000 residents and 8,000 jobs. He expressed optixnism on the basis of his 18 yeaz experience as executive director of the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation that a suitable and economically successful reuse could be found for the Crane Building. The applicant stated, "there may be people in this world, and there probably are, more clever and more creadve than we are in finding a new use for the building." The burden of fmding a new use for the building does not rest on the Commission. Nevertheless, the Commission recommends to the applicant that the applicant consider at least the following options: 1. Accept offers of technical assistance from the City of Saint Paul Planning and Economic Development (PED), Heritage Preservation Commission, Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation, the Minnesota Historical Society, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2. Invest in long-delayed maintenance to make the building rentable. 3. Offer the building for sale at a price established by the market. 4. Investigate offers of financial assistance from Lowertown Redevelopment Corparation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 5. Consider development alternatives other than apartments (the only alternative about which the applicant supplied any fmancial information). 6. Investigate statements of developer interest in the building by Artspace Projects and PED; and WIIEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Paul Baillon, d/b/a Baillon Company, duly filed with the Council an appeal from the determination made by the Heritage Preservation Commission, and requested that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and WHEREAS, acting pucsuant to § 73.06, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on February 11, 1998, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; � 9�- 2 �3 WHEREAS, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Commission, the Council does hereby; RESOLVE, to affirm the decision of the Commission having found no error in fact, finding or procedure and incorporates the findings of the Commission as its own; and BE IT FURTI�R RESOLVED, that the appeal of Paul Baillon, d/b/a Baillon Company, is in all things denied; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Paul Baillon, the Zoning Adnunistrator and the Heritage Preservation Commission. ORIGlNAL Requested by Department of: By: Form Appr ed by Ci y Attorney B �!✓�<r-r.nG+ 3�.f/'f� Adoption Certified by Council Secretasy Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council �Y� a a . a ..--.�� By: Approved by Mayor: D �- � ! By: Adopted by Council: Date �{7/� /�-� /Y� �%JY i �r DATE Chris Coleman March 18. 1998 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES 9�-2/3 GREEN SHEET No 60857 u �,.�,�.� u �„�- ❑ �,,,,,.�„ ❑ �.� ❑wuwcu�aEaxccESme. ❑wuxw�tmiw�eno ❑ wraeldiumraxrl ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE� Finalizing City Council action taken February 11, 1998 denying the appeal of Baillon Company to a decision of the Heritage Preservation Co�ission denying approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building at 281 East Fifth Street (Lowertown). PLANNING COMMISSION d6 CAMMITTEE . CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ��. RSONALSERVICE CONTRIIC7S MUSTANSWER iHE FOLLOWING QUESiIONSs Ha6 �hi6 pelSONfirtn e✓ef Vrotked u11dM a conlra4i fof tltis depaRment? YES NO Has thb Pe�soNfirm erer been a citY emGbYee7 YES NO Does this persoNPom possess a sldll nd �wmiallypossecceU Dy arry curreM dqr employee? YES NO Is Mis D�� a tar0eted vendoYl YES NO t✓�� <�`'t��°�C'.�C;f:� �,�e': �._�..� { t �;: OF TRANSACTION S SOURCE (CIRCLEONfl YES NO ACTIYITY NUMBER (IXPWN) OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY PegBirlSCityAttorney /�Q - "� j� �� Q d f CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co7eman, Mayor Civil Divisian 400 Ciry Ha11 IS West Kellogg BHd Saint Paul, Mi�mesom SSIO2 Telephone: 612 266-87I0 Facsimile: 672 298-56I9 i,�ur�E R�search Center � . � � t,;� Mazch 6, 1998 Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary, Saint Paul City Council 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paui, MN 55102 Hand Delivered Re: Appeal of Paul Baillon d/b/a Baillon Company Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution No. 3172 Public Hearing Date: Febn�ary 11, 1998 Deaz Ms. Anderson: Attached please find the signed original of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-en6tled matter. The resolution should be placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Very truly yours, //.r/lV�" _ �AM^Q--� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemm', Mayor 13 January 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMEN'IAL PROTECTION ( / � � Rober! Kessler, Director c� $. a r 3 7 � IAA'RYPROFESSIONALBUILDING Telephone:612-266-9090 Sui1e 300 Facr"vnile: 672-2669099 350 S[ Peter Sdeet Saint Pau1, Minnesota 55102-I570 I would like to request that a public heazing before the City Council be scheduled for Wednesday, February 11, 1998 for the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision: Appellant: Baillon Company HPC File: #3172 Purpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to deny approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building at 281 E. Fifth St. (Lowertown ). The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public hearing on this matter and voted 9- 0 on December 11, 1997 to deny approval of the requested permit. This City Council public hearing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions. Sincerely, �,�,�-�, i�� Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Kessler, Halvorson, LIEP Chazles Skrief, HPC Chair Peter Warner, CAO Paul Baillon .y. F . _., . . _ �� 14 i5�8 BAILLON COMPANY 332 Minnesota Street Suite E-1404 Saint Pau1,11rnnesota 55101 Telephone {612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 February 11, 1995 St. Paul City Council City of St. Paul Court House St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: 281 East Sth Street St. Paul, Minnesota �� q� -a �3 Dear Council Members, Dan Bostrom, Jerry Blakey, Kathy Lantry, Jim Reiter, Jay Benanav, Chris Coleman, and Mike Harris: As you may know, a hearing in connection with the above property is scheduled for a meeting of the City Council later today to vote on whether a permit wi11 be issued to us in connection with our application to demolish the above building. We would like to respectfully request that this hearing be postponed until the council meeting on March 4, 1998. The scheduling of this meeting has been exclusively in the hands of the Heritage Preservation Commission, which has refused our request to postpone today's meeting and has adopted an accelerated time frame that, while it may suit their interests, has not allowed us time to prepare adequately. In addition, this time schedule has not allowed sufficient time for both sides to meet and explore possible methods to attempt to resolve some of the differences. From our perspective, and hopefully from yours, laying this matter over for a short period of time won't be harmful and might be beneficial to all concerned. We appreciate your consideration. Our Company has been in business in St. Paul for over 45 years. we have been long term investors in downtown St. Paul real estate for over 40 years. We have owned and been active in helping to preserve several historically significant downtown St. Paul buildings which are now on the National Register. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY ,o��,��:� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj Delivered by Hand cc: Norm Coleman, Mayor Tom Fabel, Deputy Mayor � � CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Nonrs Coleman, Mayor 13 January 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 CiTy Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND �� ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION n Robert Kessler, Director I}G -"} j� �I O C� f LOWRYPROF£SSIONALBUILO7.NG Telephone:611d66-9090 Suite 300 Facsimile: 672-166-9099 350 St. Peier Street Saint Paul, Minnesam 55102-I510 I would like to request t6at a public heazing before the City Council be scheduled for Wednesday, February 11, 1998 for the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision: Appellant: Baillon Company HPC File: #3172 Pucpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to deny approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building at 281 E. Fifth St. (I,owertown ). The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public heazing on this matter and voted 9- 0 on December 11, 1997 to deny approval ofthe requested permit. This City Council public heazing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-908 7 if you have any questions. Sincerely, r ° Yc"�i-�ti � `�a.�;��' �c4 �.; Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Kessler, Halvorson, LIEP Chazles Skrief, HPC Chair Peter Wamer, CAO Paul Baillon Ce�diFlC� ��i�? '�p��? J��4 1 E iS;;3 � • • • OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION Ro6er[ Kessles, Drrec[or CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor LOWRYPROFFSSIONAL BUILDING Suite 300 350 St. Peter Saeet Saini Paul, Minnesota 55102-ISIO 5 February 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: HPC File #3172: Cit� Council Hearing: Baillon Company 11 February 1998 -a �3 Telephone: 611-266-9090 Facsimile: 612d 66-9099 PURPOSE: To consider an appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's denial of a peanit to demolish the Crane Building located at 281 East Fifth Street. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTTON: Denial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. SUPPORT: One person spoke. OPPOSITION: Four people spoke. Dear Ms. Anderson: The Baillon Company has appealed the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission to deny approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building. The subject building is located within the Lowertown Heritage Preservation District at 281 East Fifth Street. The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the permit application on December 11, 1997 at which time Mr. Paul Baillon, representing the property owner, addressed the commission. In public testimony, one person spoke in support of the proposed demolition and four people spoke against it. Following the close of the pub(ic hearing; the commission voted 9- 0 to deny approval of the demolition permit. The commission's findings aze stated in its resolution, which is attached. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February I 1, 1998. I have attached pertinent information. Slides of the Crane Buiiding and surrounding azea will be available at the Council meeting if Councilmembers wish to view them. Very truly yours, t ��ti i'��C��'� Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Attachments cc: City Councilmembers; Robert Kessler, LIEP; Peter Wamer, CAO; Paul Baillon • r1 LJ u CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemm�, Mayor OFF7CE OF LICENSE, INSPEC170NS AND ENVIItON[vgNTAL PROTECTfON Robert Kessler, Director LOIVRYPROFESSIONAL BUZLD7NG Suite 300 350 Sr. Perer Srreer Saint P¢v1, Mirsnesata SS[01-ISIO 19 December 1997 Mr. Paul Baillon Baillon Company 332 Minnesota Street #E1404 Saint Paul, MN 55101 By Fax: 222-5556 9 pages Deaz Mr. Baillon: �� Telephone: 612-2669090 Facsimile: 612-2669099 The Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission voted at its December I 1, 1997 meeting to deny approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building located at 281 East Fifth Street. I have enclosed a copy of the commission's resolution. You have the right to appeal this decision to the Saint Paul City Council under Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Such appeal must be filed by December 25, 1977. Chapter 73 requires that the following pazagaph be included in all letters indicating denial of a permit: Section 73.06 (h) Appeal to the City Council. The permit applicant or any party aggrieved by the decision of the heritage preservation commission shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of the heritage preservation commission's order and decision, have a right to appeal such order and decision to the ciry council. The appeal shall be deemed perfected upon receipt by the division ofplanning of two (2) copies of a notice of appeal and statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal. The division of planning shall transmit one copy of the notice of appeal and statement to the ciry council and one copy to the heritage preservation commission. The commission, in arry written order denying a permit application, shall advise the applicant of the right to appeal to the city council and include this paragraph in all such orders. Because the Heritage Preservation Commission is no longer staffed by the Planning Division, I would request that any letter of appeal be sent to me at LIEP instead of to the Planning Division. If you do appeal the decision, please indicate in your letter the grounds for the appeal and, in particulaz, any errors of fact, finding or procedure you believe the commission made. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions or concems. Very truly your� ��,ti.�, /�,�.�; Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner cc: Kessler and Halvorson @ LIEP BAILLON COMPANY 332 Minnesota Strcet Suite E-1404 Saint Pau1,11Tinnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 December 19, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein Aeritage Preservation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections and Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Environmental Protection Re: Crane Building, 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MN Your File # 3172 Dear Mr. Rubenstein: 2 am writing in regard to the Demolition Permit Application for the Crane Building at 281 East 5th Street in St. Paul, which was filed on October 29, 1997. As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed our permit application at their December 11, 1997 meeting and voted to deny the application. Please take this letter as written notice that we wish to exercise our right to appeal the matter to the St. Paul City Council and to exercise any other appeal rights that we may have. If anything further is required in this regard, please let me know right away. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY �� e� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj Sent via fax 266-9099 and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested � • � �i� - d l 3 • BAILLON CaMPANY 332 Diinncmta St�eet Sulte E-140d Saint Paal, l►iinn�ts 55101 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Faettmile (612) 222-5556 December 19. 1997 Mr. Aaron RubensY.ein Heritage Preaervation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections and Lowry Professional Buildin9 Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 A/a+t�e 6�F /�pPeul � � c � � v -o � w � Environmental ProteCtion Re: Crane Building, 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MII�1 Your File # 3172 Dear Mr. Rubenstein: I am writing in regard to the Demolition Permit Application for the Crane Building at 281 East 5th Street in St. Paul, . which was filed on October 29, 1997. As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed our permit application at their December 11, 1997 meeting and voted to deny the application. �: ;;� .. . = r l� Please take this letter as written notice that we wish to exercise our right to appeal the matter to the St. Paul City Council and to exercise any other appeal rights that we may have. If anything further is required in this regard, please let �d Yhut me know right away. y �.,n• '+��•«s+a.� — A° y�« K�ow, y� 0 ��9�^"��> Sf"'t youwo„,J$4 I�UUJANRVte1`M u fp7ea y w Very truly yours, - M��Y Y � � BAILLON COMPANY QaNO+ fttcivt �.wy7k�wr { Y by 3�aSpYtn '�oCla� � faF¢/1 Yvµ 'tL�.a ako�e 4¢iltr n,t 3:TS P•v� aKJ wtso M.itstl yvti c.. coiy a� ��/��'� The PoS�r p4Fice �wM��t�W�ft�y .rhereaFter.Tkis GvRS A�nl Yrs �� °""' 7rotee+ au.r e.PP�at f�RAts ,�.u��tv F��e 6y �rtv. de.u[u�e. SNLSeAKQwi�t� A`F S�:HI �M 7Ui�Ky /2�l'J�'/7� W� {INl1��y Paul A. Ba7.11on reca��ed y�Kr �e�Ne ; +�� !�4�9✓ by fa%. zn rs«ae�.:� y�ur�tfft� �.� now wpPawrS 'W�at My t evas �.1eo.t+Pleft and s wstl h¢ ,�¢�, y s ,,.pPKw�tnt��y it �h kw.,ctw�iHte {or.+� Vecause our SecrtrRr� PAB:lsj �S Y+Uw gar¢ kdw�e a'F �`s La'+e huN✓. x a.a k,ise fe-r�ail��y ywa caP�el 04 „ Mis L�'�t✓ -ryyuN -tedaq a�t'r� l.sEP oif�ce a,e yau Awv� /e4wrstvd Sent via f3x 266-9099 �'" $ a.H a15n faY�aS �+ . �ic�.R. Bw,a�i�+� (3w.�l�n Go.yoR��' and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested !z.!! 1 �47 �tow.Qs for i�PP'�a� �f'�'`a �Ppi�twu.+,Ra�4loh Conn�aKy t3 4OPPa/�nt a� '1Z`� 6/oaKdS ecisiiv. o F `f�`R ffer� �tayr.P/Psarva+e� comn*rss��•1 n+4�Ce on o ��h�p t Yv hPP��Qa•a'�s -ptrv�o�tttw� Ra�Mit A�P!<<a'��•�y� Wus ,4r��'treVy� ucp/'cc�suS� t "' ¢r�} bres� av� ince.µPt�te �nfnrn�a�� bkud oN ��naccurwtc lnFO/MU��rN� W ��n.uKt M � G„7�toar /��e/�er /'tfnicl Yr� based o+� �'rrettrvRnt �Kfo�,n�f�ur�, bas�d u� heresay, a� � �er��«y� P�aaerda+�i�n 6arde(�.�r� . BAILLON COMPANY 332 Minnesota Strcet Suite E-1404 Saint Paul,llTinnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 December 23, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Re: Appeal from the Heritage Preservation Commission's 12/11/97 denial of Baillon Company's Demolition Permit Application for the Crane Building, located at 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MN Your File # 3172 Dear Mr. Rubenstein: In follow up to my letter of December 19, 1997, (copy enclosed) which contained our Notice of Appeal and Grounds for Appeal in the above matter, I am submitting herewith some additional grounds for appeal. The applicant, Baillon Company, is appealing on the additional grounds that the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission made on December il, 1997, with respect to Applicant's Demolition Permit Application was based on errors of law and fact, erroneous findings, erroneous procedures, conclusions that were based on assumptions, conclusions based on information that lacked proper foundation, and the failure to properly consider information and facts provided by the Applicant. If you need anything further, please let me know. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY �''��r�Gd•!.�'� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj Sent via fax 266-9099 and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested C� � J � q� • CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMIVIISSION RESOLUTION FII.E NUMBER 3172 DATE 11 beecember 1997 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul L,egislative Code to review building permit applications for exterior alterations, new conshvction or demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and WHEREAS, the Baillon Company and A. Kamish and Sons have applied for a permit to demolish the Crane Building located at 281 East FiRh Street within the Lowertown Heritage Preservation District; and WHEREAS, the Crane Build'mg is a six story, brick, wuehouse building designed by the firm of Reed and Stem, constructed in 1904, and categorized as supportive to the character of the Lowertown District; and WHEREAS, the Lowertown Heritage Preservation District guidelines refer to the HPC ordinance, Chapter 73 of the Legislative Code, concerning demolition: In the case of the proposed demolition of a 6uilding, prior to approval of said demolition, the � commission shall make written findings on the following: Architectural and historical merit of the bui[ding, the effect of the demolirion on sunounding buildings, the e,�'ect of arry proposed new construcrion on the remainder of the building (in case of partial demolition) and on surrounding buildings, and the economic value or usefulness of the building as it now exists or if altered or rraodified in comparison with the value or usefulness of arry proposed structures designated to replace the present building or buildings; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its December 11, 1997 public hearing on said permit application, made the following findings of fact: 1. Architectural and historical merit ofthe buildine. The Crane Building is azchitecturally and historically significant for the following reasons: it is categorized as supportive to the local district; it is categorized as contributing to the national district; its architectural design contains distinctive features; it was designed by Reed and Stem, prominent local azchitects; it is the former wazehouse of the Crane and Ordway Company; and a significant individual, Lucius P. Ordway, is associated with the building as well as with the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M). • 2. Effect of the demolition on surrounding buildings. Demolition of the Crane Building may physically jeopazdize surrounding buildings, namely the adjacent Mukethouse and Rayette buildings. In addition, demolition would geatly adversely affect the appearance and quality of the historic Lowertown district. Specifically of concern is the interruption of the building or street wall--one of the most distinguishing characteristics of I,owertown. Removal of the building would erode a very cleazly defined edge and create a lazge opening in the street wall at the northern end of the Fazmers Mazket. Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #3172 Page Two 3. Effect of any �roposed new construction on ... surroundin� buildings. Construction of a pazking lot on the subject site dces not conform to any of the new construction guidelines for the district, including scale, massing, and rhythm. 4. The economic value or usefulness of the buildin�as it now exists or if altered or modified in comparison with the value or usefulness of anv proposed structures designated to replace the present building Despite two written requests by staffthe applicant 6as not provided detailed economic information about the building either as it e�cists or as it might be modified (rehabbed). The applicant has not defmitively stated the use to which the property would be put after demolition. The applicant has speculated that the site might be used for surface pazking. The app}icant has supplied no financial information about future use of the property. New Use for the Site. The burden for demonstrating the value or usefulness of the site after demolition falls not on the commission but on the applicant. The applicant did not supply a plan for the site or any economic data. Nevertheless, the commission, on its own initiative, considered three altemarives: � a) Do nothing. The applicant was asked at the public hearing the applicanYs purchase price of � the building. The applicant responded that he did not know. County tax records indicate a $100,000 contract for deed for the property in 1978, the year in which the applicant purchased the property. Since that time, according to the applicant, the property has appreciated to $1,400,000. The applicant states that annual maintenance e�cpenses for the property aze $20,000 or more. The appFicant did not supply a net figure (after tas deductions, etc.). If the applicant's assessment of the building's current value is correct, the building could reasonably be preserved as a rapidly appreciating asset. It is in the city's interest that the building survive unril it can be rehabilitated, as many similaz buildings in Lowertown have been rehabilitated. b) Vacant land. Although specifically asked at the heazing, the applicant did not estimate the value of vacant land in Lowertown. Expert testunony indicated a marcimum value of $20/sq. ft. The lot size is 9,377 sq. ft. The value of the land may be generously estimated to be $187,000. Applicant states demolition costs will be $145,000. The net value to the applicant of the vacant land affer demolition is $42,000. The value to the city of vacant land is negligible. There is already a significant supply of vacant or unbui$ land in Lowertown. c) Surface pazking. The applicant has indicated the property may be used for surface pazking. The applicant did not supply a site plan or economic figures. The applicant stated no pro forma budget has been prepazed. Staff estimates the lot would contain 28 or 29 pazking spaces. This • would increase the land azea in the eastem half of the Lowertown district that is devoted to surface pazking by two percent. The Commission estimates that the applicant's net income from q8 � Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #3172 Page T1uee pazking may be approximately $10,000 (after taxes, management fees, site preparation costs, etc.). This return seems inadequate on an asset applicant values at $1,400,000. The two percent increase in Lowertown pazking is of slight benefit to the city when compazed to the economic value of a rehabbed building. Rehabilitation of the Crane BuildinQ. The applicant cannot reasonably claim that ownership of the building is an economic hazdship if the applicant is responsible for the hazdship. In particulaz, the applicant, in its riventy yeaz ownership of the building, has never requested or been issued a building permit, indicating that the applicant has made no effort to maintain the structure. The building's elevator does not work. This fact alone may explain the applicanYs stated inability to rent the six-story building. The applicant has precluded sale.of the building by setting an unrealisrically high asking price. Ti�e applicant has mazketed the property for $1,400,000 (approxitnately $23/sq. ft.} The applicant did not, in response to questions from the commission, supply names of compazable Lowertown properties selling for a similaz amount. ExpeR testimony showed compazable buildings in I,owertown aze selling for $2-$10/sq. ft. Mr. Lu testified that three comparable buildings in Lowertown have sold recently for $2.10-$5.00/sq. ft. Based on this expert • testimony, the fair mazket value of the 59,500 sq. ft Crane Building is $119,000-$595,000. The applicanYs stated inability to sell the property stems from the applicant's unreasonably high asking price. Mr. Weiming Lu of the I.owertown Redevelopment Corporation testified extensively about the economic value to the city of the redevelopment of Lowertown and of individual buildings. He said that, since 1978, $428 million has been invested in Lowertown, resulting in 3,000 residents and 8,000 jobs. He expressed optimism on the basis of his 18 yeaz experience as executive director of the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation that a suitable and economically successful reuse could be found for the Crane Building. The applicant stated, "There may be people in this world, and there probably are, more clever and more creative than we are [in fmding a new use for the building]:' The burden of finding a new use for the building does not rest on the commission. Nevertheless, the commission recommends to the applicant that the applicant consider at least the following options: Accept offers of technical assistance from the City of St. Paul (Planning and Economic Development (PED), Heritage Preservation Commission), Lowertown Redevelopment Corporafion, the Minnesota Historical Society, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2. Invest in long-delayed maintenance to make the building rentable. • 3. Offer the building for sale at a price established by the mazket. Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #3172 Page Fow 4. Investigate offers of financial assistance from Lowertown Redevelopment Corpotarion and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 5. Consider development alternatives other than apartrnents (the only alternative about which the applicant supplied any financial information). 6. Investigate statements of developer interest in the building by Artspace Projects and PED. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that the fmdings in the staff report be appended to this resolution; and BE TT FTNALLY RESOLVED that the Heritage Preservation Commission, based on these findings, denies approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building at 281 East Fifth Street. MOVED BY Cermak SECONDED BY Skrief IN FAVOR AGAINST ABSTAIN Decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commission are finay subject to appeal to the City Council within 14 days by anyone affected by the decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting applicable building and zoning code requirements, and does not constitute approval for tax credits. � . C J q�-a�3 • PROPOSED DEMOLTTION OF THE CRANE BUII.DII3G STAFF REPORT FINDINGS I. Background/introducrion: a. The applicant has owned the building for almost 20 years, during w}uch time it has been essenrially vacant with minor exceprions. The gross azea is 65,000 square feet and the net (usable or rentable) azea is 54,000 square feet. The lot azea and building footprint aze 9,3�7 square feet. The building is of reinforced concrete construction. The first floor is currently leased by Allright Pazking for equipment s[orage. b. The applicant proposes to demolish the building because it is economically burdensome, i.e., costs for tases, insurance, and maintenance in excess of $20,000 annually, yet it provides little to no income. The applicant has tried to lease or sell the building for yeazs with no takers. c. The building is in fair condition, though it is essentially a shell. It needs a new roof (leaking has caused some damage to the brick on the Wall Street elevation). The freight elevator is appro�cimately 25 years old but not operational. The boiler is not functional, and existing radiators would provide only enough heat for a wazehouse-type use. District Aeat runs through the building. d. The applicant claims that it is not economically feasible to reuse or rehabilitate the building and notes these particular problems: high windows, column spacing, lack of pazking, and obsolete or non-existent mechanicals. e. The applicant owns a 93-stall parking lot to the north of the Crane Building. The • applicant has stated that the Crane Building site would probably be used for surface pazking also. A parking lot on the Crane Building site would accommodate 28 or 29 stalls (nonstacked). A site plan for such use has not been submitted. £ CounTy tax records indicate a$100,000 conVact for deed on the property recorded in 1978, the yeaz in which the applicant purchased the property. The terms of the contract are not known and this is not necessazily the purchase price. g. Because the Crane Building is a contributing structure in a National Register historic district, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAV1� would need to be prepazed if the HPC denies approval of the demolition permit and the applicant appeals this decision to the City Council. An EAW would delay the City Council public hearing by several months. 2. The Crane Building is azchitecturally and historically significant. It is categorized as supportive to the local disirict and contributing to the national district. The building's design is rather unusual in Lowertown, with banded piers, regulazly spaced though smallish windows (taller at the second story), orange brick, and a recessed entry stairway with glass risers. The building is cleazly distinctive in the azchitectural landscape of Lowertown. The building is also significant as the work of the prominent Saint Paul architectural firm of Reed and Stem (ca. 1890-1910). The fum specialized in railroad stations and designed over 100 of them across the country, including a collaboration with Warren & Witmore on New York's Grand Central Station. Saint Paul buildings by Reed and Stem include the Saint Paul Hotel (1910), the Goodkind Houses at 5 and 7 Heather Place (1910), the Minnesota Boat Club on Raspberry Island, the University Club at 420 Summit (1912), and residences at 340 Summit � Avenue and 530 Grand Hill. Stem designed the building at 282 East Siarth Street which houses SeestedYs Carpets. Staff Report Findings/Crane Building Demolition Page Two The Crane Building is also significant for its associations with the Crane and Ordway Company and Lucius P. Ordway. By 1897, the company was the world's lazgest manufacturer of valves, fittings, and steam supplies. The subject building served as a warehouse. Lucius Ordway and a partner acquired conh�ol of the three-year old 3M Company in 1905 and he was its president from 1906 to 1909. The Lowertown building that the Crane and Ordway Company occupied prior to completion of the subject building is no longer extant and is the site of a parking tot. 3. In the most narrow physical terms, it appears that replacing the Crane Building with a pazking lot would not have a detrimental physical effect on surrounding buildings. The northeast side wall of the Crane Building is actually the southwest wall of Mazkethouse (the Tighe Building, constructed 1902). In demolishing the Crane Building, care would have to be taken to not damage the Mazkethouse building. � In most significant terms, however, demolition of.the_building and replacing it with a surface pazking lot would be tembly detrimental to the context of surrounding buildings and to the character, integriry, and quality of the I.owertown Heritage Preservation District. A very important part of the character of this warehouse district is the city blocks filled up with small and lazge warehouse and manufacturing buildings, one aRer the other, creating strong lines of building walls enclosing the street. This fundamental building paLtem is already unfortunately � eroded in Lowertown. These historic buildings, in isolation, separated by pazking lots, lose their contexi and impact. The Lowertown dishict cannot afford to lose more historic buildings. Many have already been demolished, leaving a somewhat spotty fabric of buildings. The Crane Building has a pivotal location, helping to enclose the north end of the Fazmers Mazket. The mazket is an important civic space strongly enclosed at the two ends by warehouse buildings. T'he rivo sides of the mazket aze enclosed weakly; two comers previously occupied by buildings are now surface pazking lots. The character and integrity of the eastern half of the Lowertown district, in particulaz, has been eroded by the replacement of historic buildings with parking lots. On the eight blocks in the eastern half of the district, bounded by Kellogg, Seventh, Wacouta and Broadway (Northem Warehouse and Tilsner buildings excluded), there aze thirteen surface parking lots, ten of which sites were previously occupied by buildings, most of them three to five stories in height. ('I'he Fazmers Mazket, which is used for contract pazking during the week, is counted as one of the thirteen lou.) These pazking lots account for 22 percent of the land azea in this eight block azea (public right-of-way excluded) if the mazket is not counted as pazking and for 31 percent of the land azea if the mazket is counted as pazking. Putting a pazking lot on the Crane Building site would increase these figures by rivo percent. (All figures aze approximate.) Previous demolitions are unfortunate. Additional demolirion would also be unfortunate. The chazacter of the district that warranted local and federal designarion remains unchanged. To lose another I,owertown building at this edge of downtown would have a significant adverse r �8�ac3 • Staff Report Findings/Crane Building Demolition Page Three impact on the character and integrity of the district (and provide only 28 or 29 pazking spaces). If the district is to thrive as a neighborhood, a place to work and live, and as a historic area, it needs buildings and more people and uses in and azound them rather than more pazking lots. 4. The Crane Building as it is currently being used is not generating a positive cash flow. The 1997 assessed value of the land and building is $207,500 (building has six stories, assessed value based on five stories). To demolish the building, however, would destroy the potential for future economic value which e�sts. The key problem appears to be that the applicant is asking, and has asked, far too high a price for the building--$1.4 million--which precludes reuse and rehabilitation (numerous knowledgeable sources have suggested that this is the case). Some figures: a. The asking price for the building is $23.53/sq. ft. (based on the average of the gross and net floor areas, which is 59,500 sq. ft., as suggested by the applicanY s reahor). The $1.4 million asking price does not include the adjacent parking lot to the north. b. Knowledgeable sources have suggested that compazable buildings in Lowertown aze selling for two to ten dollazs per squaze foot and that the Crane Building should sell for a price in this range--and probably less than ten dollars. A very recent appraisal of the • 90,000 sq. ft, vacant, James J. Hill Building values the building at $278,500, or $3/sq. ft. gross. c. Several sources have suggested that land values in I,owertown aze in the $10-12/sq. ft. range, while several others have suggested the figure could be as high as $20/sq. R. A supervisor in the County Assessor's office estimates Lowertown land values at $10- 15/sq. ft. or three to four thousand dollazs per pazking stall. d. The cost to demolish the Crane Building is $112,000 according to the property owner and demolition contractor. Some sources have questioned this figure, particulazly for a concrete building, and one source estimated the cost could be$300,000 or more depending on hazardous materials. It appeazs that a new use for the Crane Building might very well be found if the sale price reflected the mazket reality for unimproved warehouse space and the condition of the building. Potenrial uses might include light industrial, artists studios (nonresidential), business incubator, mini-storage, indoor mazket, raw, low-tech space like the Rossmoor Building, or some combination of these uses. Office and residenrial uses would likely require a greater investment and therefore might be more difficult to accomplish. In addition, residential uses would probably require enlazging the existing widow openings which would be expensive and significantly alter the design and character of the building. Several developers consulted by HPC stafF said they had looked at the Crane Building in the past but were deterred by the price and/or that they would be interested in the building if the price reflected the reality of the mazketpiace. The Allen Building, to the north of the Crane Building across Sixth Street, is somewhat similaz to the Crane Building. It also has high windows, though more of them. It was rehabilitated ten • years ago and is now occupied by a variety of warehouse, light industrial, and Class C office uses. Many wazehouse and manufacturing buildings in Lowertown have been rehabilitated for Staff Report FindingslCrane Building Demolition Page Four contemporary use. Though some buildings are underurilized, only a few aze vacant. By proposing demolirion of the Crane Building, its owner is saying that iu value is the land value, because what they will have after demolirion is a piece of land, minus the cost of demolition. Such an equation might look like this: land value is 9,377 sq. ft times $20 = $187,540, minus demolition cost of $ I 12,000, leaves net value of $'75,540. If the building were worth anywhere neaz $1.4 million, the owner would not be paying to demolish it, with a pazcel of land worth $187,540 as a resuk. Demolifion would be premature until a fair price is asked for the building and there aze no takers. Perhaps the applicant would be willing to sell the building for fl�e real value they appear to place on it, e.g., $75,540 plus three months' carrying costs and a five percent realtor's fee,...or even $187,540. T'hese figures aze e�camples and estimates rather than appraisals. Options to facilitate the rehabilitation of the Crane Building might include 1) the City's STAR program, 2) a ta�c inccement £mancing (TIF) district, 3) historic ta�c credits, 4) a facade easement, and 5) working with City staff in PED. PED staff are willing to work with the applicant but believe that previous proposals for the building have been unrealistic. � It appears that the high sale price of the Crane Building has been a very significant obstacle to its reuse. A realis6c, market-based price could result in significant investment in the building . which would result in much greater economic value and usefulness than would a pazking lot. � a�-al3 • • HPC FILE #3 ] 72 CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL HERTTAGE PRESERVATION COMII�SSION STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: Demolish Crane Building APPLICANT: Baillon Company (and A. Kamish & Sons) DATE OF APPLICATION: 10.29.97 DATE OF HEARING: 12.11.97 LOCAITON: 281 East Fifth Street (north comer at Wall Street) HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Lowertown district CLASSIFICATION: Major CATEGORY: Supportive STAFF INVESTIGAITON AND REPORT: DATE: 12.8.97 BY: Aazon Rubenstein A. STTE DESCRIPTION: The Crane Building is a six-story, orange brick, wazehouse building designed by the firm of Reed and Stem and constructed in 1904. Features include banded piers, small windows, radiating brickwork at the entrance, and a corbeled brick comice. B. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant proposes to demolish the structure. C. GUIDELINE CTTATIONS: The Lowertown Heritage Preservation District guidelines refer to the HPC ordinance, Chapter 73 of the Legislative Code, concerning demolition: In the case of the proposed demolition of a building, prior to approval of said demolirion, the commission shall make written findings on the following: Architectural and historical merit of the building, the effect of the demo[ition on surrounding buildings, the effect of arry proposed new construction on the remainder of the building (in case of partial demolition) and on surrounding buildings, and the economic value or usefulness of the building as it now exists or if altered or modifzed in comparison with the value or usefulness of arry proposed structures designated to replace the present building or buildings. D. FINDINGS: 1. Background/introduction: � a. � The applicant has owned the building for almost 20 years, during which time it has been essentially vacant with minor exceptions. The gross azea is 65,000 square feet and the net (usable or rentable) azea is 54,000 square feet. The lot azea and building footprint aze 9,377 squaze feet. The building is of reinforced concrete construction. The fust floor is curtently leased by Allright Pazking for equipment storage. The applicant proposes to demolish the building because it is economically burdensome, i.e., costs for tazes, insurance, and maintenance in excess of $20,000 annually, yet it provides little to no income. The applicant has tried to lease or sell the building for years with no takers. HPC Staff Report: File #3172 Page Two � c. The building is in fair condition, though it is essentially a shell. Ii needs a new roof (leaking has caused some damage to the brick on the Wall Street elevarion). The freight elevator is approximately 25 years old but not opentional. The boiler is not functional, and e�tisting radiators would provide only enough heat for a wazehouse-type use. District Heat runs through the building. d. The applicant claims that it is not economically feasible to reuse or rehabilitate the building and notes these particulaz problems: high windows, column spacing, lack of pazking, and obsolete or non-e�stent mechanicals. e. The applicant owns a 73-stall parking lot to the north of the Crane Building. The applicant has stated that the Crane Building site would probably be used for surface parking also. A pazking lot on the Crane Building site would accommodate 28 or 29 stalls (nonstacked). A site plan for such use has not been submitted. f. County taY records indicate a$100,000 contract for deed on the property recorded in 1978, the yeaz in which the applicant purchased the property.- The terms of-the contract aze not known and this is not necessarily the purchase price. g. Because the Crane Building is a contributing shvcture in a National Register historic district, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA� wouid need to be prepazed ifthe HPC denies approval of the demolifion permit and the applicant appeals this decision to the CiTy Council. An EAW would delay the City Council public heazing by several months. • 2. The Crane Building is azchitecturally and historically significant. It is categorized as supportive to the ]oca] disirict and contributing to the national district. The building's design is rather unusual in I,owertown, with banded piers, regulazly spaced though smallish windows (taller at the second story), orange brick, and a recessed entry stairway with glass risers. The building is cleazly distinctive in the azchitectural landscape of I.owertown. The building is also significant as the work of the prominent Saint Paul architectural firm of Reed and Stem (ca. 1890-1910). The firm specialized in railroad stations and desigied over 100 of them across the country, including a collaboration with Warren & Witmore on New York's Grand Central Station. Saint Paul buildings by Reed and Stem include the Saint Paul Hotel (1910), the Goodkind Houses at 5 and 7 Heather Place (1910), the Minnesota Boat Club on Raspberry Island, the University Club at 420 Summit (1912), and residences at 340 Summit Avenue and 530 Grand Hill. Stem designed the building at 282 East Sixth Street which houses Seestedt's Carpeu. The Crane Building is also significant for its associations with the Crane and Ordway Company and Lucius P. Ordway. By 1897, the company was the world's lazgest manufacturer of valves, fittings, and steam supplies. The subject building served as a warehouse. Lucius Ordway and a paztner acquired control of the three-year old 3M Company in 1905 and he was its president from 1906 to 1909. The Lowertown building that the Crane and Ordway Company occupied prior to completion of the subject building is no longer extant and is the site of a parking lot. 3. In the most narrow tetms, it appeazs that replacing the Crane Building with a parking lot would . not have a detrimental effect on surrounding buildings. The northeast side wall of the Crane a8 - a l� � HPC Staff Report: File #3172 Page Three Building is actually the southwest wall of Mazkethouse (the Tighe Building, constructed 1902). In demolishing the Crane Building, care would have to be taken to not damage the Mazkethouse building. In most significant terms, however, demolition of the building and replacing it with a surface parking lot would be terribly detrimental to the context of sucmunding buildings and to the chazacter, integity, and quality of the L,owertown Heritage Preservation District. A very important part of the chazacter of this wazehouse district is the city blocks filled up with small and large warehouse and manufacturing buildings, one after the other, creating strong lines of building walls enclosing the street. This fundamental building pattem is already significantly eroded in Lowertown. These historic buildings, in isolation, sepazated by pazking lots, lose their context and impact. The Lowertown district cannot afford to lose more historic buildings.. Many have already been demolished, leaving a somewhat spotty fabric of buildings. The Crane Building has a pivotal location, helping to enclose the north end of the Farmers Mazket. The mazket is an important civic space sffongly enclosed at the two ends by warehouse buildings. The rivo sides of the mazket are enclosed weakly; two corners previously occupied by buildings are now surface parking lots. � The character and integrity of the eastem half of the Lowertown district, in particulaz, has been eroded by the replacement of historic buildings with pazking lots. On the eight blocks in the eastern half of the district, bounded by Kellogg, Seventh, Wacouta and Broadway (Northern W azehouse and Tilsner buildings excluded), there aze thirteen surface pazking lots, ten of which sites were previously occupied by buildings, most of them three to five stories in height. (The Farmers Mazket, which is used for contract pazking during the week, is counted as one of the thirteen lots.) These parking lots account for 22 percent of the land azea in this eight block azea (public right-of-way excluded) if the mazket is not counted as parking and for 31 percent of the land azea if the mazket is counted as pazking. Putting a pazking lot on the Crane Building site would increase these figures by two percent. (All figures aze approximate.) To lose another Lowertown building at this edge of downtown would have a significant adverse impact on the character and integrity of the district (and provide only 28 or 29 pazking spaces). If the district is to thrive as a neighborhood, a place to work and live, and as a historic azea, it needs buildings and more people and uses in and azound them rather than more pazking lots. 4. The Crane Building, as it now stands, has little economic value or usefulness. The 1997 assessed value of the land and building is $207,500 (building has six stories, assessed value based on five stories). To demolish the building, however, would desuoy the potential for future economic value which e�cists. The key problem appeus to be that the applicant is asking, and has asked, faz too high a price for the building--$1.4 million--which precludes reuse and rehabilitation (numerous knowledgeable sources have suggested that this is the case). Some • figures: HPC StaffReport: Fi]e #3172 Page Four a. The asking price for the building is $23.53/sq. ft. (based on the average of the gross and net floor azeas, which is 59,500 sq. ft., as suggested by the applicanYs realtor). The $1.4 million asking price does not include the adjacent pazking lot to the north. b. Knowledgeable sources have suggested that compazable buildings in Lowertown aze selling for two to ten dollazs per square foot and that the Crane Building should sell for a price in this range--and probably less than ten dollars, A very recent appraisal of the 90,000 sq. ft, vacant, James J. Hill Building values the building at $278,500, or $3/sq. ft. gross. c. Several sources have suggested that land values in Lowertown aze in the $10-12/sq. ft. range, while several others have suggested the figure could be as high as $20/sq. ft. A supervisor in the County Assessor's office estimates I.owertown land values at $10-15/sq. ft. or three to four thousand dollazs per pazking stall. d. The cost to demolish the Crane Building is $112,000 according to the property owner and demolition contractor. Some sources have questioned this figure, particularly for a concrete building, and one source estimated the cost could be $300,000 or more depending on hazardous materials. u It appears that a new use for the Crane Building might very well be found if the sale price reflected the market realiTy for unimpmved wazehouse space and the condition of the building. Potential uses might include Iight industrial, artists studios (nonresidential), business incubator, � mini-storage, indoor mazket, raw, low-tech space like the Rossmor Building, or some combination of these uses. Office and residential uses would likely require a greater investment and therefore might be more difficult to accomplish. In addition, residential uses would probably require enlarging the e�cisting widow openings which would be e�cpensive and significantly alter the design and character of the building. Several developers consulted by HPC staff said they had looked at the Crane Building in the past but were deterred by the price and/or that they would be interested in the building if the price reflected the reality of the mazketplace. The Allen Building, to the north of the Crane Building across Sixth Street, is somewhat similar to the Crane Building. It also has high windows, though more of them. It was rehabilitated ten yeazs ago and is now cecupied by a variery of warehouse, light industrial, and CIass C office uses. Many wazehouse and manufacturing buildings in Lowertown have been rehabilitated for contemporary use. Though some buildings aze underutilized, only a few aze vacant. By proposing demolition of the Crane Building, its owner is saying that its value is the land value, because what they will have after demotidon is a piece of land, inutus the cost of demolition. Such an equation might look like ttus: land value is 9,377 sq, ft times $20 = $187,540, minus demolition cost of $112,000, leaves net value of $75,540. If the building were worth anywhere neaz $1.4 million, the owner would not be paying to demolish it, with a pazcel of land worth $187,540 as a result. Demolition would be premature until a fair price is asked for the building and there are no takers. Perhaps the applicant would be willing to seil the building for the real value they appear to place on it, e.g., $75,540 plus three months' carrying costs and a five percent realtor's fee,...or even $187,540. These figures are examples and • estimates rather than appraisals. �g-a 13 � HPC Staff Report: File #3172 Page Five Options to facilitate the rehabilitation of the Crane Building might include 1) the City's STAR program, 2) a taY increment financing (TIF) district, 3) historic taz credits, 4) a facade easement, and 5) working with City staff in PED. PED staff aze willing to work with the applicant but believe that previous proposals for the building have been unrealistic. It appears that the high sale price of the Crane Building has been a very sign�cant obstacle to its reuse. A realistic, mazket-based price could result in significant investment in the building which would result in much greater economic value and usefulness than would a pazking lot. E. STAFF RECODII�fENDATION: Based on the above fmdings, staffrecommends denial of the requested demolition permit for the Crane Building. r� L_J \ J SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION SITES AND DISTRICTS DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION SITE ADDRESS: Name of applicant: Company: Address (include Zip Code): Phone number: ;Z�l �ast- Stk Streei- 5}. Pawt.yp�lnyesu+a. aa� I.l.ov� cow.paKy � /yoy Eusf � m�n.uso � 6«-ZZZ-ssss, ��z-xzz-rssb Fax Applicant's signature: /,�� `� �i....P.!•�i�-� �,wF�'^� Date /�/io/t � , Type of application: ❑ Repair/Rehabilitation ❑ New Construction ❑ Other �j Demolition � Sign � Moving ❑ Concept Review Only I understand that it is my responsibility as the applicanf stated above to contact Zoning Administration at 266-9008 to determine any further reviews required p�ior to issuance of a building permit by the Ciiy of Saint Paul. � (initial) of Work: (or aftach copy of written description of '�jevwe��t�o� of �c.�l�(iKf at 2S1 Eaf� SYt+ Sf. SE.pGHI�n1iKHPSa �cKOwn at y�tee C�a✓.e l3K�lc(�Kq _ 5+}e -to be Lev{1P� rtl� yfar�l �..pu.� C�Nn��2f�tl� o� GPP4�*ult�'tt/n oF (sui/��sfy Attach addiiiona/ sheeis i! neccessary Conditions and Materials: Materiais included (See reverse side for requiremenfs) ❑ 3 copies of plans ❑ Site plan ❑ Buiiding permit application�� Photographs , ❑Other �¢„,�ot;f�en P�rruit was pie�aks�r swo��fi"`�"!bY A.Ka'1a�3h+5on5. � File Number: � l / �-� Category: ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Major GJ CITY OF SAINT PAUL - OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 PROJECT z g � Number Street Name s ♦�♦ DEMOLITION . ��1I PERMITAPPLICATION . SecSon I - INFORMATIONAL - o StA�e,Etc. N,S,E,W Building Name St, �asr C�tqN� l34;)JI4..� Add (v�aW�ioa�a�ov,acamaaor�� PhOne Contrector [� �� S•ps �'�„c. � �� (IncludeContactPenon) 5�?wat y4�so PropertyOwner QA�}jo �,,,P,a.y d Residential Garage � ress `�� p �pwcon.c , City .� Nu�/t � P.au� t�}s State,Zip+4 yy�,� , S$'07L Address J �I � y ��s7 / — ,nk��po.�c �< city 332 1'Y1;N...:et� st, State,Zip+q Sf• Ppi,� y►�„r, a^5'/O/ I 12{L2 �yo�.S f. --.....-•-- Commercial � Date �1 �� 9 7 Enrer type of Strucmre ro be W recked: [o be Description: LOT V` , � the Contract 1 WIDTH LENGTH w �+da�.s � � Lo {� BLOCK ADDITIOY OR TRACT ] � c�(� w l� i?N�y � L c ,�' � �f To[al 2 o �� ,� � � p-� � HEIGHT 7� Date � a-zs-� 6�2 /3�A lv / 2 - 222 - SSSS $ >>z.00a TOTAL CUBIC FEET G93,oan cr c � ��1.• R 'CO�� Y a. 1� Does the Structure have a Basement? � � YES �NO � ��r, � Properry ^ � � � � ��^ � IDNumber }� (pm) � 3� One(1) Foot 4❑ Ot6er (Explaio ii Relnw (:rade the Cnmmmt Are Applicant certifies that all information is correct and that all pertinent state regulations and city ordinances will be compiied w� h in perFprming the work for which this permi�� 1l4ti,c C, � l►�. /.�/�A-�--- 5�S/ -13 8 � � Aoolicant'scSianature Phone# Publi � wailabili Credit THIS MUST BE PART OF ALL WRECIQNG � p�'1'g. Ca11Pub1icWorksInspec 40 Ci� Hdll ` >_Ilogg Bivd W qg'-4700 24 houn in advance oE work. voids in City rightof-way mustbe filled and Reviewer for SAC) sealed.CzIl2Kr _..__,_,ailabilityCharges Number of Credik �wer Dept•City Hall Annex-t0th FI 25 4th St W �� `� , �� ater Department-Commerce Building 2nd Ftoo�th StrQet E / /i 1/ %�l% (/( � � � U- �5-5 Two(2) Feet 300, Lowry Peter Street App�ed Extermination FAX � T � Permit Fee $ � . (Minimum $42.00) Would you like your Make check payable to CiTy of St. Paul permit faxed if yes, enter your fax number: t0 YOU� ► YES � NO � PAYMENT MAY BE MADE BY CREDIT CARD! If paying by credit card, piease complete the following information: MasterCard � Expiration Date:❑ ❑ I a❑ V/SA� qccount Number: Name of Cardholder (please print) � I OFFICE OF LICE\SE, f�SPECT1055 A\D ENVIROV�tE\TAL PROTECTIOV Ro6er1 Kessler, Di�ecmr CITY OF SAINT PAUL A'orm Coleman, Afapar LOfi'RY PROFESSIO.NAL BG'ILDIA'G Suite 300 350 Sf. Peter Street Sain1 Pau{ A4irmesom 5510?-I5/0 7elephone: 6/2-266-9090 Facsimile: 612-76b9099 � 5 A'ovember 1997 Mr. Paul Baillon Baillon Company 332 Minnesota Street #E1404 Saint Paul, MN 55101-] 317 Dear Mr. Baillon: As rve discnssed by telephone on October 37, the Heritage Preser�ation Commission (HPC) tivill need addicionat information from you, conceming the status ofthe Crane Building and any proposed use ofthe site, in order to consider and make a decision on the demolition permit. Please provide the following information: 1. The reason for the proposed demolition. 2. Sufficient information to determine «�hether it is or is not economically feasible to reuse or rehabilitate the buildin�. 3. Efforts ;�ou have made over the years to sell or lease the building and why they have failed, e.g., why prospective buyers have tumed away. 4. Plans for any new use or bui]ding on the site, e.g., detailed plans for a parking lot including fencing or tanc3scaping. 5. R'hat is the asking price for sale of the building and why is it so much greater than the assessed value? Are you a�i�are of other comparable buildings in the area that have sold for a compazable amount? 6. Have you considered using historic tax credits or low income housing tax credits to rehabilitaTe the buildin�? 7. How long has the building been vacant and w�hat were previous uses? When did your company buy the building and how did you expect it to be used at that time? 8. What do you believe would be necessary to successfully reuse or rehabilitate the building? 9. Any other information to help the HPC understand the building and your situation. As I mentioned when we spoke by phone, I believe the HPC will be very concemed about the economic viability ofreuse and rehabilitation. P1eaze provide whatever information you can, such as pro formas, etc., about this issue. In order for the commission to consider the demolition application at its November 20, 1997 meeting, I wil] need to have this information by November 13th and sooner if possible. As you requested, I have enclosed the Lowertown district design review guidelines, a map of the National Register district, a list of HPC members, and an HPC information sheet Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, `�� Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner . • � � � BAII,LON COMPANY 332 Minnesota Street Suite E-1404 Saint Paul DTinnesota 55101 (^ t ("( � a��di3 Y�L� �1�v I-SJ -��= �,� �.� C'=: __. _. ' G7 ii�; 12 P;l 2� 17 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 November 10, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Protection Re: Demolition Permit for building located at 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MN, also known as the Crane Building Dear Mr. Rubenstein: In response to your letter of November 5, 1997, regarding the above (copy enclosed), we are enclosing below our answers to your 9 questions. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES 1) QUESTION: The reason for the proposed demolition. ANSWER: We have owned the building for approximately 20 years. Over the years numerous, repeated efforts to lease, develop and/or sell the building have been unsuccessful. As a result, the building is and has been an economic burden and a financial liability for many years, and it has experienced substantial physical deterioration. The building is now essentially only a shell. • 2) QUESTION: or is not building. ANSATER : Sufficient information to determine whether it is economically feasible to reuse or rehabilitate the See answer to Questions 3 and 8. 1 � 3) QIIESTION: Efforts you have made over the years to sell or � lease the building and why they have failed, e.g., why prospective buyers have turned away. 4) ANSWSR: The Owner, Baillon Company, is also a Real Estate Broker and has attempted to sell or lease the building itself. Several developers have submitted plans to the City of St. Paul over the years and attempted to obtain City financing and other funding for development of the property as housing, including low income housing, and no funding has been available. In addition, through the years, Baillon Company listed the building with several different Commercial Real Estate Brokers, including Zehring & Angleson, Garfield Clark Associates, Welsh Companies, and Kohns Commercial Real Estate. The building has also been marketed through for sale signs, listings in the Commercial Multiple Listing, direct mail and ads in various trade publications. Also, we have had several teams oP experts study the building for possible development uses. The prospective buyers, tenants, developers and e�erts who have considered the building have cited several reasons for not proceeding, including but not limited to: lack of economic feasibility, lack of cooperation from the City of St. Paul and other influential quasi political City of St. Paul entities, federal income tax law changes, difficult column spacing within the building, unworkable window sizes and high window heights, The extensive amount of remodeling which would � be required to gain win8ow functionality, mechanical obsolescence of the building, functional obsolescence, high cost to remodel, lack of air conditioning, lack of updated electric service, lack of updated plumbing system, lack of passenger elevator, lack of adequate heating system, worn out roof, energy inefficiency, worn out windows, need cornice repairs, non-functional chimney, possibility of asbestos. QUESTION: Plans for e.g., detailed plans landscaping. any new use or building on the site, for a parking lot including fencing or ANSWER: After the demolition of the building, we are considering using the underlying land for parking. We plan to submit any required detailed plans to the City at such time that we apply for a parking lot permit. 5) QtJEST20N: What is the asking price for sale of the building and why is it so much greater than the assessed value? Are you aware of other comparable buildings in the area that have sold for a comparable amount? ANSWER: The asking price is $1,400,000. In our experience as a Real Estate Broker, asking prices and sales prices are typically higher than assessed values. The building has also • been offered extensively for rent at $1.50 per square foot rental, which is a very competitive rate, with no takers. 2 �� q�-��3 • • � 6) 7) � 9) QIIESTION: i-iave you considered using historic tax credits or low income housing tax credits to rehabilitate the building? ANSWER Yes. QIIESTION: How long has the building been vacant and what were previous uses? When did your company buy the building and how did you expect it to be used at that time? A23SWER: `Phe building was built by Crane Company in 1904 as a plumbing warehouse and has been vacant since Rayette Company ceased using it as a warehouse for their beauty products in 1950. We bought the building in 1978 for development and investment purposes. The building has been vacant since we bought it 20 years ago, except that the second floor was rented for a couple of years in the 1970s as unheated storage to Buckbee Mears, and except for one short term month to month tenant who began renting one floor for unheated storage in October 1997. QUESTION: What do you believe would be necessary to successfully reuse or rehabilitate the building? ANSWER: At this point, we do not believe we can successfully or profitably reuse or rehabilitate the building, which is why we wish to take it down. QUESTION: Any other information to help the HPC understand the building and your situation. ANSWER: The present cost to operate the building (property taxes, insurance, maintenance, management) is over $20,000.00 per year. Baillon Company has incurred these operating costs every year for the past 20 years; yet has had no rental income except for the nominal amounts received during the years noted above. If you still wish to do a walk through viewing of the building, please let me know so that we may schedule a time. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY ��wQ/�. // �/,r.t� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj Enclosure File: Heritage 3 '1 OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTION$ AND ENV[RONMENTALPROTECTfON Robert Kessleq Direcror CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor 26 November 1997 Mr. Paul Baillon Baillon Company 332 Minnesota Street #E1404 Saint Paul, MN 55 7 O 1 Dear Mr. Baillon: LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUILDING Suite 300 350 St. Peter So-eet Sain� Paul, Minnesota 55l01-l510 BY FAX TO: 222-5556 Telephone: 6/2-266-9090 Facsimile: 672-266-9099 Thank you for your letter of November l Oth and for arranging for the tour of the Crane Building last Friday. As we have discussed several times, I believe the members of the Heritage Preservation Commission will be quite concemed about the economic feasibility of using or rehabilitating the Crane Building. The Lowertown Heritage Preservation District guidelines make reference to the HPC's ordinance conceming demolition, which states that the commission shall make findings about "the economic value or usefulness of the building as it now exists or if altered or modified in compazison with the value or usefulness of any proposed structures designated to replace the present building." Your letter of November l Oth does not include any specific data conceming the feasibility of rehabilitation. Please feel free to provide additional information. It would be preferable to provide any additional information to me by December 3rd. If you wish to provide additional information but cannot do so by December 3rd, please let me know. Sincerely, 7�'1�9t1 G 1 �4��/��{1J� " V Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner C J • ►2 a�-�l3 � BAILLON COMPANY 332 Minncsota Street Suite �1404 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 i � December 2, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Iaspections and Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Environmental Protection Re: Demolition Permit for building located at 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MN, also known as the Crane Building Dear Mr. Rubenstein: I am responding to your letter of 13ovember 26, 1997, wherein you have requested information regarding the economic feasibility of rehabilitating the Crane Building. As I have mentioned, we do not believe it is economically feasible or sensible to rehab the building. This becomes even more self-evident when you consider that during the past ten years over 50 prospects represented by numerous real estate brokers have looked at and studied the building for purchase and developmer.t and have reached the same conclusion. In addition, in 1984, we hired a consultant who studied the feasibility of converting the building into apartments, and she came up with a total project cost of $4,400,000, and based on projected rentals, the project would not amortize the debt. In 1996, when the property was listed for sale with Welsh Companies, they had their affiliate, Welsh Construction Company, do cost estimates on converting the building into apartments, and they arrived at a total project cost of $4,603,000, again a number that could not be amortized by projected rentals. F� /3 We have recently talked to commercial real estate brokers and Architects who tell us that the cost to build a new apartment building comparable in size to the Crane Building would be in the range of $4,000,000 to $4,300,000, not including the cost of the land to build it on. The above facts indicate why it is not economically feasible to rehab the Crane Building. On an economic basis, it is our belief that most investors would prefer to construct a new building rather than rehab the Crane Building because they would end up with a new building of the same size for less money than it would cost to rehab the Crane Building. In addition, a new building would be more efficient to operate, would yield more usable space, would yield an increased net income and cash flow, and could include such amenities as indoor parking, light and air from al1 sides, normal window heignts, etc. I think the lack of economic feasibility explains why none of the many developers who have looked at the building have proceeded. If you need anything further, please let me know. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY ��..p�_ /�'� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj File:Hertage2 2 � � i �¢ FHR�JW (11-06� United States Department of the Interior Heritage C�nservation and Recreation Service �ationai Register of Histo�ic Places Inventory—tdomination Form q�-a,l� For HCRS use onty received date entered Continuation sh:-et Item number 7 page 17 2. HISTORIC NA;; : Rayette Building COPi10:� NAPfE; Control Corpora[ion Building ADDRESS: 261-279 E. Sth Street D�1TE: 1909 ARCHITECT: Postle, Mahler and Denson SLPPORTI�'E This large seven story mildly Classical Revival style building was built in 1909 as a manu- acturing building at a cost of $143,000. The building was constructed for David C. Shepard, a eading railroad contractor and longtime member of the board of directors of the First National :3nk. It was probably built as a manufacturing building for a client uith a long term lease. n 1916 it c.�as the home of the Stronge and Warner Company and for many years the building housed :�c Rayette Company. It was designed by Postle, Plahler and Denson and was constructed by F. J. �,,:�er. 'Ihe building is faced in cream colored brick and has a symmetrical facade with a central ncrance flanked by columns in antis. Ttie buildinb }ias been purchased recently by Control Data orporation. They have converted the building to office space at a cost of $1.5 .million and ave replaced [he windows with more energy efficient tinted glass. 3. H1S"IURIC NA,�tE: Crane Buildino �—+ CO?L�10S rAME: Crane Buildino .�DURESS: 281-287 E. Sth Street DA'CE: 1904 �CHITECT: Reed and Stem SUPPOFTIGE This large brick building was built in 1904 at a cost of $60,000 as a warehouse for the rane and Ord�aay Company. The firm had previously been located at 248-252 E. 4th Street. The rane an3 Ordway Company was established in 1893 with its original partners being Lucius P. Ord- �ay of St. Paul and R. T. Crane of Chica�o. The company was formed to consolidate the firms of ;odgers and Orway of St. Paul and Duluth and a Plinneapolis brancli of the Crane Company. The Rod- ;ers and Ordway Company was the successor to the firm of t:ilson and Rodgers which was the oldest 'irm in the Northwest which specialized in valves, fittings, and steam supplies. By 1897, the :rane Company was the largest nanufacturer of these supplies in the world and employed over 3,000 �eople at their Chicago plant. In :�linnesota the firr.i maintained offices in St. Paul, Minneapolis ind Duluth. Lucius P. Ordway came to St. Paul from 1'rovidence, Rhode Island in 1883. In 1905 he �nd Edgar Ober acquired control of the Minnesota :fining and Planufacturing Company (3rf) which was :stablished in 1902. Shortly therea[ter they occupied a plant in Duluth where sandpaper and �ther abrasive products were manufactured. Ordway served as the president of 3M from 1906-09. le was also one of the founders of the t.'f�ite Bear Lake Yacht Club and was instrumental in buildin; -he Hotel St. Paul. The Crane Building was designed by the nationally known architects, Reed and Stem, who also lesigned the Hotel St. Pau1 and the building at 282 E. 6th Street which now houses Seestedt Car- �et Company. The Crane Building is a utilitarian commercial building �ahich features unusual poly- :hromatic brickwork, quoin-like motifs, a corbelled brick cornice, and a carved stone plaque read- �ng "Crane" between the fifth and sixth stories. Due to its location on a hill, the building has ;ix stories on its Sth Street facade and five stories on the north side of the building facing ith Street. The building is presently underutilized but is basically intact and in good conditio: ia ixth Street--south side from vacant lot at southwest corner of 6th and Sibley to Broadwav Street. )4. HISTORIC NAME: Unknown COI�itON NAME: Seestedt Carpets ADDRESS: 282 E. 6th Street DATE: 1859 �� ARCHITECT: Allen H. Stem SUPPORTIVE `� � � '� .`§ ��; s�� .r w r � _ �: `� `c;�'�� i .:� �' �. - 5 a�` k: E�i e �' i ��. �4 a � �g � '��.� �F a � �e x ` z �R J �� . � ' .; 'r: � �� <� �-F /%4�#"� � � r�.�� :�'�-,. : o � � '- _ �� u^ � � � aW . � �� "� �` ��} s . . . . 3� 3. w �� §i s �fS '�:y,f , _ � :� "''�� `` � i s �..�.�.J.� ..�. �. .... �u.��....v��.�� r - C � � .�'.��.t a � ID-32-29-22-33-0042-0 �■ OWNER ■� BPILLON COMPANY FIRST NHTIONRL BRRIK BLDG 332 MINNESOTA ST SIIITE E 1404 ST PHIJL MN 551011317 �� H57DR/PROP ADDRESS �� 287 STH ST E ST. PAUL MN 551011904 _ _ _ TRRNS..O6/30/83 IPISTR..06/26/83 ■■ DESCRIPTION �� T.00833 WHITPIEY AP1D SHITHS ADDITION TO ST. PAUL SWLY 64 6T/700 FT OF LOTS 4 5 RNO lOT 6 BLK 12 � QPI i(024,002) u � qs-al3 COMMENTS—NO 10/31/97 4:21 PM MKT URLU TRX CRP DIST 03 1996 L 75,000 9,545 SD 625 B 132,SOD CI FD USE B T 207,500 IdTR C 199T L 75,000 6,350 TI B 132,500 CH SkRt T 207,500 SWR2 1997 TAX PAYABLE . __ LC_ ORIG 15,659.44 DLG ADJ .00 CJ PRID 15,859.44 YB BAL .00 LOT R HSSMTS PRINC & INTEREST 41 0032 741.00 .00 D 0050 46.00 .00 SQ FT 0070 99.00 .00 9377 0080 786.00 .00 SQ FT 0097 54.54 .00 GROUtdD 0546 217.57 257.7T 2164 40.00 28.60 TYPE TOTL 7.3T8.71 280.37 '� z� � I i��'+�!�•� �--I';.; s t ''�'. y• I'; li � E. 7 PL ��. E. 7 T� 5 ' C - . ZB � � � o '� R �`, �� S _ : 6 t? F-2 � ------- STa " � �'...�i. : � � _*� (,OV�tE�.1'Ou�� 4�f� (TtF(r� +::::::;� t.::+;i:::..:;_<; ::,:-��_ r :;:;;;;:. ...::::.. `:::.._:' . P�S��il�T(oN b I ST �� cr , : : ::; ; '° `.: : . ,::::;:_::.::: • : �, � � : -::: -. : : :'° : : �: __: . ; N E.>= :::::.:.::::::::.:::;.:;::.... E. r �5tt: L::.>. ; :.t; i,} •_...,>��... ..... - .�. .-r�.,,, �.--i.:;_ "' . . . .. . �:�:.-...:: .:: . � _.�.-L.`.. `. �'"`��.• ...1 T T_ _ �* shaded areas aze parking lots ;* 4B indicates that a 4 story building formerly occupied the parcel, SB = 5 stories, etc. — _� �."�� — :.:i-::.. _. : . _..._... E' � � • � � ---�'R RAILWAY & MILL SUPPLIES, PIPE & FITTINGS, WELL MACHINERY, WIND �LLS, PUMPS ETC � t � � ��e. � q �t� �'� � S � !�++ � _ MINING,MILL, CONTRACTORS & LUMBERMENS SUPPLIES PLUMBERS & STEAM FITTERS GOODS. MAiN OFFICE 248.250,252 E FOt1RTH ST.ST PAUL. �fL�V1aUS ��'�`�'� �� U�'�trdf�y �o- Butt,Dt�U — �1�h.t7t,l S�t�I>� 1�6ot/� i("t� � F� {'F�n-K� i�14- UaT � � S�utz�,� = G�tn��z�� t,.��i�t�- T�v6Z ��c,�u� �9 T � DACOTAH • COMPANIES 287 E. Sixth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 • Tel (612) 224-29Q7 • Fax (612) 291-7074 December 4, 1997 Tracy Baker Chair, Heritage Preservation Commission c/o Aaron Rubenstein City of St. Paul 350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 Beaz Ms. Baker: c� � 0 � c� i U'� -� 0 It has come to our attenrion that the owners of the Crane Building, located on the corner of Wall and 5'� Street, has filed for a demolition pernut. We have owned the Allen Building, located between Wall and Broadway on the north side of 6'� Street, since 1946. We strongly object to the demolition of any further buildings in the Lowertown area. While we concede there is a strong need for additional pazking for the area, tearing down buildings for surface parldng is not a solution. There is no reason the Crane Building can not be suitably renovated and put back into economic use. Five years ago there may have been an argument that the building had little commercial viability, but now is not the case. Our building is a mixture of office/warehouselbigh tech space that is nearly 90% fiill. I understand that other buildings, that aze properly kept up and managed, aze equally successful. Other than parking, wtrich is a result of the azea's success, what the area needs is more critical mass, more buildings, and more activity to achieve long term stability. Since there is finite supply of buildings, the demolirion of this asset would be very counter productive. Parking is a concern. However, I believe it is best addressed by using un-built land east of Broadway. Ttris azea is presently being surface parked or is vacant. This is the ideal location for mega raznps ala Minneapolis 2� StreetlI-394 corridor. With its excellent freeway access, the construction of ramps in this area would enable the continue growth of the St. Paul core, retain the historic buildings of the area, and give the Lowertown azea a giganYic boast in commercial growth. I urge you to deny the demolition pernut for the Crane Building, and instead encourage you to work with the owner, or future developer, to residentially or commercially develop the property. Yo \ u}ily, C� ��i<�� Chazles W. Erickson = �„ _;�, _;:� � � s Zv 12�09�9? 12�20 $ 612 223 5706 P• �� -a l� • December 9, 2997 Commissioner Tkacey Baker, Chair Heritage Preseroallon Commission C/o Aaron Rubenstein Office of License, Inspec8ons & Environmental ProtecHon 350 St. Peter St. Suite 310 St. Pau2, MN 55102 Dear Ms, Baker: �� Rt�6ex f.'. Hcu Afe�orAF+rm GNrman .VkrmNl. Aamrt te�eam+ [bin �p� H. Nftla+n 6nIj�•RSnrsef G. Rk6ard 5(aGe WWmN7g Lu Fresldex( I just learned from your staff about the request for the demolition of the Crane Building. AS this is historically one of the most important buildings remaining in St. Paul, I do hope that in the interest of preserving St. Paul's heritage, you will help to persuade the owner not to demoiish it, but to make azwther effort to save lt. � Built 3n 1904, the Crane Building was designed by the nationally known architects Reed and Stem, who also designed the Tiotel St. Paul. The build'zng featured unusual polychromatic brickwork, quoin-like motifs, a wrbelled brick cornice, and a carved stone plaque reading "Crane" between the fifth and sixth stories. It was used as a warehouse by the Crane and Ordway Co., a successor to the Wilson and Rodgers Company, which wes the oldest firm in the Northwest. By 1897, the Crane Company was the largest manufacturer of steam valves, fittings and supplies in the world, Luctus Ordway, one of the owners, was one of the original fpunders of the 3M Company. AS you know, Lowertown is a historic dtstrict with some 39 buildings on the National Register. When we first began the Lowertown pro$ram under the Ciry's inidative and the McKnight Foundation's support, many of these buildings were empty and deteriorati.ng. Taday, through the efforts of many - inciuding the City of St. Paul, private initiatives ar►d pnbTic/private partnerships - almost 3/4 of the buildings have been successfully rehabilitateci to office, housing, artists' lvfts, galleries, cafes, retail and other uses. More than �426 miilion has been invested in Lowertown. I do hope that this building will be saved, so that it may be similarly rehabilitated foz a good use. if the Secretary of the Interior`s Ttehabilitation Standaxds are met, 20°k of the rehabilitation cost can be claimed as tax credit by the owner. LpW6R7DWN RPDBSP.LQP�IFM'O�RPOILtT/ON � �n�,rsrnsr,�� Gah�aataz�a/su�n 7so Safn/ Poul, MA'SS70] G7??t79t i] I'vtz 67JYZ35708 2�` 12i09�97 12:21 S 612 223 5?08 C J �i P.B3 Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation (LRC) would be interested, as it has in the past, in working with buiiding owners, investors and clty staff to help ffnd appropriate use for tMa building. If there is a gap in the financing that can't be filled by private lenders and public agenaes, if it should meet LRC's gap financing guidelines, we would certainly be hagpy to consider it. I do hope that this fine building will be saved and new uses found for it, so that an important pazt of St. Paul's heritage can be preserved fpr today, as well as for future generations. Sincerely, � Weiming Lu , President `�-. � WL/mb � 22 • . �� P RESERVATION A LLIANCE of Minnesota `U�. •�� December 9, 1997 Commissioner Tracey Baker, Chair St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission cJo Aaron Rubenstein Office of License, Inspections & Environmental Protection 350 St. Peter St., Suite 310 St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Baker: It has come to our attention that the owners of the Crane Building, 281 E. Sth Street, ha�e applied for a permit to demolish the building and put up a parking lot. We strongly urge the Heritage Preservation Commission to deny this request and work with the owners to find an alternative reuse for this important structure. � (,"CG �e�e�r vv�,5 �a.� c� � C i' ;e _�' j rJ The Crane Building is an important part of the Lowertown neighborhood, which is both a St. Paul and National Heritage Preservation District. Lowertown is one of the most intact 19th Century warehouse districts in the nation, a truly unique resource for St. Paul. While the integrity of the historic district dces not derive from any single building, it depends on retaining the basic azchitectural fabric of the neighborhood. Since there are only 39 historic structures in Lowertown, the loss of any one threatens the historic conteat of them a11. Second, St. Paul (through the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation) has made exemplary progress in restoring the I,owertown district to life over the past 15 years and it would be a significant setback to lose this important structure now. Many national urban experts think that St. Paul's relative success in iceeping its downtown vital is due to the effort to create housing for thousands of residents in Lowertown and elsewhere. But Lowertown will lose. its appeal as a residential neighborhood if the remaining historic structures are razed. L_ J Finally, the Crane Building is an important historic structure in its own right and deserves to be saved. Built in 1904 by the noted azchitects Reed and Stexn, the building housed the Crane and Ordway Company, which at one time was the world's lazgest supplier of steam valves and plumbing supplies. One of the owners, Lucius P. Ordway, was one of the founders of the 3M Company and one of St. Paul's most notable citizens. Intemationat Mazket Squaze 275 Mazket Street Suite 54 Minneapolis MN 55405-1621 612- 338-6763 FAX: 612338-7981 Commissioner Tracey Baker December 9, 1997 The Preservation Alliance of Minnesota urges the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission and the City Council of St. Paul to deny the request to demolish the Crane Building. We encourage the City to work with the owners to find a reuse for the building. The federal goverrunent will grant tax credits for suitable rehabilitation by the owner. Please let us Irnow if we can be of assistance. S�ely, f � � ! � Roger Brooks President � � • a$�2,13 • Historic Photo�raphs of L,owertown The photographs on the following pages are keyed to the map on the following page. Pl: Crane Building, circa 1906-07. P2: Brokerage Building, south side of East Fifth Street between Wall and Broadway streets, circa 1910-20. At the left edge of the photograph is the Crane Building. In the background at left is a Gotzian Shoe Company factory, now the site of the Gillette Company building. Behind the Brokerage Building is the seven story Lindeke, Wamer & Sons Building. This block is currently occupied by the Farmers Market. P3: Lindeke, Warner & Sons Building, cuca 1908-10. P4: Employees in front of Minnesota Shoe Company Building, circa 1887-88, kitty corner from the Crane Building; site is now a gravel pazking lot. P5: Hackett, Gates and Hurty Company Building, southwest comer of Fourth and Wall streets, 1924. The portion of the building to the right still remains standing; the four bays to the left, approaching the comer of Fourth and Wall, aze no longer extant and this portion of the site is occupied by a parking lot. P6: Two buildings at southeast comer of Fourth and Wacouta streets. The second building from the � corner was the home of the Crane and Ordway Company prior to construction of their 1904 building. Both of these buildings at the Fourth and Wacouta corner were demolished in 1935 and the site is now a parking lot. P7: North side of East Fourth Street, looking west from Wacouta Street, circa 1896-1902. This photograph shows the strong, continuous street wall that is an important part of the historic character of Lowertown. All photographs from the collections of the Minnesota Historical SocieTy. � �,��n5(313A��c� "tc��ou�'�w�'('2��TA Pa,�� Wt,VP� (��"�'oa�.� � �2� II �J f �P�� ."�','et'�+1 J � z I � � �� I"�I�I•\ �-r�.� • 1 � E. 7t" PI,. �—� E. 7 �. . �g � � � �� i G -� , •o � _� ��250 `J� � a t � ' E• 6T`� St. . f �-�- ; ::. , — .., _.. ;. p t ( � �� `MEARS , ';� � � Vl��`�� \� 4 � � :' . o P �-R2� m � RARK ; '.- �,. Z. � � i-- �, F ;� .. ` .� ' .�, ti.," ST, % ` E. 5"tK S'G , . � .e .� . � • es � I R � � �s � � � LOv�IE(�?OW�1 �E� ttl4frE �:`:::: r::; PR.�S��11�4'CroN b I St e� cT ;: �:::; p � �..::.: [:..:: N k:;;:: F., :. " shaded azeas aze pazking lots ; 4B indicates that a 4 story buiiding formerly occupied the parcel, SB = 5 stories, etc. — _ � _ w : �,; ::.<,,.:::. —.:�:�-:^. ........ __.._. _:. . _ �"►�►•� `' • �;; !�IJ D O � � , o:� �� r � r.. � � r ' �R � • • PI , � I �, ca.a�rap) 45 >� P 6 fi� �T ry{ i µ' 1 . � � _ � � E. � ., � . - `� '' � � ti \ . < f � �r . �- �' ' � . �� \ � j J , ( ' a _ . � ; .�. o �-° , 4 �, � � ;- ; ,��`� ` �, a ,, � :F � �� { � f "�/ �`� L -� ; f - � '� `4. _� � � � : �, � � s�"' ' •� i � i � ' � , � .¢- �F� �. �� : ; : '� ; �� >� � � �� ; � F � �- � ��:��' - -t� � � . . �. �� x� � : � �� . . : . p- � . 4 . ... _ . y R3 ��,, s :-�� -� �� f � �. ��, � .: t �_ � '� ' , �� ` �� $ - �� Y.. � � � F � � . � [ ,�: � ��-� �- � - y � y. , � p � •�h � ��''�',�- S+. � . �,�y � 3.. � �� .� � _ �,.. � _ F �--ir2v"� .� ^ - � �,;! � ' : '� ti '3�r>'- .,�� w ' 4 ' � _r a = i 4 ��-�. R . . � Yi •r ". �: l ,.+^ y -v.� p � �,,, . f� «� � _ �...,. � - � 'l�v.A.-.�.� � 1�;..�'� , _ ` q �� i �� ,; �. � S��r�� ^ I � � . � � �pi� m P °... ♦ _°� � � � � a� ��.�-# � �_�� ' � �� -� � �� "�=`•�� °c , r. t �� . . .. � _ 3� � S.5 r�. � {- - � . � ' y � _i,i�,�€ s �`j�_:.'" * � � �Q�.�-�{� � � � a' � 5 � �`� ' � � ,�f i � � � } � ..: �x.��'�� .3 � �_�-� �� - � '�' �� 4F F- .. C � � _ .. _ � ;_ _ -� -. Y � � � _ � � �� v i �.^'' - ! a - _ � � `� ^ `� � J ' • •` ..._'._ ! t � ..a -:. �-i..:�_ ... -_ n � 1 5 � �l _ �� \ { y, ` � *0.e� � ; '��-' . [ , s ° �.�:._ ' -�: °_,K-�"��`" � -.. ... _ �,.,� _ ` � __— — �; . _ _. , �.. � ;`— _ , ._ - --- ,. _- � ` - __ - x �,, _:;: _ , �--- . _ ,.. _.e_�- -,-, � _�- __--_ _ � _ �•r � � � �-� � _ � �� k . . -, _ ___ _ . � i � , � � ` �� ' - _. . �_ _ " � �`,� ' � .�-'� ; 4 , ,, s � �'�°x� � ��'��7� �-.. � . i �� Y2't , �= � . . � `� � ,r � . . -. . . , _ . . �: : a - � : . . . . _ _ . � . . . . � �,�"' i � �� .. . � " � +#ASo . - �. � .. . .. . ., . �� . �, j y . � �. -._?� �I �-�- � j � t (1 I l� `,; � ��: ; , � .�, � t �- �: ._ _ .- i _ 1 -- Y'eL .` —� _.� ' l � �_ - __ _- . _-^ A -3_ , � '� _ I '4. . . ��— _ — _ a _ _ _. .�—' � J ---. .i — _.z _ _ _-� _ _ _ . - � �— � ._ _.— a� Y �. i� 6i . !.� _ — � , � .. t� - �t t-" _ " �� ^{ • � r � � � �s � �-� --+_ -_� `_ —� �" `� - . �� , �. _ s-t• : i�'S - % � . i Y . O �. • i _ _. � Fr V3 L L _ t . t ' :.��i ' � �� : r ■ _ ' < i � _. �' <' . s --- . - _ ` s i : 1 _ �f � � _ i _ _ � � -. __ v��'' - 3 e��.i��...-..��.�. . • V � � .. .� �. �- � ; -. � -- � �� M� o�� r � ✓� � .�ti �� } �� i :. ��y �' � i =,� 3 �- -} �� ;' � . � = � � '� ��,� a� '��," �'�' i1'� �4 t��'� g �++c Y, S�`..� � � y,. � 3 : � -g � �r � r..3Y -r, � i � . . �' ��: - � � : � -: ' �'�; � 1 , +� `, t �`:-,i�;_ ` c;,�^- . �. _ .._: j,` , �t � � � � '.�� ' - �',� 1, .� _ a �...�, _ �! ..�; - 'b. �� .,,� � � �� ,,, .� ,� � �,au �,. . ,,- � > /"T'� � �r, �4� �B . . . �. �4+ . �� M � � :... „� ;�;+�.... �.� , — � ;�' ' .. —r � � _`" — �g �.'.:� . � "?�>4� �� i� .... _ ' � .1 4 . _ . ±! . �,. � . !. e �- . � �. � r � t ' ��, - , r__ �— c�_. � � � v ' . __, �. , i � � �- , ' � . � '�- ' ; � . r �� -�. _ �E h -,�� _ � �N�� .� � � �` ° ::% „ � �:�� Y �.. .. �.. i � ' � x� �`�' . , �'. �� . � " - ,,-F' .'. a ,s� e " Y f' a . �'': r "y� .m ;S �,=� + � � � p �� G ; i 'Y � � :: �?�. i ' �r�� t S � � F ..: t 1 � 4 i� � ,.� 'j �e� ?� � i C + �. > `._._ � -�� < a � r <r �� .� ; _ � �� , �, ; _ � _ �„ �` . . . , �-� � :� �. fr � . ,. gr� r : t ` f � a " - `— � � }f �_. - � n � �y�1` ��4 ° "� � I� ; �` � ' � �" °°'' i � 3 $ y j t f�Ya.-. � .. ! � .. e `C 1 •� i . ._ ,{� � 1 1� ` i � � � � �� t � �� _ . - . ' ` � � _," � �, J E '� �� :,��_ a r _�, ., - ,� �Y°m. . �;, � c,�- ' � � - „� �.` i , a �� c -� :,-'� q -�.3, S . �.. � � � j � 2`*.ri�' �.� �... ':. -+r a ' . . - . L � r *,_ �va y'•.- e .a.- � � . . . �i: . ' . . . � i. 1 • , , � t �� e' ��._ .. y �r .�'� � �E`.:: � A :. _.....,. .o. _� . a�.... � � � . � t � ,. . . . . . - = � � f .. .. � . . . _ � . „� .. � . . , .. . . , ... �_�..ys._. �. { '�" �.. " � ,�. .'��'i„ � ,.e z. . "� �` v . � . i: � _ - ,� ..-,...�. ,�, _:.x�-:�,,,�, M .a : �: . � _ ' `� � �,'- ' � . gs" � 2 � ?��. " � �� .t� , .<� ' - . +l- K A� �",; _ � i } � ..m ....a�... - k ,. . . ' . �__ .� _%'�._ �� a � : ' . -..' �'-� . � �s '.. ,. - . . c �.° � 1"' � - � � � = � � � #-� ' { .� c � r ��'�� 1 ♦ , - rz � � t vy� .a v ` , s s . s3 � '� 1 ' �q..:' ! � _ . • �' :`�. A y� y X� i .. i � . . - nb 3 _ � � " . .� f .''�,�t� E % n �' _ µ � ��€ 3 � � � ` ��.�� S � �p.'°- �.-t> � r� .. � � � . . yS � �� i.' r �i ' , � � � � •;: � � � ��,� � _. ,, >#. , � 4, �_ ' � , � . � , 3 - , � � �� • � �'��,� , � + � L ( � ' � a . ,, ��"_ � �_-- _ . .._ . ._ -. - " � �{ `s t !' - .r� � • ' , � .. ea4�� Ti � .�..�� , � �3 � — � � : �,�- � � � : L�` . r , � f � r � , � _ _ .: F „ �,Y 'e � ! �D �' �� _�� ._ _, - � � ��' � � : -' � - � � Q .`K � � y � � �: �� . �� '� � � %. ,�'t:�� 3 fi 1� �. - �- �,� _..F ; ;, � <y� � � � �`:--- .-x �� r�` �� f' � # <,= � ! �; ---_�..�„,_, _—�-�- ' � :� ��€ �� i�:s� `�- �` '��. .. _- ,',� e h`3. ... . :�� '� —, � � �� ^ +- •� : � `�. � rj `'"�'� : � � c . .° r R , � . . ".�. �� t' �� .� �a , �..�..� � Y ' , � ., yi- � _ � V . � r .� � � � � v �' �.� . � � � � �xP f� '" . ' �r " . 'i 2 `� , . . - �'" �..� F .. � F' : � . � � �� . � � � y r _ � �� , I �`� � ��.,,� � rt ��' � � +� ..'# w� � ,. � � 1y� , � + , �� .-� . .� � __. � i��+�' . . • .:. ` � . � � _ ;.. � . . � � � . �� i�� 4 �� . ,.y ��. �`�� .� � � F:. a� ; � ,� �l , � � � �� _ _ � p � r: � �� r 3` � �� 'h � .d .� e � _ �� S g� y .. � �.x....e .K !'�y�..# .°:'�i'.:.+RS.-'-. . � ..:- ... -. �_ r . ` . ._ ; . �... _. ._ .: �..- �.:i k a:.�.., �, . :.. � __ =.`� - - �- _ � �,,. ��_ = � �� _� � . r },..�� :: ,� � v� - .... - �: � � - - - �.,... �.-�.�, �+- - - � ��: X .. �:�,' - �� _ _ y 1 � � A t ; � .�'� ''� =., � - �- _ Y . �:�- <'�; - .::k-- _ ' � _ = .. _�. � �•- `-., ,� � '`� ...<. =� ��a�- �` � _ .'_� - '-�_- - '.a � .,.a .'.. :Y. - _ 'Y_'.-� ::,`�,��s,:.. - �..�.,-�- _ - - ..y�, . Rz: _: � . �y i _ _ , _ _ :"�;�' - "`�"2 _� `::. ; ` t'` ' " - ' ��t. _ i _�- _ � � r s: . "' , �_ - . _ _ ��`1?�S. ' ..� ;tit". - " _ � ' �`..'`- y -.. i- - - �; , .s w .. .. .--` . _ .6 1 �' , . i,.. �,. ��. . . _ �: �: � : �1 � �ixl ��,_ _ ... " _ - � �� . __ � - _----- :� � - � _ ' t _ . , z �> ' � �-�-�--- -- -- �! � -� � � � � #r: .. . Y � � � .'f _ ' � . '._ � `-?a._ _�. .. .. Q ..-.. ,-� - } < .�} �` � � � * _- � _ Z � _ ( .. ' 4 , . > � �� = j� � z � ` �,_�, a � � a�`, _ � �. j" " ��.�T� � � Q _ . ij �!� } .. � . :,V � .. . ' � - Y.�.' J �' S: 1 ! �' : I 4 - _ . . � . . . . r � . S � . �l� � � . 1 � . : . '. i , - � . � _._. ;� �� . . LL .�. -` �is � . . �i -' y„ . _ �� . �'.:� e's � ; ' � - ' � 1 � c r. z ° � � �_ ,( � � �- � � f � � �� f � � � � � i� . . .i �� '. � " - F N �'J� r �'� R _° � . _. . .: �a � . �E _ sy �� . . - : � + . . : R � / , �r l . � v{ r '' . .> ' ! . n � ° �� , -� ,' - .�•-,_ - ; � , , , �' �� — �_� ,, � -. - — - — �• � � ^� _.. . ' "'�— s.. �'� . --_ � Q 1 � � �� -- ... - --- . / ' Q9 . 1 , � _ _ a� __ . . � �� It _' ` ' __'. _ � — . '� - � . � . . � _ — ._.. � . . - -_— - � . . . _ � � � ' � �� ,' � .. '. . . _ . . . . . , �. �.. . .. . . .' � _ . . . � � .? - .�% � '� � .. . � /_. � - � � - � .F - i i,,. . t e' .�,s4# . ' ' _< �+' � . �' ':�S . . � "� �' � , � �� x � �. �� ;�. u � x `' ' ��.:.. � ^�� , � � , z..� . .�. � >�r- . � µ . �� . �y -�- �-�� _ :, ,� •� ; w - - ,rJ+�i � - � h .. � � ..� s:�? �� .. - . - . . rfF'� � c ° �' -_`'."' a :.� - s ;-,-.. , , / .s . r��_i-L! i'I � t . `� !' _r .. :.i��11��'.Yt : ' � :'� y . . . ��. - � = r . �� _ __ . , � 6 : � } i .� p ' " . .... ... . ' .. � •,� � 1T » �T �. { ^ r - . . _ . �._. _ ... . .. !'+-.��.. - _ '1' e�� } �; _ � � '. _� A��` . . . . ... r i 4 t# � � �._ � :s�4y� i. �. - . .. . . _ . . � _�...�li � i ( � . � . . � �' � ___� �i S +, [ � '. IT r r � ` .-� . � .. - . � ' .. � ± - � . E� . .` fri � . , .-� ' _`� f �� r �, ,� ,�� • _a.� , _ � ` - <� ; � � #� � F ' ' � � 3, ' _�_ � ' � � •..r.. . i y l+.��i� ��'�.��1 �' - � 4"i. _ .. •a ._ �. � 3� .� y� �jV3M6� t�a �'' ? 4 � 1..... 1! }� ��v' �� '. °` AS � f h . . i . , . .. �. . � 1 � � -� t j � _ ' `� . ��" � � � � 4 , � � . � � - ' �. ' e. .., . . .... ...... . . � . -�, , . . . . F ' i ( � . . '� -- ' t � � -.�- � ` . � r: ! _ . \ �r � � , � -- : ` E � ' �. � - . \ y . .ti' � ' . . • r 4 - �. ,� � �,� . . -., =:, ��. Y ' � �� y _-s ' �;� x e � � { y �� lnLs .��.«��..�. r-....w�►J cr -._ �.�' . ��#r �r ��Z � �� „ �,,,.,.>... flt C —}q � ( ,y: �t r (� \ IVv4S l�Qd L x��tvQ� Q.� Ttf� �°�Q'�I�i�' National Trust for Historic Preservation • December 11, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein, Heritage Preservation Pianner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections & Environmental Profection City of Saint Paul 350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, blinnesota 55102-1510 Deaz Mr. Rubenstein: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal to demolish the Crane Building in the Lowertown Historic District of Saint Paul. The Lowertown area of Saint Paul, and the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation, have received narional attention regazding the revitalization of this sixteen block azea. In i 995, the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporarion was awarded a National Preservarion Honor Award for its role along with the City of Saint Paul and others for the economic turn-around in this azea. From 1978 to 1995, the year of the award, Lowertown revitalization efforts included $400 million in private investment, 2,900 construcrion jobs and 4,600 new permanent jobs. Because of the historic significance of this area and the revitalization efforts, we believe that any demolirion proposal should be subject to cazeful review to determine that it is indeed economically jusrified. In this case, ow review of the materials submitted leads us to question whether adequate mazketing efforts have been undertaken to sell the Crane Building. Typicaliy, marketing a building such as the Crane Building successfully requires a marketing packet that includes: building descriprion and condition, squaze footage per floor, potential uses, economic incentives available, and identification of potential public/private partners and their programs. A thorough economic fesaiblity study should be conducted and that informarion used to mazket the Crane Building, before any consideration of demolirion. In a lustoric district like L,owertown, there is a great potential for public/private partnerships and adaptive use of this signifcant historic structure. � Tkere are a number of eaperts and outside sonrces, both within Minnesota and elsewhere, to assist in the conduct of a thorough economic feasibility study. The National Trust itself provides information on rehabilitation and adaptive reuse, and can also assist in identifying outside � expertise on various aspects of re-use, including taY incentives for developing historic properties. Midwest Regional Office National Office: 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1135 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Chicago, Ill. 60604 Washington, D.C. 20036 �312� 939-5547 / FAX (312� 939-5651 (202� 588-6000 a��al3 • Page 2 The National Trust also serves as one of several possible sources for rehabilitarion gants and low interest loans for the rehabilitation of commercial historic properties such as the Crane Building through its financial assistance pmgrams. If we can be of help in providing further information on this matter, please let us lrnow. Sincerely, �� unes E. Mann egional Director . • �� _ .,.� ` ti " a> w,.� _: - � _ � eu � �.�.� ��_ _a.�au,��,..�.�� W� �..._. - �a,._ �, = � � (�er ��.�,��e.d �L k� C MIn�ESOTa HISTORIC�L SOCIETI' December 11, 1497 Ms. Tracey Baker, Chair St. Paul IIeritage Preservarion Commission 1868 Sazgent Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 Dear Ms. Baker, It has come to our attenrion that the Crane Building, located in St. Paul's I,owertown, is being considered for demoliuon. I would strongly urge the Heritage Preservauon Commission to deny the request. IYs my understanding that the building is currenUy vacant and that the owner's application for a demolition permit is based, in part, on an economic hardship argument. While economic considerations are important factors in deternuning whether a building, or any property, should be retained, these must be weighed with a number of other considerations which are just as important. The Crane Building is a significant resource in I.owertown and the city of St. Paul, historically and architecturally. Built in 1904, it was designed by the St. Paul arclutectural firm of Reed and Stem, whose designs include a number of other National Register buildings within St. Paul as well as dozens of buildings across the country. The significance of the Crane Building was recognized in 1983 when it was inciuded as a contributing element in the Lowertown Historic District which is listed on the Narional Register of Historic Places. The following year the Ciry Council approved the designation of the area as a heritage preserva6on district. The designation is intended to protect and enhance the unique character of Lowertown, a remarkably intact warehouse district dating from before the 1880s. The Crane Building originally served as a wazehouse, and its distinctive arclutectural features and prominent location at the north end of the Lowertown District enhance its significance. We understand that the property owners would use the site for a surface parking lot to accommodate 28 or 29 parking stalls. In our experience, tearing down a historic building such as the Crane Building for a surface pazking lot almost never makes economic sense. Donovan Rypkema, a nationally recognized real estate and economic development consultant and the author of The Econo»zics of Historic Preservation, outlined a scenario strikingly similar to that of the Crane Building: A five-story building sits vacant in the heart of the downtown on a 10,000 square foot lot. Land in downtown is worth $20 per squaze foot. Merchants and property owners aze demanding that city hall acquire the building and raze it for parking. In fact, the building owner is willing to sell the entire properry for the value of the land only. How can the city refuse? , � 6t'F�x J-1 • • • 3�5 6GLLOGG BOCLEC�IRD �S EST ! SaIST P.AL�I.. AIIS\ESOT.4 55103-1906 / TELEPHO\E: 613-396-61Y6 12/11/971etter to Tracey Baker, page 2 u Value of the land: Cost of demolition: Cost of paving & striping: Total costs of parking lot: # of parking spaces provided: Cost per space: � � � $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 60,000 $ 510,000 -25 - 30 $ 17,000 to $ 20,400 q�s-��3 When asked, "would you be willing to pay $17,000 for a pazking space?" even the most vociferous advocates for addirional parking will say "no!" And yet this most simple of analyses is rarely conducted in these situations. It is a fiscally uresponsible and economically irrational act to demolish for pazking in this situation independent of the architectural or historic importance of the building. The Economics of Rehabilitation, 1991 While the above scenario is not identical to the present situation, the illustration is instructional. From an economic standpoint, it is clearly not in the city's best interest to demolish the Crane Building for a surface parking lot. The State Historic Preservation Office urges the owners to reconsider the future of the Crane Building. Potential uses which are economically viable should be studied and evaluated. � Delaying demolition until all avenues have been considered could actually result in saving a significant historic resource and an unportant part of Lowertown's and St. Paul's past. Our office has developed a format for conducting reuse studies and has participated in a number of studies in recent years. Should the commission or the owners desire, we would be happy to discuss how such a study may be useful in exploring reuse options for the Crane Building. In addition, it is important to note that State of Minnesota Rules for the environmental review program of the Environmental Qualiry Board stipulate that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) shall be prepared as part of the demolition pernut process for properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Since the Crane Building is a contributing property within the I.owertown Historic District, this provision applies. C� The Crane Building has been a distinctive local landmark for over ninety yeazs. Before an action is taken that cannot be reversed, I urge you to take the time to explore all the altematives. Sincerely, �/ � - `'d'` - � `�� Britta L. Bloomberg d1 �� J � Deputy State Historic Preservarion OfFicer 10,000 s.f. x $20 50,000 s.f. x $ 5 10,000 s.f. x $ 6 �L�/ � � � ^ � � � 0 � � � � � � O � N W K W 0 a x U ¢ O m � U Y • V � '� Y d � m M � w ro c_� 3Ra r3m m 9 O � C .y j R w ��E .°.. w a N O tp p L qD— w � C � V d Y Y R � a m CL � U t" � hOC c 'as ot N� L b➢ 3 d � � N � Y 9 � O U c m o m � t �:, N �,,, � _ �;? t0 ��0 S d:. L 'O O R Y C� C V C _ �3 ,.� Y ._. �9 � V .� � .0 � y R' inL Q � tQ LL' �+.a CS '�.°3E�g�o ° '—''°��" � �°a�i d �:S'O Vl N V m ` F � '� �� Q Cb �a [0 �+ U E a'�wo"-�a` L�'°J c.' �3 U �� R G� c R C.� '� p >� o 00 � a o t3c,3'.> .�i R:�� r� 5 �c c� °�.c a m°� � m•� 3 d c o.s�, v m � U � . ti v�i cC ,c � y '� r. �' ` � ,�ii �+� c v� �'.n roonw y v�m "�o` "c� >''v°��°.o n"� �cwR>=.aE 3°d �a�� c» o u� O G N N` O� �� ti�� QL d S O CJ � ' f Eo+�.c,a 3 �,d �,mx3 4 9 V' �� C=� C c�G y C.Y ` ri� w ow c.�a y�m ovio� � c, — ; 9 i� G�C� V).�9 0 N � � A R � Q ._. C!. C y a � _. '� y ,.� :., ��CN��tlUVCC.p,..ti.G RRa n G U-.. V L� 'f J F'O " � >a 5 O�^> N CJ i.r ��"' G C t r y C 0. �� G O O� in w� R d U.r.....+ G.�.r 07 O.r �n'_�. N O N O �� Y� � � � � 3+ � � � y � . � � � 0 a V i s K w r 3 a � J � � � 5 � 0 m Z O � w � z O w Z Q C U = N ... U .... a ti i ;� ° o." 3 � w �'�- u p '� y N r CJ , N N _� E U �r � [3c'� C E bDC�Q ��"L1. �N W�Ou Q u C O t�p F � p G ' O d R s�o •� o> 0., c `o y o,,., ��c`'3v�� u°m ccaia�ia`ai va,3�so° w c ° ��' o � : � a yraONV C � � O�" i� F � d GL Vl O tC � y�..y L N O � O y � C 3 .'O.. C.U�Yj F� 6 . � m="7"' v� h c � d�sm, �w m � y'C .�C y . � F aa Y N O'CJ r-+ O.. C C y- �" G c, o C� �y c. � u . w m �'� �� 't9sQ�. y.' o eo Q �s u � ��,_ c� �� u a�ic""" o m c . � a.5 'Sc.nm v� mc3c la � � b L1- r �1 � .r �/1 � 0� � � O Q� � 7 d4 5"' Z Q .r � � Q7 �y `j+ � � � C� �V 1� � �� '�.� � � � ,� � � � � Q: .� a v v • . a m-^ >, a ....-. d �- d _ L L�. �y..� O e6 C 0... s G� p p+�j O� C"� �� a 'O .�aip N v�i j� T O C V'C O E� O. � 9 C F y' 'y, V y�,p y C a'�+ �. G� O O .a ° d ' � u �.p a. C� y G• y a° �y� V��a � o d � .., e ao m a;; <¢ 3 a� ° o m � y u�x Q' o� E.°n� m.-°'a>i °'R �?, o^= o�:° a��v�� aay�a"iva ., � �a + eco G o. yy cd�aa>o.,., a t n0 00..�� r"' .: G�R � U� C U q 00 C y N� k p d V,'r ++ �E� ° u�m� �oc'�°� , �'�= 4 C 'm nd ^ r �°'S� �c'om Oe�'va�'i.: f0 � L L i�. F'� R N a d^ d •�'.� � Ci U H W *+ d T d C` V °``° `° � °•"'__�'� io y 0� g c ai m �er ° o +.. 4 ti(r N L1�'O � w� W>> �l t0 `. t0 L 4.+ m n+ a+ aa ..�w U C�� G C"j�'i O A O N� O � p a�a'� ...�'. � O N ad3`�w3o�".t7 dEw(S.a y��'8��x . u °° o � d m=� � a a i °°w �v�U w � a ° � p+ i coc 3"• ov y ' L C") .G O'3 U � 'O 4! ` O y .d. a.�'� e6 •'O • F L�F t0 'J' C a"i � fV � �� N O•Y �� l. ai y N d..r"'i C N in (1a' Rvi�r �N�4CUd Nd OR'�OOC L � +..� c�yOcqa�'�.�� ycsia`Ci��ciaU'°'u.e�„°^G,ac oo m . ❑ m �> > H.,'.. u'C.... i�� N'O CD V O a'�+ �� ai L.-. �>'� d C a�a N ��.+ O c�. � y o � N°c �� 4� 3C" � o aw o°'�°�� s��. os =� i �. �N w vi .ti v� Y O . t6 .� 0� .p C C cE a U aa T�W wada Gdv�ooFya�i'YC.y��oo �a�i.aodq�'v � �� w m o o� R�. �fL 3xv� :� 3w ° R'��:; s .c o" ea � w a o �� Td � � «. �,.", c v m�'y o V y° w� y B v", dm�o ca'�i=v3 N � COw U Laa'C.� S ^. S" 7 p � j. 0 C t9 N ui C a N N /" N G� f+.0 7 � i.� +..+ y O [9 T�..�.� U� � i d., w � > y C t w�._. 6> U O'C �9 y y O 3 O y R RS � V C U Y O Dp"' � y r�i, pG C b0 �..�+ ' � v R C E�'.0 3 [. C .0 � O'O t .Q �p , d s' G O.y �� v�� U � y� � p i d i = '�y. y V�•�.' O y��' c. � � C N � R�s e ai� �� a��s ^ y•' mw U'ONaa 00 'J'.:[ 1 O61.7� y � J�+"�y �£ � 4 L y� C rA N w �"� tC � L C) �� G�+.�' N� Y O NZ �� c3 . ..v. .,._,�wu>Ea °'m. � �� U � � �CS � 0� U� d�� d G U O F p G L y^ � V � >O 4°'„". C0.'� `a c m �'tl:vo a�s'�,?' a � `° 3�; d v�i N R m.�.. � O d.. pp i c. Y ..w.. <C w y y� N i' N i� 6� C�:� L O C1 K= a+ L ' y c" f'n � y� l. W �a� 'Od 4G�... 7� U U l. �� 7��' f0 �^ d 3=� 6y ?£ y (� C C> O.e6 w" NO iyU+�'(�LFCy �o��dR=y�a�"� 0 C-.-. G L p'T++ _.-� ..a Vl y�'�>. � m N> �_ � (6 N y� y�N Y� V N Y. � � G O � � �+' - y +�+ f �j � � r o. o_. a`� y a e'G a"i o F.�,�R o»ada>3 R�-a�� The following report, prepared by Lowertown Redevelopment � Corporation, was submitted into the record at the 11 December 1997 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting. �1 LJ � _ _�� WELCOME TO LOYVFRI�WN: ��, �. . SAINTPAUL'SEXCITINGNEW URBANVILIAGE � ' , � _, , � -=� :��'�� f � 't -->�' � �_� � f' ' � _ ��;�_ - - , - ,�;� �.o-,. � - __ �_'_��- ` �,. ,: _ - � -�_ _ -� - - " � - _� .. _ -- . �: �, � � - OWERIl�WN'S ROOTS LIE DEEP IN THE F,ARLIES"1' DAYS OF THE CITY, WI12II St22ri1)J02YS docked at the Lower Landing. As the city grew, its financial and retail center became� known as "Downtown", while the raikoad and wholesale area of its beginnings came to be known as "I owertown." From the be nnin these two distinctly different sides of the cit}�s character were complementary and synergistic, each conh to the other's strength. Boommg in the 1900's, Lowertown faded after the tum of the cenhuy and languished for years, a place that time and commerce passed by until the early `70's when efforts to renew the area began. In 1978, under the leadership of then-Mayor George Iatimer, the city articu- lated plans for a bold, new public/private partriership that would tap Lowertown's tremen- dous potential. The McKnight Foundation responded enthusiasfically by providing $10 mil- lion in seed capital, and an innovative public/private partnership called Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation (I,RC) was created to act as a catalyst for the area's redevelo�r ment.'Ihe goal was to use the $10 million to attract $100 million in investment I�ZC was chaiged with three criticat responsibilities: design, marketing and fivancing. LRC would provide limited gap financing to help get projects started; manage design issues to assure that new development harmonized with the historic character of the ne�ghborhood; and aggressively market the area to potenfial residents, investors, developers and the public. In a unique partnership with the City and the private sector, LRC planned and executed a development sh and design framework for the 17- block neighborhood, a program which has succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. LRC's original vision, which continues to evolve to this day, called for a rr� of housing, offices, retail stores, services, restaurants, theaters, parks and public spaces, combined with� a sh that has brought back people, business and development, and created a new neighborhood in the heart of the ciry. After years of work and investment, Lowertown has become a national role model for cities across the country, showing how public and private interests sharing a common vision can work together in hazmony to draznatically alter the future of a neighborhood. Aundreds of civic leaders from across the country and officials from 20 counh have visited Lowertown and stories about Lowertown's success have been published in a number of languages, including French, Japanese and Chinese. AN URBAN VILLAGE DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE Toda�s Lowertown provides a comfortable and attractive living and working environment In increasing numbers, people are discovering its special charm — some come to just visit, more to work or shop and many to live here permanenfly. I owertown is a dynamic area, offering a wide raqge of housing choices and amenities to serve the needs of both residents and workers, including a YMCA, numerous restaurants, pazks, theaters, shops and every lflnd of needed convenience. struction jobs, with another 4,600 permanentjobs created or retained. During the same • period, Lowertown's tas base grew by more than 400 percent New invesiment in the form of private capital has come from a variety of investors and developers, both local and national — from 5rms like Frauenshuh Companies of the Twin Cities, Carley Capital Group of Madison, �sconsin; Historic Iandmarks for Living, Inc. of Philadelphia; Boston Bay Capital, Inc., of Massachusetts; Ameritas of Atlanta; Zaidan Holdings of Montreal; and many more. LRC's role as a gap finaucier made the critical d�erence, especially in the early years of Lowertown's revitaliTaflon. Far eYample, in the case of Heritage House, an investment of $12Q000 each from LRC and the Ciry made a$3 million project a reality. It was a$520,000 guarantee from LRC which trig�ered the Union Depot renovation, and a$22 mil- lion LRC loan launched the development of Galfier Plaza, which today towers over the neigh- borhood and is a center for entertainment and shopping. More recenfly, a$20Q000 loan filled the gap in financing for'Ihe Tilsner building's housing for arlists and their families. Sh developers and investors wntinue to be ath�acted by Lowertown's potenfial. The Frauenshuh Company, for eYample, renovators of the First Trust Building, acquired the Park Square Court Building. Zaidan Holdings acquired and revitalized Galtier Plaza and Lowertown Business Center. Boston Bay Capital acquired The Cosmopolitan building, rapid- ly leasing up its 254 apartments. I eeann Chin, Inc. located one of its restaurants and catering services in the Union Depot. Artspace Projects, Inc., with LRC and city financial assistance, developed the 66unit TIlsner building. Risk is inherent in any effort as large and as visionary as Lowertown. A handful of develo� ments have failed to live up to es�pectalions. But in almost every case, stronger owners have emerged who have been able to realize the potenUal that was originally envisioned. Lowertown's economy coniinues to expand and grow. Architectural, design, advertis- ing, and communica5ons firms and related "sofY' indush have made it a regional focus for such services and companies. KTCA TV's new studios enhance the area's reputation as a national center for the video and film indushy. IndependentTelevision Services, created by PBS to foster independent productions nationwide, has chosen to locate its national head- quarters here. Continental Cable's Lowertown headquarters has added to the area's reputa- tion. Lowertown is also an attractive location for new and growing compazries in emerging areas of high technology, biotechnology and medical products and services. Such firms aze drawn by the neighborhood's chann and availabi]ity of lowcost loft space for research, office and manufacturing use, as well as its proximity to hospitals, the University of Minnesota, and major corporafions such as 3M Company. Lowertowu enjoys escellent access to every part of the Twiu Cities, provided by the I-94 and 35E freeways, and other major sh�eets and I�ighways, such as Warner Road and Jackson Slreet, as well as most of the bus lines serving the Twin cities. Vast amounts of parlflng space are available in lots scattered around the neighborhood, which also serve as `land banks" for future development� � Most warehouses in the I.owertown Historic Dish are designated landmarks and qualify �or rehabilitation ta�c credits, maldng them desirable for fuhu deuelopment 11xe neighborhood is served by the Saint Paul Disirict Heating System, which assures a competitive and secure source of energy. Lowertown has also benefited from its closeness to the downtown core, linldng it to every financial, legal, and governmental service. Today's Lowertown is the resutt of a unique and higl�ly successfiil parfnership between Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation and many public sector offices and organi- zations, including the Office of the Mayor, City Council, Department of Planning & Economic Development, Department of Fublic Works, Parks & Recreation Department, Saint Paul Port Authority, Downtown Council, Saint Paul Chamber of Commerce, and many other private organizations and foundations. Through the years, dedicated leaders from Lowertown and the City have continued to envision the future, for the overall benefit of Saint Pau1, in sh for the benefits of imagina tive, wellconceived and wellexecuted development. In the years ahead, the neighborhood will continue to be receptive to new businesses, new de�elopers and new opportunities. And LRC will continue its efforts in overall plazu�ing, urban design, marketing, and gap financing for the area, while providing a range of personalized services to companies maldng reloca- tion and investment decisions. 11u�ough the public/private partnership, LRC hopes to reduce risks and maavnize reiurns for investors, to provide a competitive edge in area-wide marketing over other districts, and to create a sense of place for the new neighborhood. • A DYNAMIC NEW NEIGNBORIIOOD Life in I,owertown is lively and exciting.'Ilie growing numbers of people who live and work here have brought with them new activities and a greater appreciation of its distinctive character. The azea's reputation as a haven for painters, sculptors, photographers, writers, and artists of all kinds preceded its revitalization, and I.owertown Redevelopment Corporation and community leaders have taken pains to retain and support them. For e�mple, new artist studio housing has been deueloped Nurough various cre- ative combinations of Suaucing. The neighborhood is filled with arts organizations, both ffaditional and `bn the cutting edge," who serve as magnets for at1ists and their patrons. V'isitors and residents alike are attracted to the growing numbers of galleries, such as the Art Resource and Master Framer galleries, while coffee- houses such as Kuppernicus add literary life to the scene. Annual arts, crafts and music festivals draw ]u crowds.'Ilie Great Hall at F�ust Trust Center, the Atrium at the Union Depot, and the Palm Court at Galtier offer wonderfizl spaces for large gatherings and public performances. Tempoiary outdoor public art installations have been presented by FORECASI' and other arts groups. Developers and investors aze encouraged to find ways to include the arts in their plantring. ag-a �� Important to Lowertown's vitality is its growing reputation as a center for all ldnds � of entertaiuwent Lowertown is Saint Paul's theater district, with first run movies at the new Cinema 4 in Galtier. Residents and workers can choose from a wide variety of restau- rants, popular entertainment centers, and even an indoor miniature golf course. Education also plays a role in Lowertown's diverse cultural life, through the Globe College of Business at Galtier Plaza, and the nearby Saturn School of Tomorrow. Part of the fun of the ne�ghborhood is its distinctive tumof-thecentury "look." Extensive lighting, fiunished by ornate �ctorian streetlights, brightens the sh and provides a fes- tive evening glow. The newly-renovated Mears Park, a popular lmmch- time gathering place, serves as Lowertown's `�illage green", with trees, flowers, benches, sculptures and fountains. Suuunertime brings outdoar concerts, performances, events and festivals, while in winter the park is beautifiilly lighted for the holiday season 'Ihe new bridges across I-94, each with enhanced historic lighting, railings and/or sidewalks, provide beautiful new gateways to Lowertown. The special richness of life in Lowertown is demonstrated in many ways.'Ihe historic Farmers Market, located in the heart of the neighborhood, attracts more than 50,000 visitors every summer. I,owertown's churches draw large crowds from throughout the metro azea. You'll also find antique stores, hixiuy aparlments, and coffee- houses side-by-side, and the ever present posibility of discovering a unique store or shop tucked in some comer you haven't noticed before. LOWERTOWN IN TFIE NINEilES: A RETURN i0 i11E RIVER Lowertown's future is even more exciting than its past Similarly, the coming of a new city adminish�ation to Saint Paul has signaled a new optimism and energy as well. As Mayor Norm Coleman has said, "Saint Paul's best days are yet to come." The vision for the neigh- borhood is clear: a place where families feel secure, walk to work, and have access to reliable daycare; where older people can remain active in a busy, interesting environment; where new businesses thrive; where the arts are alive; and where people meet in cafes, parks and galleries, stroll along the streets or the river&ont, or go for an euening boah Mini-parks, pedestriau greenways, enclosed wintergardens, daycare centers, con- venience stores and other neighborhood aznenities will be developed. Special atten- tion will be given to the needs of the elderly and women and children, with new housing designs tailored to changing urban demographics and work pattems. Energy conservation continues to be a major part of the future vision for Lowertown. Housing clustering and superinsula6on will be emphasized. Dishict heating will extend to every part of the neighborhood. Solar energy will be tapped, acfively or passively, while new zoning provisions will assure solar access for every resident � ��-a Each of the four districts that make up Lowertown—the North Quadrant, Mears Pa �iverfi and the East Quadrant — has clearly different potenfials. Taken together, i hold promise of an additional $400 million in development On the River&ont, fliree possible approaches to necv development aze envisi One plan emphasizes housing, with terrace-style townhouses and apartments built a river's edge, with underground parking, and a marina for residents' use. An alternative approach would capitalize on Lowertown's e�ctensive arts and cultural ties, using the riverfi as a location for the new Science Museum or the National Paz Service's river interpretive center. Yet another vision involves an expansion of the post office facility and consh o large plaza or park over it Whichever plan is ultnnately adopted, it is clear that future Lowertown residents will be able to enjoy a new and intimate relationship with the part of the river for which their neighborhood is named. A new riverfront park, currently under construction, is within relatively easy walk- ing and biking distance of the center of Lowertown, while new stairways, walkways, and an e�ctension of the skyway system will make Lambert Landing and the long- dreamed- of "river garden" readfly accessible to residents and visitors alike. In the 12-block Mears Park area, rehabilitation of historic structures as well as new infill construction will continue. A dozen buildings with historic landmark �esignation remain to be adapted for new uses. The Arts continue to be an important part of Lowertown's appeal, and the neighborhood will play a sigttificant role in establishing downtown Saiut Paul as a cultural dislric�t. More ezchibits, performances, and events will be encouraged. Quality art, including outdoor sculpture and fountains, will be placed in public places. Collaboration among artists, landscape designers and architects in the public arts will be fostered. Awareness of the value of the arts will grow, with excellence being the goal of every project More artists' housing to provide affordable living and working spaces is envisi for the area arommd Mears Park, and near the riverfi 11ie arts will conhibute to, as as benefit from, Lowertown's ongoing renewal. Economic growth will continue in Lowertocvn, with the abundance of architectu unique, yet lowcost, space ath new and growing businesses. "Ihe ready availabil land in the North Quadrant will allow for the conslruction of new buildings to be built to meet the need of new or existing businesses. Targeted marketing efforts aimed at regional growth indushies such as high technology, biotechnology, information services, and health- care, and the development of a new technology park, will bring growth and jobs. "Ihe presence of KI'CA, with its excellent facilities for video and film, and PTVS, a PBS company dedicated to encouraging new and innovative film and videos, will make Lowertown burgeon as a center for video, film and related `cukural" indushies. � �� ,; « � � :�. : � �.- ��". � �.' _ ? + . lR� \ �- � . . �,. w,. �' �- � � � . � �. i �'� � ce ,..' __ . , ��, N � �:. , ,: . -�-�=��_ �� ;. � �.��, � ��.� � � . . :.� .� -t ' � � ` � �- � �f yp { �€: ,�: t r i�'� �f ' �"^ �� s�� . ��_-�,� �� , _ ;,; . � s, , .� .� �� J r , � . , .,. ... �-- . , _ - � , _, :�-=s `; J . 5 / a" . � . F ��.�f G S F� "`.a!'y,.a� � . ��. . .�:M - ¢'. f TR �.: F' _ �v . � � t , . Y _ �' ..i�1 • , , '� �'°`" , p � .: . w Y.. . .�. ... . . ' � f. � ,..: . • L � r _.- .. � '.. �` .. - �' . _ Y 2 :. . .. , .... v. � Svw:i_._ r+ / - /b .� � . . . �� .. .. : . -. . � � "� �, � � J � ' :' �r - . "� � . ' -' - • % ` ' � � �� ' \Z\ ' - _ � j _. f K . . +`.�� l . '. � ." .� ' _ . � � . ' . � .�. ... �. � � . . . a i _ � c. _ . � ._ . . � ' ',i �. . ! .. ' ' � ' � . . � . . � . �� _ . . �. F %: � � �% - _ �: , .� �. � � .,'.\ �'-� .. ' i �:V`��°-'��!�� ..,�` \ !ti � . � , �, '� .,1 '. ' .- :. . '� � ` G" v . - - �. E . ' . .' .. �� /'�� ,,:r l.,EC"! � �_ . . ^J`'�.� r ., G '��. y \ ,' �..1 �; �� _ ..� . � . ,�� .� �"Q.*hF. v,3�na �'f,��-y�" .. � if � '. ' �,.' .,. - . ..t 1 �'f . \!. . .J � . � ��- . l - " — . . y .. ._.. Y .... . , _ <,' ♦ � �-� �� / < R / r/ ��' .-•. ,. .. . . . . l' a . �'" Y � 1 �.,� ,� - =� % �� -� � ,� -� �t- , ' �� 4 S �: � ' . . ..�� \ /_ ^ . \ � N:� � � � } '1' -.� . ' ��..v 4 1 ,� 5; : c4 ' �1,:. .e"�, -�` �''� "'v. .� ' .. � . �.v�� '-"�cN�F+�•.,�„ . ' r 1`y,��__'��,Y,bs . �... . . . � ... �ae r s � . ' �" v'�# . =��i,r . � . . � � . Kr ��`��'�� J -_/ : . _ _ . . � . � T iF�(`Jl' . . . . . �; ,+^ - "��s�> �� r . . . - .� , �y� . � .. . .. � � . � ... . - .. � . . ✓ � ��'r ,.� . . : _ . e � ; „�..., �'�• z , _ ��r''„�� uc, " � �r.. �' �st .� . s "'. ' � � � _. �. �� . � '�`"� -�, ��. ,.� - . .�-.., - �. �.^ �= � >_�? � ,- . `t� `'', ' "` ..� • .� � "� : � � � �,. , ' . _ " ' =�,.�` �.. - '�. \ �: ,_ �`. " . ' _ ": ,. . - _ , ar��, . ; \'\ �-�' : � - F � II2C WIId. '' ° ` �. ,� �'= "E` �< .., ., :�:, . `: -.ar.. ' "� � � ��:' - ".k-' COl�°11NUE TO ACC � : s �-� IN ITS ROIE t�S A �'�:= �% ` � ,. � , � _ _> �, � y . «. ,, . _ . . o- r �i� � � - .; : CATALYST, IDEA- � p m � ,� ". � � � . � GBNERATORAND ' �;r� �� .� '�-; - -, r..,.�;� � IMPIEMENIER � ,. � J ��.;� 4 r �_ ., F �' . . !.n; . . i. ° . '1 a � . . �.�� , . 11 Feb 1998 2:SSPM CapitolRiver Council FRX: 2218581 • W CapitolRiver Council District 17 PpGE 1 OF 1 �� Post-it° Fax Note 7671 �a« p,�es� To ,\ From � � �... onone s vno�e x a a _(S4 k`t Fa:a r7.�¢l¢ V Faxx -- —_ . __. _. . - - ------ - �. 3 33Z Minnesota Saeec Suite N150 Sa;nt Pav1, b11V 55101 612 721 Q488 Fqy,; 612 2210551 Webs+tewww.capitolrivecptg flrnaiypPriveKbioneerplanetinfi.nec 7 7 February 1998 Council President Dan Bostrom 15 Wesi Keliogg Bivd. 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Mn 55'102 Dear Council President Bostrom, We write to support the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission s decision to deny a demoliGon permit Tor the Crane Building located at 281 East Fifth Street in the Lowertown Historic Preservalion District. ' The CapitolRiver Council's Development and Review Committee at iYs February 5, 1998 meeling • • discussed this matter and believe that lha Crane BuBding possess the architectural charsder and integrity that creates our Historic Lowertown Neighborhood. We cannot afford to loss anaher historic structure. Demolition of the Crane Buildi�g, io provide a 2B or 29 surtace parking lot, would have a negative impact on the appeara�ce and the distinctive attributes that make the Lowertown Neighborhood renowned, It has been brought to our arieniion that there are several legitimate otfers by repulable developers to purchase and rerwvate the Crane 8uilding. We believe lhese offers shoWd be explored. The CapitoiRiver Cou�cil's Development and Review Committee and ths Executive Committee member's ask that you uphold the decision of the Heritage Preservetion Commission and deny ihe demolition permit for tha Crane 8uilding. Thank you tor your oonsideration. Sincerely, • ( t � � I�o-Y� �,. r -- �. Mary Nelson, Community Organizer cc: Aaron Rubenstein, LIEP Ail City Council Members „--- � Council File # /O '2�3 ORIGINAL Presented By Referred To Green sheet # (0857 RESOLUTION SAINT_P/�1L, MINNESOTA COmmittee: Date zy 1 WHEREAS, Paul Baillon, d/b/a Baillon Company, 332 Miuuesota Street, Suite E-1404, 2 Saint Paul, Minuesota 55101, made application to the Heritage Preservation Commission [the 3 Commission] pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06(a)(4) to approve an application for 4 a demolifion permit to demolish a building located at 281 East Fifth Street, Saint Paul, 5 Miunesota, commonly lrnown as the Crane Building, a historical building within the Lowertown 6 Heritage Preservation District; and 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 WHEREAS, the Heritage Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing on the applicafion of Paul Baillon on December 1 l, 1997 at which all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard. In its Resolution No. 3172, adopted December 11, 1997, the Commission, denied the applicarion for a demolition permit for the following reasons: 1. Architectural and historical merit of the building. The Crane Building is architecturally and historically significant for the following reasons: It is characterized as supportive to the local district; it is categorized as contributing to the national dishict; its architectural design contains distinctive features; it was designed by Reed and Stem, prominent local architects; it is the former warehouse of the Crane Ordway Company; and a significant individual, Lucius P. Ordway, is associated with the building as well as with the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3N�. 2. AfFect of the demolition on surrounding buildings. Demolition of the Crane Building may physically jeopardize surrounding buildings, namely the adjacent Markethouse and Rayette Buildings. In addition, demolition would greatly adversely affect the appearance and quality of the historic Lowertown district. Specifically of concern is the interruption of the building or street wall -- one of the most disringuishing characteristics of Lowertown. Removal of the building would erode a very cleazly defined edge and create a lazge opening in the street wall at the northern end of the Fanner's Mazket. Affect of any�roposed new construction on ... surrounding buildin *�s. Construction of a pazking lot on the subject site does not conform to any of the new construction guidelines far the district, including scale, massing, and rhytlun. 4. The economic value or usefulness of the buildin¢ as it now e�sts or if altered or modified in comparison with the value or usefulness of any proposed struchxres designated to re�lace the present buildine. Despite two written requests by staff, the applicant has not provided detailed economic information about the building either as it exits or as it might be modified (rehabbed). The applicant has not definitively stated the use to which the properiy would be put after demolition. The applicant has speculated that the site might be used for surface pazking. The applicant has supplied no financial informarion about future use of the property. 98-2 i3 1 5. New use for the site. The burden for demonstrating the value or usefulness of the site 2 after demolition falls not on the Commission but on the applicant. The applicant did not 3 supply a plan for the site or any economic data. Nevertheless, the Commission, on its 4 own initiative, considered three alternatives: 6 (a) Do nothine. The applicant was asked at the public hearing the applicant's 7 purchase price of the building. The applicant responded that he did not know. 8 County taY records indicate a$100,000.00 contact for deed for the properry in 9 1978, the yeaz in which the applicant purchased the properry. Since that time, 10 according to the applicant, the property has appreciated to $1,400,000.00. The 11 applicant states that annual maintenance expenses for the property aze $20,000.00 12 or more. The applicant did not supply a net figure (after tas deductions, etc.). If 13 the applicanPs assessment of the building's current value is correct, the building 14 could reasonably be preserved as a rapidly appreciating asset. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44� 45 46 47 48 49 It is in the City's interest that the building survive until it can be rehabilitated, as many similaz buildings in Lowertown ha�e been rehabilitated. (b) Vacant Land. Although specifically asked at the hearing, the applicant did not estimate the value of vacant land in Lowertown. Expert testnnony indicated a maxiuium value of $20.00 sq. ft. T'he lot size is 9,377 sq. ft. The value of the land may be generously estimated to be $187,000.00. Applicant states demolition costs will be $145,000.00. The net value to the applicant to the vacant land after demolition is $42,000.00. The value to the City of vacant land is negligible. There is already and significant supply of vacant or unbuilt land in Lowertown. (c) Surface Parkin¢. The applicant has indicated the properiy may be used for surface parking. The applicant did not supply a site plan or economic figures. The applicant stated no pro form of budget has been prepazed. Staff estnnates the lot would contain 28 or 29 pazking spaces. This would increase the land azea in the eastern half of the Lowertown district that is devoted to surface parking by 2%. The Commission estimates that the applicanY s net income from pazking may be approximately $10,000.00 (after ta�ces, management fees, site preparation costs, etc.). This return seems inadequate on an asset applicant values at $1,400,000.00. The 2% increase in Lowertown parking is a slight benefit to the City when compared to the economic value of a rehabbed building. (d) Rehabilitation of the Crane Building. The applicant cannot reasonably claim that ownership of the building is an econoxnic hardship if the applicant is responsible for the hazdship. In particulaz, the applicant, in its 20 yeaz ownership of the building, has never requested or been issued a building permit, indicating that the applicant has made no effort to maintain the structure. The building's elevator does not work. This fact alone may explain the applicanY s stated inability to rent the six story building. The applicant has precluded sale of the building by setting an unrealistically high asking price. The applicant has mazketed the properiy for 1.4 million dollars ( appro�mately 2 9� ai3 1 $23 per sq. ft.). The applicant did not, in response to questions from the Cominission, 2 supply names of compazable Lowertown properties selling for a similaz amount. Expert 3 testimony showed comparable buildings in Lowertown are selling for $2.00 to $10.00 per 4 sq. ft. Mr. Lu tesfified that three compazable buildings in Lowertown have sold recently 5 for $2.10 to $5.00 per sq. ft. Based on this expert testimony, the fair mazket value of the 6 59,500 sq. ft. Crane Building is $119,000.00 to $595,000.00. The applicanY s stated 7 inability to sell the properiy stems from the applicanYs unreasonably high asking price. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 41F 45 46 47 48 49 Mr. Weiming Lu of the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation testified extensively about the economic value to the City of the redevelopment of Lowertown and of individual buildings. He said that since 1978, $428,000,000.00 has been invested in Lowertown, resulting in 3,000 residents and 8,000 jobs. He expressed optixnism on the basis of his 18 yeaz experience as executive director of the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation that a suitable and economically successful reuse could be found for the Crane Building. The applicant stated, "there may be people in this world, and there probably are, more clever and more creadve than we are in finding a new use for the building." The burden of fmding a new use for the building does not rest on the Commission. Nevertheless, the Commission recommends to the applicant that the applicant consider at least the following options: 1. Accept offers of technical assistance from the City of Saint Paul Planning and Economic Development (PED), Heritage Preservation Commission, Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation, the Minnesota Historical Society, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2. Invest in long-delayed maintenance to make the building rentable. 3. Offer the building for sale at a price established by the market. 4. Investigate offers of financial assistance from Lowertown Redevelopment Corparation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 5. Consider development alternatives other than apartments (the only alternative about which the applicant supplied any fmancial information). 6. Investigate statements of developer interest in the building by Artspace Projects and PED; and WIIEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Paul Baillon, d/b/a Baillon Company, duly filed with the Council an appeal from the determination made by the Heritage Preservation Commission, and requested that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and WHEREAS, acting pucsuant to § 73.06, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on February 11, 1998, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; � 9�- 2 �3 WHEREAS, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Commission, the Council does hereby; RESOLVE, to affirm the decision of the Commission having found no error in fact, finding or procedure and incorporates the findings of the Commission as its own; and BE IT FURTI�R RESOLVED, that the appeal of Paul Baillon, d/b/a Baillon Company, is in all things denied; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Paul Baillon, the Zoning Adnunistrator and the Heritage Preservation Commission. ORIGlNAL Requested by Department of: By: Form Appr ed by Ci y Attorney B �!✓�<r-r.nG+ 3�.f/'f� Adoption Certified by Council Secretasy Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council �Y� a a . a ..--.�� By: Approved by Mayor: D �- � ! By: Adopted by Council: Date �{7/� /�-� /Y� �%JY i �r DATE Chris Coleman March 18. 1998 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES 9�-2/3 GREEN SHEET No 60857 u �,.�,�.� u �„�- ❑ �,,,,,.�„ ❑ �.� ❑wuwcu�aEaxccESme. ❑wuxw�tmiw�eno ❑ wraeldiumraxrl ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE� Finalizing City Council action taken February 11, 1998 denying the appeal of Baillon Company to a decision of the Heritage Preservation Co�ission denying approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building at 281 East Fifth Street (Lowertown). PLANNING COMMISSION d6 CAMMITTEE . CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ��. RSONALSERVICE CONTRIIC7S MUSTANSWER iHE FOLLOWING QUESiIONSs Ha6 �hi6 pelSONfirtn e✓ef Vrotked u11dM a conlra4i fof tltis depaRment? YES NO Has thb Pe�soNfirm erer been a citY emGbYee7 YES NO Does this persoNPom possess a sldll nd �wmiallypossecceU Dy arry curreM dqr employee? YES NO Is Mis D�� a tar0eted vendoYl YES NO t✓�� <�`'t��°�C'.�C;f:� �,�e': �._�..� { t �;: OF TRANSACTION S SOURCE (CIRCLEONfl YES NO ACTIYITY NUMBER (IXPWN) OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY PegBirlSCityAttorney /�Q - "� j� �� Q d f CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co7eman, Mayor Civil Divisian 400 Ciry Ha11 IS West Kellogg BHd Saint Paul, Mi�mesom SSIO2 Telephone: 612 266-87I0 Facsimile: 672 298-56I9 i,�ur�E R�search Center � . � � t,;� Mazch 6, 1998 Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary, Saint Paul City Council 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paui, MN 55102 Hand Delivered Re: Appeal of Paul Baillon d/b/a Baillon Company Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution No. 3172 Public Hearing Date: Febn�ary 11, 1998 Deaz Ms. Anderson: Attached please find the signed original of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-en6tled matter. The resolution should be placed on the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Very truly yours, //.r/lV�" _ �AM^Q--� Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemm', Mayor 13 January 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMEN'IAL PROTECTION ( / � � Rober! Kessler, Director c� $. a r 3 7 � IAA'RYPROFESSIONALBUILDING Telephone:612-266-9090 Sui1e 300 Facr"vnile: 672-2669099 350 S[ Peter Sdeet Saint Pau1, Minnesota 55102-I570 I would like to request that a public heazing before the City Council be scheduled for Wednesday, February 11, 1998 for the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision: Appellant: Baillon Company HPC File: #3172 Purpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to deny approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building at 281 E. Fifth St. (Lowertown ). The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public hearing on this matter and voted 9- 0 on December 11, 1997 to deny approval of the requested permit. This City Council public hearing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions. Sincerely, �,�,�-�, i�� Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Kessler, Halvorson, LIEP Chazles Skrief, HPC Chair Peter Warner, CAO Paul Baillon .y. F . _., . . _ �� 14 i5�8 BAILLON COMPANY 332 Minnesota Street Suite E-1404 Saint Pau1,11rnnesota 55101 Telephone {612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 February 11, 1995 St. Paul City Council City of St. Paul Court House St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: 281 East Sth Street St. Paul, Minnesota �� q� -a �3 Dear Council Members, Dan Bostrom, Jerry Blakey, Kathy Lantry, Jim Reiter, Jay Benanav, Chris Coleman, and Mike Harris: As you may know, a hearing in connection with the above property is scheduled for a meeting of the City Council later today to vote on whether a permit wi11 be issued to us in connection with our application to demolish the above building. We would like to respectfully request that this hearing be postponed until the council meeting on March 4, 1998. The scheduling of this meeting has been exclusively in the hands of the Heritage Preservation Commission, which has refused our request to postpone today's meeting and has adopted an accelerated time frame that, while it may suit their interests, has not allowed us time to prepare adequately. In addition, this time schedule has not allowed sufficient time for both sides to meet and explore possible methods to attempt to resolve some of the differences. From our perspective, and hopefully from yours, laying this matter over for a short period of time won't be harmful and might be beneficial to all concerned. We appreciate your consideration. Our Company has been in business in St. Paul for over 45 years. we have been long term investors in downtown St. Paul real estate for over 40 years. We have owned and been active in helping to preserve several historically significant downtown St. Paul buildings which are now on the National Register. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY ,o��,��:� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj Delivered by Hand cc: Norm Coleman, Mayor Tom Fabel, Deputy Mayor � � CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Nonrs Coleman, Mayor 13 January 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 CiTy Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND �� ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION n Robert Kessler, Director I}G -"} j� �I O C� f LOWRYPROF£SSIONALBUILO7.NG Telephone:611d66-9090 Suite 300 Facsimile: 672-166-9099 350 St. Peier Street Saint Paul, Minnesam 55102-I510 I would like to request t6at a public heazing before the City Council be scheduled for Wednesday, February 11, 1998 for the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision: Appellant: Baillon Company HPC File: #3172 Pucpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to deny approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building at 281 E. Fifth St. (I,owertown ). The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public heazing on this matter and voted 9- 0 on December 11, 1997 to deny approval ofthe requested permit. This City Council public heazing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-908 7 if you have any questions. Sincerely, r ° Yc"�i-�ti � `�a.�;��' �c4 �.; Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Kessler, Halvorson, LIEP Chazles Skrief, HPC Chair Peter Wamer, CAO Paul Baillon Ce�diFlC� ��i�? '�p��? J��4 1 E iS;;3 � • • • OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION Ro6er[ Kessles, Drrec[or CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor LOWRYPROFFSSIONAL BUILDING Suite 300 350 St. Peter Saeet Saini Paul, Minnesota 55102-ISIO 5 February 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: HPC File #3172: Cit� Council Hearing: Baillon Company 11 February 1998 -a �3 Telephone: 611-266-9090 Facsimile: 612d 66-9099 PURPOSE: To consider an appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's denial of a peanit to demolish the Crane Building located at 281 East Fifth Street. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTTON: Denial. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. SUPPORT: One person spoke. OPPOSITION: Four people spoke. Dear Ms. Anderson: The Baillon Company has appealed the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission to deny approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building. The subject building is located within the Lowertown Heritage Preservation District at 281 East Fifth Street. The Heritage Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the permit application on December 11, 1997 at which time Mr. Paul Baillon, representing the property owner, addressed the commission. In public testimony, one person spoke in support of the proposed demolition and four people spoke against it. Following the close of the pub(ic hearing; the commission voted 9- 0 to deny approval of the demolition permit. The commission's findings aze stated in its resolution, which is attached. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February I 1, 1998. I have attached pertinent information. Slides of the Crane Buiiding and surrounding azea will be available at the Council meeting if Councilmembers wish to view them. Very truly yours, t ��ti i'��C��'� Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Attachments cc: City Councilmembers; Robert Kessler, LIEP; Peter Wamer, CAO; Paul Baillon • r1 LJ u CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemm�, Mayor OFF7CE OF LICENSE, INSPEC170NS AND ENVIItON[vgNTAL PROTECTfON Robert Kessler, Director LOIVRYPROFESSIONAL BUZLD7NG Suite 300 350 Sr. Perer Srreer Saint P¢v1, Mirsnesata SS[01-ISIO 19 December 1997 Mr. Paul Baillon Baillon Company 332 Minnesota Street #E1404 Saint Paul, MN 55101 By Fax: 222-5556 9 pages Deaz Mr. Baillon: �� Telephone: 612-2669090 Facsimile: 612-2669099 The Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission voted at its December I 1, 1997 meeting to deny approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building located at 281 East Fifth Street. I have enclosed a copy of the commission's resolution. You have the right to appeal this decision to the Saint Paul City Council under Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. Such appeal must be filed by December 25, 1977. Chapter 73 requires that the following pazagaph be included in all letters indicating denial of a permit: Section 73.06 (h) Appeal to the City Council. The permit applicant or any party aggrieved by the decision of the heritage preservation commission shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of the heritage preservation commission's order and decision, have a right to appeal such order and decision to the ciry council. The appeal shall be deemed perfected upon receipt by the division ofplanning of two (2) copies of a notice of appeal and statement setting forth the grounds for the appeal. The division of planning shall transmit one copy of the notice of appeal and statement to the ciry council and one copy to the heritage preservation commission. The commission, in arry written order denying a permit application, shall advise the applicant of the right to appeal to the city council and include this paragraph in all such orders. Because the Heritage Preservation Commission is no longer staffed by the Planning Division, I would request that any letter of appeal be sent to me at LIEP instead of to the Planning Division. If you do appeal the decision, please indicate in your letter the grounds for the appeal and, in particulaz, any errors of fact, finding or procedure you believe the commission made. Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions or concems. Very truly your� ��,ti.�, /�,�.�; Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner cc: Kessler and Halvorson @ LIEP BAILLON COMPANY 332 Minnesota Strcet Suite E-1404 Saint Pau1,11Tinnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 December 19, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein Aeritage Preservation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections and Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Environmental Protection Re: Crane Building, 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MN Your File # 3172 Dear Mr. Rubenstein: 2 am writing in regard to the Demolition Permit Application for the Crane Building at 281 East 5th Street in St. Paul, which was filed on October 29, 1997. As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed our permit application at their December 11, 1997 meeting and voted to deny the application. Please take this letter as written notice that we wish to exercise our right to appeal the matter to the St. Paul City Council and to exercise any other appeal rights that we may have. If anything further is required in this regard, please let me know right away. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY �� e� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj Sent via fax 266-9099 and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested � • � �i� - d l 3 • BAILLON CaMPANY 332 Diinncmta St�eet Sulte E-140d Saint Paal, l►iinn�ts 55101 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Faettmile (612) 222-5556 December 19. 1997 Mr. Aaron RubensY.ein Heritage Preaervation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections and Lowry Professional Buildin9 Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 A/a+t�e 6�F /�pPeul � � c � � v -o � w � Environmental ProteCtion Re: Crane Building, 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MII�1 Your File # 3172 Dear Mr. Rubenstein: I am writing in regard to the Demolition Permit Application for the Crane Building at 281 East 5th Street in St. Paul, . which was filed on October 29, 1997. As you know, the Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed our permit application at their December 11, 1997 meeting and voted to deny the application. �: ;;� .. . = r l� Please take this letter as written notice that we wish to exercise our right to appeal the matter to the St. Paul City Council and to exercise any other appeal rights that we may have. If anything further is required in this regard, please let �d Yhut me know right away. y �.,n• '+��•«s+a.� — A° y�« K�ow, y� 0 ��9�^"��> Sf"'t youwo„,J$4 I�UUJANRVte1`M u fp7ea y w Very truly yours, - M��Y Y � � BAILLON COMPANY QaNO+ fttcivt �.wy7k�wr { Y by 3�aSpYtn '�oCla� � faF¢/1 Yvµ 'tL�.a ako�e 4¢iltr n,t 3:TS P•v� aKJ wtso M.itstl yvti c.. coiy a� ��/��'� The PoS�r p4Fice �wM��t�W�ft�y .rhereaFter.Tkis GvRS A�nl Yrs �� °""' 7rotee+ au.r e.PP�at f�RAts ,�.u��tv F��e 6y �rtv. de.u[u�e. SNLSeAKQwi�t� A`F S�:HI �M 7Ui�Ky /2�l'J�'/7� W� {INl1��y Paul A. Ba7.11on reca��ed y�Kr �e�Ne ; +�� !�4�9✓ by fa%. zn rs«ae�.:� y�ur�tfft� �.� now wpPawrS 'W�at My t evas �.1eo.t+Pleft and s wstl h¢ ,�¢�, y s ,,.pPKw�tnt��y it �h kw.,ctw�iHte {or.+� Vecause our SecrtrRr� PAB:lsj �S Y+Uw gar¢ kdw�e a'F �`s La'+e huN✓. x a.a k,ise fe-r�ail��y ywa caP�el 04 „ Mis L�'�t✓ -ryyuN -tedaq a�t'r� l.sEP oif�ce a,e yau Awv� /e4wrstvd Sent via f3x 266-9099 �'" $ a.H a15n faY�aS �+ . �ic�.R. Bw,a�i�+� (3w.�l�n Go.yoR��' and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested !z.!! 1 �47 �tow.Qs for i�PP'�a� �f'�'`a �Ppi�twu.+,Ra�4loh Conn�aKy t3 4OPPa/�nt a� '1Z`� 6/oaKdS ecisiiv. o F `f�`R ffer� �tayr.P/Psarva+e� comn*rss��•1 n+4�Ce on o ��h�p t Yv hPP��Qa•a'�s -ptrv�o�tttw� Ra�Mit A�P!<<a'��•�y� Wus ,4r��'treVy� ucp/'cc�suS� t "' ¢r�} bres� av� ince.µPt�te �nfnrn�a�� bkud oN ��naccurwtc lnFO/MU��rN� W ��n.uKt M � G„7�toar /��e/�er /'tfnicl Yr� based o+� �'rrettrvRnt �Kfo�,n�f�ur�, bas�d u� heresay, a� � �er��«y� P�aaerda+�i�n 6arde(�.�r� . BAILLON COMPANY 332 Minnesota Strcet Suite E-1404 Saint Paul,llTinnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 December 23, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Re: Appeal from the Heritage Preservation Commission's 12/11/97 denial of Baillon Company's Demolition Permit Application for the Crane Building, located at 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MN Your File # 3172 Dear Mr. Rubenstein: In follow up to my letter of December 19, 1997, (copy enclosed) which contained our Notice of Appeal and Grounds for Appeal in the above matter, I am submitting herewith some additional grounds for appeal. The applicant, Baillon Company, is appealing on the additional grounds that the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission made on December il, 1997, with respect to Applicant's Demolition Permit Application was based on errors of law and fact, erroneous findings, erroneous procedures, conclusions that were based on assumptions, conclusions based on information that lacked proper foundation, and the failure to properly consider information and facts provided by the Applicant. If you need anything further, please let me know. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY �''��r�Gd•!.�'� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj Sent via fax 266-9099 and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested C� � J � q� • CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMIVIISSION RESOLUTION FII.E NUMBER 3172 DATE 11 beecember 1997 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul L,egislative Code to review building permit applications for exterior alterations, new conshvction or demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and WHEREAS, the Baillon Company and A. Kamish and Sons have applied for a permit to demolish the Crane Building located at 281 East FiRh Street within the Lowertown Heritage Preservation District; and WHEREAS, the Crane Build'mg is a six story, brick, wuehouse building designed by the firm of Reed and Stem, constructed in 1904, and categorized as supportive to the character of the Lowertown District; and WHEREAS, the Lowertown Heritage Preservation District guidelines refer to the HPC ordinance, Chapter 73 of the Legislative Code, concerning demolition: In the case of the proposed demolition of a 6uilding, prior to approval of said demolition, the � commission shall make written findings on the following: Architectural and historical merit of the bui[ding, the effect of the demolirion on sunounding buildings, the e,�'ect of arry proposed new construcrion on the remainder of the building (in case of partial demolition) and on surrounding buildings, and the economic value or usefulness of the building as it now exists or if altered or rraodified in comparison with the value or usefulness of arry proposed structures designated to replace the present building or buildings; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its December 11, 1997 public hearing on said permit application, made the following findings of fact: 1. Architectural and historical merit ofthe buildine. The Crane Building is azchitecturally and historically significant for the following reasons: it is categorized as supportive to the local district; it is categorized as contributing to the national district; its architectural design contains distinctive features; it was designed by Reed and Stem, prominent local azchitects; it is the former wazehouse of the Crane and Ordway Company; and a significant individual, Lucius P. Ordway, is associated with the building as well as with the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M). • 2. Effect of the demolition on surrounding buildings. Demolition of the Crane Building may physically jeopazdize surrounding buildings, namely the adjacent Mukethouse and Rayette buildings. In addition, demolition would geatly adversely affect the appearance and quality of the historic Lowertown district. Specifically of concern is the interruption of the building or street wall--one of the most distinguishing characteristics of I,owertown. Removal of the building would erode a very cleazly defined edge and create a lazge opening in the street wall at the northern end of the Fazmers Mazket. Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #3172 Page Two 3. Effect of any �roposed new construction on ... surroundin� buildings. Construction of a pazking lot on the subject site dces not conform to any of the new construction guidelines for the district, including scale, massing, and rhythm. 4. The economic value or usefulness of the buildin�as it now exists or if altered or modified in comparison with the value or usefulness of anv proposed structures designated to replace the present building Despite two written requests by staffthe applicant 6as not provided detailed economic information about the building either as it e�cists or as it might be modified (rehabbed). The applicant has not defmitively stated the use to which the property would be put after demolition. The applicant has speculated that the site might be used for surface pazking. The app}icant has supplied no financial information about future use of the property. New Use for the Site. The burden for demonstrating the value or usefulness of the site after demolition falls not on the commission but on the applicant. The applicant did not supply a plan for the site or any economic data. Nevertheless, the commission, on its own initiative, considered three altemarives: � a) Do nothing. The applicant was asked at the public hearing the applicanYs purchase price of � the building. The applicant responded that he did not know. County tax records indicate a $100,000 contract for deed for the property in 1978, the year in which the applicant purchased the property. Since that time, according to the applicant, the property has appreciated to $1,400,000. The applicant states that annual maintenance e�cpenses for the property aze $20,000 or more. The appFicant did not supply a net figure (after tas deductions, etc.). If the applicant's assessment of the building's current value is correct, the building could reasonably be preserved as a rapidly appreciating asset. It is in the city's interest that the building survive unril it can be rehabilitated, as many similaz buildings in Lowertown have been rehabilitated. b) Vacant land. Although specifically asked at the heazing, the applicant did not estimate the value of vacant land in Lowertown. Expert testunony indicated a marcimum value of $20/sq. ft. The lot size is 9,377 sq. ft. The value of the land may be generously estimated to be $187,000. Applicant states demolition costs will be $145,000. The net value to the applicant of the vacant land affer demolition is $42,000. The value to the city of vacant land is negligible. There is already a significant supply of vacant or unbui$ land in Lowertown. c) Surface pazking. The applicant has indicated the property may be used for surface pazking. The applicant did not supply a site plan or economic figures. The applicant stated no pro forma budget has been prepazed. Staff estimates the lot would contain 28 or 29 pazking spaces. This • would increase the land azea in the eastem half of the Lowertown district that is devoted to surface pazking by two percent. The Commission estimates that the applicant's net income from q8 � Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #3172 Page T1uee pazking may be approximately $10,000 (after taxes, management fees, site preparation costs, etc.). This return seems inadequate on an asset applicant values at $1,400,000. The two percent increase in Lowertown pazking is of slight benefit to the city when compazed to the economic value of a rehabbed building. Rehabilitation of the Crane BuildinQ. The applicant cannot reasonably claim that ownership of the building is an economic hazdship if the applicant is responsible for the hazdship. In particulaz, the applicant, in its riventy yeaz ownership of the building, has never requested or been issued a building permit, indicating that the applicant has made no effort to maintain the structure. The building's elevator does not work. This fact alone may explain the applicanYs stated inability to rent the six-story building. The applicant has precluded sale.of the building by setting an unrealisrically high asking price. Ti�e applicant has mazketed the property for $1,400,000 (approxitnately $23/sq. ft.} The applicant did not, in response to questions from the commission, supply names of compazable Lowertown properties selling for a similaz amount. ExpeR testimony showed compazable buildings in I,owertown aze selling for $2-$10/sq. ft. Mr. Lu testified that three comparable buildings in Lowertown have sold recently for $2.10-$5.00/sq. ft. Based on this expert • testimony, the fair mazket value of the 59,500 sq. ft Crane Building is $119,000-$595,000. The applicanYs stated inability to sell the property stems from the applicant's unreasonably high asking price. Mr. Weiming Lu of the I.owertown Redevelopment Corporation testified extensively about the economic value to the city of the redevelopment of Lowertown and of individual buildings. He said that, since 1978, $428 million has been invested in Lowertown, resulting in 3,000 residents and 8,000 jobs. He expressed optimism on the basis of his 18 yeaz experience as executive director of the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation that a suitable and economically successful reuse could be found for the Crane Building. The applicant stated, "There may be people in this world, and there probably are, more clever and more creative than we are [in fmding a new use for the building]:' The burden of finding a new use for the building does not rest on the commission. Nevertheless, the commission recommends to the applicant that the applicant consider at least the following options: Accept offers of technical assistance from the City of St. Paul (Planning and Economic Development (PED), Heritage Preservation Commission), Lowertown Redevelopment Corporafion, the Minnesota Historical Society, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 2. Invest in long-delayed maintenance to make the building rentable. • 3. Offer the building for sale at a price established by the mazket. Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #3172 Page Fow 4. Investigate offers of financial assistance from Lowertown Redevelopment Corpotarion and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. 5. Consider development alternatives other than apartrnents (the only alternative about which the applicant supplied any financial information). 6. Investigate statements of developer interest in the building by Artspace Projects and PED. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, that the fmdings in the staff report be appended to this resolution; and BE TT FTNALLY RESOLVED that the Heritage Preservation Commission, based on these findings, denies approval of a permit to demolish the Crane Building at 281 East Fifth Street. MOVED BY Cermak SECONDED BY Skrief IN FAVOR AGAINST ABSTAIN Decisions of the Heritage Preservation Commission are finay subject to appeal to the City Council within 14 days by anyone affected by the decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting applicable building and zoning code requirements, and does not constitute approval for tax credits. � . C J q�-a�3 • PROPOSED DEMOLTTION OF THE CRANE BUII.DII3G STAFF REPORT FINDINGS I. Background/introducrion: a. The applicant has owned the building for almost 20 years, during w}uch time it has been essenrially vacant with minor exceprions. The gross azea is 65,000 square feet and the net (usable or rentable) azea is 54,000 square feet. The lot azea and building footprint aze 9,3�7 square feet. The building is of reinforced concrete construction. The first floor is currently leased by Allright Pazking for equipment s[orage. b. The applicant proposes to demolish the building because it is economically burdensome, i.e., costs for tases, insurance, and maintenance in excess of $20,000 annually, yet it provides little to no income. The applicant has tried to lease or sell the building for yeazs with no takers. c. The building is in fair condition, though it is essentially a shell. It needs a new roof (leaking has caused some damage to the brick on the Wall Street elevation). The freight elevator is appro�cimately 25 years old but not operational. The boiler is not functional, and existing radiators would provide only enough heat for a wazehouse-type use. District Aeat runs through the building. d. The applicant claims that it is not economically feasible to reuse or rehabilitate the building and notes these particular problems: high windows, column spacing, lack of pazking, and obsolete or non-existent mechanicals. e. The applicant owns a 93-stall parking lot to the north of the Crane Building. The • applicant has stated that the Crane Building site would probably be used for surface pazking also. A parking lot on the Crane Building site would accommodate 28 or 29 stalls (nonstacked). A site plan for such use has not been submitted. £ CounTy tax records indicate a$100,000 conVact for deed on the property recorded in 1978, the yeaz in which the applicant purchased the property. The terms of the contract are not known and this is not necessazily the purchase price. g. Because the Crane Building is a contributing structure in a National Register historic district, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAV1� would need to be prepazed if the HPC denies approval of the demolition permit and the applicant appeals this decision to the City Council. An EAW would delay the City Council public hearing by several months. 2. The Crane Building is azchitecturally and historically significant. It is categorized as supportive to the local disirict and contributing to the national district. The building's design is rather unusual in Lowertown, with banded piers, regulazly spaced though smallish windows (taller at the second story), orange brick, and a recessed entry stairway with glass risers. The building is cleazly distinctive in the azchitectural landscape of Lowertown. The building is also significant as the work of the prominent Saint Paul architectural firm of Reed and Stem (ca. 1890-1910). The fum specialized in railroad stations and designed over 100 of them across the country, including a collaboration with Warren & Witmore on New York's Grand Central Station. Saint Paul buildings by Reed and Stem include the Saint Paul Hotel (1910), the Goodkind Houses at 5 and 7 Heather Place (1910), the Minnesota Boat Club on Raspberry Island, the University Club at 420 Summit (1912), and residences at 340 Summit � Avenue and 530 Grand Hill. Stem designed the building at 282 East Siarth Street which houses SeestedYs Carpets. Staff Report Findings/Crane Building Demolition Page Two The Crane Building is also significant for its associations with the Crane and Ordway Company and Lucius P. Ordway. By 1897, the company was the world's lazgest manufacturer of valves, fittings, and steam supplies. The subject building served as a warehouse. Lucius Ordway and a partner acquired conh�ol of the three-year old 3M Company in 1905 and he was its president from 1906 to 1909. The Lowertown building that the Crane and Ordway Company occupied prior to completion of the subject building is no longer extant and is the site of a parking tot. 3. In the most narrow physical terms, it appears that replacing the Crane Building with a pazking lot would not have a detrimental physical effect on surrounding buildings. The northeast side wall of the Crane Building is actually the southwest wall of Mazkethouse (the Tighe Building, constructed 1902). In demolishing the Crane Building, care would have to be taken to not damage the Mazkethouse building. � In most significant terms, however, demolition of.the_building and replacing it with a surface pazking lot would be tembly detrimental to the context of surrounding buildings and to the character, integriry, and quality of the I.owertown Heritage Preservation District. A very important part of the character of this warehouse district is the city blocks filled up with small and lazge warehouse and manufacturing buildings, one aRer the other, creating strong lines of building walls enclosing the street. This fundamental building paLtem is already unfortunately � eroded in Lowertown. These historic buildings, in isolation, separated by pazking lots, lose their contexi and impact. The Lowertown dishict cannot afford to lose more historic buildings. Many have already been demolished, leaving a somewhat spotty fabric of buildings. The Crane Building has a pivotal location, helping to enclose the north end of the Fazmers Mazket. The mazket is an important civic space strongly enclosed at the two ends by warehouse buildings. T'he rivo sides of the mazket aze enclosed weakly; two comers previously occupied by buildings are now surface pazking lots. The character and integrity of the eastern half of the Lowertown district, in particulaz, has been eroded by the replacement of historic buildings with parking lots. On the eight blocks in the eastern half of the district, bounded by Kellogg, Seventh, Wacouta and Broadway (Northem Warehouse and Tilsner buildings excluded), there aze thirteen surface parking lots, ten of which sites were previously occupied by buildings, most of them three to five stories in height. ('I'he Fazmers Mazket, which is used for contract pazking during the week, is counted as one of the thirteen lou.) These pazking lots account for 22 percent of the land azea in this eight block azea (public right-of-way excluded) if the mazket is not counted as pazking and for 31 percent of the land azea if the mazket is counted as pazking. Putting a pazking lot on the Crane Building site would increase these figures by rivo percent. (All figures aze approximate.) Previous demolitions are unfortunate. Additional demolirion would also be unfortunate. The chazacter of the district that warranted local and federal designarion remains unchanged. To lose another I,owertown building at this edge of downtown would have a significant adverse r �8�ac3 • Staff Report Findings/Crane Building Demolition Page Three impact on the character and integrity of the district (and provide only 28 or 29 pazking spaces). If the district is to thrive as a neighborhood, a place to work and live, and as a historic area, it needs buildings and more people and uses in and azound them rather than more pazking lots. 4. The Crane Building as it is currently being used is not generating a positive cash flow. The 1997 assessed value of the land and building is $207,500 (building has six stories, assessed value based on five stories). To demolish the building, however, would destroy the potential for future economic value which e�sts. The key problem appears to be that the applicant is asking, and has asked, far too high a price for the building--$1.4 million--which precludes reuse and rehabilitation (numerous knowledgeable sources have suggested that this is the case). Some figures: a. The asking price for the building is $23.53/sq. ft. (based on the average of the gross and net floor areas, which is 59,500 sq. ft., as suggested by the applicanY s reahor). The $1.4 million asking price does not include the adjacent parking lot to the north. b. Knowledgeable sources have suggested that compazable buildings in Lowertown aze selling for two to ten dollazs per squaze foot and that the Crane Building should sell for a price in this range--and probably less than ten dollars. A very recent appraisal of the • 90,000 sq. ft, vacant, James J. Hill Building values the building at $278,500, or $3/sq. ft. gross. c. Several sources have suggested that land values in I,owertown aze in the $10-12/sq. ft. range, while several others have suggested the figure could be as high as $20/sq. R. A supervisor in the County Assessor's office estimates Lowertown land values at $10- 15/sq. ft. or three to four thousand dollazs per pazking stall. d. The cost to demolish the Crane Building is $112,000 according to the property owner and demolition contractor. Some sources have questioned this figure, particulazly for a concrete building, and one source estimated the cost could be$300,000 or more depending on hazardous materials. It appeazs that a new use for the Crane Building might very well be found if the sale price reflected the mazket reality for unimproved warehouse space and the condition of the building. Potenrial uses might include light industrial, artists studios (nonresidential), business incubator, mini-storage, indoor mazket, raw, low-tech space like the Rossmoor Building, or some combination of these uses. Office and residenrial uses would likely require a greater investment and therefore might be more difficult to accomplish. In addition, residential uses would probably require enlazging the existing widow openings which would be expensive and significantly alter the design and character of the building. Several developers consulted by HPC stafF said they had looked at the Crane Building in the past but were deterred by the price and/or that they would be interested in the building if the price reflected the reality of the mazketpiace. The Allen Building, to the north of the Crane Building across Sixth Street, is somewhat similaz to the Crane Building. It also has high windows, though more of them. It was rehabilitated ten • years ago and is now occupied by a variety of warehouse, light industrial, and Class C office uses. Many wazehouse and manufacturing buildings in Lowertown have been rehabilitated for Staff Report FindingslCrane Building Demolition Page Four contemporary use. Though some buildings are underurilized, only a few aze vacant. By proposing demolirion of the Crane Building, its owner is saying that iu value is the land value, because what they will have after demolirion is a piece of land, minus the cost of demolition. Such an equation might look like this: land value is 9,377 sq. ft times $20 = $187,540, minus demolition cost of $ I 12,000, leaves net value of $'75,540. If the building were worth anywhere neaz $1.4 million, the owner would not be paying to demolish it, with a pazcel of land worth $187,540 as a resuk. Demolifion would be premature until a fair price is asked for the building and there aze no takers. Perhaps the applicant would be willing to sell the building for fl�e real value they appear to place on it, e.g., $75,540 plus three months' carrying costs and a five percent realtor's fee,...or even $187,540. T'hese figures aze e�camples and estimates rather than appraisals. Options to facilitate the rehabilitation of the Crane Building might include 1) the City's STAR program, 2) a ta�c inccement £mancing (TIF) district, 3) historic ta�c credits, 4) a facade easement, and 5) working with City staff in PED. PED staff are willing to work with the applicant but believe that previous proposals for the building have been unrealistic. � It appears that the high sale price of the Crane Building has been a very significant obstacle to its reuse. A realis6c, market-based price could result in significant investment in the building . which would result in much greater economic value and usefulness than would a pazking lot. � a�-al3 • • HPC FILE #3 ] 72 CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL HERTTAGE PRESERVATION COMII�SSION STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: Demolish Crane Building APPLICANT: Baillon Company (and A. Kamish & Sons) DATE OF APPLICATION: 10.29.97 DATE OF HEARING: 12.11.97 LOCAITON: 281 East Fifth Street (north comer at Wall Street) HPC SITE/DISTRICT: Lowertown district CLASSIFICATION: Major CATEGORY: Supportive STAFF INVESTIGAITON AND REPORT: DATE: 12.8.97 BY: Aazon Rubenstein A. STTE DESCRIPTION: The Crane Building is a six-story, orange brick, wazehouse building designed by the firm of Reed and Stem and constructed in 1904. Features include banded piers, small windows, radiating brickwork at the entrance, and a corbeled brick comice. B. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant proposes to demolish the structure. C. GUIDELINE CTTATIONS: The Lowertown Heritage Preservation District guidelines refer to the HPC ordinance, Chapter 73 of the Legislative Code, concerning demolition: In the case of the proposed demolition of a building, prior to approval of said demolirion, the commission shall make written findings on the following: Architectural and historical merit of the building, the effect of the demo[ition on surrounding buildings, the effect of arry proposed new construction on the remainder of the building (in case of partial demolition) and on surrounding buildings, and the economic value or usefulness of the building as it now exists or if altered or modifzed in comparison with the value or usefulness of arry proposed structures designated to replace the present building or buildings. D. FINDINGS: 1. Background/introduction: � a. � The applicant has owned the building for almost 20 years, during which time it has been essentially vacant with minor exceptions. The gross azea is 65,000 square feet and the net (usable or rentable) azea is 54,000 square feet. The lot azea and building footprint aze 9,377 squaze feet. The building is of reinforced concrete construction. The fust floor is curtently leased by Allright Pazking for equipment storage. The applicant proposes to demolish the building because it is economically burdensome, i.e., costs for tazes, insurance, and maintenance in excess of $20,000 annually, yet it provides little to no income. The applicant has tried to lease or sell the building for years with no takers. HPC Staff Report: File #3172 Page Two � c. The building is in fair condition, though it is essentially a shell. Ii needs a new roof (leaking has caused some damage to the brick on the Wall Street elevarion). The freight elevator is approximately 25 years old but not opentional. The boiler is not functional, and e�tisting radiators would provide only enough heat for a wazehouse-type use. District Heat runs through the building. d. The applicant claims that it is not economically feasible to reuse or rehabilitate the building and notes these particulaz problems: high windows, column spacing, lack of pazking, and obsolete or non-e�stent mechanicals. e. The applicant owns a 73-stall parking lot to the north of the Crane Building. The applicant has stated that the Crane Building site would probably be used for surface parking also. A pazking lot on the Crane Building site would accommodate 28 or 29 stalls (nonstacked). A site plan for such use has not been submitted. f. County taY records indicate a$100,000 contract for deed on the property recorded in 1978, the yeaz in which the applicant purchased the property.- The terms of-the contract aze not known and this is not necessarily the purchase price. g. Because the Crane Building is a contributing shvcture in a National Register historic district, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA� wouid need to be prepazed ifthe HPC denies approval of the demolifion permit and the applicant appeals this decision to the CiTy Council. An EAW would delay the City Council public heazing by several months. • 2. The Crane Building is azchitecturally and historically significant. It is categorized as supportive to the ]oca] disirict and contributing to the national district. The building's design is rather unusual in I,owertown, with banded piers, regulazly spaced though smallish windows (taller at the second story), orange brick, and a recessed entry stairway with glass risers. The building is cleazly distinctive in the azchitectural landscape of I.owertown. The building is also significant as the work of the prominent Saint Paul architectural firm of Reed and Stem (ca. 1890-1910). The firm specialized in railroad stations and desigied over 100 of them across the country, including a collaboration with Warren & Witmore on New York's Grand Central Station. Saint Paul buildings by Reed and Stem include the Saint Paul Hotel (1910), the Goodkind Houses at 5 and 7 Heather Place (1910), the Minnesota Boat Club on Raspberry Island, the University Club at 420 Summit (1912), and residences at 340 Summit Avenue and 530 Grand Hill. Stem designed the building at 282 East Sixth Street which houses Seestedt's Carpeu. The Crane Building is also significant for its associations with the Crane and Ordway Company and Lucius P. Ordway. By 1897, the company was the world's lazgest manufacturer of valves, fittings, and steam supplies. The subject building served as a warehouse. Lucius Ordway and a paztner acquired control of the three-year old 3M Company in 1905 and he was its president from 1906 to 1909. The Lowertown building that the Crane and Ordway Company occupied prior to completion of the subject building is no longer extant and is the site of a parking lot. 3. In the most narrow tetms, it appeazs that replacing the Crane Building with a parking lot would . not have a detrimental effect on surrounding buildings. The northeast side wall of the Crane a8 - a l� � HPC Staff Report: File #3172 Page Three Building is actually the southwest wall of Mazkethouse (the Tighe Building, constructed 1902). In demolishing the Crane Building, care would have to be taken to not damage the Mazkethouse building. In most significant terms, however, demolition of the building and replacing it with a surface parking lot would be terribly detrimental to the context of sucmunding buildings and to the chazacter, integity, and quality of the L,owertown Heritage Preservation District. A very important part of the chazacter of this wazehouse district is the city blocks filled up with small and large warehouse and manufacturing buildings, one after the other, creating strong lines of building walls enclosing the street. This fundamental building pattem is already significantly eroded in Lowertown. These historic buildings, in isolation, sepazated by pazking lots, lose their context and impact. The Lowertown district cannot afford to lose more historic buildings.. Many have already been demolished, leaving a somewhat spotty fabric of buildings. The Crane Building has a pivotal location, helping to enclose the north end of the Farmers Mazket. The mazket is an important civic space sffongly enclosed at the two ends by warehouse buildings. The rivo sides of the mazket are enclosed weakly; two corners previously occupied by buildings are now surface parking lots. � The character and integrity of the eastem half of the Lowertown district, in particulaz, has been eroded by the replacement of historic buildings with pazking lots. On the eight blocks in the eastern half of the district, bounded by Kellogg, Seventh, Wacouta and Broadway (Northern W azehouse and Tilsner buildings excluded), there aze thirteen surface pazking lots, ten of which sites were previously occupied by buildings, most of them three to five stories in height. (The Farmers Mazket, which is used for contract pazking during the week, is counted as one of the thirteen lots.) These parking lots account for 22 percent of the land azea in this eight block azea (public right-of-way excluded) if the mazket is not counted as parking and for 31 percent of the land azea if the mazket is counted as pazking. Putting a pazking lot on the Crane Building site would increase these figures by two percent. (All figures aze approximate.) To lose another Lowertown building at this edge of downtown would have a significant adverse impact on the character and integrity of the district (and provide only 28 or 29 pazking spaces). If the district is to thrive as a neighborhood, a place to work and live, and as a historic azea, it needs buildings and more people and uses in and azound them rather than more pazking lots. 4. The Crane Building, as it now stands, has little economic value or usefulness. The 1997 assessed value of the land and building is $207,500 (building has six stories, assessed value based on five stories). To demolish the building, however, would desuoy the potential for future economic value which e�cists. The key problem appeus to be that the applicant is asking, and has asked, faz too high a price for the building--$1.4 million--which precludes reuse and rehabilitation (numerous knowledgeable sources have suggested that this is the case). Some • figures: HPC StaffReport: Fi]e #3172 Page Four a. The asking price for the building is $23.53/sq. ft. (based on the average of the gross and net floor azeas, which is 59,500 sq. ft., as suggested by the applicanYs realtor). The $1.4 million asking price does not include the adjacent pazking lot to the north. b. Knowledgeable sources have suggested that compazable buildings in Lowertown aze selling for two to ten dollazs per square foot and that the Crane Building should sell for a price in this range--and probably less than ten dollars, A very recent appraisal of the 90,000 sq. ft, vacant, James J. Hill Building values the building at $278,500, or $3/sq. ft. gross. c. Several sources have suggested that land values in Lowertown aze in the $10-12/sq. ft. range, while several others have suggested the figure could be as high as $20/sq. ft. A supervisor in the County Assessor's office estimates I.owertown land values at $10-15/sq. ft. or three to four thousand dollazs per pazking stall. d. The cost to demolish the Crane Building is $112,000 according to the property owner and demolition contractor. Some sources have questioned this figure, particularly for a concrete building, and one source estimated the cost could be $300,000 or more depending on hazardous materials. u It appears that a new use for the Crane Building might very well be found if the sale price reflected the market realiTy for unimpmved wazehouse space and the condition of the building. Potential uses might include Iight industrial, artists studios (nonresidential), business incubator, � mini-storage, indoor mazket, raw, low-tech space like the Rossmor Building, or some combination of these uses. Office and residential uses would likely require a greater investment and therefore might be more difficult to accomplish. In addition, residential uses would probably require enlarging the e�cisting widow openings which would be e�cpensive and significantly alter the design and character of the building. Several developers consulted by HPC staff said they had looked at the Crane Building in the past but were deterred by the price and/or that they would be interested in the building if the price reflected the reality of the mazketplace. The Allen Building, to the north of the Crane Building across Sixth Street, is somewhat similar to the Crane Building. It also has high windows, though more of them. It was rehabilitated ten yeazs ago and is now cecupied by a variery of warehouse, light industrial, and CIass C office uses. Many wazehouse and manufacturing buildings in Lowertown have been rehabilitated for contemporary use. Though some buildings aze underutilized, only a few aze vacant. By proposing demolition of the Crane Building, its owner is saying that its value is the land value, because what they will have after demotidon is a piece of land, inutus the cost of demolition. Such an equation might look like ttus: land value is 9,377 sq, ft times $20 = $187,540, minus demolition cost of $112,000, leaves net value of $75,540. If the building were worth anywhere neaz $1.4 million, the owner would not be paying to demolish it, with a pazcel of land worth $187,540 as a result. Demolition would be premature until a fair price is asked for the building and there are no takers. Perhaps the applicant would be willing to seil the building for the real value they appear to place on it, e.g., $75,540 plus three months' carrying costs and a five percent realtor's fee,...or even $187,540. These figures are examples and • estimates rather than appraisals. �g-a 13 � HPC Staff Report: File #3172 Page Five Options to facilitate the rehabilitation of the Crane Building might include 1) the City's STAR program, 2) a taY increment financing (TIF) district, 3) historic taz credits, 4) a facade easement, and 5) working with City staff in PED. PED staff aze willing to work with the applicant but believe that previous proposals for the building have been unrealistic. It appears that the high sale price of the Crane Building has been a very sign�cant obstacle to its reuse. A realistic, mazket-based price could result in significant investment in the building which would result in much greater economic value and usefulness than would a pazking lot. E. STAFF RECODII�fENDATION: Based on the above fmdings, staffrecommends denial of the requested demolition permit for the Crane Building. r� L_J \ J SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION SITES AND DISTRICTS DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION SITE ADDRESS: Name of applicant: Company: Address (include Zip Code): Phone number: ;Z�l �ast- Stk Streei- 5}. Pawt.yp�lnyesu+a. aa� I.l.ov� cow.paKy � /yoy Eusf � m�n.uso � 6«-ZZZ-ssss, ��z-xzz-rssb Fax Applicant's signature: /,�� `� �i....P.!•�i�-� �,wF�'^� Date /�/io/t � , Type of application: ❑ Repair/Rehabilitation ❑ New Construction ❑ Other �j Demolition � Sign � Moving ❑ Concept Review Only I understand that it is my responsibility as the applicanf stated above to contact Zoning Administration at 266-9008 to determine any further reviews required p�ior to issuance of a building permit by the Ciiy of Saint Paul. � (initial) of Work: (or aftach copy of written description of '�jevwe��t�o� of �c.�l�(iKf at 2S1 Eaf� SYt+ Sf. SE.pGHI�n1iKHPSa �cKOwn at y�tee C�a✓.e l3K�lc(�Kq _ 5+}e -to be Lev{1P� rtl� yfar�l �..pu.� C�Nn��2f�tl� o� GPP4�*ult�'tt/n oF (sui/��sfy Attach addiiiona/ sheeis i! neccessary Conditions and Materials: Materiais included (See reverse side for requiremenfs) ❑ 3 copies of plans ❑ Site plan ❑ Buiiding permit application�� Photographs , ❑Other �¢„,�ot;f�en P�rruit was pie�aks�r swo��fi"`�"!bY A.Ka'1a�3h+5on5. � File Number: � l / �-� Category: ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Major GJ CITY OF SAINT PAUL - OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 PROJECT z g � Number Street Name s ♦�♦ DEMOLITION . ��1I PERMITAPPLICATION . SecSon I - INFORMATIONAL - o StA�e,Etc. N,S,E,W Building Name St, �asr C�tqN� l34;)JI4..� Add (v�aW�ioa�a�ov,acamaaor�� PhOne Contrector [� �� S•ps �'�„c. � �� (IncludeContactPenon) 5�?wat y4�so PropertyOwner QA�}jo �,,,P,a.y d Residential Garage � ress `�� p �pwcon.c , City .� Nu�/t � P.au� t�}s State,Zip+4 yy�,� , S$'07L Address J �I � y ��s7 / — ,nk��po.�c �< city 332 1'Y1;N...:et� st, State,Zip+q Sf• Ppi,� y►�„r, a^5'/O/ I 12{L2 �yo�.S f. --.....-•-- Commercial � Date �1 �� 9 7 Enrer type of Strucmre ro be W recked: [o be Description: LOT V` , � the Contract 1 WIDTH LENGTH w �+da�.s � � Lo {� BLOCK ADDITIOY OR TRACT ] � c�(� w l� i?N�y � L c ,�' � �f To[al 2 o �� ,� � � p-� � HEIGHT 7� Date � a-zs-� 6�2 /3�A lv / 2 - 222 - SSSS $ >>z.00a TOTAL CUBIC FEET G93,oan cr c � ��1.• R 'CO�� Y a. 1� Does the Structure have a Basement? � � YES �NO � ��r, � Properry ^ � � � � ��^ � IDNumber }� (pm) � 3� One(1) Foot 4❑ Ot6er (Explaio ii Relnw (:rade the Cnmmmt Are Applicant certifies that all information is correct and that all pertinent state regulations and city ordinances will be compiied w� h in perFprming the work for which this permi�� 1l4ti,c C, � l►�. /.�/�A-�--- 5�S/ -13 8 � � Aoolicant'scSianature Phone# Publi � wailabili Credit THIS MUST BE PART OF ALL WRECIQNG � p�'1'g. Ca11Pub1icWorksInspec 40 Ci� Hdll ` >_Ilogg Bivd W qg'-4700 24 houn in advance oE work. voids in City rightof-way mustbe filled and Reviewer for SAC) sealed.CzIl2Kr _..__,_,ailabilityCharges Number of Credik �wer Dept•City Hall Annex-t0th FI 25 4th St W �� `� , �� ater Department-Commerce Building 2nd Ftoo�th StrQet E / /i 1/ %�l% (/( � � � U- �5-5 Two(2) Feet 300, Lowry Peter Street App�ed Extermination FAX � T � Permit Fee $ � . (Minimum $42.00) Would you like your Make check payable to CiTy of St. Paul permit faxed if yes, enter your fax number: t0 YOU� ► YES � NO � PAYMENT MAY BE MADE BY CREDIT CARD! If paying by credit card, piease complete the following information: MasterCard � Expiration Date:❑ ❑ I a❑ V/SA� qccount Number: Name of Cardholder (please print) � I OFFICE OF LICE\SE, f�SPECT1055 A\D ENVIROV�tE\TAL PROTECTIOV Ro6er1 Kessler, Di�ecmr CITY OF SAINT PAUL A'orm Coleman, Afapar LOfi'RY PROFESSIO.NAL BG'ILDIA'G Suite 300 350 Sf. Peter Street Sain1 Pau{ A4irmesom 5510?-I5/0 7elephone: 6/2-266-9090 Facsimile: 612-76b9099 � 5 A'ovember 1997 Mr. Paul Baillon Baillon Company 332 Minnesota Street #E1404 Saint Paul, MN 55101-] 317 Dear Mr. Baillon: As rve discnssed by telephone on October 37, the Heritage Preser�ation Commission (HPC) tivill need addicionat information from you, conceming the status ofthe Crane Building and any proposed use ofthe site, in order to consider and make a decision on the demolition permit. Please provide the following information: 1. The reason for the proposed demolition. 2. Sufficient information to determine «�hether it is or is not economically feasible to reuse or rehabilitate the buildin�. 3. Efforts ;�ou have made over the years to sell or lease the building and why they have failed, e.g., why prospective buyers have tumed away. 4. Plans for any new use or bui]ding on the site, e.g., detailed plans for a parking lot including fencing or tanc3scaping. 5. R'hat is the asking price for sale of the building and why is it so much greater than the assessed value? Are you a�i�are of other comparable buildings in the area that have sold for a compazable amount? 6. Have you considered using historic tax credits or low income housing tax credits to rehabilitaTe the buildin�? 7. How long has the building been vacant and w�hat were previous uses? When did your company buy the building and how did you expect it to be used at that time? 8. What do you believe would be necessary to successfully reuse or rehabilitate the building? 9. Any other information to help the HPC understand the building and your situation. As I mentioned when we spoke by phone, I believe the HPC will be very concemed about the economic viability ofreuse and rehabilitation. P1eaze provide whatever information you can, such as pro formas, etc., about this issue. In order for the commission to consider the demolition application at its November 20, 1997 meeting, I wil] need to have this information by November 13th and sooner if possible. As you requested, I have enclosed the Lowertown district design review guidelines, a map of the National Register district, a list of HPC members, and an HPC information sheet Please call me at 266-9087 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, `�� Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner . • � � � BAII,LON COMPANY 332 Minnesota Street Suite E-1404 Saint Paul DTinnesota 55101 (^ t ("( � a��di3 Y�L� �1�v I-SJ -��= �,� �.� C'=: __. _. ' G7 ii�; 12 P;l 2� 17 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 November 10, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Protection Re: Demolition Permit for building located at 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MN, also known as the Crane Building Dear Mr. Rubenstein: In response to your letter of November 5, 1997, regarding the above (copy enclosed), we are enclosing below our answers to your 9 questions. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES 1) QUESTION: The reason for the proposed demolition. ANSWER: We have owned the building for approximately 20 years. Over the years numerous, repeated efforts to lease, develop and/or sell the building have been unsuccessful. As a result, the building is and has been an economic burden and a financial liability for many years, and it has experienced substantial physical deterioration. The building is now essentially only a shell. • 2) QUESTION: or is not building. ANSATER : Sufficient information to determine whether it is economically feasible to reuse or rehabilitate the See answer to Questions 3 and 8. 1 � 3) QIIESTION: Efforts you have made over the years to sell or � lease the building and why they have failed, e.g., why prospective buyers have turned away. 4) ANSWSR: The Owner, Baillon Company, is also a Real Estate Broker and has attempted to sell or lease the building itself. Several developers have submitted plans to the City of St. Paul over the years and attempted to obtain City financing and other funding for development of the property as housing, including low income housing, and no funding has been available. In addition, through the years, Baillon Company listed the building with several different Commercial Real Estate Brokers, including Zehring & Angleson, Garfield Clark Associates, Welsh Companies, and Kohns Commercial Real Estate. The building has also been marketed through for sale signs, listings in the Commercial Multiple Listing, direct mail and ads in various trade publications. Also, we have had several teams oP experts study the building for possible development uses. The prospective buyers, tenants, developers and e�erts who have considered the building have cited several reasons for not proceeding, including but not limited to: lack of economic feasibility, lack of cooperation from the City of St. Paul and other influential quasi political City of St. Paul entities, federal income tax law changes, difficult column spacing within the building, unworkable window sizes and high window heights, The extensive amount of remodeling which would � be required to gain win8ow functionality, mechanical obsolescence of the building, functional obsolescence, high cost to remodel, lack of air conditioning, lack of updated electric service, lack of updated plumbing system, lack of passenger elevator, lack of adequate heating system, worn out roof, energy inefficiency, worn out windows, need cornice repairs, non-functional chimney, possibility of asbestos. QUESTION: Plans for e.g., detailed plans landscaping. any new use or building on the site, for a parking lot including fencing or ANSWER: After the demolition of the building, we are considering using the underlying land for parking. We plan to submit any required detailed plans to the City at such time that we apply for a parking lot permit. 5) QtJEST20N: What is the asking price for sale of the building and why is it so much greater than the assessed value? Are you aware of other comparable buildings in the area that have sold for a comparable amount? ANSWER: The asking price is $1,400,000. In our experience as a Real Estate Broker, asking prices and sales prices are typically higher than assessed values. The building has also • been offered extensively for rent at $1.50 per square foot rental, which is a very competitive rate, with no takers. 2 �� q�-��3 • • � 6) 7) � 9) QIIESTION: i-iave you considered using historic tax credits or low income housing tax credits to rehabilitate the building? ANSWER Yes. QIIESTION: How long has the building been vacant and what were previous uses? When did your company buy the building and how did you expect it to be used at that time? A23SWER: `Phe building was built by Crane Company in 1904 as a plumbing warehouse and has been vacant since Rayette Company ceased using it as a warehouse for their beauty products in 1950. We bought the building in 1978 for development and investment purposes. The building has been vacant since we bought it 20 years ago, except that the second floor was rented for a couple of years in the 1970s as unheated storage to Buckbee Mears, and except for one short term month to month tenant who began renting one floor for unheated storage in October 1997. QUESTION: What do you believe would be necessary to successfully reuse or rehabilitate the building? ANSWER: At this point, we do not believe we can successfully or profitably reuse or rehabilitate the building, which is why we wish to take it down. QUESTION: Any other information to help the HPC understand the building and your situation. ANSWER: The present cost to operate the building (property taxes, insurance, maintenance, management) is over $20,000.00 per year. Baillon Company has incurred these operating costs every year for the past 20 years; yet has had no rental income except for the nominal amounts received during the years noted above. If you still wish to do a walk through viewing of the building, please let me know so that we may schedule a time. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY ��wQ/�. // �/,r.t� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj Enclosure File: Heritage 3 '1 OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTION$ AND ENV[RONMENTALPROTECTfON Robert Kessleq Direcror CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor 26 November 1997 Mr. Paul Baillon Baillon Company 332 Minnesota Street #E1404 Saint Paul, MN 55 7 O 1 Dear Mr. Baillon: LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUILDING Suite 300 350 St. Peter So-eet Sain� Paul, Minnesota 55l01-l510 BY FAX TO: 222-5556 Telephone: 6/2-266-9090 Facsimile: 672-266-9099 Thank you for your letter of November l Oth and for arranging for the tour of the Crane Building last Friday. As we have discussed several times, I believe the members of the Heritage Preservation Commission will be quite concemed about the economic feasibility of using or rehabilitating the Crane Building. The Lowertown Heritage Preservation District guidelines make reference to the HPC's ordinance conceming demolition, which states that the commission shall make findings about "the economic value or usefulness of the building as it now exists or if altered or modified in compazison with the value or usefulness of any proposed structures designated to replace the present building." Your letter of November l Oth does not include any specific data conceming the feasibility of rehabilitation. Please feel free to provide additional information. It would be preferable to provide any additional information to me by December 3rd. If you wish to provide additional information but cannot do so by December 3rd, please let me know. Sincerely, 7�'1�9t1 G 1 �4��/��{1J� " V Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner C J • ►2 a�-�l3 � BAILLON COMPANY 332 Minncsota Street Suite �1404 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 222-5555 Facsimile (612) 222-5556 i � December 2, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Iaspections and Lowry Professional Building Suite 300 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510 Environmental Protection Re: Demolition Permit for building located at 281 East 5th Street, St. Paul, MN, also known as the Crane Building Dear Mr. Rubenstein: I am responding to your letter of 13ovember 26, 1997, wherein you have requested information regarding the economic feasibility of rehabilitating the Crane Building. As I have mentioned, we do not believe it is economically feasible or sensible to rehab the building. This becomes even more self-evident when you consider that during the past ten years over 50 prospects represented by numerous real estate brokers have looked at and studied the building for purchase and developmer.t and have reached the same conclusion. In addition, in 1984, we hired a consultant who studied the feasibility of converting the building into apartments, and she came up with a total project cost of $4,400,000, and based on projected rentals, the project would not amortize the debt. In 1996, when the property was listed for sale with Welsh Companies, they had their affiliate, Welsh Construction Company, do cost estimates on converting the building into apartments, and they arrived at a total project cost of $4,603,000, again a number that could not be amortized by projected rentals. F� /3 We have recently talked to commercial real estate brokers and Architects who tell us that the cost to build a new apartment building comparable in size to the Crane Building would be in the range of $4,000,000 to $4,300,000, not including the cost of the land to build it on. The above facts indicate why it is not economically feasible to rehab the Crane Building. On an economic basis, it is our belief that most investors would prefer to construct a new building rather than rehab the Crane Building because they would end up with a new building of the same size for less money than it would cost to rehab the Crane Building. In addition, a new building would be more efficient to operate, would yield more usable space, would yield an increased net income and cash flow, and could include such amenities as indoor parking, light and air from al1 sides, normal window heignts, etc. I think the lack of economic feasibility explains why none of the many developers who have looked at the building have proceeded. If you need anything further, please let me know. Very truly yours, BAILLON COMPANY ��..p�_ /�'� Paul A. Baillon PAB:lsj File:Hertage2 2 � � i �¢ FHR�JW (11-06� United States Department of the Interior Heritage C�nservation and Recreation Service �ationai Register of Histo�ic Places Inventory—tdomination Form q�-a,l� For HCRS use onty received date entered Continuation sh:-et Item number 7 page 17 2. HISTORIC NA;; : Rayette Building COPi10:� NAPfE; Control Corpora[ion Building ADDRESS: 261-279 E. Sth Street D�1TE: 1909 ARCHITECT: Postle, Mahler and Denson SLPPORTI�'E This large seven story mildly Classical Revival style building was built in 1909 as a manu- acturing building at a cost of $143,000. The building was constructed for David C. Shepard, a eading railroad contractor and longtime member of the board of directors of the First National :3nk. It was probably built as a manufacturing building for a client uith a long term lease. n 1916 it c.�as the home of the Stronge and Warner Company and for many years the building housed :�c Rayette Company. It was designed by Postle, Plahler and Denson and was constructed by F. J. �,,:�er. 'Ihe building is faced in cream colored brick and has a symmetrical facade with a central ncrance flanked by columns in antis. Ttie buildinb }ias been purchased recently by Control Data orporation. They have converted the building to office space at a cost of $1.5 .million and ave replaced [he windows with more energy efficient tinted glass. 3. H1S"IURIC NA,�tE: Crane Buildino �—+ CO?L�10S rAME: Crane Buildino .�DURESS: 281-287 E. Sth Street DA'CE: 1904 �CHITECT: Reed and Stem SUPPOFTIGE This large brick building was built in 1904 at a cost of $60,000 as a warehouse for the rane and Ord�aay Company. The firm had previously been located at 248-252 E. 4th Street. The rane an3 Ordway Company was established in 1893 with its original partners being Lucius P. Ord- �ay of St. Paul and R. T. Crane of Chica�o. The company was formed to consolidate the firms of ;odgers and Orway of St. Paul and Duluth and a Plinneapolis brancli of the Crane Company. The Rod- ;ers and Ordway Company was the successor to the firm of t:ilson and Rodgers which was the oldest 'irm in the Northwest which specialized in valves, fittings, and steam supplies. By 1897, the :rane Company was the largest nanufacturer of these supplies in the world and employed over 3,000 �eople at their Chicago plant. In :�linnesota the firr.i maintained offices in St. Paul, Minneapolis ind Duluth. Lucius P. Ordway came to St. Paul from 1'rovidence, Rhode Island in 1883. In 1905 he �nd Edgar Ober acquired control of the Minnesota :fining and Planufacturing Company (3rf) which was :stablished in 1902. Shortly therea[ter they occupied a plant in Duluth where sandpaper and �ther abrasive products were manufactured. Ordway served as the president of 3M from 1906-09. le was also one of the founders of the t.'f�ite Bear Lake Yacht Club and was instrumental in buildin; -he Hotel St. Paul. The Crane Building was designed by the nationally known architects, Reed and Stem, who also lesigned the Hotel St. Pau1 and the building at 282 E. 6th Street which now houses Seestedt Car- �et Company. The Crane Building is a utilitarian commercial building �ahich features unusual poly- :hromatic brickwork, quoin-like motifs, a corbelled brick cornice, and a carved stone plaque read- �ng "Crane" between the fifth and sixth stories. Due to its location on a hill, the building has ;ix stories on its Sth Street facade and five stories on the north side of the building facing ith Street. The building is presently underutilized but is basically intact and in good conditio: ia ixth Street--south side from vacant lot at southwest corner of 6th and Sibley to Broadwav Street. )4. HISTORIC NAME: Unknown COI�itON NAME: Seestedt Carpets ADDRESS: 282 E. 6th Street DATE: 1859 �� ARCHITECT: Allen H. Stem SUPPORTIVE `� � � '� .`§ ��; s�� .r w r � _ �: `� `c;�'�� i .:� �' �. - 5 a�` k: E�i e �' i ��. �4 a � �g � '��.� �F a � �e x ` z �R J �� . � ' .; 'r: � �� <� �-F /%4�#"� � � r�.�� :�'�-,. : o � � '- _ �� u^ � � � aW . � �� "� �` ��} s . . . . 3� 3. w �� §i s �fS '�:y,f , _ � :� "''�� `` � i s �..�.�.J.� ..�. �. .... �u.��....v��.�� r - C � � .�'.��.t a � ID-32-29-22-33-0042-0 �■ OWNER ■� BPILLON COMPANY FIRST NHTIONRL BRRIK BLDG 332 MINNESOTA ST SIIITE E 1404 ST PHIJL MN 551011317 �� H57DR/PROP ADDRESS �� 287 STH ST E ST. PAUL MN 551011904 _ _ _ TRRNS..O6/30/83 IPISTR..06/26/83 ■■ DESCRIPTION �� T.00833 WHITPIEY AP1D SHITHS ADDITION TO ST. PAUL SWLY 64 6T/700 FT OF LOTS 4 5 RNO lOT 6 BLK 12 � QPI i(024,002) u � qs-al3 COMMENTS—NO 10/31/97 4:21 PM MKT URLU TRX CRP DIST 03 1996 L 75,000 9,545 SD 625 B 132,SOD CI FD USE B T 207,500 IdTR C 199T L 75,000 6,350 TI B 132,500 CH SkRt T 207,500 SWR2 1997 TAX PAYABLE . __ LC_ ORIG 15,659.44 DLG ADJ .00 CJ PRID 15,859.44 YB BAL .00 LOT R HSSMTS PRINC & INTEREST 41 0032 741.00 .00 D 0050 46.00 .00 SQ FT 0070 99.00 .00 9377 0080 786.00 .00 SQ FT 0097 54.54 .00 GROUtdD 0546 217.57 257.7T 2164 40.00 28.60 TYPE TOTL 7.3T8.71 280.37 '� z� � I i��'+�!�•� �--I';.; s t ''�'. y• I'; li � E. 7 PL ��. E. 7 T� 5 ' C - . ZB � � � o '� R �`, �� S _ : 6 t? F-2 � ------- STa " � �'...�i. : � � _*� (,OV�tE�.1'Ou�� 4�f� (TtF(r� +::::::;� t.::+;i:::..:;_<; ::,:-��_ r :;:;;;;:. ...::::.. `:::.._:' . P�S��il�T(oN b I ST �� cr , : : ::; ; '° `.: : . ,::::;:_::.::: • : �, � � : -::: -. : : :'° : : �: __: . ; N E.>= :::::.:.::::::::.:::;.:;::.... E. r �5tt: L::.>. ; :.t; i,} •_...,>��... ..... - .�. .-r�.,,, �.--i.:;_ "' . . . .. . �:�:.-...:: .:: . � _.�.-L.`.. `. �'"`��.• ...1 T T_ _ �* shaded areas aze parking lots ;* 4B indicates that a 4 story building formerly occupied the parcel, SB = 5 stories, etc. — _� �."�� — :.:i-::.. _. : . _..._... E' � � • � � ---�'R RAILWAY & MILL SUPPLIES, PIPE & FITTINGS, WELL MACHINERY, WIND �LLS, PUMPS ETC � t � � ��e. � q �t� �'� � S � !�++ � _ MINING,MILL, CONTRACTORS & LUMBERMENS SUPPLIES PLUMBERS & STEAM FITTERS GOODS. MAiN OFFICE 248.250,252 E FOt1RTH ST.ST PAUL. �fL�V1aUS ��'�`�'� �� U�'�trdf�y �o- Butt,Dt�U — �1�h.t7t,l S�t�I>� 1�6ot/� i("t� � F� {'F�n-K� i�14- UaT � � S�utz�,� = G�tn��z�� t,.��i�t�- T�v6Z ��c,�u� �9 T � DACOTAH • COMPANIES 287 E. Sixth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 • Tel (612) 224-29Q7 • Fax (612) 291-7074 December 4, 1997 Tracy Baker Chair, Heritage Preservation Commission c/o Aaron Rubenstein City of St. Paul 350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55102-1510 Beaz Ms. Baker: c� � 0 � c� i U'� -� 0 It has come to our attenrion that the owners of the Crane Building, located on the corner of Wall and 5'� Street, has filed for a demolition pernut. We have owned the Allen Building, located between Wall and Broadway on the north side of 6'� Street, since 1946. We strongly object to the demolition of any further buildings in the Lowertown area. While we concede there is a strong need for additional pazking for the area, tearing down buildings for surface parldng is not a solution. There is no reason the Crane Building can not be suitably renovated and put back into economic use. Five years ago there may have been an argument that the building had little commercial viability, but now is not the case. Our building is a mixture of office/warehouselbigh tech space that is nearly 90% fiill. I understand that other buildings, that aze properly kept up and managed, aze equally successful. Other than parking, wtrich is a result of the azea's success, what the area needs is more critical mass, more buildings, and more activity to achieve long term stability. Since there is finite supply of buildings, the demolirion of this asset would be very counter productive. Parking is a concern. However, I believe it is best addressed by using un-built land east of Broadway. Ttris azea is presently being surface parked or is vacant. This is the ideal location for mega raznps ala Minneapolis 2� StreetlI-394 corridor. With its excellent freeway access, the construction of ramps in this area would enable the continue growth of the St. Paul core, retain the historic buildings of the area, and give the Lowertown azea a giganYic boast in commercial growth. I urge you to deny the demolition pernut for the Crane Building, and instead encourage you to work with the owner, or future developer, to residentially or commercially develop the property. Yo \ u}ily, C� ��i<�� Chazles W. Erickson = �„ _;�, _;:� � � s Zv 12�09�9? 12�20 $ 612 223 5706 P• �� -a l� • December 9, 2997 Commissioner Tkacey Baker, Chair Heritage Preseroallon Commission C/o Aaron Rubenstein Office of License, Inspec8ons & Environmental ProtecHon 350 St. Peter St. Suite 310 St. Pau2, MN 55102 Dear Ms, Baker: �� Rt�6ex f.'. Hcu Afe�orAF+rm GNrman .VkrmNl. Aamrt te�eam+ [bin �p� H. Nftla+n 6nIj�•RSnrsef G. Rk6ard 5(aGe WWmN7g Lu Fresldex( I just learned from your staff about the request for the demolition of the Crane Building. AS this is historically one of the most important buildings remaining in St. Paul, I do hope that in the interest of preserving St. Paul's heritage, you will help to persuade the owner not to demoiish it, but to make azwther effort to save lt. � Built 3n 1904, the Crane Building was designed by the nationally known architects Reed and Stem, who also designed the Tiotel St. Paul. The build'zng featured unusual polychromatic brickwork, quoin-like motifs, a wrbelled brick cornice, and a carved stone plaque reading "Crane" between the fifth and sixth stories. It was used as a warehouse by the Crane and Ordway Co., a successor to the Wilson and Rodgers Company, which wes the oldest firm in the Northwest. By 1897, the Crane Company was the largest manufacturer of steam valves, fittings and supplies in the world, Luctus Ordway, one of the owners, was one of the original fpunders of the 3M Company. AS you know, Lowertown is a historic dtstrict with some 39 buildings on the National Register. When we first began the Lowertown pro$ram under the Ciry's inidative and the McKnight Foundation's support, many of these buildings were empty and deteriorati.ng. Taday, through the efforts of many - inciuding the City of St. Paul, private initiatives ar►d pnbTic/private partnerships - almost 3/4 of the buildings have been successfully rehabilitateci to office, housing, artists' lvfts, galleries, cafes, retail and other uses. More than �426 miilion has been invested in Lowertown. I do hope that this building will be saved, so that it may be similarly rehabilitated foz a good use. if the Secretary of the Interior`s Ttehabilitation Standaxds are met, 20°k of the rehabilitation cost can be claimed as tax credit by the owner. LpW6R7DWN RPDBSP.LQP�IFM'O�RPOILtT/ON � �n�,rsrnsr,�� Gah�aataz�a/su�n 7so Safn/ Poul, MA'SS70] G7??t79t i] I'vtz 67JYZ35708 2�` 12i09�97 12:21 S 612 223 5?08 C J �i P.B3 Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation (LRC) would be interested, as it has in the past, in working with buiiding owners, investors and clty staff to help ffnd appropriate use for tMa building. If there is a gap in the financing that can't be filled by private lenders and public agenaes, if it should meet LRC's gap financing guidelines, we would certainly be hagpy to consider it. I do hope that this fine building will be saved and new uses found for it, so that an important pazt of St. Paul's heritage can be preserved fpr today, as well as for future generations. Sincerely, � Weiming Lu , President `�-. � WL/mb � 22 • . �� P RESERVATION A LLIANCE of Minnesota `U�. •�� December 9, 1997 Commissioner Tracey Baker, Chair St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission cJo Aaron Rubenstein Office of License, Inspections & Environmental Protection 350 St. Peter St., Suite 310 St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Baker: It has come to our attention that the owners of the Crane Building, 281 E. Sth Street, ha�e applied for a permit to demolish the building and put up a parking lot. We strongly urge the Heritage Preservation Commission to deny this request and work with the owners to find an alternative reuse for this important structure. � (,"CG �e�e�r vv�,5 �a.� c� � C i' ;e _�' j rJ The Crane Building is an important part of the Lowertown neighborhood, which is both a St. Paul and National Heritage Preservation District. Lowertown is one of the most intact 19th Century warehouse districts in the nation, a truly unique resource for St. Paul. While the integrity of the historic district dces not derive from any single building, it depends on retaining the basic azchitectural fabric of the neighborhood. Since there are only 39 historic structures in Lowertown, the loss of any one threatens the historic conteat of them a11. Second, St. Paul (through the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation) has made exemplary progress in restoring the I,owertown district to life over the past 15 years and it would be a significant setback to lose this important structure now. Many national urban experts think that St. Paul's relative success in iceeping its downtown vital is due to the effort to create housing for thousands of residents in Lowertown and elsewhere. But Lowertown will lose. its appeal as a residential neighborhood if the remaining historic structures are razed. L_ J Finally, the Crane Building is an important historic structure in its own right and deserves to be saved. Built in 1904 by the noted azchitects Reed and Stexn, the building housed the Crane and Ordway Company, which at one time was the world's lazgest supplier of steam valves and plumbing supplies. One of the owners, Lucius P. Ordway, was one of the founders of the 3M Company and one of St. Paul's most notable citizens. Intemationat Mazket Squaze 275 Mazket Street Suite 54 Minneapolis MN 55405-1621 612- 338-6763 FAX: 612338-7981 Commissioner Tracey Baker December 9, 1997 The Preservation Alliance of Minnesota urges the St. Paul Heritage Preservation Commission and the City Council of St. Paul to deny the request to demolish the Crane Building. We encourage the City to work with the owners to find a reuse for the building. The federal goverrunent will grant tax credits for suitable rehabilitation by the owner. Please let us Irnow if we can be of assistance. S�ely, f � � ! � Roger Brooks President � � • a$�2,13 • Historic Photo�raphs of L,owertown The photographs on the following pages are keyed to the map on the following page. Pl: Crane Building, circa 1906-07. P2: Brokerage Building, south side of East Fifth Street between Wall and Broadway streets, circa 1910-20. At the left edge of the photograph is the Crane Building. In the background at left is a Gotzian Shoe Company factory, now the site of the Gillette Company building. Behind the Brokerage Building is the seven story Lindeke, Wamer & Sons Building. This block is currently occupied by the Farmers Market. P3: Lindeke, Warner & Sons Building, cuca 1908-10. P4: Employees in front of Minnesota Shoe Company Building, circa 1887-88, kitty corner from the Crane Building; site is now a gravel pazking lot. P5: Hackett, Gates and Hurty Company Building, southwest comer of Fourth and Wall streets, 1924. The portion of the building to the right still remains standing; the four bays to the left, approaching the comer of Fourth and Wall, aze no longer extant and this portion of the site is occupied by a parking lot. P6: Two buildings at southeast comer of Fourth and Wacouta streets. The second building from the � corner was the home of the Crane and Ordway Company prior to construction of their 1904 building. Both of these buildings at the Fourth and Wacouta corner were demolished in 1935 and the site is now a parking lot. P7: North side of East Fourth Street, looking west from Wacouta Street, circa 1896-1902. This photograph shows the strong, continuous street wall that is an important part of the historic character of Lowertown. All photographs from the collections of the Minnesota Historical SocieTy. � �,��n5(313A��c� "tc��ou�'�w�'('2��TA Pa,�� Wt,VP� (��"�'oa�.� � �2� II �J f �P�� ."�','et'�+1 J � z I � � �� I"�I�I•\ �-r�.� • 1 � E. 7t" PI,. �—� E. 7 �. . �g � � � �� i G -� , •o � _� ��250 `J� � a t � ' E• 6T`� St. . f �-�- ; ::. , — .., _.. ;. p t ( � �� `MEARS , ';� � � Vl��`�� \� 4 � � :' . o P �-R2� m � RARK ; '.- �,. Z. � � i-- �, F ;� .. ` .� ' .�, ti.," ST, % ` E. 5"tK S'G , . � .e .� . � • es � I R � � �s � � � LOv�IE(�?OW�1 �E� ttl4frE �:`:::: r::; PR.�S��11�4'CroN b I St e� cT ;: �:::; p � �..::.: [:..:: N k:;;:: F., :. " shaded azeas aze pazking lots ; 4B indicates that a 4 story buiiding formerly occupied the parcel, SB = 5 stories, etc. — _ � _ w : �,; ::.<,,.:::. —.:�:�-:^. ........ __.._. _:. . _ �"►�►•� `' • �;; !�IJ D O � � , o:� �� r � r.. � � r ' �R � • • PI , � I �, ca.a�rap) 45 >� P 6 fi� �T ry{ i µ' 1 . � � _ � � E. � ., � . - `� '' � � ti \ . < f � �r . �- �' ' � . �� \ � j J , ( ' a _ . � ; .�. o �-° , 4 �, � � ;- ; ,��`� ` �, a ,, � :F � �� { � f "�/ �`� L -� ; f - � '� `4. _� � � � : �, � � s�"' ' •� i � i � ' � , � .¢- �F� �. �� : ; : '� ; �� >� � � �� ; � F � �- � ��:��' - -t� � � . . �. �� x� � : � �� . . : . p- � . 4 . ... _ . y R3 ��,, s :-�� -� �� f � �. ��, � .: t �_ � '� ' , �� ` �� $ - �� Y.. � � � F � � . � [ ,�: � ��-� �- � - y � y. , � p � •�h � ��''�',�- S+. � . �,�y � 3.. � �� .� � _ �,.. � _ F �--ir2v"� .� ^ - � �,;! � ' : '� ti '3�r>'- .,�� w ' 4 ' � _r a = i 4 ��-�. R . . � Yi •r ". �: l ,.+^ y -v.� p � �,,, . f� «� � _ �...,. � - � 'l�v.A.-.�.� � 1�;..�'� , _ ` q �� i �� ,; �. � S��r�� ^ I � � . � � �pi� m P °... ♦ _°� � � � � a� ��.�-# � �_�� ' � �� -� � �� "�=`•�� °c , r. t �� . . .. � _ 3� � S.5 r�. � {- - � . � ' y � _i,i�,�€ s �`j�_:.'" * � � �Q�.�-�{� � � � a' � 5 � �`� ' � � ,�f i � � � } � ..: �x.��'�� .3 � �_�-� �� - � '�' �� 4F F- .. C � � _ .. _ � ;_ _ -� -. Y � � � _ � � �� v i �.^'' - ! a - _ � � `� ^ `� � J ' • •` ..._'._ ! t � ..a -:. �-i..:�_ ... -_ n � 1 5 � �l _ �� \ { y, ` � *0.e� � ; '��-' . [ , s ° �.�:._ ' -�: °_,K-�"��`" � -.. ... _ �,.,� _ ` � __— — �; . _ _. , �.. � ;`— _ , ._ - --- ,. _- � ` - __ - x �,, _:;: _ , �--- . _ ,.. _.e_�- -,-, � _�- __--_ _ � _ �•r � � � �-� � _ � �� k . . -, _ ___ _ . � i � , � � ` �� ' - _. . �_ _ " � �`,� ' � .�-'� ; 4 , ,, s � �'�°x� � ��'��7� �-.. � . i �� Y2't , �= � . . � `� � ,r � . . -. . . , _ . . �: : a - � : . . . . _ _ . � . . . . � �,�"' i � �� .. . � " � +#ASo . - �. � .. . .. . ., . �� . �, j y . � �. -._?� �I �-�- � j � t (1 I l� `,; � ��: ; , � .�, � t �- �: ._ _ .- i _ 1 -- Y'eL .` —� _.� ' l � �_ - __ _- . _-^ A -3_ , � '� _ I '4. . . ��— _ — _ a _ _ _. .�—' � J ---. .i — _.z _ _ _-� _ _ _ . - � �— � ._ _.— a� Y �. i� 6i . !.� _ — � , � .. t� - �t t-" _ " �� ^{ • � r � � � �s � �-� --+_ -_� `_ —� �" `� - . �� , �. _ s-t• : i�'S - % � . i Y . O �. • i _ _. � Fr V3 L L _ t . t ' :.��i ' � �� : r ■ _ ' < i � _. �' <' . s --- . - _ ` s i : 1 _ �f � � _ i _ _ � � -. __ v��'' - 3 e��.i��...-..��.�. . • V � � .. .� �. �- � ; -. � -- � �� M� o�� r � ✓� � .�ti �� } �� i :. ��y �' � i =,� 3 �- -} �� ;' � . � = � � '� ��,� a� '��," �'�' i1'� �4 t��'� g �++c Y, S�`..� � � y,. � 3 : � -g � �r � r..3Y -r, � i � . . �' ��: - � � : � -: ' �'�; � 1 , +� `, t �`:-,i�;_ ` c;,�^- . �. _ .._: j,` , �t � � � � '.�� ' - �',� 1, .� _ a �...�, _ �! ..�; - 'b. �� .,,� � � �� ,,, .� ,� � �,au �,. . ,,- � > /"T'� � �r, �4� �B . . . �. �4+ . �� M � � :... „� ;�;+�.... �.� , — � ;�' ' .. —r � � _`" — �g �.'.:� . � "?�>4� �� i� .... _ ' � .1 4 . _ . ±! . �,. � . !. e �- . � �. � r � t ' ��, - , r__ �— c�_. � � � v ' . __, �. , i � � �- , ' � . � '�- ' ; � . r �� -�. _ �E h -,�� _ � �N�� .� � � �` ° ::% „ � �:�� Y �.. .. �.. i � ' � x� �`�' . , �'. �� . � " - ,,-F' .'. a ,s� e " Y f' a . �'': r "y� .m ;S �,=� + � � � p �� G ; i 'Y � � :: �?�. i ' �r�� t S � � F ..: t 1 � 4 i� � ,.� 'j �e� ?� � i C + �. > `._._ � -�� < a � r <r �� .� ; _ � �� , �, ; _ � _ �„ �` . . . , �-� � :� �. fr � . ,. gr� r : t ` f � a " - `— � � }f �_. - � n � �y�1` ��4 ° "� � I� ; �` � ' � �" °°'' i � 3 $ y j t f�Ya.-. � .. ! � .. e `C 1 •� i . ._ ,{� � 1 1� ` i � � � � �� t � �� _ . - . ' ` � � _," � �, J E '� �� :,��_ a r _�, ., - ,� �Y°m. . �;, � c,�- ' � � - „� �.` i , a �� c -� :,-'� q -�.3, S . �.. � � � j � 2`*.ri�' �.� �... ':. -+r a ' . . - . L � r *,_ �va y'•.- e .a.- � � . . . �i: . ' . . . � i. 1 • , , � t �� e' ��._ .. y �r .�'� � �E`.:: � A :. _.....,. .o. _� . a�.... � � � . � t � ,. . . . . . - = � � f .. .. � . . . _ � . „� .. � . . , .. . . , ... �_�..ys._. �. { '�" �.. " � ,�. .'��'i„ � ,.e z. . "� �` v . � . i: � _ - ,� ..-,...�. ,�, _:.x�-:�,,,�, M .a : �: . � _ ' `� � �,'- ' � . gs" � 2 � ?��. " � �� .t� , .<� ' - . +l- K A� �",; _ � i } � ..m ....a�... - k ,. . . ' . �__ .� _%'�._ �� a � : ' . -..' �'-� . � �s '.. ,. - . . c �.° � 1"' � - � � � = � � � #-� ' { .� c � r ��'�� 1 ♦ , - rz � � t vy� .a v ` , s s . s3 � '� 1 ' �q..:' ! � _ . • �' :`�. A y� y X� i .. i � . . - nb 3 _ � � " . .� f .''�,�t� E % n �' _ µ � ��€ 3 � � � ` ��.�� S � �p.'°- �.-t> � r� .. � � � . . yS � �� i.' r �i ' , � � � � •;: � � � ��,� � _. ,, >#. , � 4, �_ ' � , � . � , 3 - , � � �� • � �'��,� , � + � L ( � ' � a . ,, ��"_ � �_-- _ . .._ . ._ -. - " � �{ `s t !' - .r� � • ' , � .. ea4�� Ti � .�..�� , � �3 � — � � : �,�- � � � : L�` . r , � f � r � , � _ _ .: F „ �,Y 'e � ! �D �' �� _�� ._ _, - � � ��' � � : -' � - � � Q .`K � � y � � �: �� . �� '� � � %. ,�'t:�� 3 fi 1� �. - �- �,� _..F ; ;, � <y� � � � �`:--- .-x �� r�` �� f' � # <,= � ! �; ---_�..�„,_, _—�-�- ' � :� ��€ �� i�:s� `�- �` '��. .. _- ,',� e h`3. ... . :�� '� —, � � �� ^ +- •� : � `�. � rj `'"�'� : � � c . .° r R , � . . ".�. �� t' �� .� �a , �..�..� � Y ' , � ., yi- � _ � V . � r .� � � � � v �' �.� . � � � � �xP f� '" . ' �r " . 'i 2 `� , . . - �'" �..� F .. � F' : � . � � �� . � � � y r _ � �� , I �`� � ��.,,� � rt ��' � � +� ..'# w� � ,. � � 1y� , � + , �� .-� . .� � __. � i��+�' . . • .:. ` � . � � _ ;.. � . . � � � . �� i�� 4 �� . ,.y ��. �`�� .� � � F:. a� ; � ,� �l , � � � �� _ _ � p � r: � �� r 3` � �� 'h � .d .� e � _ �� S g� y .. � �.x....e .K !'�y�..# .°:'�i'.:.+RS.-'-. . � ..:- ... -. �_ r . ` . ._ ; . �... _. ._ .: �..- �.:i k a:.�.., �, . :.. � __ =.`� - - �- _ � �,,. ��_ = � �� _� � . r },..�� :: ,� � v� - .... - �: � � - - - �.,... �.-�.�, �+- - - � ��: X .. �:�,' - �� _ _ y 1 � � A t ; � .�'� ''� =., � - �- _ Y . �:�- <'�; - .::k-- _ ' � _ = .. _�. � �•- `-., ,� � '`� ...<. =� ��a�- �` � _ .'_� - '-�_- - '.a � .,.a .'.. :Y. - _ 'Y_'.-� ::,`�,��s,:.. - �..�.,-�- _ - - ..y�, . Rz: _: � . �y i _ _ , _ _ :"�;�' - "`�"2 _� `::. ; ` t'` ' " - ' ��t. _ i _�- _ � � r s: . "' , �_ - . _ _ ��`1?�S. ' ..� ;tit". - " _ � ' �`..'`- y -.. i- - - �; , .s w .. .. .--` . _ .6 1 �' , . i,.. �,. ��. . . _ �: �: � : �1 � �ixl ��,_ _ ... " _ - � �� . __ � - _----- :� � - � _ ' t _ . , z �> ' � �-�-�--- -- -- �! � -� � � � � #r: .. . Y � � � .'f _ ' � . '._ � `-?a._ _�. .. .. Q ..-.. ,-� - } < .�} �` � � � * _- � _ Z � _ ( .. ' 4 , . > � �� = j� � z � ` �,_�, a � � a�`, _ � �. j" " ��.�T� � � Q _ . ij �!� } .. � . :,V � .. . ' � - Y.�.' J �' S: 1 ! �' : I 4 - _ . . � . . . . r � . S � . �l� � � . 1 � . : . '. i , - � . � _._. ;� �� . . LL .�. -` �is � . . �i -' y„ . _ �� . �'.:� e's � ; ' � - ' � 1 � c r. z ° � � �_ ,( � � �- � � f � � �� f � � � � � i� . . .i �� '. � " - F N �'J� r �'� R _° � . _. . .: �a � . �E _ sy �� . . - : � + . . : R � / , �r l . � v{ r '' . .> ' ! . n � ° �� , -� ,' - .�•-,_ - ; � , , , �' �� — �_� ,, � -. - — - — �• � � ^� _.. . ' "'�— s.. �'� . --_ � Q 1 � � �� -- ... - --- . / ' Q9 . 1 , � _ _ a� __ . . � �� It _' ` ' __'. _ � — . '� - � . � . . � _ — ._.. � . . - -_— - � . . . _ � � � ' � �� ,' � .. '. . . _ . . . . . , �. �.. . .. . . .' � _ . . . � � .? - .�% � '� � .. . � /_. � - � � - � .F - i i,,. . t e' .�,s4# . ' ' _< �+' � . �' ':�S . . � "� �' � , � �� x � �. �� ;�. u � x `' ' ��.:.. � ^�� , � � , z..� . .�. � >�r- . � µ . �� . �y -�- �-�� _ :, ,� •� ; w - - ,rJ+�i � - � h .. � � ..� s:�? �� .. - . - . . rfF'� � c ° �' -_`'."' a :.� - s ;-,-.. , , / .s . r��_i-L! i'I � t . `� !' _r .. :.i��11��'.Yt : ' � :'� y . . . ��. - � = r . �� _ __ . , � 6 : � } i .� p ' " . .... ... . ' .. � •,� � 1T » �T �. { ^ r - . . _ . �._. _ ... . .. !'+-.��.. - _ '1' e�� } �; _ � � '. _� A��` . . . . ... r i 4 t# � � �._ � :s�4y� i. �. - . .. . . _ . . � _�...�li � i ( � . � . . � �' � ___� �i S +, [ � '. IT r r � ` .-� . � .. - . � ' .. � ± - � . E� . .` fri � . , .-� ' _`� f �� r �, ,� ,�� • _a.� , _ � ` - <� ; � � #� � F ' ' � � 3, ' _�_ � ' � � •..r.. . i y l+.��i� ��'�.��1 �' - � 4"i. _ .. •a ._ �. � 3� .� y� �jV3M6� t�a �'' ? 4 � 1..... 1! }� ��v' �� '. °` AS � f h . . i . , . .. �. . � 1 � � -� t j � _ ' `� . ��" � � � � 4 , � � . � � - ' �. ' e. .., . . .... ...... . . � . -�, , . . . . F ' i ( � . . '� -- ' t � � -.�- � ` . � r: ! _ . \ �r � � , � -- : ` E � ' �. � - . \ y . .ti' � ' . . • r 4 - �. ,� � �,� . . -., =:, ��. Y ' � �� y _-s ' �;� x e � � { y �� lnLs .��.«��..�. r-....w�►J cr -._ �.�' . ��#r �r ��Z � �� „ �,,,.,.>... flt C —}q � ( ,y: �t r (� \ IVv4S l�Qd L x��tvQ� Q.� Ttf� �°�Q'�I�i�' National Trust for Historic Preservation • December 11, 1997 Mr. Aaron Rubenstein, Heritage Preservation Pianner Heritage Preservation Commission Office of License, Inspections & Environmental Profection City of Saint Paul 350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, blinnesota 55102-1510 Deaz Mr. Rubenstein: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal to demolish the Crane Building in the Lowertown Historic District of Saint Paul. The Lowertown area of Saint Paul, and the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation, have received narional attention regazding the revitalization of this sixteen block azea. In i 995, the Lowertown Redevelopment Corporarion was awarded a National Preservarion Honor Award for its role along with the City of Saint Paul and others for the economic turn-around in this azea. From 1978 to 1995, the year of the award, Lowertown revitalization efforts included $400 million in private investment, 2,900 construcrion jobs and 4,600 new permanent jobs. Because of the historic significance of this area and the revitalization efforts, we believe that any demolirion proposal should be subject to cazeful review to determine that it is indeed economically jusrified. In this case, ow review of the materials submitted leads us to question whether adequate mazketing efforts have been undertaken to sell the Crane Building. Typicaliy, marketing a building such as the Crane Building successfully requires a marketing packet that includes: building descriprion and condition, squaze footage per floor, potential uses, economic incentives available, and identification of potential public/private partners and their programs. A thorough economic fesaiblity study should be conducted and that informarion used to mazket the Crane Building, before any consideration of demolirion. In a lustoric district like L,owertown, there is a great potential for public/private partnerships and adaptive use of this signifcant historic structure. � Tkere are a number of eaperts and outside sonrces, both within Minnesota and elsewhere, to assist in the conduct of a thorough economic feasibility study. The National Trust itself provides information on rehabilitation and adaptive reuse, and can also assist in identifying outside � expertise on various aspects of re-use, including taY incentives for developing historic properties. Midwest Regional Office National Office: 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1135 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Chicago, Ill. 60604 Washington, D.C. 20036 �312� 939-5547 / FAX (312� 939-5651 (202� 588-6000 a��al3 • Page 2 The National Trust also serves as one of several possible sources for rehabilitarion gants and low interest loans for the rehabilitation of commercial historic properties such as the Crane Building through its financial assistance pmgrams. If we can be of help in providing further information on this matter, please let us lrnow. Sincerely, �� unes E. Mann egional Director . • �� _ .,.� ` ti " a> w,.� _: - � _ � eu � �.�.� ��_ _a.�au,��,..�.�� W� �..._. - �a,._ �, = � � (�er ��.�,��e.d �L k� C MIn�ESOTa HISTORIC�L SOCIETI' December 11, 1497 Ms. Tracey Baker, Chair St. Paul IIeritage Preservarion Commission 1868 Sazgent Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 Dear Ms. Baker, It has come to our attenrion that the Crane Building, located in St. Paul's I,owertown, is being considered for demoliuon. I would strongly urge the Heritage Preservauon Commission to deny the request. IYs my understanding that the building is currenUy vacant and that the owner's application for a demolition permit is based, in part, on an economic hardship argument. While economic considerations are important factors in deternuning whether a building, or any property, should be retained, these must be weighed with a number of other considerations which are just as important. The Crane Building is a significant resource in I.owertown and the city of St. Paul, historically and architecturally. Built in 1904, it was designed by the St. Paul arclutectural firm of Reed and Stem, whose designs include a number of other National Register buildings within St. Paul as well as dozens of buildings across the country. The significance of the Crane Building was recognized in 1983 when it was inciuded as a contributing element in the Lowertown Historic District which is listed on the Narional Register of Historic Places. The following year the Ciry Council approved the designation of the area as a heritage preserva6on district. The designation is intended to protect and enhance the unique character of Lowertown, a remarkably intact warehouse district dating from before the 1880s. The Crane Building originally served as a wazehouse, and its distinctive arclutectural features and prominent location at the north end of the Lowertown District enhance its significance. We understand that the property owners would use the site for a surface parking lot to accommodate 28 or 29 parking stalls. In our experience, tearing down a historic building such as the Crane Building for a surface pazking lot almost never makes economic sense. Donovan Rypkema, a nationally recognized real estate and economic development consultant and the author of The Econo»zics of Historic Preservation, outlined a scenario strikingly similar to that of the Crane Building: A five-story building sits vacant in the heart of the downtown on a 10,000 square foot lot. Land in downtown is worth $20 per squaze foot. Merchants and property owners aze demanding that city hall acquire the building and raze it for parking. In fact, the building owner is willing to sell the entire properry for the value of the land only. How can the city refuse? , � 6t'F�x J-1 • • • 3�5 6GLLOGG BOCLEC�IRD �S EST ! SaIST P.AL�I.. AIIS\ESOT.4 55103-1906 / TELEPHO\E: 613-396-61Y6 12/11/971etter to Tracey Baker, page 2 u Value of the land: Cost of demolition: Cost of paving & striping: Total costs of parking lot: # of parking spaces provided: Cost per space: � � � $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 60,000 $ 510,000 -25 - 30 $ 17,000 to $ 20,400 q�s-��3 When asked, "would you be willing to pay $17,000 for a pazking space?" even the most vociferous advocates for addirional parking will say "no!" And yet this most simple of analyses is rarely conducted in these situations. It is a fiscally uresponsible and economically irrational act to demolish for pazking in this situation independent of the architectural or historic importance of the building. The Economics of Rehabilitation, 1991 While the above scenario is not identical to the present situation, the illustration is instructional. From an economic standpoint, it is clearly not in the city's best interest to demolish the Crane Building for a surface parking lot. The State Historic Preservation Office urges the owners to reconsider the future of the Crane Building. Potential uses which are economically viable should be studied and evaluated. � Delaying demolition until all avenues have been considered could actually result in saving a significant historic resource and an unportant part of Lowertown's and St. Paul's past. Our office has developed a format for conducting reuse studies and has participated in a number of studies in recent years. Should the commission or the owners desire, we would be happy to discuss how such a study may be useful in exploring reuse options for the Crane Building. In addition, it is important to note that State of Minnesota Rules for the environmental review program of the Environmental Qualiry Board stipulate that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) shall be prepared as part of the demolition pernut process for properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Since the Crane Building is a contributing property within the I.owertown Historic District, this provision applies. C� The Crane Building has been a distinctive local landmark for over ninety yeazs. Before an action is taken that cannot be reversed, I urge you to take the time to explore all the altematives. Sincerely, �/ � - `'d'` - � `�� Britta L. Bloomberg d1 �� J � Deputy State Historic Preservarion OfFicer 10,000 s.f. x $20 50,000 s.f. x $ 5 10,000 s.f. x $ 6 �L�/ � � � ^ � � � 0 � � � � � � O � N W K W 0 a x U ¢ O m � U Y • V � '� Y d � m M � w ro c_� 3Ra r3m m 9 O � C .y j R w ��E .°.. w a N O tp p L qD— w � C � V d Y Y R � a m CL � U t" � hOC c 'as ot N� L b➢ 3 d � � N � Y 9 � O U c m o m � t �:, N �,,, � _ �;? t0 ��0 S d:. L 'O O R Y C� C V C _ �3 ,.� Y ._. �9 � V .� � .0 � y R' inL Q � tQ LL' �+.a CS '�.°3E�g�o ° '—''°��" � �°a�i d �:S'O Vl N V m ` F � '� �� Q Cb �a [0 �+ U E a'�wo"-�a` L�'°J c.' �3 U �� R G� c R C.� '� p >� o 00 � a o t3c,3'.> .�i R:�� r� 5 �c c� °�.c a m°� � m•� 3 d c o.s�, v m � U � . ti v�i cC ,c � y '� r. �' ` � ,�ii �+� c v� �'.n roonw y v�m "�o` "c� >''v°��°.o n"� �cwR>=.aE 3°d �a�� c» o u� O G N N` O� �� ti�� QL d S O CJ � ' f Eo+�.c,a 3 �,d �,mx3 4 9 V' �� C=� C c�G y C.Y ` ri� w ow c.�a y�m ovio� � c, — ; 9 i� G�C� V).�9 0 N � � A R � Q ._. C!. C y a � _. '� y ,.� :., ��CN��tlUVCC.p,..ti.G RRa n G U-.. V L� 'f J F'O " � >a 5 O�^> N CJ i.r ��"' G C t r y C 0. �� G O O� in w� R d U.r.....+ G.�.r 07 O.r �n'_�. N O N O �� Y� � � � � 3+ � � � y � . � � � 0 a V i s K w r 3 a � J � � � 5 � 0 m Z O � w � z O w Z Q C U = N ... U .... a ti i ;� ° o." 3 � w �'�- u p '� y N r CJ , N N _� E U �r � [3c'� C E bDC�Q ��"L1. �N W�Ou Q u C O t�p F � p G ' O d R s�o •� o> 0., c `o y o,,., ��c`'3v�� u°m ccaia�ia`ai va,3�so° w c ° ��' o � : � a yraONV C � � O�" i� F � d GL Vl O tC � y�..y L N O � O y � C 3 .'O.. C.U�Yj F� 6 . � m="7"' v� h c � d�sm, �w m � y'C .�C y . � F aa Y N O'CJ r-+ O.. C C y- �" G c, o C� �y c. � u . w m �'� �� 't9sQ�. y.' o eo Q �s u � ��,_ c� �� u a�ic""" o m c . � a.5 'Sc.nm v� mc3c la � � b L1- r �1 � .r �/1 � 0� � � O Q� � 7 d4 5"' Z Q .r � � Q7 �y `j+ � � � C� �V 1� � �� '�.� � � � ,� � � � � Q: .� a v v • . a m-^ >, a ....-. d �- d _ L L�. �y..� O e6 C 0... s G� p p+�j O� C"� �� a 'O .�aip N v�i j� T O C V'C O E� O. � 9 C F y' 'y, V y�,p y C a'�+ �. G� O O .a ° d ' � u �.p a. C� y G• y a° �y� V��a � o d � .., e ao m a;; <¢ 3 a� ° o m � y u�x Q' o� E.°n� m.-°'a>i °'R �?, o^= o�:° a��v�� aay�a"iva ., � �a + eco G o. yy cd�aa>o.,., a t n0 00..�� r"' .: G�R � U� C U q 00 C y N� k p d V,'r ++ �E� ° u�m� �oc'�°� , �'�= 4 C 'm nd ^ r �°'S� �c'om Oe�'va�'i.: f0 � L L i�. F'� R N a d^ d •�'.� � Ci U H W *+ d T d C` V °``° `° � °•"'__�'� io y 0� g c ai m �er ° o +.. 4 ti(r N L1�'O � w� W>> �l t0 `. t0 L 4.+ m n+ a+ aa ..�w U C�� G C"j�'i O A O N� O � p a�a'� ...�'. � O N ad3`�w3o�".t7 dEw(S.a y��'8��x . u °° o � d m=� � a a i °°w �v�U w � a ° � p+ i coc 3"• ov y ' L C") .G O'3 U � 'O 4! ` O y .d. a.�'� e6 •'O • F L�F t0 'J' C a"i � fV � �� N O•Y �� l. ai y N d..r"'i C N in (1a' Rvi�r �N�4CUd Nd OR'�OOC L � +..� c�yOcqa�'�.�� ycsia`Ci��ciaU'°'u.e�„°^G,ac oo m . ❑ m �> > H.,'.. u'C.... i�� N'O CD V O a'�+ �� ai L.-. �>'� d C a�a N ��.+ O c�. � y o � N°c �� 4� 3C" � o aw o°'�°�� s��. os =� i �. �N w vi .ti v� Y O . t6 .� 0� .p C C cE a U aa T�W wada Gdv�ooFya�i'YC.y��oo �a�i.aodq�'v � �� w m o o� R�. �fL 3xv� :� 3w ° R'��:; s .c o" ea � w a o �� Td � � «. �,.", c v m�'y o V y° w� y B v", dm�o ca'�i=v3 N � COw U Laa'C.� S ^. S" 7 p � j. 0 C t9 N ui C a N N /" N G� f+.0 7 � i.� +..+ y O [9 T�..�.� U� � i d., w � > y C t w�._. 6> U O'C �9 y y O 3 O y R RS � V C U Y O Dp"' � y r�i, pG C b0 �..�+ ' � v R C E�'.0 3 [. C .0 � O'O t .Q �p , d s' G O.y �� v�� U � y� � p i d i = '�y. y V�•�.' O y��' c. � � C N � R�s e ai� �� a��s ^ y•' mw U'ONaa 00 'J'.:[ 1 O61.7� y � J�+"�y �£ � 4 L y� C rA N w �"� tC � L C) �� G�+.�' N� Y O NZ �� c3 . ..v. .,._,�wu>Ea °'m. � �� U � � �CS � 0� U� d�� d G U O F p G L y^ � V � >O 4°'„". C0.'� `a c m �'tl:vo a�s'�,?' a � `° 3�; d v�i N R m.�.. � O d.. pp i c. Y ..w.. <C w y y� N i' N i� 6� C�:� L O C1 K= a+ L ' y c" f'n � y� l. W �a� 'Od 4G�... 7� U U l. �� 7��' f0 �^ d 3=� 6y ?£ y (� C C> O.e6 w" NO iyU+�'(�LFCy �o��dR=y�a�"� 0 C-.-. G L p'T++ _.-� ..a Vl y�'�>. � m N> �_ � (6 N y� y�N Y� V N Y. � � G O � � �+' - y +�+ f �j � � r o. o_. a`� y a e'G a"i o F.�,�R o»ada>3 R�-a�� The following report, prepared by Lowertown Redevelopment � Corporation, was submitted into the record at the 11 December 1997 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting. �1 LJ � _ _�� WELCOME TO LOYVFRI�WN: ��, �. . SAINTPAUL'SEXCITINGNEW URBANVILIAGE � ' , � _, , � -=� :��'�� f � 't -->�' � �_� � f' ' � _ ��;�_ - - , - ,�;� �.o-,. � - __ �_'_��- ` �,. ,: _ - � -�_ _ -� - - " � - _� .. _ -- . �: �, � � - OWERIl�WN'S ROOTS LIE DEEP IN THE F,ARLIES"1' DAYS OF THE CITY, WI12II St22ri1)J02YS docked at the Lower Landing. As the city grew, its financial and retail center became� known as "Downtown", while the raikoad and wholesale area of its beginnings came to be known as "I owertown." From the be nnin these two distinctly different sides of the cit}�s character were complementary and synergistic, each conh to the other's strength. Boommg in the 1900's, Lowertown faded after the tum of the cenhuy and languished for years, a place that time and commerce passed by until the early `70's when efforts to renew the area began. In 1978, under the leadership of then-Mayor George Iatimer, the city articu- lated plans for a bold, new public/private partriership that would tap Lowertown's tremen- dous potential. The McKnight Foundation responded enthusiasfically by providing $10 mil- lion in seed capital, and an innovative public/private partnership called Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation (I,RC) was created to act as a catalyst for the area's redevelo�r ment.'Ihe goal was to use the $10 million to attract $100 million in investment I�ZC was chaiged with three criticat responsibilities: design, marketing and fivancing. LRC would provide limited gap financing to help get projects started; manage design issues to assure that new development harmonized with the historic character of the ne�ghborhood; and aggressively market the area to potenfial residents, investors, developers and the public. In a unique partnership with the City and the private sector, LRC planned and executed a development sh and design framework for the 17- block neighborhood, a program which has succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. LRC's original vision, which continues to evolve to this day, called for a rr� of housing, offices, retail stores, services, restaurants, theaters, parks and public spaces, combined with� a sh that has brought back people, business and development, and created a new neighborhood in the heart of the ciry. After years of work and investment, Lowertown has become a national role model for cities across the country, showing how public and private interests sharing a common vision can work together in hazmony to draznatically alter the future of a neighborhood. Aundreds of civic leaders from across the country and officials from 20 counh have visited Lowertown and stories about Lowertown's success have been published in a number of languages, including French, Japanese and Chinese. AN URBAN VILLAGE DESIGNED FOR PEOPLE Toda�s Lowertown provides a comfortable and attractive living and working environment In increasing numbers, people are discovering its special charm — some come to just visit, more to work or shop and many to live here permanenfly. I owertown is a dynamic area, offering a wide raqge of housing choices and amenities to serve the needs of both residents and workers, including a YMCA, numerous restaurants, pazks, theaters, shops and every lflnd of needed convenience. struction jobs, with another 4,600 permanentjobs created or retained. During the same • period, Lowertown's tas base grew by more than 400 percent New invesiment in the form of private capital has come from a variety of investors and developers, both local and national — from 5rms like Frauenshuh Companies of the Twin Cities, Carley Capital Group of Madison, �sconsin; Historic Iandmarks for Living, Inc. of Philadelphia; Boston Bay Capital, Inc., of Massachusetts; Ameritas of Atlanta; Zaidan Holdings of Montreal; and many more. LRC's role as a gap finaucier made the critical d�erence, especially in the early years of Lowertown's revitaliTaflon. Far eYample, in the case of Heritage House, an investment of $12Q000 each from LRC and the Ciry made a$3 million project a reality. It was a$520,000 guarantee from LRC which trig�ered the Union Depot renovation, and a$22 mil- lion LRC loan launched the development of Galfier Plaza, which today towers over the neigh- borhood and is a center for entertainment and shopping. More recenfly, a$20Q000 loan filled the gap in financing for'Ihe Tilsner building's housing for arlists and their families. Sh developers and investors wntinue to be ath�acted by Lowertown's potenfial. The Frauenshuh Company, for eYample, renovators of the First Trust Building, acquired the Park Square Court Building. Zaidan Holdings acquired and revitalized Galtier Plaza and Lowertown Business Center. Boston Bay Capital acquired The Cosmopolitan building, rapid- ly leasing up its 254 apartments. I eeann Chin, Inc. located one of its restaurants and catering services in the Union Depot. Artspace Projects, Inc., with LRC and city financial assistance, developed the 66unit TIlsner building. Risk is inherent in any effort as large and as visionary as Lowertown. A handful of develo� ments have failed to live up to es�pectalions. But in almost every case, stronger owners have emerged who have been able to realize the potenUal that was originally envisioned. Lowertown's economy coniinues to expand and grow. Architectural, design, advertis- ing, and communica5ons firms and related "sofY' indush have made it a regional focus for such services and companies. KTCA TV's new studios enhance the area's reputation as a national center for the video and film indushy. IndependentTelevision Services, created by PBS to foster independent productions nationwide, has chosen to locate its national head- quarters here. Continental Cable's Lowertown headquarters has added to the area's reputa- tion. Lowertown is also an attractive location for new and growing compazries in emerging areas of high technology, biotechnology and medical products and services. Such firms aze drawn by the neighborhood's chann and availabi]ity of lowcost loft space for research, office and manufacturing use, as well as its proximity to hospitals, the University of Minnesota, and major corporafions such as 3M Company. Lowertowu enjoys escellent access to every part of the Twiu Cities, provided by the I-94 and 35E freeways, and other major sh�eets and I�ighways, such as Warner Road and Jackson Slreet, as well as most of the bus lines serving the Twin cities. Vast amounts of parlflng space are available in lots scattered around the neighborhood, which also serve as `land banks" for future development� � Most warehouses in the I.owertown Historic Dish are designated landmarks and qualify �or rehabilitation ta�c credits, maldng them desirable for fuhu deuelopment 11xe neighborhood is served by the Saint Paul Disirict Heating System, which assures a competitive and secure source of energy. Lowertown has also benefited from its closeness to the downtown core, linldng it to every financial, legal, and governmental service. Today's Lowertown is the resutt of a unique and higl�ly successfiil parfnership between Lowertown Redevelopment Corporation and many public sector offices and organi- zations, including the Office of the Mayor, City Council, Department of Planning & Economic Development, Department of Fublic Works, Parks & Recreation Department, Saint Paul Port Authority, Downtown Council, Saint Paul Chamber of Commerce, and many other private organizations and foundations. Through the years, dedicated leaders from Lowertown and the City have continued to envision the future, for the overall benefit of Saint Pau1, in sh for the benefits of imagina tive, wellconceived and wellexecuted development. In the years ahead, the neighborhood will continue to be receptive to new businesses, new de�elopers and new opportunities. And LRC will continue its efforts in overall plazu�ing, urban design, marketing, and gap financing for the area, while providing a range of personalized services to companies maldng reloca- tion and investment decisions. 11u�ough the public/private partnership, LRC hopes to reduce risks and maavnize reiurns for investors, to provide a competitive edge in area-wide marketing over other districts, and to create a sense of place for the new neighborhood. • A DYNAMIC NEW NEIGNBORIIOOD Life in I,owertown is lively and exciting.'Ilie growing numbers of people who live and work here have brought with them new activities and a greater appreciation of its distinctive character. The azea's reputation as a haven for painters, sculptors, photographers, writers, and artists of all kinds preceded its revitalization, and I.owertown Redevelopment Corporation and community leaders have taken pains to retain and support them. For e�mple, new artist studio housing has been deueloped Nurough various cre- ative combinations of Suaucing. The neighborhood is filled with arts organizations, both ffaditional and `bn the cutting edge," who serve as magnets for at1ists and their patrons. V'isitors and residents alike are attracted to the growing numbers of galleries, such as the Art Resource and Master Framer galleries, while coffee- houses such as Kuppernicus add literary life to the scene. Annual arts, crafts and music festivals draw ]u crowds.'Ilie Great Hall at F�ust Trust Center, the Atrium at the Union Depot, and the Palm Court at Galtier offer wonderfizl spaces for large gatherings and public performances. Tempoiary outdoor public art installations have been presented by FORECASI' and other arts groups. Developers and investors aze encouraged to find ways to include the arts in their plantring. ag-a �� Important to Lowertown's vitality is its growing reputation as a center for all ldnds � of entertaiuwent Lowertown is Saint Paul's theater district, with first run movies at the new Cinema 4 in Galtier. Residents and workers can choose from a wide variety of restau- rants, popular entertainment centers, and even an indoor miniature golf course. Education also plays a role in Lowertown's diverse cultural life, through the Globe College of Business at Galtier Plaza, and the nearby Saturn School of Tomorrow. Part of the fun of the ne�ghborhood is its distinctive tumof-thecentury "look." Extensive lighting, fiunished by ornate �ctorian streetlights, brightens the sh and provides a fes- tive evening glow. The newly-renovated Mears Park, a popular lmmch- time gathering place, serves as Lowertown's `�illage green", with trees, flowers, benches, sculptures and fountains. Suuunertime brings outdoar concerts, performances, events and festivals, while in winter the park is beautifiilly lighted for the holiday season 'Ihe new bridges across I-94, each with enhanced historic lighting, railings and/or sidewalks, provide beautiful new gateways to Lowertown. The special richness of life in Lowertown is demonstrated in many ways.'Ihe historic Farmers Market, located in the heart of the neighborhood, attracts more than 50,000 visitors every summer. I,owertown's churches draw large crowds from throughout the metro azea. You'll also find antique stores, hixiuy aparlments, and coffee- houses side-by-side, and the ever present posibility of discovering a unique store or shop tucked in some comer you haven't noticed before. LOWERTOWN IN TFIE NINEilES: A RETURN i0 i11E RIVER Lowertown's future is even more exciting than its past Similarly, the coming of a new city adminish�ation to Saint Paul has signaled a new optimism and energy as well. As Mayor Norm Coleman has said, "Saint Paul's best days are yet to come." The vision for the neigh- borhood is clear: a place where families feel secure, walk to work, and have access to reliable daycare; where older people can remain active in a busy, interesting environment; where new businesses thrive; where the arts are alive; and where people meet in cafes, parks and galleries, stroll along the streets or the river&ont, or go for an euening boah Mini-parks, pedestriau greenways, enclosed wintergardens, daycare centers, con- venience stores and other neighborhood aznenities will be developed. Special atten- tion will be given to the needs of the elderly and women and children, with new housing designs tailored to changing urban demographics and work pattems. Energy conservation continues to be a major part of the future vision for Lowertown. Housing clustering and superinsula6on will be emphasized. Dishict heating will extend to every part of the neighborhood. Solar energy will be tapped, acfively or passively, while new zoning provisions will assure solar access for every resident � ��-a Each of the four districts that make up Lowertown—the North Quadrant, Mears Pa �iverfi and the East Quadrant — has clearly different potenfials. Taken together, i hold promise of an additional $400 million in development On the River&ont, fliree possible approaches to necv development aze envisi One plan emphasizes housing, with terrace-style townhouses and apartments built a river's edge, with underground parking, and a marina for residents' use. An alternative approach would capitalize on Lowertown's e�ctensive arts and cultural ties, using the riverfi as a location for the new Science Museum or the National Paz Service's river interpretive center. Yet another vision involves an expansion of the post office facility and consh o large plaza or park over it Whichever plan is ultnnately adopted, it is clear that future Lowertown residents will be able to enjoy a new and intimate relationship with the part of the river for which their neighborhood is named. A new riverfront park, currently under construction, is within relatively easy walk- ing and biking distance of the center of Lowertown, while new stairways, walkways, and an e�ctension of the skyway system will make Lambert Landing and the long- dreamed- of "river garden" readfly accessible to residents and visitors alike. In the 12-block Mears Park area, rehabilitation of historic structures as well as new infill construction will continue. A dozen buildings with historic landmark �esignation remain to be adapted for new uses. The Arts continue to be an important part of Lowertown's appeal, and the neighborhood will play a sigttificant role in establishing downtown Saiut Paul as a cultural dislric�t. More ezchibits, performances, and events will be encouraged. Quality art, including outdoor sculpture and fountains, will be placed in public places. Collaboration among artists, landscape designers and architects in the public arts will be fostered. Awareness of the value of the arts will grow, with excellence being the goal of every project More artists' housing to provide affordable living and working spaces is envisi for the area arommd Mears Park, and near the riverfi 11ie arts will conhibute to, as as benefit from, Lowertown's ongoing renewal. Economic growth will continue in Lowertocvn, with the abundance of architectu unique, yet lowcost, space ath new and growing businesses. "Ihe ready availabil land in the North Quadrant will allow for the conslruction of new buildings to be built to meet the need of new or existing businesses. Targeted marketing efforts aimed at regional growth indushies such as high technology, biotechnology, information services, and health- care, and the development of a new technology park, will bring growth and jobs. "Ihe presence of KI'CA, with its excellent facilities for video and film, and PTVS, a PBS company dedicated to encouraging new and innovative film and videos, will make Lowertown burgeon as a center for video, film and related `cukural" indushies. � �� ,; « � � :�. : � �.- ��". � �.' _ ? + . lR� \ �- � . . �,. w,. �' �- � � � . � �. i �'� � ce ,..' __ . , ��, N � �:. , ,: . -�-�=��_ �� ;. � �.��, � ��.� � � . . :.� .� -t ' � � ` � �- � �f yp { �€: ,�: t r i�'� �f ' �"^ �� s�� . ��_-�,� �� , _ ;,; . � s, , .� .� �� J r , � . , .,. ... �-- . , _ - � , _, :�-=s `; J . 5 / a" . � . F ��.�f G S F� "`.a!'y,.a� � . ��. . .�:M - ¢'. f TR �.: F' _ �v . � � t , . Y _ �' ..i�1 • , , '� �'°`" , p � .: . w Y.. . .�. ... . . ' � f. � ,..: . • L � r _.- .. � '.. �` .. - �' . _ Y 2 :. . .. , .... v. � Svw:i_._ r+ / - /b .� � . . . �� .. .. : . -. . � � "� �, � � J � ' :' �r - . "� � . ' -' - • % ` ' � � �� ' \Z\ ' - _ � j _. f K . . +`.�� l . '. � ." .� ' _ . � � . ' . � .�. ... �. � � . . . a i _ � c. _ . � ._ . . � ' ',i �. . ! .. ' ' � ' � . . � . . � . �� _ . . �. F %: � � �% - _ �: , .� �. � � .,'.\ �'-� .. ' i �:V`��°-'��!�� ..,�` \ !ti � . � , �, '� .,1 '. ' .- :. . '� � ` G" v . - - �. E . ' . .' .. �� /'�� ,,:r l.,EC"! � �_ . . ^J`'�.� r ., G '��. y \ ,' �..1 �; �� _ ..� . � . ,�� .� �"Q.*hF. v,3�na �'f,��-y�" .. � if � '. ' �,.' .,. - . ..t 1 �'f . \!. . .J � . � ��- . l - " — . . y .. ._.. Y .... . , _ <,' ♦ � �-� �� / < R / r/ ��' .-•. ,. .. . . . . l' a . �'" Y � 1 �.,� ,� - =� % �� -� � ,� -� �t- , ' �� 4 S �: � ' . . ..�� \ /_ ^ . \ � N:� � � � } '1' -.� . ' ��..v 4 1 ,� 5; : c4 ' �1,:. .e"�, -�` �''� "'v. .� ' .. � . �.v�� '-"�cN�F+�•.,�„ . ' r 1`y,��__'��,Y,bs . �... . . . � ... �ae r s � . ' �" v'�# . =��i,r . � . . � � . Kr ��`��'�� J -_/ : . _ _ . . � . � T iF�(`Jl' . . . . . �; ,+^ - "��s�> �� r . . . - .� , �y� . � .. . .. � � . � ... . - .. � . . ✓ � ��'r ,.� . . : _ . e � ; „�..., �'�• z , _ ��r''„�� uc, " � �r.. �' �st .� . s "'. ' � � � _. �. �� . � '�`"� -�, ��. ,.� - . .�-.., - �. �.^ �= � >_�? � ,- . `t� `'', ' "` ..� • .� � "� : � � � �,. , ' . _ " ' =�,.�` �.. - '�. \ �: ,_ �`. " . ' _ ": ,. . - _ , ar��, . ; \'\ �-�' : � - F � II2C WIId. '' ° ` �. ,� �'= "E` �< .., ., :�:, . `: -.ar.. ' "� � � ��:' - ".k-' COl�°11NUE TO ACC � : s �-� IN ITS ROIE t�S A �'�:= �% ` � ,. � , � _ _> �, � y . «. ,, . _ . . o- r �i� � � - .; : CATALYST, IDEA- � p m � ,� ". � � � . � GBNERATORAND ' �;r� �� .� '�-; - -, r..,.�;� � IMPIEMENIER � ,. � J ��.;� 4 r �_ ., F �' . . !.n; . . i. ° . '1 a � . . �.�� , . 11 Feb 1998 2:SSPM CapitolRiver Council FRX: 2218581 • W CapitolRiver Council District 17 PpGE 1 OF 1 �� Post-it° Fax Note 7671 �a« p,�es� To ,\ From � � �... onone s vno�e x a a _(S4 k`t Fa:a r7.�¢l¢ V Faxx -- —_ . __. _. . - - ------ - �. 3 33Z Minnesota Saeec Suite N150 Sa;nt Pav1, b11V 55101 612 721 Q488 Fqy,; 612 2210551 Webs+tewww.capitolrivecptg flrnaiypPriveKbioneerplanetinfi.nec 7 7 February 1998 Council President Dan Bostrom 15 Wesi Keliogg Bivd. 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Mn 55'102 Dear Council President Bostrom, We write to support the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission s decision to deny a demoliGon permit Tor the Crane Building located at 281 East Fifth Street in the Lowertown Historic Preservalion District. ' The CapitolRiver Council's Development and Review Committee at iYs February 5, 1998 meeling • • discussed this matter and believe that lha Crane BuBding possess the architectural charsder and integrity that creates our Historic Lowertown Neighborhood. We cannot afford to loss anaher historic structure. Demolition of the Crane Buildi�g, io provide a 2B or 29 surtace parking lot, would have a negative impact on the appeara�ce and the distinctive attributes that make the Lowertown Neighborhood renowned, It has been brought to our arieniion that there are several legitimate otfers by repulable developers to purchase and rerwvate the Crane 8uilding. We believe lhese offers shoWd be explored. The CapitoiRiver Cou�cil's Development and Review Committee and ths Executive Committee member's ask that you uphold the decision of the Heritage Preservetion Commission and deny ihe demolition permit for tha Crane 8uilding. Thank you tor your oonsideration. Sincerely, • ( t � � I�o-Y� �,. r -- �. Mary Nelson, Community Organizer cc: Aaron Rubenstein, LIEP Ail City Council Members „--- �