The URL can be used to link to this page

98-357Council File ORf GINA� Presented By Referred To Green Sheet RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� 2 WHEREAS, Ronald Severson made application to the Heritaae Preservation 3 Commission (the commission) pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 73 for a building 4 permit to conshuct a carriage-house-like structtue at 420 Portland Avenue within the Historic 5 Hill Heritage Preservation District; and 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, on February 27, 1997, the commission conducted a public hearing on the proposal. After discussion, the matter was laid over and the project was again reviewed on March 13, 1497, and finally approved on Mazch 27, 1997. However, the commission, inadvertently, did not forxnally pass a resolution approving the project until January 8, 1998; and WIIEREAS, on Apri18, 1997, Gregory Clark, Carol Clazk and Patricia Leonazd appealed the Mazch 27, 1997, commission decision but elected to enter into negotiations with the applicant in the hope that the applicant and the appellants might resolve their differences; and WHEREAS, the negotiations between the parties failed to reach an acceptable compromise and the appellants requested that their appeal be heard by the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the commission in its Resolution No. 2884 granted approval of the building permit based upon revised plans including only the east elevation marked 3G 1, and subject to the condition that an appropriate crown molding be added above the transom windows in light of the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation guidelines. In particular, based upon the evidence presented at the March 27, 1997, public hearing, the commission made the following findings of fact: 27 1. The proposed building site is a pivotal and difficult site. It is visible from 28 Suuunit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are 29 large buildings to the south and west that are close to the property lines. 30 This lot can be construed as both the reaz yazd of the Winter House at 415 31 Simunit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed 32 carriage house concept (and "front yard" pazking adjacent to Portland) is a 33 reasonable approach to developing the parcel for the following reasons: a) 34 the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street pazking for 35 residents of the Winter House; b) the pazcel has historically been a rear 36 yazd, it is used as a rear yard, and it appears as a reaz yazd due to its 37 relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story 38 carriage house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a 39 building that is very close to the Winter House in proximity and that is 40 related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The Winter House -3s� �� 9� -3 57 ' ORIGfN;� 2 uilt on a through-lot with Summit and Portland frontages; the recent 3 subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the 4 Winter House to sutrounding land nor the historical nature of the site. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 zs 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 2. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines: [%�I la c. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhytl�m, setback, color, material, building elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the area." The building elements, materials, scale, height, and character would be related to, but do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integrated for a balanced and complete design. Though the side elevation would not be parailel to that of the Winter House, the street-facing elevation would be perpendicular to the street like those of other structures on this block of Portland. d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the rear yard nature of the site, and the carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the historic carriage house on the site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the only other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Western and Anmdel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed structure. e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building. £ Pazking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping. Single gazage doors would avoid the horizontai orientation of double doors. The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. These sorts of anomalies in design and development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district and its chazacter. 3. In addifion, the proposed structure and site development conform to the federal Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design and materials aze related to and compatible with the primary, adjacent, lvstoric building, i.e., the Winter House; the design distnaguishes between what is new and what is historic rather than mimics the historic structure and confuses the two; and the development would not have an adverse impact on the character- defining features of the site and the area. The building's design is similaz to the rear addition of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appropriate for a new secondary shucture. A new buildina of unrelated design and materiais would detract from the historic integrity of the site; and 2 q�-3s7 OR1GiNAL 3 WI�EREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Tricia 4 Leonard, Crreg Clark, and Carol Clazk duly filed with the Council an appeal from the 5 determination made by the commission and requested that a hearing be held before the City 6 Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said commission; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 73.06, a public hearing was set on for January 28, 1998, but, at the request of appellants' attorney, the matter was postponed to Febniary 25, 1998; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 1998, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, having heazd 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 deny the appeal of Patricia Leonard, Gregory Clazk and Carol Clark on the basis that their has been no showing that the commission made any error in fact fmding or procedure in this matter; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Patricia Leonazd, Crregory Clark and Carol Clark, the Zoning Administrator and the Heritage Preservation Commission. Reguested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date I�S ,��_ Adoption Certified by Council Se�$tary BYc Appxoved by Mayos: te � By: BY: Fosm Approved by City Attorney a .�'� �� `•l— Z �' S� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: OFFICE OF T'I�, CITY ATTORNEY " J3 J � PegBir75 CityAttorney CITY OF S AINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor CivilDivision 400 Ciry Hal[ I S Wes1 Keliogg Blvd. Saira Pau1, Minnesot¢ 55102 Telephone: 612 266-8770 Facsimiie: 6I2 298-5619 Apri121, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal by Gregory Clark, Carol Clazk and Patricia Leonard HPC Resolution No. 2884 February 25, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Pau1 City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your eazliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, i�%Ge�l�l �!�✓�— Peter W. Wazner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure � i a i � � :_ . _ . - : :_. . : .�._> ..: .. : .....: : . _ _ ' .:; � ; _ _ � - - _ . _ . _ - --==�=� 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #3 Taken February 22, 1998 - ' � :.:.: ..� ., , :_: s , ....... .; ...::: - .....,:,;,:: .':'. ..�:.__ -. "..<:::::=::::.-.-.:_;<;.>�_:::._: _::...; ;::- .............. ... .:::... .:.:� :• :,:::: :. _ .- .•.,: .: ....: ...:..,.. ,; .;_. , : :. : : . . . �- � �� ..�.. '-. . . .. _ . _.r.i ' � i " �.� w 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #4 Taken February 22, 1998 - � � F . � ' i. »�.3�+��"�*�';,;` .. . _� ' ' :y, � ��, J,� . � -��-�. � ` �� F �r� z — :fiyfwk'S'� - ' '. ' g - ��- � - F E T1 ly `=. ......__._ ..._.___�f ':_i - �� R >� ±a 1 y. � �i� / i '� 1 �/ - , - �_�- ' � ul ' � n ��i � � I '_ _. '- `- : _[ :;_:..: ..,,.�:, _ :. :..;:.;,.; � .: . . .... .: .. :: :• :_-:.,-� - . :_.< . ......: . . ... _..: ..: :-:. :.. , . ... . .. . .. ::... .: >:-:: � , - - : -. :: _ ..:. : : �: s°-�._:. ; :.., . _ �.:.�-:. :. _, .,.:�_.;_.... -.:::: .,..;.__.::.� - _: _ - - - -- �=�. : _ i' I I i i, ` :`. 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 F ��az'y 25, 1998 APPellants' PhotograPh #2 Taken Fe.bruar.�, 22. 1998 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 �s; - :.:rs �.-z:_`: _:r: -; : .c ._..-::t � � . - _ : ::.::: . _ ...-:_:._ .: _.::':':"_':: �: .. ._ . ., ...-. -...r ... .. - 'r.: � -':_.::- ... . :,._ . �- : r --. : [ ..-:..; _�::_- _ ._-m«._> . ., - ' _' -. __.. :'{ Appellants' Photograph #1 Taken February 22, 1998 � a y' , _:._� � �... � � j i . �� . �.,.:;.. � � �� .�� - i ��-�-- - � � � �-�:.:: - - � ,.. : ! _ _ � . � `r ;9J �i� t. s. 4.^'^ �... : �� J— > 1 � ` : , �� . k; eka. —,.. _/ _,�� r � ' �� '^n, _ _ '''= � -_ : .. - . �, ,�;.,: � � � . � - �`'�.�-..: � . _ � � � — . -- ::�d�� : . _ .. �. ,��. - ��. � e _ y�� ;� r � , 4 � ,'�� ►� _ ��-- �- � -_ :... :_� ;.-� __. _ . ., .. ,.._ .;- = -. .,: = --.-=� .. __<:�_ _. _ - ------------ - - - --- , ,., - ---�,_____�� 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 - February 25, 1998 _. :, : >-. ::.,. , :::.....:....�.-:.. .:.,_:..._. � ::......... .. _:-::::.-_:-_:'-::-: ;::: �_ ,_. :. .: :-- ,, .._...:-_ _<_., :::. -; =�:::_.:..;;,•:::°___:_:':,::;_<'::;:; �:..:'-:, Appellants' Photograph #5 , . Taken February 22, 1998 I i I i ;.. - : . ...... .:::.:. ,.,_ __.._ ::. � ,. ..... :. . ::. :..::.::: . . ._ .: .:.. . . . _::�; ::.�: -: ,.. .:. <:, .:: � i i _ � ; - _ _ _ : .l : _... :::. , _ _ -- --- - _::� 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #6 Taken February 22, 1998 M i — <A .i e�':� J - I `4�I � 11 g": a' z ,.�. ,�,. �, _ - _— . . � . . - � � . . —'_____ . . . � c �� 5 �� . - �j�, '. a ' ,r ' . " _ � :ir, .:. ri ,� . _ - _ _ �a..�., ti ` � �`� :- -�-, '�-� - - ,� �f � � _ °" — - _ - � �t 4 + N �,. R' �+ � � : �.` �� .�� F � .. � ��'• � � . . � . . - � � . . � � T• . . . _ � � �� - �- �.. _. . -� .� � a :- .. - _ ._.< fi�SfT �- �.. _��. � � E _ � / _,—. _ : y _ _ — c ��r T , o � ' ta ' > �__,.. � -- - `i i v � _ _ - .. _ w__�- u-_ -_ - 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Counail Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellant's Photograph #7 Taken February 22, 1998 � — — — I 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #8 Taken February 22, 1998 � �� y,> C�,.:� '� � . ., I� � ;�I�� ;; ��, �� : � , _�, �� -:_ �,-.; ,.� ��. � � a+F .- — �:; �' �E _�iii� . �� < - �. ��- -- � '� :•; y� � r � � � ;� r+ +^'% � ' � .. �M1� 1.. . _ x.� ��. - - �.'". K . ' "tyY i... ra �� wi ` � � - � �a.a'rv�� . . ' i ;,�` N- s:-�:,. : ' � . . . , -- � � � - � . < _ ..._ .....:>_..�:_:. .:. :- -.:.• _ . ... --: �:.-:... .__ -.:.: :_. : ,;:;:,::,..:: :_. ;::..:::_::::-,. _i , :,. _...., _ _, _...; -. ;:�»_,.� , ...:. ..::. : ...._: ..: . .. ...: _. -.. �.- . . ..: .. ,. e ._ _:..:: L: :-�. �.: '-,.: ., . _ , ,. . ..: _._: :�,� _ : .,: : �...:�_�� 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Ag�da Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #9 Taken February 22, 1998 � : . .. . - ,.:..:.:._:. _ - - _. ._.... , . :.. -: ; :. :_._.: ....__..:>.... .:. _ - � ....::�._ _._... . � _. .-- ',; - - t,- � _:..:.:.:.;.;,.._.,. ,-...:-..::::. _ ,._ ....� :. . .... .....:...... ....:::.a� ..: `.:.:: �: ......_ ......:...::.��>::_ _ - - _ _ � _.. ' - -' . . - - . " . �.�c__._.._ ..::......... _::._._. .....;.,.. . . . . . . . . . , " j � ' ' � I � __'� _ _ __ '� -'. _ _ ' - . "_" ' _'__-____ _T-��_ ..._.. - � _ : :: i :E:F 29:...... � .i :'.....:. _ . : . .;.. _....:. .::- :-. ;:� . .._.:'""' . ... j � , � � ::. .:... . = .. - . . 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appel2ants' Photograph #10 Taken February 22, 1998 i � ; 7 �. �� . �. . . :. s � — � � '_ et �. �� 4 �' � \ � � � ' �<� i4 .�. � . .. . ... . .. . -�� / �� _. , - � � ---- _.. ., - � . _ r�= .� .�»r�� s�;= < � �= � - �;�' ��h4 3 � � n �.\ . �; y� I : _ �" � � � tr .. ._ . v : _ -�._ _ ._. . :: t.�c� "__"_ .. ��W.��--� - . . .. ^'� . . '. _ '_+wl._....:. _ . �� e-m:�.y_�• ��+ !` f _l1 / � _� �" �� j )�� , . . .. . i.� . � ��J - - i :': �:::: :::.::: � .:. : : :: ::, . :. :..... .:. :.,; :;_:; - .;::: -,-_._: ..::::....... _...._::-.:i � , ...: . . . . .. .. ..:: <:_.:_ ..,.:_-_.... -:;;_ =�,� . . .. ...:...:. :.r ,._ .. _ . .. . ._ _: -, <_ . .:. -. , :�.: - ..:.,.:. ,: � _I � � i -- ...- _.,,..:. _: ., ,,.... - , � , :_..,..:;:°::-:;_ ..: _. :__� _ - - - - ': �: d 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 - Appellants' Photograph #11 Taken February 22, 1998 42D Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #12 Taken February y2, 1ggg � -� -� _ / : . � �.+� -�� i , � � ��4 i �_ �, m. ��,r �r�i � � _ . . Vi.`�'�:.�. se ... . �;',.."",,,,-_� . , � � .. . . . .. . �.�-. �rc. ,.0 _ . � :Y `"'F"• �" �.�. �. '^-:._-�-...° � r .,p.�c "..'�eN� - . _ .. ¢` �\�� .�?��. . � o i� � ala , � r,�, ��. 5 � ' 4 Y�� -`� ., ; �,. � " " _, � �4 �. S M { . � f ��Y^ P � � N� i�F �� -.. �°'�: i ,. _w , : -�- :v ._ - �..�; u , � _._ __� �° . �. � - i .�� .�.��" r .�� '�� :�:-_ _ S. MARK VAUGHT Attornev At Law Suire 700 Six West Fifrh Saett Saint Paui, Minnesoa 5402-1420 j612)297-6M100 FAX (612) 224-8328 February 23, 1998 Councilmember Jim Reiter 320-A City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Pau1, Minnesota 55102 ��-'� S` RE: Appeal by Greg and Carol Clark and Patricia Leonard of the Heritage Preservation Commissian decision regarding 420 Portland Avenue; City Covncil meeting of February 25, 1998; Agenda Item #46 Dear Councilmember Reiter: i represent the:appellant's in.the,ahave-referenced matter who bring-the appeal because-they are._aggrieved by a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission ori�inally made on.March 27, 1997, but.not formalized by,written resolution until January 8, 1498. My clients all have ownership interests in Nathan House and Mews, a Condominium Association, located at 415 Summit Avenue, immediately abutting the subject property. Each has legally enforceable pedestrian and parking easements over and to the subject property at 420 Portland which are discussed in greater detail below. The purpose of this letter is to.summarize the numerous reasons for my client's appeal. Some of those reasons are presented in my letter of March 13, 1997 to the Heritage Preservation Commission. Your attention is also drawn to two letters to Councilmember Blakey from Judy McLaughlin, President of the Ramsey Hill Association, dated March 14, 1997 and November 18, 1997, respectively. All three communications are in the informational packet for your meeting, I believe. The November 18, 1997 2etter indicates concurrence by the Ramsey Hill Association, with the appeal oE my clients as result of a neighborhood issues meeting about the project held on November 13, 1997, and it is particularly persuasive about the reasons there£ore. I commend its thoughtfulness and reasoning to you. This appeal is brought for many reasons. In no particular order, nor necessarily in order of imgortance, they may be summarized as follows:" 1. The proposal approved by the Heritage Preservation �� 0 - � 51 � Saint Paul City Cauncil February 23, 1998 Page Two _ Commission (HPC) in March, 1997, was £or a carriage house which was thirty six (36) feet in width. Much of the material be£ore you contains diagrams proposing a width o£ forty (40) £eet. The di£ference is not immaterial. The applicant, Ronald Severson, currently has an application £or a number o£ variances pending before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for the proposed project. That proposal, never approved by the HPC, ca11s for a width o£ Porty (40) feet. The BZA application also requests relief from yard setback requirements and from parking stall size and location requirements. Without BZA approval, HPC approval is irrelevant. Further, the proposal be£ore the BZA is not the same proposal previously presented and approved by the HPC. Even if Mr. Severson secures BZA approval of his variances, it seems likely that reapproval by the HPC o£ the "altered" design will be necessary. For those reasons the Council should grant the appeal and remand the matter to the HPC for consideration by both the BZA and the HPC of a common design. 2. The orientation o£ the proposed carriage house building makes it clear that the parking for the property (that which is required for the parcel itself and that-which is guaranteed to my clients because they hold parking and pedestrian easements over the subject parcel) is either £ront yard garking or side yard parking, or both. In either case, given the requirements of city ordinances and the zoning code, the proposed parking is tot'ally inappropriate and completely out of char.acter with the immediatelv surrounding properties. 3. The orientation of the proposed carriage house on the lot means that the side of the building will face the front o£ the lot. This orientation is not dissimilar to that of a home placed on a lot on Ashland Avenue several years ago, which was deemed to be inappropriate and which was ordered removed by the City. The fact that the side of the proposed building would face the front o£ the lot means that the structure, if built, would be totally out of character with any building or either side o£ Portland Avenue on the £ull block and £or that reason alone, ought not to be allowed. 4. The small size o£ the lot in question in terms of square footage and the necessity, because of existing easements to guarantee both pedestrian and parking access across the lot to residents of 415 Summit Avenue, would require some unusual and in the main, unacceptable, £eatures. First, th�e "front" of the carriage house would face and would be, at its closest point, less than £ive (5) £eet £rom Nathan Hale Park, a neighborhood treasure the enjoyment of which would be materially negatively aEfected by the construction. Second, the carriage house, again at its closest point, would be approximately eight (8) £eet from the structure in which my clients' condominium units are located. Third, the ��,�5�� Saint Paul City Council February 23, 1998 , Page Three � , , carriage house structure would be a mere fdur.(4) feet from an enclosed exterior staircase to the basement oE the condominium property at 415 Summit Avenue. The impac of this proximity upon the £unctioning oP the cellar door which must be swung up and out � to access the down staircase is obvious. The mass•and placement of , the Carriage house structure on the lot is unacceptable and presents a clear negative impact on my clients' adjoining property. 5. The footprint o£ the proposed building and the existing two car garage (which because the applicant has £ailed to provide proper paving on the lot is unusable? on the lot arguably exceed the percentage coverage requirements of the local ordinances £or the zoning lot in question. 6. The argument implicit in the HPC sta£f report and £indings that 420 Portland and any proposed structure thereon should be seen as "accessory" to the building at 415 Summit is disingenuous and plainly not true. Though the two properties are historically part o£ the same zoning lot, two distinctions are - relevant. First, the portion of the prior zoning,Tot now known as, 420 Portland never contained an accessory buil'ding o£ the size or residential character of the proposed carriage house/garage. At most,' a small out building was at one time located on the 420 Portland portian of the lot. Second, the properties are now separate and distinct zoning lots, without common ownershig, as a result o£ the 1990 lot split and bear no more or less relationship to each other, in terms of allowed uses, than any two other adjacent properties anywhere in the city. 7. The necessity, because of the parking easements held by my- clients and other owners of property at 415 Summit, Eor providing at least nine o£f street parking places on the subject parcel would require, if indeed it is even possible, such a torturing o£ the zoning code parking requirements as to call into serious question both the desirability and feasibility of the entire project. And, jamming all of that parking and a carriage house onto the lot would negatively impact other neqessary functions such as winter snow removal and storage and trash retrieval which would of necessity need to be performed at a much heightened level i£ a residential struCture were shoehorned onto this lot. - $. As indicated in my letter to the HPC of March 13, 1997, the applicant, Mr. Severson, does not have complete site control of the parcel. In other words, his proposal is premature. My clients have a blanket easement £or pedestrian access o�zer the entire 420 Portland property flowing from the Condominium Declaration which is recorded in the Office of Ramsey County Recorder. At the time of the recording the two parcels were a single zoning lot and Mr. o��,�S� Saint Paul City Council February 23, 1998 Page Four Severson took the property through purchase subject to the easements. While the recorded document allows delineation of the pedestrian easement, as o� this date, Mr. Severson has not chosen to'do so and unless and until he does and unless and until that delineation survives whatever searching inquiry or challenge to which my clients may wish to subject it,._Mr. Severson has no more right to build on the propert� than he does in the middle of a public street or park. Additionally, each condominium unit at 415 Summit, of which there_are four, by virtue of the same recorded doaument, has an easement right to two parking spaces on the property at 420 Portland. These eight spaces are in addition to the off street parking requirements for the lot as a result o£ Mr. Severson proposed construction. On in£ormation and belie£, none o£ the unit owners has waived the requirements: Therefore, given that the applican cannot force any of the easement holders to accept and pay for parking in the proposed carriage house garage spaces, the parcel does not contain su££icient room to provide the parking spaces required by the easement and room to build the proposed carriage house also. Apparently; the HPC was advised by its staf£ no'only that it need not consider the site control arguments, but that it could not. O£ course, that isn't true. Why would the city- waste its. staff time and resources considering a project which because of the easement and variance requirements isn't even presently possible. At a minimum, the appeal ought to be granCed and the matter sent back to the HPC for further consideration when and if the variance and site control issues are resolved. Both my clients and I will be present at the public hearing to ansvrer any questions you might have. Ve tr yo ss, � S. Mark Vaug t Attorney at Law cc Jan Karan -r � Louis C. Sudheimer 439 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Councilman Blakey Saint Paul City Council City Hall 44 W. Kellogg Bivd. Saint Paul, MN 5102 Re: The 5everson's Carriage House Proposal & the FIIPC Appeal Dear Councilman Blakey: ��"� February 25th, 1998 Attached are photostatic copies of a hastily assembled four page petition contauiing the signatures of 39 neighbors, neazly all of whom live within one block of, and literally surrounding the Nathan Hale park and this Carriage House site. 7erry, As you can see, this is a very important issue to many Ramsey Hill Residents. Many of us feel that, on this issae, the Ramsey Hill Association's leadership has made a serious error, and does NOT represent us, or many other neighbors, on their very ill-advised decision to support the appeal of a properly made HPC decision. It is very important that what is constructed on this highly visibie site, right next to a lovely public park and visible to passers-by and tourists from Summit Avenue, our Ciry's Cadillac thoroughfare, be historically appropriate and aesthetically pleasing. Both of the two designs that have been approved by the HPC for this site are excellent solutions, either would be a wonderful enhancement of our City and the neighborhood. However, a very small group (only 5 condo owners) of vocai and well-connected opponents are against � HPC approved proposals. In addifion, ss far as I've been able to determine, the oppanents have no alternative solutions or proposals for this important site that are acceptable w them, their apparent go:il is for nothine to be built This is not a fair posifion of opposition, private land rights are involved here. In addition, the Ramsey F3ill Associazion Leadership's decision to support an Appeal to overturn a valid and carefully considered decision by the HPC is misguided and even worst, it smacks of "insider" influence and favors, as two of the five most acfive opponents are RHA Board members. We urge you to postpone any decision on this matter, unless you wish to deny the appeal for it's obvious lack of ineri� In either event, postponement or denial, we also urge you to assemble a delegarion of both opponents and supporters to attempt to craft an acceptable compromise before this matter comes up to you again through an apgeal of the ZAB grocess. Jerry, this issue is symptomatic of a larger set of historic district issues and City wide issues. Sincerely, Louis C. Sudheuner on behalf of well over 50 Ramsey Hill nnmediate Neighbors 648-7718 � .- c��, � S �7 February 8, 1998 We, the undersigned, want the St. Paul City Council to support the St. Paui Heritage Preservations ��nan;t approval of the carriage house proposal at 420 Portland Ave. because: i) Tlus is clearly a backyard. An au�liary structure (carriage house) is the onty logical and appropriate design for this lot. 2) Mr. Severson has gone through all the steps that are normally expected af a builder. A. He has attained approval of the Preservarion Commission after long consultation with them. B. Iie has attempted to negotiate with his immediate neighbors and has made several concessions to them. We believe that some of his neighbors are now making unreasonable demands. 3) The catriage house design Mr. Severson has proposed is a very good one. We believe it is as good as the beautiful new garage on Summit Court. 4) This design will be a handsome addition to the perixueter of Nathan Hale Park. 5) It is important to the long term viability of the Preservation Commission. � �.3� ��r'��.-� �-� �/z ��° ��-�'.G�6 J �/ � �`' 3�.r`{�� . �� S� 22Z l� Z,� � Z ).� l ) ti�� 6 ��(� �� ". �� } S�: �lz-l.t, � C 2�"�"� � � �� r��-�; 7'��yr� , �36 �ov�l� �� s� �� C;'�u��-� G�� 3� ;�� -� � S� j' ; i '' y . �� ` ,// ��e �� ,��.� �- � ��.� �1 �' �c��M C.,� >�6 f-N�� t� � �� Q-.:.`� Z'2 = ��`f i � ST�� c �-��.-�/ .��n �� 2; �6/ Sv,�"�" -� /^ y_S� �� len�l�"-- � S U.9e5�ef�'+ !7-v� �j� ��u1t �9 / - �.� 5 �' � �.-.�.�.'�� -v-�-`.�.� ss �-�-..._ A�� :, P�\ ��- � 3 S 8 c��ob �� crv��. � � �` • �c<,-�. � � �31 � v 4 L S �'�'�O�c.,,�,�-Cu'-2- 5't` �°t8 . �'(�g� `� , , � � �, �. �'. ��s-��I 1.�r,�-� �--�� . .� /'a��-� .��`I � � � , ��i� —� a!,�.c�-�--� `3 8� 3- ��v� Ct�-e -�{n�,�,.Q a 91.� a_ ��l c��_ �s�? February 8, 1998 i We, the undersigned, want the St. Paul City Council to support the St. Paul Heritage Preservations i,nan;mo� approval of the carriage house proposal at 420 Portland Ave. because: 1) This is clearly a backyazd. An auxiliary structure (carriage house) is the only logical and appropriate design for this lot. 2) Mr. Severson has gone through all the steps that are normally expected of a builder. A He has attained approval of the Preservation Commission aRer long consultation with them. B. Ha has attempted to negotiate with his immediate neighbors and has made several concessions to them. We believe that some of his neighbors are now making unreasonable demands. 3) The carriage house design Mr. Severson has proposed is a very good one. We believe it is as good as the beautifui new garage on Summit Court. 4) This design will be a handsome addition to the perimeter of Nathan Ha1e Park. 5) is ' ortant to the long t viabili of the Preservation Commission. ��, � � �-4'-1 (1 1 --f �- l {-'� C � �j �/`� . �`� � ,��w� _ . ! � �"" �j � ��? �Lt�ilJ �S Z2 --� > �' ')' �� /��z;�,� _ , ��yU,f j�'�v, ,� } � ; � _� � sr�� '��°-�� 3 `� c�. C\ � �'1�-�'cwc'1� ��, �5�� February 8, 1998 We, the undersigned, want the St. Paul City CouncIl to support the St. Paul Heritage Preservations unan;mous approval of the carriage house proposat at 420 Portland Ave. hecause: 1) This is clearly a backyazd. An auxiliary stzuchue (carriage house) is the only logical and appropriate design for this lot. 2) Mr. Severson has gone through all the steps that are nornially expected of a buiider. A. He has attained approval ofthe Preservation Commission after long consultation with them. B. He has attempted to negoriate with his immediate neighbors and has made several concessions to them. We believe that some of his neighbors are now making unreasonable demands, 3) The carriage house design Mr. Severson has proposed is a very good one. We believe it is as good as the beautiful new gazage on Summit Court. 4) This design will be a handsome addition to the perimeter ofNathan T3ale Park. 5) It is important to the long term viability of the Preservarion Commission. � � ��-�' ,� ��-� �, ��;� � ��,.�� o�� y��p��o �,� ��a'`"��'�'� 3 2/0 �.�.�i� 6• /� ✓G (,'? p C �<,�x„"'d' .:,.. . February 8, 1998 ��-3s`7 We, the undersigned, want the St. Paul City CouncIl to support the St. Paul Heritage Preseroations unanimous approvai of the carriage house proposal at 420 Portiand Ave. because: 1) This is clearly a backyard. An auxiliary structure (casiage house) is the only logical and appropriate design for this lot. 2) Mr. Severson has gone through all the steps that are normally expected of a builder. A He has attained approval of the Preservarion Commission after long consultataon with them. 3) 4) 5) l B. He has attempted to negotiate with his immediate neighbors and has made several concessions to them. We believe that some of his neighbors aze now making unreasonable demands. The carriage house design Mr. Severson has proposed is a very good one. We believe it is as good as the beautifixl new garage on Summit CourC. Thia design will be a handsome addition to the �rimeter of Nathan Hale Park. Tt is important to the Iong term viability of the Preservation Commission. � �1 �,�� 1 �.�,� - �� -�-� -, a � `�`r1 _� �� ..��,�- �`�4 ��`�` � � � � h,1cu'� d, u �� p�� 1�i�C�u��i��(�� z�3 ��IS . �l�� d��N� G� � �- � � a�e—. 1�.� A_ l,c, � c� �. � ��}'� n �t�5 �a��,�w..� � �J�c�u. .., � u.� 2� P� �� ` �.5� �� . � ��i ( -►�rl�t,�-. �°� .G-�—�i'YG--�- �ov / S�� q ��- fi . _�='��. ��.- —�— —' - `��'-'- - E —!— - 400 Selby Avenue, Suite M, St. Paul, MN 55102 November 18, 1997 Councilmember 7erry Blakey Saint Paul City Council 310-A City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota SS1Q2 Dear Councilmember Blakey, °� � " �S'� the future ot a historic neighborhood in Saint Pau) At its November 13 Neighborhood Issues meeting the Ramsey Hill Association approved a resolution requestittg that the City Council uphold the aggeal af the 5aint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission decision for property located at 420 Portiand Avenue for the following reasons: 1) the proposed structure and existing garage may exceed the maximum 30% pernutted lot coverage; 2) the necessary vaziances have not been deternuned nor applied for; 3) the proposed paved area is not in keeping with efforts by the city of Saint Paul and the Ramsey Hill neighborhood to maximize green space in residentiai azeas; 4) the proposed front yard parking necessary to meet off-street pazking requirements is inappropriate. ° 5) the Portiand Avenue side does not complement the existing properties facing Portland. In making this decision the foliowing facts carried great influence: 1) This property is a Porfland Avenue lot. At one time it served as the rear yard for 415 summit Avenue, however, the lot split approved on June 12, 1990 created a new residential lot with a Portland Avenue address. The property owner concutred at the meeting. 2) Under the Saint Paul Zoning Code this property has a front yard along Portland Avenue with side yards on the east and west sides. 3) The proposed building is the primary dwelling unit for this address. It is not an accessorv structure for 415 5ummit Avenue, even though the design may incoiporate certain features from the dwelling on Summit. 4) Section 73.06 (n(3) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code (Heritage Preservation Section) states: In the case of a proposed new building, that such building will not in itself, or by reason of its loeation on the szte, materially impair the architectural or hiszoric value of buildings wz adjacerct sztes or in the immediate vicinity within tlze historic preservatiore site. �� - �s `1 The proposed dwelling structure cames non of the front-facing features of other homes found on Portland Avenue or throughout the historic district as indicated by the property owner's diagram entiUed "north elevation" (attached). These features inciude a main entrance facing Portland, a porch typical of the residential struetures in this neighborhood and appropriate architectural detail for the front of a dwelling. TFus is contradictory to the portion of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance referenced above. 4) The proposed sideyard parking is expressly prohibited by the Saint Paul Zoning Code. 5) The pzoposed front yard patking is expressly prohibited by the Zoning Code. 6) The proposed structure is closer to the e�sting garage than the 18 feet required under the Zoning Code. Finally, legal issues were raised at the meeting regazding easement rights owned by persons other than the properiy owners. While they raise questions about site control they were not considered as a part of this decision. These matters aze best resolved in a more appropriate forum. The Ramsey Hill Association believes that the review and approval by the Aeritage Preservation Commission was premature because the applicant does not have clear site control and because appropriate variances have not been applied for. Neither the community nor the Heritage Preservation Commission can make a judgement on the design of the structure without knowledge of where the structure may legally be placed on the site, what variances may be necessary or whether or not the structure may legally built on the site. In this instance the Association believed the Heritage Preservation Commission erred in its decision. The applicant should be encouraged to re-apply for HI'C review when control of the site has been resolved, appropriate vaziances have been applied for and the community review process regarding the variances is complete. On behalf of the Association I want to thank you for your attention to this issue and your continued interest in our neighborhood. / �� McJ�aughlin, Presi t sey Hill Association Ca City Councilmembers District 8 Planning Council Ron Severson ��_� m � N N 0 0 N N 3 ❑ �S N .� � V N � 23 Qo ■ �f a 0 N ❑Q � ❑ � � U � �.IJ W ( L � l V I Z O � ¢ > w . w ° � �� O � z� OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RobertKessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nornr Coleman, Mayor LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUIGD7NG Saite 300 350 St Peter Sveet Saint Paul, Mirmesola SS701-ISIO 23 January 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hail Saint Paul, Minnesot� 55102 Deaz Ms_ Anderson: �t� .:� ��.j. y�, Tekphone: 611-266-9090 Focsimile: 672-266-9099 The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on January 28, 1998 concerning an appeal of a decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission (agenda item #27). The appellants' attorney, Mark Vaught, has requested that the hearing be postponed as one of the appellants will be out of town. I would like to request that the appeal hearing be postponed to February 25, 1998. I have confirmed this new date with all parties involved. The case information is as follows Appel]ants: Tricia Leonard, Greg and Cazol Clark FII'C File: #2884 Purpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to grant approval of a building permit to consiruct a structure with one dwelling unit and four gazage stalls (proposed by Ronald Severson). Address: 420 Portiand Avenue (south side between Summit and Arundel) Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, J f ��`i°yL ��" `�""�� Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Robert Kessler, LIEP Director Charles Skrief, HPC Chair Dauid Heide, HI'C Vice Chair Peter Warner, CAO John Miller Ron Severson Mazk Vaught QFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRON2d�T1'CAL PBOTECTION Raben Kessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemmt, Mayar 5 7anuary 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the Clty Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: 7AWRYPROFESSIONAL BUILDING Suite 300 350 St Peter Street Saint Paul, .LI'mnesota SSIO2-I510 98 �57 2/ Telephone: 612-2669090 Facrimi[e: 61 L266-9099 I would like to request that a public heazing before the City Counci] be scheduled for Wednesday, January 28, 1998 for the following appea] of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision: Appellants: Tricia Leonard, Greg and Caroi Clazk HPC Fi1e: #2884 Purpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to grant approval of a building permit to construct a structure with one dwelling unit and fow garage stalls(proposed by Ronaid Severson). Address: 420 Portland Avenue (south side between Summit and Arunde]) The Heritage Preservation Commission held several public hearings on this matter and voted 11 - 0 on March 27, 1997 to approve 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, �'�'�. �� Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Robert Kessler, LIEP Tracey Baker, HPC Chair Charles Skrief, HPC Vice Chair Peter Wamer, CAO John Miller Ron Severson Mazk Vaught l� i:^ a._ . �.. i .�_..,. :■ Ji��v 6 `f 19Q8 y8- 35'7 From: Aaron Rubenstein To: CCOUnci1.COUNCIL.nancya, CCOUnci1.COUNC2L.marye Date: 12/2/97 11:21am Subject: 420 Portland I sent a letter to Nancy (dated 11 J.971 requesting a public hearing on December 10 for an appeal o£ the HPC approval of a new carriage house at 420 Portland Avenue. Please remove this item Erom the December lOth agenda. I am working on rescheduling the appeal £or December 22 or January 28 (because the HPC needs to act on a formal resolution on the matter on December 11). CC: CCouncil.COUNCIL.jerryb, CCouncil.COUNCIL.gerrym, ... OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTTONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Robert Xessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nonrs Caleman, M¢yor 7 November 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: LOWRYPROFES.SIONAL BUILDA'G Suite 300 350 S� Peter Street Saint Paul, Minrseso[a 55102-I510 98-�5� Zelephorse: 612-266-4090 Facsimile: 612-266-9099 I would like to request that a public heazing before the CiTy Council be scheduled for Wednesday, December 10, 1997 for the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision: Appellant: HPC File: Pwpose: Address: S-i�� ricia Leo.�cvd� Cr��s c.v.� ltcrol L�nu�- .5K #2884 Appeal a Heritage Preservation Comm3ssion decision to grant approval of a building permit to conshuct a two-story carriage house with one dwelling unit and four gazage stalls (proposed by Ronald Severson). 420 Portland Avenue (south side between Summit and Mackubin) The Heritage Preservation Commission held several public hearings on this matter and voted 11 - 0 to approve the requested permit on Mazch 27, 1997. This City Council public hearing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-9087 if you ha�e any questions. Sancerely, � )l f ��"" �� ,,, U '� �"� Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Robert Kessler, LIEP Tracey Baker, HPC Chair Peter Warner, CAO Ron Severson John Miller Mark Vaught OFfICE OF LICENSE, MSPECTIONS AND EIdVIRONMEN'IAL PROTECTION Robert Kessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, MQyor LCJWRYPROFESSIONAL BUfLDING Suite 300 350 St. Pe[er Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-I510 18 February 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota SS 1Q2 98" 3 5? Telephone: 612-266-9690 F¢csimile: 672-266-9099 RE: HPC File #2884: Gregory Clark, Cazol Clark, and Patricia Leonard, appellants City Council Hearing: 25 February 1998 PURPOSE: To consider an appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's approval of a building permit application to construct a new sttucture containing one dwelling unit and four garage stalls at 420 Portland Avenue. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION A TION• Approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval. PUBLIC TESTIMONl': Four people spoke; three of them expressed concems about the project. Dear Ms. Anderson: Gregory Clark, Carol Clazk, and Patricia Leonard, a11 residents of 415 Summit Avenue, have appealed the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) to approve Ronald Severson's plans to construct a new structure at 420 Portland Avenue, which is directly behind 415 Summit Avenue. Mr. Severson's proposa] was reviewed and discussed by the HPC at five meetings. The commission intially held a concept review of the project in July of 1995. A second, informa] concept review occurred in November of 1996. The commission held a public heazing on the proposal on February 27, 1997, at which four members of the public spoke; after some discussion, the HPC laid over the matter. The project was again reviewed at the Mazch 13, ] 997 HPC Design Review Committee meeting and was fmally approved, by an 11-0 vote, at the Mazch 27, 1997 HPC meeting. The design of the proposed project evolved as a result of each of these meetings (as numerous attached plans for the building show). The commission, inadvertently, did not formally pass a resolution approving the proposed project until January 8, 1998 (10-0 vote). The commission's approval of Mr. Severson's pro,ject was appealed by the above-named parties in April of 1997. A heazing on the appeal was held in abeyance pending negotiations among concemed parties (this process was approved by the City Attorney's office)_ Those negotiations appazently were not entirely successful and the appellants have asked for the appeal to go forward. The April 8, 1997 letter of appeal from Mark Vaught, the appellants' attomey, identifies four general q8-35? Ms. Nancy Anderson Re: HPC Appeal / 420 Portland Avenue 18 February ] 998 Page Two grounds for the appeal. The first states that the application, or project, does not conform to the requirements of Chapters 73 and 74 of the Legislative Code; specifics aze not given. Chapter 73 is the ordinance establishling the HPC and its processes, etc. Chapter 74 contains the ordinances establishing historic districts and sites, including the desigi review guidelines for the Historic Hili Disuict in which the subject site is ]ocated. The second and fourth gounds cited in the letter of appeal relate to zoning code requirements and pazking and pedestrian easements; these issues aze not within the jurisdiction of the HPC. T'he third issue cited, front yard parking, is addressed in the HPC's resolution. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on February 25, 1998. Slides of the site will be available at the Council meeting if Councilmembers wish to view them. I have attached the documentation reviewed by the HPC in making its decision. The first group of documents aze those most important to understanding the current situation--a location map, a site plan and elevations of the proposed building, the HPC's resolution, the appeal letter, and two follow-up letters. The remaining documents are those reviewed by the commission at the six meetings mentioned above. Very truly yours, ��-�,� /U�C��,V��y�J Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Attachments cc: City Councilmembers Robert Kessler, LIEP Peter Wamer, CAO Mark Vaught Ronald Severson John Miller Charles Skrief, HPC Chair David Heide, HPC Vice Chair 98-3s � 420 PORTLAND APPEAL: TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 5-12 13-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-28 29-52 53-54 55-78 79-81 82-86 87-102 I. Introduction Area map Plans approved by HPC 3.27.97 HPC resolution granting approval (1.8.98) Letter of appeal (4.8.97) Foliow-up letters conceming appeal II. Information reviewed b��C (in chronological order� Plans--1995 proposal 11.6.96 informal concept review meeting--summary and plans Staffreport and attachments for 2.27.97 HI'C review 2.27.97 HPC summary Materials conceming 3.13.97 HPC Design Review Committee review--cover memo, plans, 1903 Sanbom map, Secretary of the Interior's standazds and guidelines, summary, letter from Mazk Vaught John Miller's 3.21.97 response to Mr. Vaught New information concerning HPC review on 3.2799--cover memo, summary, letter to Councilmember Blakey from Ramsey Hill Association Additional information reviewed by HPG-11.1 ].97 letter to Judy McLaughlin from Mervyn Hough; 11.18.97 letter to Councilmember Blakey from Ramsey Hill Association; 1989 plans for carriage house on same site, approved by HPC, and 1992 revisions � 114111-14 l� � --� o00 0� f�S (� Efl V • �� o o c� CHURtN ME ) C o OQ� o O � � � �� i-� �� - - STat�l � g p o o� {� { U-- � ,� � I ST �t� 5 O 'f 0 l,! • O 7 : �� ' � � � a �� u, �y, � ,o¢oo-�o C7 � °_ ¢ � ° ' 6 o p 'o 0 � o 00000 l�o 000�-� o Po2TC,�v� ��. S�T� -�, � �° `�� _� � 0 0 0 z O � o � b o a � �� •��`�E.., � 0 � � J � '�� : � ,C • �.� ��\ 5 ZX �� o z c� � � 0 . . � �� > O ` � � . � �a� � Z7 �� o � � �N� % 42� ��1ZTt,�t7 APPUCANT- �`^�' `L� �V�l�D1..� PURPOSE �Lh1 �'T fLU�T C1�R2lRtrl N' D�� FlLE # �iQg�._ DATE �: Z�� r � PLNG. DIST�_ MAP # � � SCALE 1' = 200' LEGEND ��. hpc district boundary %////////. . - . .. - 0 one family � two famity ��-Q muftiplefamily Lnorth� .�.a. • • ^ commerciai � �� industriai V vacant �lJ , �v ASPHALT —� � PAVEM �NT �� AP.a0W5 IMDVC4TE �� DRAir1AGE S�OFE ;� [� r� �'' t�,�' EXISTING / j �� pQ LI�CS J �� \ ¢� �' `? � 9� � V� � � < ,�C � R l� \ 420 POR7LAND E. �� > � s� ' ��f: � DRNEwAY . � y P� � � � \ ) � � � ,� O �Jl� . . , � � ,f. �I � q8-357 & r�FS wi IR RAILWG �� I � � e�� u'1 , o e� � i � � Q� P�� f > 2>. I d . � � o , �i '�° 1 J : . I � �� I v . � � .� 1 � �i I cF �9cFC \ � / � o � N � PROPERTY LINE � �o w ( z r� F- I � u d O � a I i w f o�� . i SITE PLAN 1 1116" = 1'-0" `1'�'��J� NEW 7RcE PATIO HEDGE Q�- - — — — — r 90.00' a� ! '�` 5 � 5 � a A ' — � 9� �� NEW AftBOR- � VVTAE TREES BASEMENT �' `-`' STAiRS � �o� r � � �o 415 SUMMIT AVE. PoRCH W N a ` 2 1/2 S50RY � WOOD FRAME BUILDWG � 1 �1 SITE PLAN �� ,�/ r = , 7�� i �L��lS roN 'CH�S �� o�l�Wit�� APPf�� 13 f ��'C, 3•Z'�• 97 � ��°�'� — + I ` h > > �t� / I_ 2.�,�1 r1 L` � l`'i L� 1�.{l�C Z 1 �^. /'� � q8-357 c 0 � W m N 9 N m N m h W N � � � N 1H'J13H 9N^IYjJ 9 m N m � � 00 � ❑O � 1N9i3N `JNil13J w 0 < � U .�b � � � W � W S U � / � ` W � � ` y \ �'^ � � o _ 1 z 0 �=- � � b J -� W '� � U (ll i� w n � 98 � � w � w _ U vi z 0 r- � >_ w� J � W :. r +� cn = u� � � � n � 98-357 m �r �N � 6 �K� WU p O �2p< 'v�o33 e �� o , w N 1 � I O I � � � " I �~ N �i Z � � o �' N O V I N � O � � ❑0 � ❑ �� W W � V / Z O � C > w � w S H � 0 z u 98-3s� U r7 w � W _ U tn Z O � ¢ > w � w 2 H � � N � 98-�s7 r� � �, o � � w �4 w " 0 T o U C/� z Q d L� � � J LL. � z 0 U w � jU 9g-367 , �� c a z C_� M? w �4 �, wo �� U cn z < � � � 0 0 � 11 98•357 I�'! z 0 � a > � J LJ H N 4 w 2 t- C � Z t� 98 -35 7 CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION CONIlVIISSION RESOLUTION FILE NUMBER 2asa DATE 8 January 1998 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to review building permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservarion Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and WHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a carriage-house-]ike structure at 420 Portland Avenue within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District; and WHEREAS, the proposed building site is currently used for off-street pazking by residents of 415 Summit Avenue; there is a two-stall gazage and unpaved driveway and pazking azeas; and WI3EREA5, the Historic Hill District Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the following: III. New Consbuction, A. General Principles: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic Hi11 District is to maintain the district's scale and quality of design. ...New construction should be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setbacl� color, material, building elements, site design, and character ojsurrounding structures and the area. III. B. Massing and Height: New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height and scale of existing adjacent structures. Typical residential structures in the Historic Hill District are 25 to 40 feer high The height of new construction should be no lower than the average height of all buildings on both block faces; measurements should be made from street level to the highest point ojthe roofs. Ill. D. Materiats and Details: ...The materials and details of new construction should relate to the materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferred roof materials are cedar shingles, slate and tite; asphalt shingles which match the approximate color and texture of the preferred materials are acceptable subsiitutes. ...Materials, including their colors, will be reviewed to determine their appropriate use in retation to rhe overall design of the structure as well as to surrounding structures. 777. E. Building Etements: Individual elements of a building should be integrated into its composiJion for a balanced and complete design. These elements for new construction should compliment existing adjacent structures as well. I77. E. 1. Roofs: ... The skytine or profile of new construction should relate to the predominant roof shape of existing adjacent buildings. 771. E. 2. YVindows and Doors: The proportion, size, rlrythm and detailing of windows and doors in new construction should be compatible with that of existing adjacent buildings. ...Facade openings of the same general size as those in adjacent buildings are encouraged. ...Wooden double-hung windows are traditional in the Historic Hitl District and should be the first choice when selecting new windows. III. E. 3, Porches and Decks: In general, houses in the Historic Hilt District have raofed front �� 98-35 7 Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #2884 Page Two porches.... If a porch is not built, the transition from private to public space should be articulated with some other suitable desigrr element. III. F. Site, 1. Setback: New buildings should be sited at a distance not more thwz S% out-of-line from the setback of existing adjacent buildings. Setbacks greater than those of adjacent buildings may be allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at corners. This happens quite often in the Historic Hil] area and can lend detightful variation to the street. III. F. 3. Garages and Pmking: Where alleys do not exist, garages facing the smeet or driveway curb cats may be acceptable. Garage doors should not face the street. If this is found necessary, single garage doors should be used ro avoid the horizontal orientation of rivo-cm gmage doors. Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Resideniial parking spaces should be located in rear yards. ...All parking spaces should be adequately screened from Yhe streei and sidewalk by landscaping, and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon evidence presented at its Mazch 27, 1997 public hearing on said permit application, made the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed building site is a pivotal and difficult site. It is visible from Summit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenue and a public park, and there aze lazge buildings to the south and west that are close to the property lines. This lot can be construed as both the reaz yazd of the Winter House at 415 Summit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed carriage house concept (and "front yazd" parking adjacent to Portland) is a reasonable approach to developing the parcel for the following reasons: a) the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street parking for residents of the WinYer House; b) the parcel has historically been a rear yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appears as a reaz yard due to its relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story carriage house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a building that is very close to the Winter House in proximity and that is related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The W inter House was built on a through-lot with Summit and Portland frontages; the recent subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the Winter House to surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site. 2. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines: a. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, co]or, material, building elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the azea." b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and character would be related to, hut do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integrated for a balanced and complete design. c. Though the side elevation would not be parallel to that of ttie Winter House, the street-facing elevation would be perpendicular to the street like those of other structures on this block of Portland. d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the rear yard nature of the site, the �T q8-357 Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #2884 Page Three carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the historic carriage house on the site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the only other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Western and Arundel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed strucrure. e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nariue of the building. f. Pazking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping. Single garage doors would avoid the horizontal orientation of doubie doors. The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. These sorts of anomalies in design and deve]opment add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district and its chazacter. 3. In addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the federal Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design and materials aze related to and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the Winter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is historic rather than mimics the historic structure and confuses the rivo; and the development would not have an adverse impact on the character-defining features of the site and the azea. The building's design is similar to the rear addition of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appropriate for a new secondary siructure. A new bnilding of unrelated design and materials would detract from the historic integrity of the site; and WAEREAS, though there are, or may be, zoning issues, legal issues, and other issues pertaining to the proposed development, they aze not within the jurisdiction of the Heritage Preservation Commission; the commission must grant or deny approval of permits based on Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code and the district design review guidelines; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation Commission grants approval of a building permit for the proposed structure, based on the revised plans including only the east elevation mazked 3C-1, and subject to the condition that an appropriate crown molding be added above the transom windows. MOVED BY Baker SECONDED BY Aauser IN FAVOR 10 AGAINST 0 ABSTAIN 0 Decisions of the Heritage Preservatios Commission are final, 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 zaning aode requiremenCs, and does not constitute approval for tax credits. 15 9�-357 S. Maxx Vau�Frr anorneyAr Law Suiu 700 Su Wesc Fifrh Saett Saint Paul, Minneson 55102 (612)297-6400 FAX (612) 224-8328 April 8, 1997 Aaron Rubenstein LIEP 350 Saint Peter Street Suite 3�0 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: File #2884 Dear Mr. Rubenstein: On behalf oE my clients Gregory Clark, Carol Clark and Patricia Leonard, all residents o£ 415 Summit Avenue, Saint Yaul, Minnesota 55102; and Laurel Frost and Mervyn Hough, residents of 73fi Portland Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102; each of whom is an aggrieved party as that term is used in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 73.06(h), please consider this letter as the appeal of the aggrieved parties to the City Council, pursuant to the cited section, of the approval of the above-entitled matter by the Heritage Pzeservation on April 27, 1997. The grounds for the appeal are generally as £ollows: l. The application as approved fails to meet the requirements of Chapter 73 and 74 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code relating to design and other functions regulated by the cited chapters; 2. Specifically, the application fails to comply with the Saint Paul Zoning Code requirements with respect to outside storage of trash, snow removal and storage, property line setbacks, provision of the proper number and spacing of parking places on the property, and trafPic circulation; 3. The application contains provisions for a front yard parking lot in violation of the provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; 4. The application violates certain pedestrian and parking easements which attach to the property. My clients have agreed with Mr. Severson to engage in negotiation with respect to the application. All parties have �� q8-357 Aaron Rubenstein April 8, 1997 Page Two agreed to maintain the status quo so long as the negotiations are proceeding. Therefore, though the agreement of the parties calls for my clients to perfect this appeal, they ask that no action be taken to schedule a hearing thereon until such time as the negotiations are abandoned as fruitless. In the event that happens, written noti£ication will be provided to your office. I assume this document is sufficient to perfect the appeal under the cited code provision. If I incorrect, please noti£y me immediately. Please direct a11 neces'sarv written communications and notices regarding this appeal to my o£fice. Very truly yours, ��C� �� :�,� � S. Mark Vaugfit Attorney at Law �� . � � 98�35 ? Warren E Pemrson Ierome P Filla DaniellV�ll Fram Glenn A Besgman Iohn M¢hael Mdler Michael T Obede Kenne[hA Amdahf Steven H Bmns' PaullV Fahning Timothy P Russell Es[herE McGinnis • � ; � a 'Us'F:£�S"S=i;O,N A�i�::94 Swtc { )0 50 East Flhh Street 5[ Paul, MN 55101-I 1�7 1612129I-R��; Ibt?4 2?A-1753 facsimde Aieh'in ) Silvec O( Coun<el Direct Dial ►290-6909 October 7, 1997 S. Mark Vaught, Esq. 6 West Fifth Street, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55102 BY FACSIMILE aHn u.s. �=v RE: Purahase of Property Adjacent to Nathan House & Mews Condominium Our File No.: 11127f950001 Dear Mr. Vaught: I met recently with Ron Severson regarding development of the property to the north of 415 Summit Avenue. Mr. Severson and some of your clients have evidently met a couple of times in order to discuss the situation and try to reach some mutually satisfactory arrangement. According to the information which I have received from Mr. Severson, it appears that at least some of your clients are taking the position that they will not agree to the building of any residential structure on that property under any conditions. If, in fact, that is their posi�ion, there seems to be little use in continued discussions or engaging the services of a mediator. (Please see Paragraph 4 of my letter of March 28, 1997 and your notes of our phone conversation of that same date.) Accordingly, please consider this letter Mr. Severson's notice to you pursuant to your letter of March 27, 1997, that the negotiations appear fruitless and that Mr. Severson will take the appropriate steps in two weeks in order to obtain the appropriate approval.s trom the City to comnlete the project. In the meantime, of course, Mr. Severson and I would certainly be willing to continue meaningful discussions if you or your clients are interested in doing so. Thank you. JMM:cnd cc: Ron 5everson iller Celebrating V � our � V LjJ V v ,� � Anni�ers.u�� •4� 50 42\9`TCD IN \\'ISCO\Si� f / � V 98-35? S. MARK YAUGHT A tt o rn ey At Lau� Suite700 `"- '��! Ci r;i;'�' �^ Six Wut Fifth Stteet '- � - � = � , Sainc Paul, Minnesota SS 1Q2-1420 (612) 297-6400 97 C'r � I w!!; i i� I I FAX (612) 224-8328 October 10, 1997 Aaron Rubenstein LIEP 350 Saint Peter Street Suite 300 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Anolication of Ronald Severson to Construct a Cazriaa House at 42Q Portland Avenue; Heritage Preservation �OG1Yi[iSaiGi1 :7.ie :i0. l. Dear Mr. Rubenstein: By letter dated April 8, 1997, a copy of which is enclosed, a number of my clients, who were affected parties, appealed the decision o£ March 27, 1997 by the Commission in the above- referenced matter. My letter to you of April 8, 1997, mistakenly states that the decision appealed fzom was made on April 27, 1997. The correct decision date is March 27,.1997. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, which decision zvas made _ after cOnsultation with Assistant City Attorney Peter'Warner, the appeal has been held in abeyance while the parties have attempted to negotiate the mattar. On October 7, 1997, Mr. Severson's attorney in£ormed my clients in writing that Mr. Severson was abandoning the furthez negotiations as fruitless. Accordingly, this letter is to request that the appeal be scheduled for hearing before the appropriate body. Upon your receipt of this letter, please contact me or have Mr. Warner do so to arrange for the scheduling o£ the appeal and the submission of additional �a*_�erwork an b�half of mv clients. Ver- uly ours, - � L�� S� Mark Vaught Attorney at Law cc Peter Warner, Esq:,_with enclosure Susan Bergen, without.enblbsure_ Carol and,Greg Clark, without enclosure.,. _,, I,aurel Frost, without enclosure Mervyn Hough, without enclosure . Tricia Leonard, without enclosure John Michael Miller, Esq., without enciosure �y �� 0 , � � ` 'i i � ; � L C n 9 � ; S u � � � O M O S .� b � ' y Y RON SEVERSON : 98-357 .r. � � rn � o- Z � 1 L -�a � � O � � �('� 1 �� N -a --a � �✓ {A)�YGIINY�ONE . x�oc�wts.m+ssnx ' . 612-636•6889 �� 6BB9.9E9'Zl9 O S � a 0 J � s � 3JA'HQIS3N NOSX3i13S NOd A'3'7d 1d3JNOJ z � � � � -i i 1 � <! < � � ' � � d�' �! z! �; �', � Z F c > � w r � 3 i ZI .' y 8-35? Meetin�Sim�maz3' informal concept review mceYing re: 420 Portland Avenue carriage house 6 November 1996 present: Ron Seveison, Bob Limning, David Heide, Charies S1Qie� Aazon Rubenstein smuniary prepazed by Rubenstein Severson presented two designs, one with fow garage stalls facing Portland and a 25' &ont setback and one with four stalls facing west and a 15' &ont seWack (both desigos similar to those now proposed in February 1497 but buildings were parallel with east properiy line and not with Portland). Heide: should Uris cazriage house read as an independent sWcture or resemble the original part of the Winter House or the simpler rear addition? Lunning: could go either way; could entertain good contemporary design tespectCul but not closely related to main building; secondary buildings tended to be simpler; tlus building could be simpler in form and detailing than the front part of the house--that would be more appropriate; these designs try awfully hard--perhaps too hazd--to follow feedhack given at previous HPC meeting. Heide: proposed carriage house is more elaborate than the rear addition of the house; concerned about false historic precedent for carriage house at this location; no sense of pedestrian entry; concemed about quality of unbuilt spaces on the ]ot. Slvief: troubled by gazage doors so visible from Portland--important sUretch of Portland, view &om Portland gerhaps more important than from Sunuuit. Limning: packing court at reaz of 415 Summit, with gazage doors facing west, better than doors facing Portiand from every perspective except view from building to west; nced to look at how to screen and unprove relationship with Portland, be welcoming from Portland--show entrance or pedestrian way. Discussion about pedestrian design connection between building and Portland. Discussion about replica6on/mimicry versus contemporary but compatible design; Heide concerned about false historicity; guidelines seem to ailow either approach. The remainder of the discussion focused on plan B--with gazage doors facing west. Lunning: plan B better meets ]arger neighborhood and public interests; suggested building could follow both east and north properly lines (trapezoidal shape)--building huns perhaps with porch element. Heide: openings not proportionate to scale of building and overly detailed. Discussion about garage doors and type; perhaps set back 1' from wali. Lunning: encoutaged Severson to look at quality of entire space, particulazly for building to the west Heide: second story windows larger than first; what about windows penetrating the comice--lower cornice? Severson: will look at revising plans and getting variance for plan B. Heide: suggested that illustrations, even small iine drawings, showing entire views from park and Portland would be usefiul (carriage house, main house, apartment bwlding, trees). Apartment building to west very close to street, not set back 25'. ZZ � ` -I' -�. . r �• � / /: ,. - �, , � . . ` ;` , - � . , f /� � . � . . . - � , i ,".' .J : l .j Ct ' � ..-..... _t . ;: / G - . � �J` � !J� Q� :_;? : �'�� /`/ �\� d� = f `O l � L o �� , � , / .�: ��` � . /� 1 ," � -��,;,�r ;i /. :;\ � „\ �� / /1 C�-, \, / � ��Sr � ?k � / ,% ��-j ��C i i� �,:, i � �� i c ' / / I ii n 1 \ / � � p�i�aEF.TY Ut:E — _. L -� T 1 ��go ,� Ff.rir w � il I� � � , w ~ � I � � a 0 � a � �� I i i� � A °�T q � 98 35 7 \ � � � S 4i sj OF �%'q � FS � �� . J � � � � � � � \ �� ;:-, 90.00' � �t:52°52'25"E - � I 1 PkOPOSED G4RAGE & -- � LOFT i 25'-0" T - – l { _ ' � - 5ASEMEIJT SiAiRS FOnCH a�s sunnr,�uT AvE 2 1/2 STORY 1NGG� FR4NE BUILOING w � � c� ` o^ I � � �n � � i SlTE PLAN � 1/16" = 1'-0" I 1t��4 /�i�� at,l,ow I N 6� S Pt�G�ES 1�P� pl!�� 8 [l•6•Q6 � �k�i,rc�tkL Gtil�ctPT 2�UI�� / � �� I 1 � � -I � � � I � 4 � o r v 4' �_ J� ' � 9� w ?� J � w a ' 0 � a � w N �O^ �� I �(L U�1 \� '�o;,>, �.s Z3 � 98- 35 7 r �:� � I��; � ;g, � , ��, �;. f ��,; c: � � i � il� ; �d � i /� i 6-.S c V c J 4 j%11 !i r— ' I I I :I ) i{ i�� I I�� i� I I 1 I 1 I I I' I I If � � I � 4 I p y I `1 C I :I I �� b � I� h � i{ I 1 1 I � li N � __ �: , .; 1 �� e ' - i , i , �, @ �� f I '� �' j; � ' �' ! �� , ��1' �, ; � � , " j� I`; � �, � j; �� , I i I !'� ilt � � � _ � � i i �� ° � ' l; ; j i ,----� N �� { ` J i;i�, � � � �l �� i �Hp:3H ONi713� � � 1H0�'3H'JN'113� , ? � C j � i � i �,, f < � w � 0 � � 1 ...b 2� � 98-3s7 z 0 � Q > w � w 2 F-- C � Z / � q8-3s7 , Z; °; W "o J � I:J _ � II � I � � ri � ( 2 �� " 98-3s7 z 0 �_ � > W J W S t � � N 2� � 9�-357 � �� `� � 1 z � J � LL � � � Z� � 98-357 HPC FILE #2884 CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMA�SSION STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: Construct cazriage house APPLICANf: Ronald Severson DA'I`E OF APPLICATION: 2.14.97 DATE OF HEARING: 227.97 LOCATION: 420 Portland Avenue (south side betweea Westem(Summit and Arundel) HPC SITE/DISTRICT: FIistoric Hill IJisfrict CATEGORY: N. A. CI.ASSIFICATION: Major STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 4.23.9'i BY: Aazon Rubenstein A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject site is a flat, dirt lot used for off-street pazking for the residents of 415 Summit Avenue which adjoins to the south. A two car gazage was constructed in the southwest comer of the site 1.3 yeazs ago. To the west is a]azge, four story, brick condominium building and to the east is the triangular Nathan Hale Park. The E. W. Winter House at 415 Summit is a two and one-half story residence constructed in 1882 in a vemaculaz Second Empire sryle and later remodeled in the Queen Anne style. Elements of both styles are evident. A two story reaz addition was consiructed in 1886. Cass Gilbert designed an 1892 remodeling. The Winter House is categorized as pivotal. The structure has a mansazd roof (rear addiuon hipped) with wood shakes, clapboazd siding, double hung windows, and a limestone foundation. In the 1980s, the building was converted into four condominium units. A new, east side, pyramidal ]ripped roof, entry porch was approved by the T in 1987. B. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant proposes to construct a two story "carriage house" residence, with four gazage stalls at ground levei, on the east side of the lot. C. GITIDELINE CITATIONS: The Historic Hill Heritage Preservation Distriet guidelines for design review include the following: III. New Construcdon, R. General Principles: The basic principle for new construcdon in the Historic Hill District is to maintain the district s scale and quality of design. ...New construction should be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setbact� color, materiaf, building elements, site design, and rharacter ofsurroundingstructures and the area. III. B. Massing and Height: New construcdnn should conform to the massing, votume, height and scale of exisdng adjacent struciures. Typicat residendal structures in the Historic Hill District are 25 to 40 feet high. The height ofnew consmrction shoutd be no lower than the average height ofall buildings on both block faces; measurements should be made from street level to the highest point of the roofs. 2y 9'8- 35' 7 HPC Stafl Report: File #2884 Page Two III. D. Materials and Details: ..,The materials and details ofnew construction should relate to the materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferred roof materials are cedar shingles, slate and tile; asphalt shingles which match the approzzmate color and texture of the preferred materials are acceptable substitutes. ..Materials, including their colors, will be reviewed to determine their appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure as well as to surrounding structures. III. E. BuildingElements: Individual elements ofa buildingshould be integrated into its composition for a balanced and complete design. These elements for new construction should compliment eristing adjacent structures as well. III. E. 1. Roofs: ...The skyline or profile ofnew construction should relate to the predominant roof shape of ezisting adjacent buildrngs. Ill. E. 2. Windows and Doors: The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing ofwindows and doors in new construction should be compadble with that ofexisting adjacent buildings. ...Facade openrngs of the same general size as those in adjacent buildrngs are encouraged. ... Wooden double-hung wrndows are tradrtional in the Historic Hi11 District and should be the first choice when selecting new windows. Ill. E. 3. Porches and Decks: In general, houses in the Historic Hidl District have roofed front porches.... Ifa porch is not built, the transitlon from private to public space should be articulated with some other suitable design element. IIZ F. Site, 1. Setback: New buildings should be sited at a drstance not more than S% out-of-line from the setback ofexisting adjacent buildings. Setbacks greater than those of adjacent buildings may be allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at corners. Thrs happens quite often in the Historic Hill area and can lend delightful varration to the street. Ill. F. 3. Garages and Parking.• Where alleys do not exist, garages jacing the street or driveway curb cuts may be acceptable. Garage doars should not face the street. If this is found necessary, single garage doors should be used to avoid the honzontal orientaaon of nvo-car garage doors. Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be located in rear yards. ...All parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping. D. ffiSTORY AND DISC[TSSION: The 420 Portland lot was subdivided in 1990 from the 415 Summit Avenue lot to the south. It is both the rear yazd of the Winter House and a sepazate pucel fronting on Portland, a situation that presents challenges for development--not the least of which is off-street pazking. The 415 Siuumit wndominiums have a pazking easement which requ'ves two parldng spaces in the reat lot for each of the four condominium units (though this requizement can be waived by any condo owner). The current applicant wants to provide nine off-street pazking spaces--two for four units and one for either a condo unit or the carriage house unit The City's off-street pazking requirement for the site would be seven spaces (1.5 spaces x 5 units, rounded down). From a design perspective, a new 3� 98-357 HPC Siaff Report: File �#2$84 Page Three cazriag�house-type strucUUe should 1) be related but suhservient to the Winter House and 2) resemble a carriage house yet be compatible with the grand buildings along Porttand Avenue. The applicant, Mr. Severson, bought the 420 Portland lot a year of so ago and lives in the Winter House. In 1989, the HPC and BZA approved plans for conshuction of a carriage house on this site, wlrich project included one dwelling anit and five gazage stalls in a sort of I,-shaped building and three off- slreet pazldng spaces. In 1992, the HPC and BZA approved modifications to that plan w}uch included two dwelling units in an L-shaped, carriage-house-like, shucture and 14 underground pazldng spaces. In July 1995, the HPC Design Review Committee did a concept review of Mr. Severson's first proposal --to build a three story, mansazd roofed residence with two gazage stal]s. That design was not partiwlazly well received and the HPC chair offered to have a small goup of HPC members meet with the applicant to consult informally and in more detail about the design issues. The fundamental concem eapressed at the July 1995 meeting was that the design started to be a carriage house but wasn't and that it needed a stronger design relationship to the Winter House. The infomzal meeting happened a yeaz later, in November 1996, with Mr. Severson, Bob Lunning, David Heide, Charles Sl�ief, and HPC staff attending, at which time several new designs--related to those now proposed--were reviewed (notes attached). E, kTNDINGS: 1. The applicant is proposing three design schemes for HPC review, all variations on a two story carriage house. Scheme 3X has a) a 25' front setback from Portland in order to avoid need for a setback variance, b) a 36' long building with two double garage doors, and c) two pazking spaces in the front yazd which wouid requ've a variance. The 3X building is smaller than the other two designs, resulting in the cariiage house's bedroom being located in the basement--the applicant's least prefened design. The app]icant may want to add a dormer with one window on north and south elevations of the 3X design. Scheme 3B is a 40' long building with single gazage doors, a 19.5' front setback, and two parking spaces in the front yard. It is the applicant's second choice. Scheme 3A is the applicant's preferred design. It is the same as 3B but with angled, second story overhangs at the northeast and southeast comers. 2. Proposed materials aze as follows. Roofing would be Timberline asphalt shingles, matching the eacisting gazage; the Winter House has a wood shingled roof. 5iding would be dutch lap woal siding milled to match that on the Winter House; wood-shingles in dormer gable ends. Trim and eaves wouid be wood; eave design sunplified from that of Winter House by deleting dentils. Windows would be 1/1 douhle-hung with insulated glass with full scseens--either Andersens with brown vinyl cladding matching color of Winter House windows or, more ]ikely, Marvin wood windows. Doors and entry hood wouid be of woal. Roof ridges would be painted metal with a wooden crown molding and tin balls. Other details: rockfaced block foundation above grade; probabty built-in gutters; paint scheme to match the Winter House; balcony design closely matches those on Winter House. 31 98-35 7 HPC Staff Report: File #288A Page Four 3, Schemes 3X and 3B conform to the disirict's design guidelines. They would be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, color, material, building elements, site design, and character of s�sroundiug structures and the azea. The angle of the building on the site would reflect the relationship of Portland to Sumnut and would mean the carriage house would be squaze with its Portland neighbors. The building elemenu add up to a highly detailed, complex design for a carriage house that could be simplified but is acceptable as is. Tke first story of the north elevation, however, is elccessively blank; the applicant is willing to considet adding small square windows here and in place of ]azger windows on the first floor of the east elevation (possibly then deleting glazing on garage doors). Consideration should also be given to adding these windows to the south elevation. The proposed two pazking spaces set back ten feet from Portland would be acceptable, if wel] screened, given the front yardlback yazd nature of the site. A detailed landscaping plan should be provided. 4. The proposed 3A design, with its angled second story overhangs, is excessively complicated for a carriage-house-type structure. Historic carriage house, though they can be finely detailed, have simpler forms. A cazriage house should look like a secondary structure. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staffrecommends a) denial of the proposed scheme 3A and b) approval of the proposed schemes 3X and 3B subject to the following condition: The HPC or its staff shall review and approve fmal construcdon plans (including added first story, north elevation windows), and a detailed landscaping plan to ensure adequate screening of pazking. 32 GENERAL BUILDING PERMlT - g8 -357 DEPARTMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL �..J u I t..J CTl'Y OF SAINT PAUL 2' I d• J � I OFF[CE OF LICENSE, INSPECf70NS AND � ENVIRONMENTALPROTECIION � BUILDING INSPECf10NAND DES7GN � 350 St Pefer Stree! - Suite 300 � F�t1111t Np, �� Saim Pau( Milmesota 55102d570 672-266-AD90 =OATE' a ��_ipWNE �Oi OWNEfiS ADDRESS- �� L�rII/�I � � ❑ OLO ❑ NEW TYPE CONST. GRADING STUCCOOR ❑ BUf LD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PIASTER ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTER ❑ REPAIR NUMBER l0T STRUC- W'orH TURE ESTIMATED VALUE ' DETA1 LS !� REMRRK$: SIDE CROSSSTREETS A ODITIO N OR TRA SIDE lOT CLEARANCE BUII.DINC HEIGNT ( STORIES 9ASEMENi TOTAL FLOOR AREA YES ❑ NO S�. FT. 1NCLUDEBASEMENT ►ERMiT FEE •�AN CHECK STATE SURCHARGE TOTALFEE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT ALL IN- FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT ALl PERTINENT STATE REGULATIONS AND CITY ORDINANCES WI LL BE COM- PLI£O W ITN IN PERFORMf MG THf WORK FOg i.VVHICH THISPERMiT IS ISSUED. \ A 1.� STATE VALUATION CASHIER USE ONLY WHEN VALIDATED THIS IS VOUR PERM�T St. �¢ _ �1DDRESS; 1]�F1oe==' �_ �3'33 TYPE OF OCCUPANCY ❑ DRYWALL ❑ FENCE e` i � � /^ ` / � , \ \ .. / / I � C9 F \ � C � � & Ait ol � �� PROPERTY LINE � i �� — — wl z � � � �f ai 0 � � 1 I w ( <�'.�j O ^ O O I �� N SiTE P�AN PATIO � \ 9. \ EXIS7ING LILACS ASrHALT —'� �� PAVEMENT HE�GE > � p / �� . . Lll. �,� PRO�OSED GAFEAGE 8� f o � v � LOFT l I � � � � � 2�. ' � f 4 ' O � � � \ ">� � � � � � — -- �--- �� 5�� 9�, > NEW ARBOR- � VITAE TREES BASEMENT '�' STAIRS z � PORCH 415 SUMMIT AVE. 2 7/2 STORY WOOD FRAME BUILDING ' 9 � 0 98-357 � 'QL F (��, � ry� � �O \ r� �) w a 0 � � I w o "' �^ I�° .- n � � � 1 1/16" = 1'-0" �� SC��I�� 3 X (2s' �rwNT s�-��c�J n ' � `EXISTIPJG �E TREE � � <� CO C. VvALK & TEPS W! IR N RAILfNG � �� 98-357 x � w � w _ U cn z 0 � Q > w J W _ }-- � � z C O�S I{rt�lS �y �� o P �- 24 �-��,�� D �� 3� 7 98-3s7 N N� m N W N � N W N X r`� W � W _ C� � 6-.S � N 0 N 1H'J13H � �. ■ � �, 0 a 1H913H pNlll3� v Z O � Q >o � .� �., - � �� 4 � w � 3b �' 98-$s7 . � .� � � 3 � � � �- � x � w � w _ v � � � � � � � �.., � � 3 � z � �' � � z 0 � �_ �i° �., - �� y � m I �JC� NOI1tl�t1Q3 31tl9M3N bL888LEZT9 8£:LL L66IJLZIL� `j y8-�5� x � w � w _ � � z 0 � Q > W J L11 i � � � � 3 � ./-6 9�-35� X � W � � _ U (l) Z O � ¢ > w � w �- � w � 39 � 98-357 ,� � � � � �; �3 � s � n z ,r, r() w , C �^ / N W N T w U � � ¢ � � � U O x za �ad a�ins N�s3a �znomn x sz�z-sse-at9 �v � 4Z�ZL L66ZISt/Z0 / \9• �� O� �J� ,� 0�` � -}. p0 � � � � a V ��,��/ �e e�� S• � � / . � \ � � / F -�'/,s � I C9 � 9 �'F b ( N ^ PROPERiY LINE ' �O J I � � w a 0 � a I � w I O N O � OO � � r M � 1 Exi� °� ULACS � �� ASPHAIT —� �PAVEMENT HEDG� 415 SUMMIT AVE. 2 7/2 STORY N100D FRAME BUi _DING A 98-357 ti0 &O ��FL,� � � 'QO � o EXIS7ING �� < SREE r S ��F� ��k CO C. 4JAlK � & TEPS W/ IR N RAILING & ATE �, EXI , LIL i• � o � �, vi � � o ! � � I � I � � � -1- I "v `D __- ._- -----_.__. � w� z J H � w a 0 � a� �., � {o ( �o � n � � SITE PLAN � ' � �� ` � � ,i, s° _ , �—o° � 4c�4eN�� 3f� �to 3i� ((9.5 ��as�c S£T�i�LI�.� ,, ?�" Ji 4. � O Q / Q� NEw' TREE PAf10 X� � / \> � / .\ � \ \ � > �j \ � / �\/ � � � p � � � / � 4r ) i �� Pp�� Q V C" �' // �� NEW ARSOR- VITAE TREES BASEMENT —� STAIRS FORC ��i i, ¢� X, 9d'-357 m �� w S W � C� v7 z U � Q > LL, _ J p w i 2 � F U � : � � Z n � � w z � 0 v 4 � � � G'1 � � / � 98�35� N� m N m N N N � � _ � - _ 6 w a 1H013H ONlI13� . _ 1H913H 9NI113J c�i .b �� W � W S U � z O f"' Q J o Ll_1 " � II � iD W M �3 l� g8-3s-r m � w � w _ � � z 0 �_ Q > w � � _ �- � 0 N � ; � � , q8-3s7 � � W � W _ U � Z O F= Q > w � � � � � � �7 ,� 98-3� 7 � e � � W T � N W o � ? C� C/� ^�, ;:, � Z Q 6 ' J � � � L1- fl ab O b • � M �f � n � ^ Q V, � � �. �' + �' r . n T0 39Cd Q�If1H N�J53Q FpIftOfYVt £L£Z-8£S-Ei9 51 i � ��:;, ��}� 46 �.?:. Y� . 9Z�ZL�i L66I/Bi/Z0 �'f � 98- 3s � Q w � w _ U � Z O r= Q > w J W _ � � Q Z s � w � 0 � Q � � � d � �� 98-35 7 Q � w � � � � �.,-� z 0 � Q > w J W i�- � Q W - 1 V � V Q � � � 0 � � _ 3 a 0 r- � r v lLJ � Li..l _ U (I� O a � w w' t— Q W i 98-�57 0 u i� i � U.� � � �L' � lJ� � !— 3 �� J � �� / Z0 39dd 85�LL L66T/LL/Z0 q�. y M.. ,. F: � NO21G�43 31C�JM3N �: - bL808L£ZT9 r, 98- 3s � Q � � � � _ V z � O � Q > � � w _ F- � O � ,�D � gg-35� � � W � W z � � z 0 � a > W � W � � W � �l �-3" �18 357 Q � w �4 w� z� U � Z Q J C L.l. � � � 52 ?� 98-3s � HPC Meeting Summary / 2.27.9� re: 420 Portland AvenuefFile #2884 Construct new carriage house applicant: Ronald Severson summary by Aaron Rubenstein Rubenstein showed photos and slides of the site; mentioned that he had notified 436 Portland residents of HPC meeting and they notified 415 Summit residents; a neighbor had raised issues of trash storage, 6'-lugh fence vs. landscaping, and locarion of ninth paddng spot. Baker asked for clazification that staff recommends appmval with smaller first Aoor east windows; Rubenstein responded `�es". Albers asked about screening and landscaping requirements. Severson said he plans to live in the cazriage house, wants to withdraw plan 3A from consideration given staff ob,jection to it, and is open to HPC's design suggestions. Hazgens: likes scheme 3B with single garage doors and smaller fust story east windows. Severson: would like IiPC approval for both 3X and 3B designs given the uncertainty about getting a frrnrt setback variance. Slvief: pointed to informal concept review swnmary on p. 25 of packet, which suggests some problems with the proposed designs; designs aze too elaborate given the nature of the building; also concemed about relationship with the park, especially the balcotry--the building should be a restrained backdrop, have better manners. Heide: concurs with much of Skrief's comments; still confused by what the building is hying to be and its relationship with the e�sting building; his wmments from the 11.6.96 meeting still apply. Chair Baker asked for any public comment. Gary Ballman, Ramsey Hill Association representative: RHA has not had a chance to foimally review the proposal and he invited Severson to neat RHA boazd meeting. Cazol Clazk, 415 Sununit: owns existing gazage; new gazage spaces would be � she has problems bacldng out of gazage because of tight lot; condo association was not informed of HPC meeting; listed a number of concems; unplications for condominium legal documents; she catmot use existing gazage as there is no paving. Rubenstein inteaupte3 and said the concems of Ms. Clazk and other neighbors about legal issues, Mr. Severson's handling of the process, and other non-design issues are valid concems but not appropriate to discuss at the HI'C; the HPC deals with design issues addressed in the district guidelines and must make a decision based solely on the design guidelines. Laurel Frost, 436 Portland: subject lot is not a front and rear lot--it is a front lot; a building cannot be a main and accessory building; believes this is a main building. Mervyn Hough, 436 Portland, president of Nathan Hale Park Condominium Association: west elevation and landscaping do not take into accoimt their situation; has a problem with the concegt; concemed ahout landscaping, gazbage and screening; wants four single garage doors and wants plans to be follow i.e., changes require approval. Severson responded briefly. Albers: documents not adequate for permit approval, especially for approval of two schemes. Frame: concurs with Albers, particulazly inappropriateness of approving two different plans. Heide: proposed building is intended to represem a historic carriage house that was never there, blurs what is historic and new. Hargens: agrees with Heide; a pivotal and difficult site; moved layover. Albers: suggested denial of pemilt--plans not sutliciently detailed. Frame seconded the layover motion. �3 98-3s� FIPC Meeting Summary / 2.27.97 re: 420 Portland Avenue/File #2884 Page Two Hazgens: there are other, broader issues [besides design] to be resolved Kubenstein: it is reasonable to review and act on two design schemes givea difficulty and imcer[ainty of the development process; HPC should avoid non-design issues and, whether layover or denial, should be cleaz about reasons for action. Hazgens: the design of the building is ambiguous. Lazson: supports layover rather than denial. discussion about layover to Mazch 13 Design Review Committee meeting. Motion to lay over passed 10 - 0. �� q8-357 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Ma}ror MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: HPC Design Review Committee Auon Rubenstein � �� 420 Portland 10 March 1997 OFFICE OF LiCENS$ A'SPECITONS AND EN VII20NMENTAL PROTEC.'TfON RobertKus(er, Diruwr IAWRYPXOFFSSIONAL BUD.DA'G Suite 300 3505[ Petsr Sfreet Saint Pau� Minreesom 55102-I510 Telephone: 612466-9090 Faanmile: 672-266-9099 Todd Bradley has prepazed revised elevations for the 420 Portland carriage house. Because of the pivotal, highly visible natwe of the site, Chazles Slvief would like to have the Design Review Committee review and discuss the revised plans on Thursday and then have the full commission review and vote on the project on Mazch 27. The revised elevations show a simplified, hipped roofed design Included are three versions of the east e]evation, a north elevation with fsst story windows added, and two variarions of the west elevation. Mr. Bradley has stated that the revised design is meant to reflect the reaz wing of the 415 Swnnut building and could be fiuther distinguished from the main building by simplifying or eliminating moldings and possibly by changing some materials. I have included in this packet the information from the February 27 HPC meeting, a summary of the February 2? discussion, copies of earlier plans for the site FYI, and a 1903 Sanbom insurance map section showing that a two-story out building was located at the northeast corner of the lot. (A 1901 Rascher map labels the outbuilding as 1.5 stories; both maps provided by Tracey Baker). Also included are seven pages from the federal Secretary of the Interior's standazds and guidelines with references to distinguishing between new construction and historic structures. I would like to point out that these guidelines are not included in the guidelines for any of the local districts and perhaps ought to be. I expect this might be a more contentious issue in the neaz future (re: Lawel and Mackubin}. �� 63I07/1997 02:34 612-338-2323 VIiJOVICN DESGN BUILD PAGE �_� � C_i r7 W � � W � T U (n z 0 � Q w °; �. w� � ,� �� u M �6 03/07/1997 02:34 612-33 a VUJOVICH DESGN EUILD PAGE 03 9� 3s7 L� � W ^ �a � x v c_� � z U � d 5 w � N w �� n � ., �� >t ' ' , t 03/07/1997 02:34 612-338-2323 UUJOVICH DESGN BUILD PAGE 64 q8-35� �� w� �� W z � > �- � z o� � � � w � w � � � � r��' .. ,. . , 03/07/1997 02:34 _ , -� j S 612-338-2323 VUJOVICN DESGN BUILD , M U 1 J w � w z U C/) PAGE 05 98-35� Z. O �- ¢ � � � � � O � � �� a ; � Sy 03/07/1997 02:34 612-338-2323 VUJOVICH DESGN EUILD _ , PAGE 66 98-�35 � � � � w z �} � � ;i;; �� (, i. � 0 Q! > w w ti � Z a n a :� � , 03/07/1997 02:34 612-338-2323 _ VLUOVICH DESGN EUILD PAGE 07 � ''' � � 98�357 .a� , �� ; :.;. k •�: =�� : , , Ej �� ; �� .ti � N � N � � N N r � � �� d�❑ � � ❑�❑ � r 1 ` 1�' \\ (�� ❑ � � \ ` 1 � � ��(c��❑ �� .� o�� oo�� a � ❑ �I� � � � ,� �o o�❑ w , �� ❑C1�.`�.. � ,, � .. � � . �� 03107(1997 02:34 �-, 612-338-2323 VUJOUICH DESGN BUILD PAGE 88 48-357 b �,, U � W � W � V V� � Q � � �, �� ' °.r �. , ' � {li'' aq �!- z 0 � Q � w w � w }� 5 ; C 'l� r . . ''__'_ ' _ ' _ ' _ 's _. _ _ ,. '_ - _ — ' __" ' ' ' - _ _ —__ _ __'_ '_ __—__ _- _ -r•--- --:.,: , _ , y �,_._ - --- -- -t-�— - ---- `0�-=�_._ . =-- ---- --� � i =r°�- - ----- -_ _ _�- -�_e=— N-Ab' - Nb31S3M.----- �� - �— _�-- � - -- r-= Fg �R-=-=- :: �:.-�.-, . • .e � ` � �� . � � - . - _ � : i � " � - -- __ , �: L_� �� —_ � - ' _ � -' � -- -- - - ' - c•--. - -- -"--- -�� `. - — ��"° .t =__ "- -."-- ,_�.— ,�: -- - - - -- . — -. - �: . �: �� . Yo�� " _'_ _ _ �� _— _ �._--„ _ __ _ ' 9� e t ' .� �.. ' - �g� i �---- . �� `__— -��_ ' _ '_ _—`— ±� � �4 "� '. i" — , _ ' f • b ♦ V.ts:_ i � � ,� � - � � ``\ � � ^�� r � � � _ �.° .� `'� i � : r» ; .� I _,-... __.. . . — '__ ___'__ ,- ' � , -- - - - � � . .;�� Y _ i .:. -----' �— _«__ _ - . --- - - - - r ♦ . - :._-. � � -- � �, ♦ ' ' - --- - -- ---- •^ m C -- --- -�---- - – � � - — - _� r . " `` � i . : � � ' �r. �� . __. __..._:. ... _. � -- - � --- -� � ,0 - -.... - ' - - --- --- - - - - - � : � , . - °� � . . _ �__ . ---�--=---•- --�— — - 1]' � i � �ti �, �. Q ; .�' • -- O ' a+ - �{ ^ _— ' �� i �4'= . � ----- —�---= -- -----y-- -- .J � d.0. - �J�-- \i 3' p y �___ _ O . . . . _ _ _ '. .— ' � __ .' _ _"' "_' ' ? � � � � ¢ � 1 .p P'�a 0 - _ 1____.—'__'___ ____ _ _ . -, ..-:_ _-__ _ .. ___ _ _ __ - _ .'–.. . ._�c._�_ -� - --- - ---�–' ------• � -- - . ` � ---- - -' - Z 1 � . . . — ' . .,�-' . . " '0 __. _ 0__–..– � __ ___.__ --. __ _.– `➢ g -�:_ i—= �___ _____ ___- — � _ - -- - � � �- �_ --- --_ ---- o S� t N � -' — — — — -- a,— — -- r - -- -- -- -- — - — -- — � - — 0- --_-- o � _. � _ — a • —�__--_ � O . i-- -- -- —..-.--- ------ >---- -- �----- — - 4 �' - .o. =+ 1 0 a -_ -- � � I � � ' ° �'�'- - _ _-- - @` - -�_ �L?s=_-� - -- � . \ � - - � _— - - o . �� F \ ` . 0 � � ` Y� ' �d 1Vi 4� N _—___ __--1—_-_ _ c� , O� _� " . . � 2 ' o``o\> O� i< _ � ________ � � 1� . _ _: �. . �� P c; � • _ S0 � r 4 --- _i�_- _ � o z `�=' -- �a N —._" � _" __ .______' _ ___—_-- _ O 'l m -_ -__ _ __ __ __'_ � . .. , 0� __._�i'/" _—�-� ^+ 4�• i � ' � _ - _____�_ --_ _-_ _" _ �- -_ �f___ "_" -_"- _ __' _ �'" /� _ . . . L � T t _..:. o'. ➢ � . . ' ��__ � _' " ' _ _ ' _ . 0 ` ��o ._�..; _ _ �1N.� � . .� . Q �— � .� ..:;_� :-q`� o �.:�,..,._. � � � ,� :. ..a:_.,.,:._. - `i' " � ,,�, �-ri�,_.,_-.. . � 4 ' � � . '`�� a. ;°>:..�_ ' - � , � � A _ ► 0 1 . N J � � — �� . t ar at_ � '�� - - --- i.- _ - 1 � z •� � - -= - -. : ; .:�:��_ _-_.____._ea�� 1�1f-i�F/= = m �__- = z -- ` � N � - - v�ca=cvv ' ' . j, i£ 61 /Z � 6 � ; / � . ` � S/ 1` '.- _�..� - _. . �� " _ ' / p�_. . ' - '0. - -. : ;--- ,----, � ,-x. , -- - -� ----�- .� b3 ! � N Q e t N [� * r� �� x .\'. �- i � CF.0. OFFICE OF LiCENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVtRONMENTALPR07ECTtON Ro6estKusler, Dirutor CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co]eman, Ma}ar FAX MEMO To: From: Date: � � ��z�� ' `�; r;. �� i lr fax tel Aaron Rubenstein tel 266-4Q87 fax 266-9099 �� d�! 1 Total pages including cover memo: C� J Message: � �� ./ ��S�Y ��.'�,� I � l.�`�� i ��.`:� �'' h 1 � (! IAWRYPROFESSIONAL BUIIDA'G Suite 300 3505[ PeterStreet SaintPaul Minnesota 55101-I510 1� ��1.� ��v�- �`�" � ��, J 5��-�G �� ( ?elephone: 6I L266-9090 Factimile: 61 b2669099 � '' i ^ , 1 Y s 1' �,, -1� p �� h�,� �,�,: t' l /�/��/ ,� ��/� _ I �� / �. ♦� • �� ..� -y � ^� , .> ; J � � � „T ,v . - � � � g,� ��/Y[':_c�1- , ,_. 7, � i, _� ��.',��:R�� _� �: �.. � . - _ " 98-35 7 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Preservation Assistance Division �! n Washington, D.C. � 'f 'i � For We 6y tLe Superin�endent of Documenn, U.3. Oovemmeat Prin[in6 Othee Wuhington, D.C. ROW2 �/ � q8-357 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION Thr tnllowing Swndar3s am tobe applie�i to spetific rel+abiBtaHon projects in a reawnable manner, taqng into considerofinn economic and txhmcal Ra>ibilitv. Ul A pmperty shal! be used for its historic purpose or be piaced in i new use Nat requim miniwl clunge ro the deEining chancteristics of the building and its site and environment � (D The historic chancter of a pmperty shali be renined and preserved. The rcmovai of historic materiais or altention of feacutes and spaces that chancterize a property sluli be avoided. �(y l31 Each property shall be eecognized u a physical record of its fime, place, and use. Changes that a�erte a false unx of historical devdopmenl, such K u adding conjectunl featum oz archilectunl demm4s from other buildings, sha11 not be undertakm lil Most propenies change orer 6me; thox clunges thaf have acquircd historic significance in U�eir own right shal I be refained and preserved. (5) Disiinctive featuces, finisha, ind mnstmction techaiques m enmpVn of rnftsmmship that chancterize i historic property shill be preserved. 161 Deterionted historic featum ehall be rcpaind nther tiva ttplaced. Whue the severity of dHeriontion rcquircs replacement of a distinctive feature, the new featurt sha31 match thc o1d in design, mloq te:ture, and othervisual quaiities and, whae possible, materials. Repiacemmt of missing featuxxs shall be substantiated by documenfary, physical, or pictorinl evidmce. l� Chemical or physicat txatments, such u sandblasting, that duu damage to historic materials ahall not be used. The surfa<e cleaning of shuo- tures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gmtlest means possibie. � (SI Signific�nt archtologiai resources affected by a project shall be protened and prcxsved. lf such resources must be disturbed, mitigation meas� urn shali be unde�ken. 191 New additions, esterior altentions, or rclated new construction shall not destmy historic materials that chancterize the property. The new work �� shall be differcMiated from the old and shali be mmpatible witA the msssing, sizq scale, and architectunl featurzs to protect the historic integrity of the property and its envimnment. _ L 1301 New additions and adjacent or rtlated new construction shall be und<rtaken in such a manncr that if rcmoved in the futurt, Ihe essential form �� and integrity of the historic pwperty and its rnvironment would be unimpaittd. i � 98-357 As stated in thr drtiniN��n, thr treatment "mhabilitation" assumr that at least enme rcpairor alterahon af the hutoric building will br n�edid in ordrr tu provide tot nn etiinmt nmtrmp�e�nrv use; hnwever, these rrpa¢s and alteranon must not damage or dcstmy m, terials, fratures or finishe� that arr �mportant m denning thr buiiding> hisroric character. Far rxampie, certain treatmrnts—if improperly applied—may ousr or amleratr phvsical detr� rioradun ot hL<tont build[ng Thu can indude using impropet rcpomring or extmor masonry cleaning tethmques. or mhoduring insuWtinn that damages his�uric hbrio ln almmt all nt these situations, use of thc�e materiaLt and treatmmts will result in a projecY [hat dnes not mert the Swndards. Similartv, eaterior alditiom' that dupticate the form, mat�Riai. arnf d�Kailing nf the stiucture to the e:tent that they comprumisc the historic cfiaract�v nf � thr structure wili tail tn meet thr Stand. rds. Technical Guidance Publications The National Park Serv�ce. U.S. Departmen[ of thr Interior, mndutts a variety of activitirs to guide Fedrrai agrnaes.5tates, and thr genrral pubhi m historic prrservatinn pm�ett work. In add�tion to c�tabluhmg sLindard> anJ guidrlines, the Service develops, publishcs, and di�tribuhs [echmcal intomwnun on appropriate pttxrvatiun trea[ments. in<luding Pre�ervahon Briefs, caae �tudies, and 1'reservatiun Tech Notes. A Catalug of H�storic Prrservation Publicatinas with shxk numbers, prices, and ordering infurtnation may be obtaine+i by writing: Presrrvatinn Ax��s- Wnce Div�s�on, Trchnical Prcxrvanon Services, P.O. Boz 37127, Washington, D.C. 20013T27. �'= "1 �� i I 98-3s� ess of carefully documenting the hutorical appearance. Where an important architectural EeaNre is missing, its recovery u always recom- mended in the guidelines as the fi•st or preferred, course of action. Thus, if adequate historical, pictorial, and physical documentation exists w that the featurn may be accurately reproduced, and if it is desireable to re<stablish the feature as part of the building's historiwl ap- pearance, then designing and constructing a new feacure based on such info�matwn is apprapriate. However, a second acceptable option for the replacement feature is a new design that is compatible with the remaining chacacter-defining featum of the historic building. The new design should always cake into account the size, scale, and material of the historic building itself and, most importantly, should be ciear(y dif- terentiated so that a faLse historical appearance ss not created. Alterations/AddiHons to Historic Buildings Some exterior and intedor alterations to the historic building are generally needed to assure its continued use, bue it is most important that such alt�ations do not radicafty change, obscure. or destroy chazattec�efining spates, materiats, features, or finishes. Alterations may in- dude providing additional parking space on an existing historic building sire; cutting new entmnces or windows on secondary elevations: m- sercing an additional floor, installing an mtirely new mechanical rystem; or creating an atrium or light well. Alreration may also include the selective removal of buildings or other features of the environment or building site that are intrusive and thereEoce detract Erom the overall historic character. The const�uction o( an «terior addition to a historic building may seem to be essential for the new use, but it is emphasized in the gufdelines that such new additions should be avoided, if possible, and considered only aEter it is determined that those needs cannot be met by altering � secondary, i.e., non characterdefining interior spaces. IE, after a thorough evaluation of interioz solutions, an exterior addition is still judged � to be the only viable alternative, it should be designed and constructed to be clearly differentiated from the historic building and so that the character-defining teatures are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed. Additions to historit buildings are rcferenced within specifit sections of the guidelines such as Site, RooE, Structurel Systems, etc., but are also considered in more detail in a separate section, NEW ADDITIONS TO H15TORIC BUILDINGS. Health and Safety Code Requirements; Energy Rettofi[ting These sections of the rehabilitation guidance address work done to meet health and saEety code requirements (for example, providing barrier- free access to historic buildingsJ; or retrofitting measures to conserve energy (for example, instaliing solar collectcn in an unobtrusive loca- tion on ehe sice). Although this work is quite o4ten an important aspect of rehabilitation projects, it is usuatly not part oE the ovecall Qcoce:s ot protecting or repairing character-defining features; rathea such work is assessed for its potential negative impact on the building's hisroric charattec Por this reason, part�cular care must be taken not ro radically change, obscure, damage. or destroy character-defining materials or features in the process of rehabilitation work to meet code and energy requirements. 30 ! / y8-357 BUILDING SITE Recommended Nof Retommersded ldentiFying, retaining, and preserving buildings and their features `' Removing or radically changing buildings and their features or site as wetl as featutes ot the site that are important in defining its �C features which are important in defining the overall historic overall hisroric character. Site features can indude driveways, �Y character of the building site so that, as a result, the character is walkways, lighting, fencing, signs, benches, fountains, welis, ter- diminished. races, canal systems, plants and trees. berms, and drainage or io- rigation ditches; and archeological Eeatures that are important in defining the history of the site. /y Retaining the historic relationship between buildings, landscape f �� features, and open space. Protecting and maintaining buildings and the site by providing proper drainage to assure tltat water dces not erode foundation wails: drain toward the budding; nor erode the historic landstape. Removing or relocating hisroric buildings or landscape features, thus destroying the historic relationship between buildings, land- scape features, and open space. Removing or relocating historic buildings on a site or in a complex of related hisroric stmctures—such as a mill wmplex or farm—thus diminuhing the historic charatrer ot the site or mmplex. Moving buildings onto the site, thus creating a false historical ap- pearance. Lowering the grade level adjacent to a building to pertnit develop- ment of a forme:ly below-grade area such as a basement in a man- ner that would drastically change the historic relahonship ot the building to its site. Failing ta main[ain site drainage so that buildings and site features are damaged or destroyed: or. alternatively, changing the site grading so that water no lon,ger drains propedy. i5 The re]ationship between a historic building or building and landscape features within a property's boundaries—or the building site—helps to deEine the historic charocter and shouid be considered an integral part of overall planning for rehabiliWtion project work. � � 98-357 BUILDING SITE (<onnnutd) Ttrc following work is highGghted to in8iate that it represents tf�e Particu3uly compSez technical ar design upects oE ttFubilitation proiett work and shouid oniy bt comidered after the preservaHon concems listed above have becn addressed. Recommended Not Recommended Design for Missing Historic Famtes Da�ing aed castrueting a new [adm d a bmlding or site � w}en the histolic fatuie is eovip3etdy a�nde8. wch as an outbuilding, eejrace, a driveway. It may bc ba�ed on fiistorical. Pietorial, and phyaicil doeimrcntation: a bt a smw de�igi that a eomytibk with tF�e histocie eharxeQ af drc buildinB atd aee. � Creating a false historical appearance berause the replaced feature is based on insufficient historical, pictorial, and physical documen- htion. y Introducing a new building or site feature that is out of scale or �\ otherwise inappropriate. Introducing a new hndscape feature or plant material that is visual- ly incompatible with the site or that destroys site pattems or vistas. Alterations/Additions ior the New Use Dni�in8 new oiuite parking, loadin6 docka, a rampt when tequired bY the new use w lhat they aee as unob4vaEve as posible and asswe the pt'xrvation of durathr-defining L•eatu[o of the sitt. Pladng parking facilities directly adjacent to historic buildings when autamobiles may cause damage to the buildings or 4andscape hatures or be intrusive to the building site. Daig�ing new ezterior additions to (tistoric building+ or ad- Introduring new construction onto the building site which is visual- � jacent new construRion which b compaHbk wich the historic � ly incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, materials, color and �2uraeter of the site and which p�serve the historic rdation- tezture or which destroys hisroric relationships on the site. ahiP herivem a building or buiida�gs, lud�cape featurts, and oPm sPM• Rmaving nocbig�tificant bui)dic�, additiorn, or aite �feahvss which detact hom the historie cFuracter of !he s4. Removing a historic building in a compiex, a building feature. or a site feature which is important in defining the historic charocter of the site. 48 � O �j�-35� DISTRICT NEIGHBORHWD knntinurJ) The following work is highlighted because it represents the partitularly complex technical or design aspects o! rehabilitation projects and should only be ronsidered after the preservation concerns listed above have been addressed. Recornmended Not Recommended Design for Missing Historic Features Designing and construtting a new Eeatute oE the building, streetscape, oz landscape when the historic feature is com- pletdy missing, ruch as row house steps, a porch, strcetlight, or temce. St may be a testoration based on historicaS, pic- torial, and physical docvmentarion; or be a new design that is compatible with the historic character of ehe district or neighborhood. � Geating a Palse historical appearance because the replaced (ea[ure is based on insufficient historical, pictorial and physical documen- tation. Introducing a new buiiding, streetscape or landscape feature that is out of scale or ocherwise inappropriate to the setting's h�stonc character, e.g., replacing Qicket fencing wich chain tink fencing. Alterations/Additions for the New Use Designing requ'ued new parking so that it is as unobtnuive as possible, i.e., on side streets or at the iear of buildings. "$hared" parking should also be planned so that several business can utilize osu pazking area as opposed to imtoduc- ing random, multiple lots. Placing parking facilities direcdy adjacent to hisroric buddmgs which tause the removal o! historic plantings, relocation ot paths and walkways, or block�ng of alleys. Designing and constiucting new additions to historic buildings when requircd by the new use. New work shrnild be compatible with the hisroric charocter of the district or neig}�borhoad in teruLS of siu, scale, daign, materiat, color, and t�ture. Removing nonsignificant buildings, additions, or stteetscape and landsupe features which detract from the historic character of the district or the neighborhood. introducing new construction into historic districts that is visually incompatible or that destroys histonc relationships w�thm the district or ne�ghborhood. Removing a historic buildmg, buildmg feature, or landscape or streetscape feamre that is important in deFining the overall hisronc character oF the distnct or the neighborhood. 51 7� q�-357 NEW ADDITIONS TO An atwched ezrerior addition to a hisroric building ezpands its "outer Iimits" to create a new pro- HISTORIC BUILDINGS ��e. Because such expansion has the capability to radically change [he historic appeazance, an exterior addition should be tonsidered only after it has been determined that the new use cannot be wccessfully met by altering nonKharacter-defining intcrior spaces. If the new use cannot be met in this way. then an attacfied exterior addition is usually an atteptable altemative. New additions shuuld be designed and constructed w that the character-deFining features of the historic building are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process o( rehabilitation. New design should always be dearly differentiated w that the addition does not appear ro be par[ of the hisroric resources. 2ecommend¢d Placing tunctions and services required for the new use in non- characterdetining interior spaces rother than installing a new addi- tion. Not Recommended Expanding the size of the historic building by constructing a new addition when the new use could be met by altering nontharacter- defining interior spaces. Constructing a new add�tion so that there is the least possible loss of historic materials and so that character-de£ining features are not obscssred, damaged, or destroyed. Locatmg the attached exterior addition at the rear or on an in- conspicuous side ot a historic building; and limiting its size and scale �n relationship to the historic building. Attaching a new addition so that the character-defining features of the historic building are ubscured, damaged, or destroyed. Designing a new addition w that its size and scale in rela[ion to the histonc buildmg are out ot prapartion, thus diminishing che historic charatter. � Des�gning new additions m a manner that makes dear what is�j Duplicating the exact torm, material, style. and detailing of the historic and what is new. 7J� hisroric building in the new addition so that the new work appears �, to be part ot the historic building. � Imitating a historic stvle or penod of architxture in new addit�ons, especially for contemporary uses such as drive-in banks or garages. 58 �Z q�- 357 NER' ADDITION5 TO HISTORIC BUILDING5lcunnnuedl Rerommended � Considering [he attached exterior addition both in tertns of the new use and the appearance of other buildings in the historic district or neighborhood. Design Por the aew work may be contemporary or may reference design motifs Erom the hiscoric buifding. in either case. it should always be dearly differentiated Erom the hisroric building and be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relation- ship ot wlids to voids, and cotor. Not Recorrtmended Designing and constructing cew additions that resu{t in the diminu- tion or loss of the hisroric character of the resource, induding i�s design, materials, workmanship. location, or setting. Using the same wall plane. roof line. comice height, materiats, siding lap or window type to make additions appear to be a par� ot the his[oric building. Placing new additions such as balconies and greenhouses on non- characterdefining efevations and limiting the size and scale in rela- tionship to the historic building. � Designing additional stories, when required for the new use, that are set back from the wall plane and are as inconspicuaus as possi- ble when viewed Ezom the street. Designing new additions such as mulcistory greenhouse additions tfiat obscure, damage, or destroy character-deiining Peatures ot the his[oric building. Constructing additional srories so that the historic appearance ot the building is radically changed. 59 �3 q8-35� Heritage Preservation Commission Design Review Committce Case summary re: proposed carriage house at 420 Portland/file #2884 13 Mazch 1997 present: Slaie� Cermak, Albers, Guelcher Rubenstein shawed photographs and slides of the site and surrounding azea, summarized the case, and mentioned that site plan review will be required of the project, that the applicant proposes to store trash in small carts on the south side of the existing 2-caz gazage, and that the City Attomey's of'fice has advised that the HPC should make a decision based on the ]ristoric district guidelines and not be concemed about legal matters between private parties. Ron Severson, the applicant, spoke. Cermak: likes the compalibility of the revised design with 415 Summit more; relates better to rear of 415 Summit and the e�sisting gazage; sees an attempt to recreate what might have been there--a carriage house-- rather than a sepazate structure; squaring the building with the side properiy line would tie it better to 415 Summit and make it relate better to the pazk; latest scheme is more appropriate but not acceptable for a building pemvt. Slaief: asked if possibie to have more complete elevation. Bradley and Severson: will have for 3.27 HPC meeting. Todd Bradley, project designer: intent with this revised design is to simplify and resemble the 415 5ummit reaz addition; intent of previous design was to make the building look as good as possible. Mazk Vaught, attorney representing owners of two condominiums at 415 Sumnvt: Severson cannot build the proposed project, has no more control of this site than Portland Avenue and Nathan Hale Pazk; discussed discretion versus obligation of HPC to review all permit applications; suggested referring to HPC's legal counsel his 3.13.971etter to the HPC. Cazol Clazk, 415 Summit Avenue: pazking on site would be for sale and would not be &ee for 415 Summit residents; there is not sufficient pazldng or traf�ic circulation room; opposed to pazking in the front yazd; discussed trash; Severson's plan shows a path and hedges on the 415 Smwnit condo association's property. Laurel Frost, 436 Portland: the carriage house shown on the 1903 map and the project approved by the HPC in 1989 happened prior to the lot spiit in 1990 in which the 420 Portland pazcel was sepazated from the 415 Sumnut lot; this is now a different situation and property; the pazcel is being treated as a pazking lot rather than a front yazd facing Portland. Mervyn Hough, 436 Portland: if the HPC approves these or similaz plans, would detailed plans come back to the commission for review? 31mef yes. Hough: the proposed west elevation is very plain, should have as much design consideration as the rest of the building, would like HPC to consider his perspective (he lives immediately to the west); spoke about the four garage stalls; only one good plan should be approved rather than two. Site plan issues: believes gazbage will end up being stored in a dumpster in the driveway; where would snow be stored?; parldng in ihe front yazd is being deak with casually; the existing lilacs should be removed and a landscaping plan should be careful]y reviewed. Patricia Leonard, 415 Summit: asked what happens if first floor of carriage house is later converted to living space; discussion followed. Vaught: my clients cannot be forced to buy pazking spaces from Mr. Severson. (Commissioners Hauser and Heide were also present during at least part of the discussion.) �� g�-357 s. M�x vAUGFrr AtrornevAt Lau� Suite 70C Six West Fifrh Stteet Sa�nt Paul, Minnesota 57102 {6t2) 297b4Q0 FAX (612) 224-8328 March 13, 1997 Members of the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission Suite 300 350 Saint Peter Street , Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Application of Ronald Severson before the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission to construct a Carriage House at 420 Portland Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, File #2884 Dear Commission Members: I represent Gregory and Carol Clark, the owners of Unit l, and Patricia Leonard, the owner of Unit 4, of Nathan House & Mews, a Condominium, located at 415 Summit Avenue. The Clarks and Ms. Leonard have engaged me to represent their interests as unit owners with respect to certain real property located at 420 Portland Avenue upon which Ronald Severson is proposing to construct a carriage house. Certain design considerations a£ that project are currently before the HPC for approval. Each of my clients holds certain easement rights to the property located at 420 Portland Avenue for both pedestrian access and parking purposes. None of clients has been asked nor has any agreed to waive any of those easement _rights. The rights are delineated in Article IV.4, and Article IV.5. o£ the Condominium Declaration, dated July 24, 1990, and recorded in the Of£ice of the Ramsey County Recorder on July 25, 1990 as Document No. 2555404. Copies o£ the relevant provisions o£ the Declaration are appended for your review and for that o£ your legal counsel. Each o£ the Clarks and Ms. Leonard has a"blanket" easement across the property at 420 Portland Avenue for pedestrian access and each unit owned by the parties has an additional easement Por two (2) parking spaces on the property. Neither the Clarks nor.Ms. Leonard are currently prepared to waive any rights attendant upon those easements. Since such waiver would be a necessary condition precedent to the construction of any carriage hpuse by Mr. Severson, construction o£ the project which is before you represents a legal impossibility. �_� �� 98-3�7 Heritage Preservation Commission March 13, 1997 - Page Two Mr. Severson has no more Current legal right to construct a carriage house upon the real estate at 420 Portland Avenue than he does to construct one in the middle o£ a public street or within the boundaries of a public park. Unless and until he secures such a right through acquiring waivers of the easement rights accorded owners o£ each of the condominium units at 415 Summit Avenue, any consideration of his proposed project by the APC or any other body is inappropriate and premature. Additionally, even i£ the project was ripe for current consideration, it does not appear that Mr. Severson has provided for trash storage, various setback requirements and his proposal does not in any way comply with city off street parking spacing requirements. Mr. Severson must allow the parking of two vehicles on the property £rom each of four condominium units at 415 Summit Avenue. He must provide an additional off street parking spaCe for the carriage house itself, for a total of nine of£ street parking spaces. Since he must allow two spaces for each unit, but may not "force" any unit to purchase a garage unit, he may not legally� count the four garage units shown beneath the carriage house living quarters as discharging all or part of the o££ street parking requirement unless and until he presents contracts or sale documents with the unit owners to purchase or occupy the carriage house garage stalls in discharge of their parking easement rights. Without use o£ all four carriage house garage units to discharge o£f street parking requirements, there clearly is not su£ficient room on the lot to provide the necessary off street spaces. Indeed, there may not be such room on the lot even if all £our carriage house stalls are utilized to discharge the current off street parking requirements. Regardless, even if Mr. Severson accomplishes waiver o£ the parking easements, he still may not proceed, as noted above, unless and until he secures a waiver o£ the blanket pedestrian easement across the property £rom all of the condominium unit owners. Since my clients, all oP the fee owners of two of those units, decline to waive their pedestrian easement rights to 420 Portland Avenue, the project envisioned by Mr. Severson remains impossible to accomplish from a legal standpoint. In seeking design approval £rom the HPC, Mr. Severson not only has the cart before the horse, he has the cart on a difPerent continent £rom the colt which one day might grow into a horse. Since the staPf support accorded the HPC, like that of other volunteer boards and commissions, is a steadily and rapidly declining commbdity, it would seem an inopportune time to spend a �6 98- 357 Heritage Preservation Commission March 13, 1997 Page Three portion of that valuable staff resource conducting a design review of a project which currently can not occur. Accordingly, the HPC is requested to remove the item from consideration or at least postpone £urther consideration and ultimate approval until Mr. Severson demonstrates the current legal right to proceed with the project. in addition, and in the alternative, the HPC is urged to transinit the legal points raised in this letter to legal counsel Por his or her review and recommendation. Very truly you� % y ��w� � /.�c�,� S. Mark Vaught Attorney at Law cc Gregory and Carol Clark Patricia Leonard 7� �.�. ..11 +�i��. �� -� �r 2555404 foregoing. S. Easements fihrough Walls Within Walls. Easements are hereby deciared and granted to install, lay, maintain, repair and replace aay wires, pipea, ducts, conduita, public utility lines or structural components running through the walIs of the unita, whether or not such walls lie in whole ar in part within the unit bouadariea. 4. Essement for Offstreet Parking and Vehicutar and Pedestrian Access to Portland Avenne. A bianket easement for pedeatrian acceas from Portland Avenue to the Property, and vice versa, for vehicular offstreet parking spaces (two (2) for each unit), and for vehicular access to the offatzeat par�ng apaces &om Portland Avenue and vice versa is hereby established over and acroae the entirety of the northerly of the two (2) Additional Reai Estate parceia (the "North Parcel"). Declarant, or hia successora or assigna, shall have the option to delimit the boundaries of these easement areas by ezecuting aa easement grant or deciaration, setting forth the legal descriptiona of the easement areas, and recording the same in the office of the Ramsep Caunty Recorder. At auch time as Declarant adda Lhe North Parcel to the Condominium, the easement(s) shall disappear (the amendment hereto ehali contain a provision terminating the easement(s)),'the offatreet parking apaces shall become limited common elements of the units in the Condominium, and the number of offstreet parlang spaces allocable to each unit�shall be reduced from two (2) to one (1). Each unit owner in the Ccndominium, however, ahall have the right of firat re£usa2 to purchase from Dec2arant one (1) � garage unit if Declarant constructs garage uaits on the North Pa: cel. b. Easements to Rnn With Land. All easements rights and obligatioas creatzd in this Article are affirmative and negative easements, running with the land, perpetuaIlq in full force and effect, and at all times ahall inure to tha beaefit of and be binding upan Deciarant, its succeasars and assigna, and any unit owner, pui�chaser; mortgugee and other person '�iaving any interest in the Condominium or any part or portion thereof. � -- AxTTCr� v _ :. .... ... ....:.. . ..:... 1. Membership in Association. A unit owner shall by virtue of such interest be a member of the Association and ahall remain a nember of said Association until such time as hia intereat in the Condominium ceases for any reason, at which time his membership in said Asaociation ahall sutomaticalip cease. When one or more peraona hold an interest in a unit, all auch persans shall be members. 2 Compiisnce with Decla:ation, ByIaws and Rules sad. Regulations of Associat3on. Each unit owner and occupant of a unit shail camply with all iil ti., S ! � �� , � i 1 � t _ I � � I 98 $�p�',-x�a:.�..--- ... ._._„�.w.rrs_.s��.-..--....._� _.. _. ... . ,., y8- 357 Warren E Peterson �erome P Filla Dar.iel Witt Fram Glenn A. Bergman Iohn Michael Miiler Michael T Obe��e Kenneth A Amdahl Sieven H. Bruns' Paul W. Eahning Timothy P. Russell Esther E. McGinnis S. Mark Vaught Attorney at Law Suite 700 Six West Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 �� : � PROFESSfONAL-ASSOG�IATION�. Oirect DiaL #290 March 21, 1997 �`.�.��; n _ . _ ; '_-: y'_' -- n �� . � -. �' :.� � � �o Suite 300 50 East Fihh Street St. Paul, MN 5510I-1197 (6I21291-8955 (6121 22&I753 facsimile Melvin �. Silver, Of Counse, BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL RE: Application of Ronald Seversoa before the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission to construc� a Carriage House at 420 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, bIII 55102 File #2$84 Our File No.: 11127/950001 Dear Mr. Vaught: I zepresent Ronald and Marnie Severson with respect to the construction of a carriage house and garages on the property owned by them north of the Nathan House & Mews Condominium (the "Severson Parcel"). They have forwarded to me a copy of a letter which you sent to the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission {"HPC") dated March 13, 1997. I have reviewed that letter and have the following comments: 1. You refer to the "blanket easement" which your clients currently have with respect to the Severson Parcel. Even if it could be construed as a"blanket easement" at this tu-t�e, the Seversc;,s clearly have the right to 1?mit the boundaries of the easement areas as provided in Article IV, Section 4 of the Declaration, a copy of which was attached to your letter to the HPC. This language obviously contemplates that the Seversons, as the successors to the developer, can at their discretion, � remove any "blanket" nature of the easement. Moreover, - it is clear from other provisions in the Declaration that � it was always the intent of the Declarant that the o Severson Parcel would be developable by the owner of that N parcel. r.r 6 � •AL50 ADMRTED IN W ISCONSIN e'elcbratin:� �� our �� v �Ci�� v J 7 �V J,� 1nni.ere.�r 7y 98-3$ 7 S. Mark Vaught March 21, 1997 Page 2 2. Contrary to the assertions on Page 2 of your letter to the effect that the Seversons are "puttinq the cart before the horse", we believe that the opposite is true. As you correctly point out, the approval by the HPC and other aqencies of the City does not necessarily take precedence over private agreements. The Declaration is such a private agreement. Unfortunately, it appears what your clients are doing in this particular case is to place the HPC (or other City Agenciesj in tne position of being a binding arbi.trator in what is clearly a dispute between private parties regarding the terms and conditions of a private agreement. That is not the role of the HPC and I do not believe that the HPC should be placed into that position. The HPC should be evaluating the proposal on its merits in accordance with their criteria, rather than trying to construe the Declaration. Your assertion that the plans by Mr. Severson, if approved by the HPC, will never come to fruition, is, in our opinion, simply i.ncorrect. At the very least, it is not an argument which the HPC should be deciding. Once the Seversons receive approval from the HPC, they plan to go forward with the project. If your clients still object, it is at that point that they could seek the appropriate injunctive or declaratory relief through the courts. We also agree with the genezal point made in the last paragraph of your letter but reach the opposite conclusion. That is, for the HPC and/or the City Attorney's Office to get involved in the construction of a private agreement would be a waste of their valuable time and resources. 3. If you have had any direct contact with the City Attorney's Office regarding this, it would be appreciated if you would provide me with the name of the City Attorney so that this letter can be relayed to the City Attorney. ga 98- 3s 7 S. Mark Vaught March 21, I997 Page 3 Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments which you may have regarding this. Thank you for your cooperation. JMM:bap cc: Ronald and Marnie Severson \ Heritage Preservation Commission HPC Staff Member Aaron Rubenstein rely Michael Miller � 98 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemon, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preseroarion Commission FROM: Aazon Rubenstein �,,�, RE: 420 Portland DATE: 25 Mazch 1997 OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTLONS AND ENVD20NMENTAL PROTECTTON RobertKersle>, Dirutor TAWRYPROFFSSIONAL BU2DWG Sui7e 300 3505[ PererSo-eet SainiPou7, Mimiessoto 55102-75]0 Telephone: 61L266-9090 Facsimile: 672-266-9099 Ron Severson and his designer, Todd Bradley, will present to the commission on Thursday further revised elevatioas for the proposed carriage house residence at 420 Portland. The project was discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting on Mazch 13 but committee chair Charles Slaief thought the project too important for the full commission to not review. Commission members Terri Cermak and David Heide met this moming at the LIEP o�ce with Mr. Severson and Mr. Bradley to further discuss the project. This meeting was my idea, based on my belief that the project could meet the historic district guidelines with some additional revisions to the design. Chazles S1Qief had also planned to attend the meeting but ultimately was unable to come. A summary of the meeting follows. Severson: presented revised plans with surface parking space next to building moved a bit to east, balcony one foot wider, glass removed from garage doors; windows will be added to first story of south elevation; would also add skylight above bathroom on west roof slope. Heide: false sense of historicism discussed at November 6, 1996 meeting with Severson, still feels that the proposed desigi blurs these boundaries; why not simply a well designed new building?; proposed design is sort of a carriage house/gazage/house, don't have a problem with a building on the site but have a problem with a fake old building. Cermak: yes, but given the building context, pzoposed type of design may be necessary to pull it off, par[iculazly with relationship to 415 Summit; a totally sepazately designed building would look out of place. Heide: okay; balcony and some other details--gable ends, door hoods, etc: -aze misleading historically and should be simplified; also, suggest adding brackets under balcony to give visual support. Cermak and Heide: discussed continuous east comice vs. gable; simplify balcony to distinguish it from the house, e.g., square balusters, iron railing, slats, or simpler hunings; simple door hoods with simpler brackets. Heide: okay with transom above french doors but not segmental transom; chimney? Severson: no chimney (Bradley said after meeting that fueplace could have a painted metal class B vent, will add to elevations). Cermak: like french doors with gable above and broken eave line; she and Heide suggested even widening the doors and balcony. Severson: differentiate building from 415 Summit with paint colors? Cermak: would not advise doing sa-the proposed building, the existing gazage, and 415 Summit would be a goup of related buildings. Heide: perhaps colors not the same as on 415, or used in different places than on main building; tivs building shwld not be a fake old building. � 98-357 Heritage Preservation Commission re: 420 Pordand 25 Mazch 1997 Page Two Rubenstein: should west elevation have a gable and, if so, how should it be treated so that it looks 1�1ce it has a reason for being other than decoration? Discussion and ageement about having a gable with a transom above the paired windows. Heide: should the &ont walk lead to the middle of a wall? Discussion about a diagonal walk connecting the sidewalk and front entry more direcUy. Rubenstein: what about the issue of pazking in the front yazd? Cermak: dcesn't have a problem with pazking in what has become a&ont yard; new property line is an imaginary line that dcesn't change the perception of the huildings, particululy tha[ 41S Summit was built on a through lot with frontages on Summit and Portland and the Portland side is historically the reaz yazd of the Winter House. Discussion about the possibility of having eight rather than nine pazldng spaces on the site, and which front yazd space to eliminate. Commissioner Heide commented after the meeting: this case is a particulazly difficult design problem and the proposed design is generally much improved compazed to what was initially submitted. �3 q8-3s � Heritage Preservation Commission Case Summary: proposed camage house at 420 Portland Av., File #2884 27 Mazch 1997 Rubenstein reviewed the proposed project, the revised site p]an and elevations, a letter from Ramsey Hill Association to Councilmember Blakey about the project, and several issues relating to the proposal. Cmsr. Albers: aze there historic cazriage houses that face the street as the proposed building does? Rubenstein: there's one on Portland just east of House of Hope Church; not sure if there aze others. Ron Severson, the applicant, spoke briefly; said the balcony and door hood designs have been simplified; imagined french doors would have removable grids but full light [without gridsj would be okay. Cmsr. Buetow: full light would be preferabl�-tend to simplicity. There was no public testimony offered; the public hearing was closed. Cmsr. Heide: moved approval of the revised pians, inciuding the east elevation marked "preferred", subject to the condition that appropriate crown molding be added above the transom windows. Cmsr. Buetow seconded the motion. Cmsr. Albers: is this (the part of the lot fronting on Portland) a front yard? Rubenstein: responded, in part, that it is sort of both a front yazd and a rear yazd, and explained further. Cmsr. Aibers: the guidelines say no parking in a front yard. Rubenstein responded again. Cmsr. Buetow: this property is historically a rear yard. Cmsr. Albers: parking ought to be adequately screened from the street. Cmsr. Heide called the question; the commission voted 11-0 to end discussion. The motion to grant approval, as noted above, passed 11 - 0. summary prepazed by Aaron Rubenstein � 98•357 , �`�'�- � �� 400 Selby Avenue, Suite M, St. Paul, MN 5�502 Shaping the future of a historic neighborhood in Saint Paul March 14, 1997 Councilmember Jerry Blakey Suite 310 City Ha1UCourt House Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Councilmember Blakey, � a a m �"� •--.✓ N -� r �. Y C"') = ' w �, � -- _ � � _. --,- � � At the March 13 meeting ofthe Ramsey Hill Association Mr. Ronald Severson presented a plan for construction of a residential unit with 4 ground level garage stalls on property located at 420 Portland Avenue. It is our understanding that until about 1990 this parcel was the rear yard of property located at 415 Summi[ Avenue. Several questions were raised at the meeting regarding this parcel that could not be answered by Mr. Severson creating confusion for the ILamsey Hill Board. Primary among these deal with setback requirements and variances needed. Because of this we will be unable to make a recommendation to the city on the proposed project without correct information. The Board, therefore, has asked that your office request an opinion from the City Attorney on the following questions to clarify these issues. The property owner stated that he will come back to the Board for review and approval once our questions are answered and the necessary variances have been applied for: l) Is it possible to divide a zoning lot thus creating a new lot and, at the same time, taking the other parcel out of compliance with the zoning code with regard to setbacks and lot coverage? 2) What avenues does the city have to enforce the zoning code and require the owners at 415 Summit to bring their property back into compliance with respect to setbacks and lot coverage? 3) Since the proposed structure is the primary residential structure on the property at 420 Portland, what are the required setbacks and maximum allowable lot coverage? 4) Are there different setbacks required when a lot and new residential structure abut a city park? 5) Prior to the change of ownerslup, a site plan for parking and landscaping only had been approved by the city. To date no work has been done to meet tlus approved plan. What avenues does the city have to force property owuers to comply with subnoitted plans? �'."� "e =- � � � �j� 98-357 On behalf ofthe Board I want to thank you for your assistance. We will await your response before proceeding with ourreview. Sincerely, > ' �� / / � ix r� j� G� �z tx , J `�Judy McLauglilin, President Cc: Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission Ronald Severson i Nov-13-97 12:25P A Toast To Bread 612 778-8805 . �J�� ludy McLaughlin, President �� Ramsey Hill Association, November t 1, 1997 " DearJudy, 26 years ago when Niarlou and 1 bought 436 Portland Ave. there were lots oP problems in the neighborhood more important than the rear yard at 415 Summit Ave. But with a front yard on Summit and a back yard facing onto Portland , Nathan Hale Park and abutting the east s'sde of our building, it was clear to mc then that a major design cantroversy was comin� sometime in [he future. To me, common sense said that 415 Summit (then a drug treatment center) wouid someday want to build garages on this site. I've always feared that something ugly or inappropriate would be built there. Never, did l foresee the estended battle that would ensue over severa] different plans proposed for this site. I think we've been arguing for near]y 8 years. It was fears and threats like this that prompted a smai! group of us to found the Ramsey Hill Association, Oid Town Restorations and then the Preservation Commissioa in thc 1970's. Those were dark and uncertuin yeazs in this neighborhood. But now it is c[ear that tfiose organizations have served our neighbothood very well and have served us well on this controversial property. Today we are faced with a quandary. One ofihose organizations, the Preservation Commission, has voted to approve Mr. Severson's ptan. And now the Ramsey Hitl Association is faced wifh the following questions to answer. l, tias the Preservation Commissian made a huge biunder? Is it incompetent? Does Mr. 5everson's plan meet the Commissions' guidetines? 2. Should the Ramsey Hiil Association use its' considerable clout to further undermine thz Preservation Commission? At this time it is my opinion that the Ramsey tiill Association should not lend support ta this appeal because the proposed plan af Mr. 5everson now meots ail of the guidelines of the Preservation Commission. tt now aiso meets its' parkin� obligations for 415 Summit and Mr. Severson has made 3 important concessions to the residents of 436 Yortland Ave (cedar shakes on the roof, a much improved western ele��ation and a plan for the planning and maintenancz oi the landscaping}. It is now a better pian than we have a legal right to expect. This new building will be handsome profiled against thc rather plain and monulithic eastem fa�ada of 436 Port�and Ave. Rather than support one side over the other I Lhink the Ramsey Hill Associatioo should send chis issue back to the 2 concemed parties with the request that they Sit down with a �� t i�. -•',� �� ,. 1�`� '� ,f-� �� i�.. . . 1 . r LT � — � : . _ — , bJ. . i� , , _. :�" - . .. � % , 9'� �s� V � Nov-13-97 12:25P A Toast To Bread 98-3s7 612 778-8805 P.03 neutrai attomey and draw up the papers necessary to resolve the last reasonable legal issues. As t see it there are 5 topics to focus on. i. The Ciarks' legitimate concems that they wouid have the right to rebuild on repair their garagu in the event of a disaster. 2. The legai scructure should be drawn up for the Gazden Committee. This shoufd invofve ali affected resideats that chose to participate. 3. The legal structure for long term maintenance ofthe pazking area should be drawn up 4. Assurances should be obtained from the Preservaiion Commission that neither its' staff or the Commission will approve changes to the enal plan without notifying interested parties. 5. The St. Paul Building Department shouid eaamine che pazking pfan to verify thnt the parking plan meets St. Paul Parking Codes. There is no �eason why thesc issues cannoi be resolved quickly. It is not easy for me to come forward on this matter because; 1. I have been one of the leading opponents of many plans proposed for this site. Our small group of neighbors has been downtown regularly for ciose to 8 years arguing our case. 1 think all oF us qualify for combat status. I've even gone downtown to read the condo documents of 415 Summit to make sure that iheir parking obligations were honored. I did this at a time when City Hall and even the residents of 415 Summit were largeiy indifferent to these obligations. 2. I don't really want to give up the moming sun streaming though my living and dining room windows or the view of the 2 Spruce trees, 2 Linden trees and the 2 Mapie trees that [ personalVy planted in t3athan Hale Pazk when Dutch Eim disease devastated our neighborhood. 3. I don't like breakirtg rank with the group that has fought long and hazd to preserve the architectural integrity of this important lot. ! would much rather say that we had reached a consensus. But we have not, so I feef morally bound to speak out when the battle goes fotward even when we should be in the final streich of a very good agreement. t'm pr�ud to call myself a preservationist and i'm willing to go to great lenbths to protect the tristoric and architectural legacy of our neighborhood But aow thai we have a good plan it is time for us old war-horses to call an end to the waz and show that we can afso be good neighbors, once we have negotiated our diffcrences. 'Ihere are many that have said that just garages or even nothing shoutd be built on this site, but these arguments ate seriou3ly flawed because � �� Nov-13-97 12;25P A Toast To Bread 612 778-8805 `�8 3 5 7 1, It is unrealistic to think that someone living in Minnesota woutdn't want a garage. 2, We don't own the Iand and Mr. Severson does. Therefore we aze not in a legal porition to propose plans for his property. And I think our objcctions and questions must be reasonabte and legal. l think it woutd be unconscionabie for anyone involved in this debate to have designs on buyin� the land if Nfr. Severson can somehow be forced to self at a cheap price. 3. Garages would still block the view of the park of both my apartment and the apartment of Izurel FrosY. If anyone doubts this ihey should go to the 2" floor, rear baicony at 436 Portland and try to look out over our gara�es. You can see the sky and the top of some trees, but you couldn't see a park if there was one on the other side. 4. To the best of my know4edge every good tooking garage buiit in our neighborhood in the last scveral yeazs has dormers, windows, tall roofs and even fake doors for hay. At aur condominium we even have a ti�ht and curtains in the gazages 2" story window. It's as if someonc lives on the second floor of these garages or at lexst we'd iike to create that illusion. So what woutd be so teiribty wrong if people actually lived in some of these new structures. ARer all it doesn't takc up any extra land space. 5. There is no assurance that someone eise would bulld someihing better than Mr. Severson is proposing. Ail we need do is look around our neighborhood to know that we aren't protected from 6ad design. 1 am one of those with serious doubts about the effectiveness of the Preservation Commission. In fact I get angry and fi'ustrated with it. But aRer serious thought t must come to its' defense. I don't think our neighborhood can make a habit of appeaIing the decisions of the Preservat�on Commission. lt should only be done when it is clear that the Preservation Commission has ignored its' own guideli�es. Irtstead we shoufd be looking at ways to improve it. Therefore, to support this appeal is a very serious matter. So seri�us that I worry about the future of the Commission. If we aren't careful, peopte outside the Preservation movement are going to say "those preservationists on Ramsey Hill can't be pleased. Do they have an endless capacity io fi�ht and a willin�ness to destroy each other? Are these fights about important issues?" I would like to be able to continue to say " We are a group ofgood neighbots that caze deeply about our historic legacy but we are not unreasonable or mcan spirited." m 9�3s 7 Nov-13-97 12:25P A Toast To Bread 612 778-8805 P.05 In this particular casc 1 think wc are ciose to the goint where everyone im•olved can declace victory and feel some satisfaction that the system, even though it is flawed, can aad does work. Sincerely, � �l ��,.�.... Mervyn Houglt i� 98-3s7 Shaping the future of a historic neighborhood in Saint Pau! 400 Selby Avenue, Suite M, St Paul, MN 55102 November 18, 1997 Councilmember Jerry Blakey Saint Paul City Council 310-A City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Councilmember Blakey, � � 0 �� cil w At its November 13 Neighborhood Issues meeting the Ramsey Hill Association approved a resolution requesting that the City Council uphold the a��eal of the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission decision for property located at 420 Portiand Avenue for the foilowing reasons: 1) the proposed structure and existing gazage may exceed the maximum 30% pertnitted lot coverage; 2) the necessary variances have not been detemuned nor applied for; 3) the proposed paved azea is not in keeping with efforts by the city of Saint Paul and the Ramsey Hill neighborhood to maximize green space in residential azeas; 4) the proposed front yard parking necessary to meet off-street parking requirements is inappropriate. 5) the Portland Avenue side does not complement the existing properties facing Portland. In making this decision the foliowing facts carried great influence: 1) This property is a Portland Avenue lot. At one time it served as the reaz yard for 415 summit Avenue, however, the lot split approved on June 12, 1990 created a new residential lot with a Portland Avenue address. The property owner concurred at the meeting. 2) Under the Saint Paul Zoning Code this property has a front yazd along Portland Avenue with side yards on the east and west sides. 3) The proposed building is the primary dwelling unit for this address. It is not an accessorv structure for 415 Summit Avenue, even though the design may incorporate certain featutes from the dwelling on Summit. 4} Section 73.06 (�(3) of the Saint Paul I.egislative Code (Heritage Preservation Section) states: In tlie case of a proposed new building, that such building wili raot in itself, or by reason of its Zocatian on the site, materially impair the architectural or historic value of buildings on adjacent sites or i�a the immediate vicinity within the historic preservatioia site. �I 98-3s7 The proposed dwelling structure carries non of the front-facing features of other homes found on Portland Avenue or throughout the historic district as indicated by the property owner's diagram entitled "north elevation" (attached). These features include a main entrance facing Portland, a porch typical of the residential strucmres in this neighborhood and appropriate azchitectural detail for the front of a dwelling. This is contradictory to the portion of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance raferenced above. 4) The proposed sideyazd pazking is expressly prohibited by the Saint Paul Zoning Code. 5) The proposed front yard pazking is expressly prohibited by the Zoning Code. 6) The proposed structure is closer to the existing garage than the 18 feet required under the Zoning Code. F'inally, legal issues were raised at the meeting regazding easement rights owned by persons other than the property owners. While they raise questions about site control they were not considered as a part of this decision. These matters aze best resolved in a more appropriate forum. The Ramsey Hill Association believes that the review and approvai by the Heritage Preservation Commission was premature because the applicant does not have cleaz site control and because appropriate variances have not been applied for. Neither the community nor the Heritage Preservation Commission can make a judgement on the design of the structure without knowledge of where the structure may legaily be placed on the site, what variances may be necessary or whether or not the structure may legally built on the site. In this instance. the A�sociation believed the Heritage Preservation Commicsion erred in its decision The applicant should be encouraged to re-apply for HPC review when control of the site has been resolved, appropriate variances have been applied for and the community review process regarding the variances is complete. On behalf of the Association I want to thank you for your attention to this issue and your continued interest in onr neighborhood. � � �� M�ughlin, Presi e t sey Hill Association Cc: City Councilmembers District 8 Planning Council Ron Severson 9Z 3: m �� l.� w ��A �') �� G� y J � �v.i.4':nN 5.�. � ' :,l �-a� J' �j <I'� ` } 4 0 �� ^� ;� �_.., � .��; I i� _ i_ � fC CJ � 1 � � y C �_+ i �� C - 5 C �v � �' V � U� I 'C,'' � , r• -� � - T� - ' _ 0 l O" ` N N� o; W � � y3 : � V � � _ ` � ' �!� V U] �'�� 1 98 m f � z <'' FQ CJ �� F� Q2n G� Y � �� H�� z;; �° O� U� w W < H G: �S '��" o �� 3 F �° > o� � 4` �� 0 z " U �3 U � �O � ��3 � �:s � �m ��E � <U �"� C � LY �o� z " Z O E y c: A�� aZ �U� �r�s� ��oz � O z`.'' c� x <; W�O� �Qo� QY�iF"�� C-�' Q'i = c� �� aoZ< �� - P. < P.� K J� V� UZ <:. t;� Ar_ y< H �? ! Y.� C� C" = � �� o_ R�U�3 �� z�� Z� ��, aa<< � U a � a � �� .�'"i. m= � v C 4: H = F a � � � O �� F� ` U F� � w� � 0 Q � �O �o a ' y. ° E�� O F P-1 S O �' W �G a= �� . .; * _- - `�.��'ti.�� l_.- -- �'• - -- --� �'',_ '';;• .. _ � . � � V Z C� a� 0 cc Y3 �F� O A �; �� '� z� F w;� Uza x � 0 a � �"' > r.-�a � W� a x� W � �� ., �, �''-+ o � U� � m -I F-� V �2 �� Z �, �� .� ¢ <y �go w ��F U°k z " Z o= A �� ^�Z a� (.] � o C'S G-a 5 � ``^' � n i �� t7 x <o Q GS�� C S � ! m�;s O.-� _a Ai0.'io� Q < ��3� WUz< � � � a� F+ z C!] �z � wQ 3 0 � � :. �_ L'3 � F° zZ a� � E� � � G�'� �' � � O R �� r�= a 0. �< �; a$ �� z 9� 1 �'T''� � ��'�i . � .._ �Lt;,:._ .�;'a =. �-.. T _:f , . : "� S� f` � �+ ��:_ . �:.�TL =� ��Fjr ��i+.�•• ~�• �: - . � � : i ��'�1 ��' ;-„ t-ti i - � �� •�4 � , {, � � , � i � = .-.� + ,A� ; `�?�� _ , k��li� t� ..; : a ,� ;�,y� o. �.� - i � - � .�?'�. 7 +,� �'.: y. • J. r ♦ . � —<- . a ��; � � , � ;'iy� t �i _' � .� � � t l ._� : ,�._"',: � `a'� �.t� _� '• _'�.: �., .r'*� r �pi. ��El��f i �� t '. 1`: . , I�� :j.-�. .:� _ �� •�,;,�_-:. EI{IlEI `:,; � i g �� . �_. �IY �� . i: � � � ^� : * � - y - -. / y R 1 !� � i y �� 1_ � i. , -, , .=� , :.i� , �/8 357 �" � � �� F� � .�,` .'< ti� F 7� vF � � � s m � 98-35 7 � �'(a0 � o � s � _ : y 5. � � �� F y 0 !- i .� ... ' � � *� � N � 1L `'� O) � H T ° �N o '� h � � � L `Z.�. G'J 2 c� - o � � 4- _ _� � � •� r' r (� _. , :: u': , ^ V �.y V � --.- H •;=•� c.� _" � K'�c�r � " a Nf�� W • � J � Q. � � w � W4 � 4 v �� F z 0 Ow U� � W �� Q W; �a � Q �� 9�-357�� O� �� Q U �� ; � �a a � w � �� ¢ � �n° � � 0 � � 0 a �� } � V F 98-3s7 � � u � O� �� ¢ �U � � W�, �z � W¢ � z ¢ J F a � U z Oz �o � '��L, : r �� ,�. >> W �� F �p W ¢ W � �� ¢ � Q z � 6 � H �� _ o x � � U � �¢ U � Q m � o'. a, �o i x: �0.: ��Z d�F: Council File ORf GINA� Presented By Referred To Green Sheet RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� 2 WHEREAS, Ronald Severson made application to the Heritaae Preservation 3 Commission (the commission) pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 73 for a building 4 permit to conshuct a carriage-house-like structtue at 420 Portland Avenue within the Historic 5 Hill Heritage Preservation District; and 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, on February 27, 1997, the commission conducted a public hearing on the proposal. After discussion, the matter was laid over and the project was again reviewed on March 13, 1497, and finally approved on Mazch 27, 1997. However, the commission, inadvertently, did not forxnally pass a resolution approving the project until January 8, 1998; and WIIEREAS, on Apri18, 1997, Gregory Clark, Carol Clazk and Patricia Leonazd appealed the Mazch 27, 1997, commission decision but elected to enter into negotiations with the applicant in the hope that the applicant and the appellants might resolve their differences; and WHEREAS, the negotiations between the parties failed to reach an acceptable compromise and the appellants requested that their appeal be heard by the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the commission in its Resolution No. 2884 granted approval of the building permit based upon revised plans including only the east elevation marked 3G 1, and subject to the condition that an appropriate crown molding be added above the transom windows in light of the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation guidelines. In particular, based upon the evidence presented at the March 27, 1997, public hearing, the commission made the following findings of fact: 27 1. The proposed building site is a pivotal and difficult site. It is visible from 28 Suuunit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are 29 large buildings to the south and west that are close to the property lines. 30 This lot can be construed as both the reaz yazd of the Winter House at 415 31 Simunit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed 32 carriage house concept (and "front yard" pazking adjacent to Portland) is a 33 reasonable approach to developing the parcel for the following reasons: a) 34 the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street pazking for 35 residents of the Winter House; b) the pazcel has historically been a rear 36 yazd, it is used as a rear yard, and it appears as a reaz yazd due to its 37 relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story 38 carriage house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a 39 building that is very close to the Winter House in proximity and that is 40 related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The Winter House -3s� �� 9� -3 57 ' ORIGfN;� 2 uilt on a through-lot with Summit and Portland frontages; the recent 3 subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the 4 Winter House to sutrounding land nor the historical nature of the site. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 zs 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 2. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines: [%�I la c. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhytl�m, setback, color, material, building elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the area." The building elements, materials, scale, height, and character would be related to, but do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integrated for a balanced and complete design. Though the side elevation would not be parailel to that of the Winter House, the street-facing elevation would be perpendicular to the street like those of other structures on this block of Portland. d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the rear yard nature of the site, and the carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the historic carriage house on the site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the only other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Western and Anmdel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed structure. e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building. £ Pazking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping. Single gazage doors would avoid the horizontai orientation of double doors. The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. These sorts of anomalies in design and development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district and its chazacter. 3. In addifion, the proposed structure and site development conform to the federal Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design and materials aze related to and compatible with the primary, adjacent, lvstoric building, i.e., the Winter House; the design distnaguishes between what is new and what is historic rather than mimics the historic structure and confuses the two; and the development would not have an adverse impact on the character- defining features of the site and the area. The building's design is similaz to the rear addition of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appropriate for a new secondary shucture. A new buildina of unrelated design and materiais would detract from the historic integrity of the site; and 2 q�-3s7 OR1GiNAL 3 WI�EREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Tricia 4 Leonard, Crreg Clark, and Carol Clazk duly filed with the Council an appeal from the 5 determination made by the commission and requested that a hearing be held before the City 6 Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said commission; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 73.06, a public hearing was set on for January 28, 1998, but, at the request of appellants' attorney, the matter was postponed to Febniary 25, 1998; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 1998, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, having heazd 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 deny the appeal of Patricia Leonard, Gregory Clazk and Carol Clark on the basis that their has been no showing that the commission made any error in fact fmding or procedure in this matter; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Patricia Leonazd, Crregory Clark and Carol Clark, the Zoning Administrator and the Heritage Preservation Commission. Reguested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date I�S ,��_ Adoption Certified by Council Se�$tary BYc Appxoved by Mayos: te � By: BY: Fosm Approved by City Attorney a .�'� �� `•l— Z �' S� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: OFFICE OF T'I�, CITY ATTORNEY " J3 J � PegBir75 CityAttorney CITY OF S AINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor CivilDivision 400 Ciry Hal[ I S Wes1 Keliogg Blvd. Saira Pau1, Minnesot¢ 55102 Telephone: 612 266-8770 Facsimiie: 6I2 298-5619 Apri121, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal by Gregory Clark, Carol Clazk and Patricia Leonard HPC Resolution No. 2884 February 25, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Pau1 City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your eazliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, i�%Ge�l�l �!�✓�— Peter W. Wazner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure � i a i � � :_ . _ . - : :_. . : .�._> ..: .. : .....: : . _ _ ' .:; � ; _ _ � - - _ . _ . _ - --==�=� 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #3 Taken February 22, 1998 - ' � :.:.: ..� ., , :_: s , ....... .; ...::: - .....,:,;,:: .':'. ..�:.__ -. "..<:::::=::::.-.-.:_;<;.>�_:::._: _::...; ;::- .............. ... .:::... .:.:� :• :,:::: :. _ .- .•.,: .: ....: ...:..,.. ,; .;_. , : :. : : . . . �- � �� ..�.. '-. . . .. _ . _.r.i ' � i " �.� w 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #4 Taken February 22, 1998 - � � F . � ' i. »�.3�+��"�*�';,;` .. . _� ' ' :y, � ��, J,� . � -��-�. � ` �� F �r� z — :fiyfwk'S'� - ' '. ' g - ��- � - F E T1 ly `=. ......__._ ..._.___�f ':_i - �� R >� ±a 1 y. � �i� / i '� 1 �/ - , - �_�- ' � ul ' � n ��i � � I '_ _. '- `- : _[ :;_:..: ..,,.�:, _ :. :..;:.;,.; � .: . . .... .: .. :: :• :_-:.,-� - . :_.< . ......: . . ... _..: ..: :-:. :.. , . ... . .. . .. ::... .: >:-:: � , - - : -. :: _ ..:. : : �: s°-�._:. ; :.., . _ �.:.�-:. :. _, .,.:�_.;_.... -.:::: .,..;.__.::.� - _: _ - - - -- �=�. : _ i' I I i i, ` :`. 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 F ��az'y 25, 1998 APPellants' PhotograPh #2 Taken Fe.bruar.�, 22. 1998 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 �s; - :.:rs �.-z:_`: _:r: -; : .c ._..-::t � � . - _ : ::.::: . _ ...-:_:._ .: _.::':':"_':: �: .. ._ . ., ...-. -...r ... .. - 'r.: � -':_.::- ... . :,._ . �- : r --. : [ ..-:..; _�::_- _ ._-m«._> . ., - ' _' -. __.. :'{ Appellants' Photograph #1 Taken February 22, 1998 � a y' , _:._� � �... � � j i . �� . �.,.:;.. � � �� .�� - i ��-�-- - � � � �-�:.:: - - � ,.. : ! _ _ � . � `r ;9J �i� t. s. 4.^'^ �... : �� J— > 1 � ` : , �� . k; eka. —,.. _/ _,�� r � ' �� '^n, _ _ '''= � -_ : .. - . �, ,�;.,: � � � . � - �`'�.�-..: � . _ � � � — . -- ::�d�� : . _ .. �. ,��. - ��. � e _ y�� ;� r � , 4 � ,'�� ►� _ ��-- �- � -_ :... :_� ;.-� __. _ . ., .. ,.._ .;- = -. .,: = --.-=� .. __<:�_ _. _ - ------------ - - - --- , ,., - ---�,_____�� 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 - February 25, 1998 _. :, : >-. ::.,. , :::.....:....�.-:.. .:.,_:..._. � ::......... .. _:-::::.-_:-_:'-::-: ;::: �_ ,_. :. .: :-- ,, .._...:-_ _<_., :::. -; =�:::_.:..;;,•:::°___:_:':,::;_<'::;:; �:..:'-:, Appellants' Photograph #5 , . Taken February 22, 1998 I i I i ;.. - : . ...... .:::.:. ,.,_ __.._ ::. � ,. ..... :. . ::. :..::.::: . . ._ .: .:.. . . . _::�; ::.�: -: ,.. .:. <:, .:: � i i _ � ; - _ _ _ : .l : _... :::. , _ _ -- --- - _::� 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #6 Taken February 22, 1998 M i — <A .i e�':� J - I `4�I � 11 g": a' z ,.�. ,�,. �, _ - _— . . � . . - � � . . —'_____ . . . � c �� 5 �� . - �j�, '. a ' ,r ' . " _ � :ir, .:. ri ,� . _ - _ _ �a..�., ti ` � �`� :- -�-, '�-� - - ,� �f � � _ °" — - _ - � �t 4 + N �,. R' �+ � � : �.` �� .�� F � .. � ��'• � � . . � . . - � � . . � � T• . . . _ � � �� - �- �.. _. . -� .� � a :- .. - _ ._.< fi�SfT �- �.. _��. � � E _ � / _,—. _ : y _ _ — c ��r T , o � ' ta ' > �__,.. � -- - `i i v � _ _ - .. _ w__�- u-_ -_ - 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Counail Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellant's Photograph #7 Taken February 22, 1998 � — — — I 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #8 Taken February 22, 1998 � �� y,> C�,.:� '� � . ., I� � ;�I�� ;; ��, �� : � , _�, �� -:_ �,-.; ,.� ��. � � a+F .- — �:; �' �E _�iii� . �� < - �. ��- -- � '� :•; y� � r � � � ;� r+ +^'% � ' � .. �M1� 1.. . _ x.� ��. - - �.'". K . ' "tyY i... ra �� wi ` � � - � �a.a'rv�� . . ' i ;,�` N- s:-�:,. : ' � . . . , -- � � � - � . < _ ..._ .....:>_..�:_:. .:. :- -.:.• _ . ... --: �:.-:... .__ -.:.: :_. : ,;:;:,::,..:: :_. ;::..:::_::::-,. _i , :,. _...., _ _, _...; -. ;:�»_,.� , ...:. ..::. : ...._: ..: . .. ...: _. -.. �.- . . ..: .. ,. e ._ _:..:: L: :-�. �.: '-,.: ., . _ , ,. . ..: _._: :�,� _ : .,: : �...:�_�� 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Ag�da Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #9 Taken February 22, 1998 � : . .. . - ,.:..:.:._:. _ - - _. ._.... , . :.. -: ; :. :_._.: ....__..:>.... .:. _ - � ....::�._ _._... . � _. .-- ',; - - t,- � _:..:.:.:.;.;,.._.,. ,-...:-..::::. _ ,._ ....� :. . .... .....:...... ....:::.a� ..: `.:.:: �: ......_ ......:...::.��>::_ _ - - _ _ � _.. ' - -' . . - - . " . �.�c__._.._ ..::......... _::._._. .....;.,.. . . . . . . . . . , " j � ' ' � I � __'� _ _ __ '� -'. _ _ ' - . "_" ' _'__-____ _T-��_ ..._.. - � _ : :: i :E:F 29:...... � .i :'.....:. _ . : . .;.. _....:. .::- :-. ;:� . .._.:'""' . ... j � , � � ::. .:... . = .. - . . 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appel2ants' Photograph #10 Taken February 22, 1998 i � ; 7 �. �� . �. . . :. s � — � � '_ et �. �� 4 �' � \ � � � ' �<� i4 .�. � . .. . ... . .. . -�� / �� _. , - � � ---- _.. ., - � . _ r�= .� .�»r�� s�;= < � �= � - �;�' ��h4 3 � � n �.\ . �; y� I : _ �" � � � tr .. ._ . v : _ -�._ _ ._. . :: t.�c� "__"_ .. ��W.��--� - . . .. ^'� . . '. _ '_+wl._....:. _ . �� e-m:�.y_�• ��+ !` f _l1 / � _� �" �� j )�� , . . .. . i.� . � ��J - - i :': �:::: :::.::: � .:. : : :: ::, . :. :..... .:. :.,; :;_:; - .;::: -,-_._: ..::::....... _...._::-.:i � , ...: . . . . .. .. ..:: <:_.:_ ..,.:_-_.... -:;;_ =�,� . . .. ...:...:. :.r ,._ .. _ . .. . ._ _: -, <_ . .:. -. , :�.: - ..:.,.:. ,: � _I � � i -- ...- _.,,..:. _: ., ,,.... - , � , :_..,..:;:°::-:;_ ..: _. :__� _ - - - - ': �: d 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 - Appellants' Photograph #11 Taken February 22, 1998 42D Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #12 Taken February y2, 1ggg � -� -� _ / : . � �.+� -�� i , � � ��4 i �_ �, m. ��,r �r�i � � _ . . Vi.`�'�:.�. se ... . �;',.."",,,,-_� . , � � .. . . . .. . �.�-. �rc. ,.0 _ . � :Y `"'F"• �" �.�. �. '^-:._-�-...° � r .,p.�c "..'�eN� - . _ .. ¢` �\�� .�?��. . � o i� � ala , � r,�, ��. 5 � ' 4 Y�� -`� ., ; �,. � " " _, � �4 �. S M { . � f ��Y^ P � � N� i�F �� -.. �°'�: i ,. _w , : -�- :v ._ - �..�; u , � _._ __� �° . �. � - i .�� .�.��" r .�� '�� :�:-_ _ S. MARK VAUGHT Attornev At Law Suire 700 Six West Fifrh Saett Saint Paui, Minnesoa 5402-1420 j612)297-6M100 FAX (612) 224-8328 February 23, 1998 Councilmember Jim Reiter 320-A City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Pau1, Minnesota 55102 ��-'� S` RE: Appeal by Greg and Carol Clark and Patricia Leonard of the Heritage Preservation Commissian decision regarding 420 Portland Avenue; City Covncil meeting of February 25, 1998; Agenda Item #46 Dear Councilmember Reiter: i represent the:appellant's in.the,ahave-referenced matter who bring-the appeal because-they are._aggrieved by a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission ori�inally made on.March 27, 1997, but.not formalized by,written resolution until January 8, 1498. My clients all have ownership interests in Nathan House and Mews, a Condominium Association, located at 415 Summit Avenue, immediately abutting the subject property. Each has legally enforceable pedestrian and parking easements over and to the subject property at 420 Portland which are discussed in greater detail below. The purpose of this letter is to.summarize the numerous reasons for my client's appeal. Some of those reasons are presented in my letter of March 13, 1997 to the Heritage Preservation Commission. Your attention is also drawn to two letters to Councilmember Blakey from Judy McLaughlin, President of the Ramsey Hill Association, dated March 14, 1997 and November 18, 1997, respectively. All three communications are in the informational packet for your meeting, I believe. The November 18, 1997 2etter indicates concurrence by the Ramsey Hill Association, with the appeal oE my clients as result of a neighborhood issues meeting about the project held on November 13, 1997, and it is particularly persuasive about the reasons there£ore. I commend its thoughtfulness and reasoning to you. This appeal is brought for many reasons. In no particular order, nor necessarily in order of imgortance, they may be summarized as follows:" 1. The proposal approved by the Heritage Preservation �� 0 - � 51 � Saint Paul City Cauncil February 23, 1998 Page Two _ Commission (HPC) in March, 1997, was £or a carriage house which was thirty six (36) feet in width. Much of the material be£ore you contains diagrams proposing a width o£ forty (40) £eet. The di£ference is not immaterial. The applicant, Ronald Severson, currently has an application £or a number o£ variances pending before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for the proposed project. That proposal, never approved by the HPC, ca11s for a width o£ Porty (40) feet. The BZA application also requests relief from yard setback requirements and from parking stall size and location requirements. Without BZA approval, HPC approval is irrelevant. Further, the proposal be£ore the BZA is not the same proposal previously presented and approved by the HPC. Even if Mr. Severson secures BZA approval of his variances, it seems likely that reapproval by the HPC o£ the "altered" design will be necessary. For those reasons the Council should grant the appeal and remand the matter to the HPC for consideration by both the BZA and the HPC of a common design. 2. The orientation o£ the proposed carriage house building makes it clear that the parking for the property (that which is required for the parcel itself and that-which is guaranteed to my clients because they hold parking and pedestrian easements over the subject parcel) is either £ront yard garking or side yard parking, or both. In either case, given the requirements of city ordinances and the zoning code, the proposed parking is tot'ally inappropriate and completely out of char.acter with the immediatelv surrounding properties. 3. The orientation of the proposed carriage house on the lot means that the side of the building will face the front o£ the lot. This orientation is not dissimilar to that of a home placed on a lot on Ashland Avenue several years ago, which was deemed to be inappropriate and which was ordered removed by the City. The fact that the side of the proposed building would face the front o£ the lot means that the structure, if built, would be totally out of character with any building or either side o£ Portland Avenue on the £ull block and £or that reason alone, ought not to be allowed. 4. The small size o£ the lot in question in terms of square footage and the necessity, because of existing easements to guarantee both pedestrian and parking access across the lot to residents of 415 Summit Avenue, would require some unusual and in the main, unacceptable, £eatures. First, th�e "front" of the carriage house would face and would be, at its closest point, less than £ive (5) £eet £rom Nathan Hale Park, a neighborhood treasure the enjoyment of which would be materially negatively aEfected by the construction. Second, the carriage house, again at its closest point, would be approximately eight (8) £eet from the structure in which my clients' condominium units are located. Third, the ��,�5�� Saint Paul City Council February 23, 1998 , Page Three � , , carriage house structure would be a mere fdur.(4) feet from an enclosed exterior staircase to the basement oE the condominium property at 415 Summit Avenue. The impac of this proximity upon the £unctioning oP the cellar door which must be swung up and out � to access the down staircase is obvious. The mass•and placement of , the Carriage house structure on the lot is unacceptable and presents a clear negative impact on my clients' adjoining property. 5. The footprint o£ the proposed building and the existing two car garage (which because the applicant has £ailed to provide proper paving on the lot is unusable? on the lot arguably exceed the percentage coverage requirements of the local ordinances £or the zoning lot in question. 6. The argument implicit in the HPC sta£f report and £indings that 420 Portland and any proposed structure thereon should be seen as "accessory" to the building at 415 Summit is disingenuous and plainly not true. Though the two properties are historically part o£ the same zoning lot, two distinctions are - relevant. First, the portion of the prior zoning,Tot now known as, 420 Portland never contained an accessory buil'ding o£ the size or residential character of the proposed carriage house/garage. At most,' a small out building was at one time located on the 420 Portland portian of the lot. Second, the properties are now separate and distinct zoning lots, without common ownershig, as a result o£ the 1990 lot split and bear no more or less relationship to each other, in terms of allowed uses, than any two other adjacent properties anywhere in the city. 7. The necessity, because of the parking easements held by my- clients and other owners of property at 415 Summit, Eor providing at least nine o£f street parking places on the subject parcel would require, if indeed it is even possible, such a torturing o£ the zoning code parking requirements as to call into serious question both the desirability and feasibility of the entire project. And, jamming all of that parking and a carriage house onto the lot would negatively impact other neqessary functions such as winter snow removal and storage and trash retrieval which would of necessity need to be performed at a much heightened level i£ a residential struCture were shoehorned onto this lot. - $. As indicated in my letter to the HPC of March 13, 1997, the applicant, Mr. Severson, does not have complete site control of the parcel. In other words, his proposal is premature. My clients have a blanket easement £or pedestrian access o�zer the entire 420 Portland property flowing from the Condominium Declaration which is recorded in the Office of Ramsey County Recorder. At the time of the recording the two parcels were a single zoning lot and Mr. o��,�S� Saint Paul City Council February 23, 1998 Page Four Severson took the property through purchase subject to the easements. While the recorded document allows delineation of the pedestrian easement, as o� this date, Mr. Severson has not chosen to'do so and unless and until he does and unless and until that delineation survives whatever searching inquiry or challenge to which my clients may wish to subject it,._Mr. Severson has no more right to build on the propert� than he does in the middle of a public street or park. Additionally, each condominium unit at 415 Summit, of which there_are four, by virtue of the same recorded doaument, has an easement right to two parking spaces on the property at 420 Portland. These eight spaces are in addition to the off street parking requirements for the lot as a result o£ Mr. Severson proposed construction. On in£ormation and belie£, none o£ the unit owners has waived the requirements: Therefore, given that the applican cannot force any of the easement holders to accept and pay for parking in the proposed carriage house garage spaces, the parcel does not contain su££icient room to provide the parking spaces required by the easement and room to build the proposed carriage house also. Apparently; the HPC was advised by its staf£ no'only that it need not consider the site control arguments, but that it could not. O£ course, that isn't true. Why would the city- waste its. staff time and resources considering a project which because of the easement and variance requirements isn't even presently possible. At a minimum, the appeal ought to be granCed and the matter sent back to the HPC for further consideration when and if the variance and site control issues are resolved. Both my clients and I will be present at the public hearing to ansvrer any questions you might have. Ve tr yo ss, � S. Mark Vaug t Attorney at Law cc Jan Karan -r � Louis C. Sudheimer 439 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Councilman Blakey Saint Paul City Council City Hall 44 W. Kellogg Bivd. Saint Paul, MN 5102 Re: The 5everson's Carriage House Proposal & the FIIPC Appeal Dear Councilman Blakey: ��"� February 25th, 1998 Attached are photostatic copies of a hastily assembled four page petition contauiing the signatures of 39 neighbors, neazly all of whom live within one block of, and literally surrounding the Nathan Hale park and this Carriage House site. 7erry, As you can see, this is a very important issue to many Ramsey Hill Residents. Many of us feel that, on this issae, the Ramsey Hill Association's leadership has made a serious error, and does NOT represent us, or many other neighbors, on their very ill-advised decision to support the appeal of a properly made HPC decision. It is very important that what is constructed on this highly visibie site, right next to a lovely public park and visible to passers-by and tourists from Summit Avenue, our Ciry's Cadillac thoroughfare, be historically appropriate and aesthetically pleasing. Both of the two designs that have been approved by the HPC for this site are excellent solutions, either would be a wonderful enhancement of our City and the neighborhood. However, a very small group (only 5 condo owners) of vocai and well-connected opponents are against � HPC approved proposals. In addifion, ss far as I've been able to determine, the oppanents have no alternative solutions or proposals for this important site that are acceptable w them, their apparent go:il is for nothine to be built This is not a fair posifion of opposition, private land rights are involved here. In addition, the Ramsey F3ill Associazion Leadership's decision to support an Appeal to overturn a valid and carefully considered decision by the HPC is misguided and even worst, it smacks of "insider" influence and favors, as two of the five most acfive opponents are RHA Board members. We urge you to postpone any decision on this matter, unless you wish to deny the appeal for it's obvious lack of ineri� In either event, postponement or denial, we also urge you to assemble a delegarion of both opponents and supporters to attempt to craft an acceptable compromise before this matter comes up to you again through an apgeal of the ZAB grocess. Jerry, this issue is symptomatic of a larger set of historic district issues and City wide issues. Sincerely, Louis C. Sudheuner on behalf of well over 50 Ramsey Hill nnmediate Neighbors 648-7718 � .- c��, � S �7 February 8, 1998 We, the undersigned, want the St. Paul City Council to support the St. Paui Heritage Preservations ��nan;t approval of the carriage house proposal at 420 Portland Ave. because: i) Tlus is clearly a backyard. An au�liary structure (carriage house) is the onty logical and appropriate design for this lot. 2) Mr. Severson has gone through all the steps that are normally expected af a builder. A. He has attained approval of the Preservarion Commission after long consultation with them. B. Iie has attempted to negotiate with his immediate neighbors and has made several concessions to them. We believe that some of his neighbors are now making unreasonable demands. 3) The catriage house design Mr. Severson has proposed is a very good one. We believe it is as good as the beautiful new garage on Summit Court. 4) This design will be a handsome addition to the perixueter of Nathan Hale Park. 5) It is important to the long term viability of the Preservation Commission. � �.3� ��r'��.-� �-� �/z ��° ��-�'.G�6 J �/ � �`' 3�.r`{�� . �� S� 22Z l� Z,� � Z ).� l ) ti�� 6 ��(� �� ". �� } S�: �lz-l.t, � C 2�"�"� � � �� r��-�; 7'��yr� , �36 �ov�l� �� s� �� C;'�u��-� G�� 3� ;�� -� � S� j' ; i '' y . �� ` ,// ��e �� ,��.� �- � ��.� �1 �' �c��M C.,� >�6 f-N�� t� � �� Q-.:.`� Z'2 = ��`f i � ST�� c �-��.-�/ .��n �� 2; �6/ Sv,�"�" -� /^ y_S� �� len�l�"-- � S U.9e5�ef�'+ !7-v� �j� ��u1t �9 / - �.� 5 �' � �.-.�.�.'�� -v-�-`.�.� ss �-�-..._ A�� :, P�\ ��- � 3 S 8 c��ob �� crv��. � � �` • �c<,-�. � � �31 � v 4 L S �'�'�O�c.,,�,�-Cu'-2- 5't` �°t8 . �'(�g� `� , , � � �, �. �'. ��s-��I 1.�r,�-� �--�� . .� /'a��-� .��`I � � � , ��i� —� a!,�.c�-�--� `3 8� 3- ��v� Ct�-e -�{n�,�,.Q a 91.� a_ ��l c��_ �s�? February 8, 1998 i We, the undersigned, want the St. Paul City Council to support the St. Paul Heritage Preservations i,nan;mo� approval of the carriage house proposal at 420 Portland Ave. because: 1) This is clearly a backyazd. An auxiliary structure (carriage house) is the only logical and appropriate design for this lot. 2) Mr. Severson has gone through all the steps that are normally expected of a builder. A He has attained approval of the Preservation Commission aRer long consultation with them. B. Ha has attempted to negotiate with his immediate neighbors and has made several concessions to them. We believe that some of his neighbors are now making unreasonable demands. 3) The carriage house design Mr. Severson has proposed is a very good one. We believe it is as good as the beautifui new garage on Summit Court. 4) This design will be a handsome addition to the perimeter of Nathan Ha1e Park. 5) is ' ortant to the long t viabili of the Preservation Commission. ��, � � �-4'-1 (1 1 --f �- l {-'� C � �j �/`� . �`� � ,��w� _ . ! � �"" �j � ��? �Lt�ilJ �S Z2 --� > �' ')' �� /��z;�,� _ , ��yU,f j�'�v, ,� } � ; � _� � sr�� '��°-�� 3 `� c�. C\ � �'1�-�'cwc'1� ��, �5�� February 8, 1998 We, the undersigned, want the St. Paul City CouncIl to support the St. Paul Heritage Preservations unan;mous approval of the carriage house proposat at 420 Portland Ave. hecause: 1) This is clearly a backyazd. An auxiliary stzuchue (carriage house) is the only logical and appropriate design for this lot. 2) Mr. Severson has gone through all the steps that are nornially expected of a buiider. A. He has attained approval ofthe Preservation Commission after long consultation with them. B. He has attempted to negoriate with his immediate neighbors and has made several concessions to them. We believe that some of his neighbors are now making unreasonable demands, 3) The carriage house design Mr. Severson has proposed is a very good one. We believe it is as good as the beautiful new gazage on Summit Court. 4) This design will be a handsome addition to the perimeter ofNathan T3ale Park. 5) It is important to the long term viability of the Preservarion Commission. � � ��-�' ,� ��-� �, ��;� � ��,.�� o�� y��p��o �,� ��a'`"��'�'� 3 2/0 �.�.�i� 6• /� ✓G (,'? p C �<,�x„"'d' .:,.. . February 8, 1998 ��-3s`7 We, the undersigned, want the St. Paul City CouncIl to support the St. Paul Heritage Preseroations unanimous approvai of the carriage house proposal at 420 Portiand Ave. because: 1) This is clearly a backyard. An auxiliary structure (casiage house) is the only logical and appropriate design for this lot. 2) Mr. Severson has gone through all the steps that are normally expected of a builder. A He has attained approval of the Preservarion Commission after long consultataon with them. 3) 4) 5) l B. He has attempted to negotiate with his immediate neighbors and has made several concessions to them. We believe that some of his neighbors aze now making unreasonable demands. The carriage house design Mr. Severson has proposed is a very good one. We believe it is as good as the beautifixl new garage on Summit CourC. Thia design will be a handsome addition to the �rimeter of Nathan Hale Park. Tt is important to the Iong term viability of the Preservation Commission. � �1 �,�� 1 �.�,� - �� -�-� -, a � `�`r1 _� �� ..��,�- �`�4 ��`�` � � � � h,1cu'� d, u �� p�� 1�i�C�u��i��(�� z�3 ��IS . �l�� d��N� G� � �- � � a�e—. 1�.� A_ l,c, � c� �. � ��}'� n �t�5 �a��,�w..� � �J�c�u. .., � u.� 2� P� �� ` �.5� �� . � ��i ( -►�rl�t,�-. �°� .G-�—�i'YG--�- �ov / S�� q ��- fi . _�='��. ��.- —�— —' - `��'-'- - E —!— - 400 Selby Avenue, Suite M, St. Paul, MN 55102 November 18, 1997 Councilmember 7erry Blakey Saint Paul City Council 310-A City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota SS1Q2 Dear Councilmember Blakey, °� � " �S'� the future ot a historic neighborhood in Saint Pau) At its November 13 Neighborhood Issues meeting the Ramsey Hill Association approved a resolution requestittg that the City Council uphold the aggeal af the 5aint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission decision for property located at 420 Portiand Avenue for the following reasons: 1) the proposed structure and existing garage may exceed the maximum 30% pernutted lot coverage; 2) the necessary vaziances have not been deternuned nor applied for; 3) the proposed paved area is not in keeping with efforts by the city of Saint Paul and the Ramsey Hill neighborhood to maximize green space in residentiai azeas; 4) the proposed front yard parking necessary to meet off-street pazking requirements is inappropriate. ° 5) the Portiand Avenue side does not complement the existing properties facing Portland. In making this decision the foliowing facts carried great influence: 1) This property is a Porfland Avenue lot. At one time it served as the rear yard for 415 summit Avenue, however, the lot split approved on June 12, 1990 created a new residential lot with a Portland Avenue address. The property owner concutred at the meeting. 2) Under the Saint Paul Zoning Code this property has a front yard along Portland Avenue with side yards on the east and west sides. 3) The proposed building is the primary dwelling unit for this address. It is not an accessorv structure for 415 5ummit Avenue, even though the design may incoiporate certain features from the dwelling on Summit. 4) Section 73.06 (n(3) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code (Heritage Preservation Section) states: In the case of a proposed new building, that such building will not in itself, or by reason of its loeation on the szte, materially impair the architectural or hiszoric value of buildings wz adjacerct sztes or in the immediate vicinity within tlze historic preservatiore site. �� - �s `1 The proposed dwelling structure cames non of the front-facing features of other homes found on Portland Avenue or throughout the historic district as indicated by the property owner's diagram entiUed "north elevation" (attached). These features inciude a main entrance facing Portland, a porch typical of the residential struetures in this neighborhood and appropriate architectural detail for the front of a dwelling. TFus is contradictory to the portion of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance referenced above. 4) The proposed sideyard parking is expressly prohibited by the Saint Paul Zoning Code. 5) The pzoposed front yard patking is expressly prohibited by the Zoning Code. 6) The proposed structure is closer to the e�sting garage than the 18 feet required under the Zoning Code. Finally, legal issues were raised at the meeting regazding easement rights owned by persons other than the properiy owners. While they raise questions about site control they were not considered as a part of this decision. These matters aze best resolved in a more appropriate forum. The Ramsey Hill Association believes that the review and approval by the Aeritage Preservation Commission was premature because the applicant does not have clear site control and because appropriate variances have not been applied for. Neither the community nor the Heritage Preservation Commission can make a judgement on the design of the structure without knowledge of where the structure may legally be placed on the site, what variances may be necessary or whether or not the structure may legally built on the site. In this instance the Association believed the Heritage Preservation Commission erred in its decision. The applicant should be encouraged to re-apply for HI'C review when control of the site has been resolved, appropriate vaziances have been applied for and the community review process regarding the variances is complete. On behalf of the Association I want to thank you for your attention to this issue and your continued interest in our neighborhood. / �� McJ�aughlin, Presi t sey Hill Association Ca City Councilmembers District 8 Planning Council Ron Severson ��_� m � N N 0 0 N N 3 ❑ �S N .� � V N � 23 Qo ■ �f a 0 N ❑Q � ❑ � � U � �.IJ W ( L � l V I Z O � ¢ > w . w ° � �� O � z� OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RobertKessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nornr Coleman, Mayor LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUIGD7NG Saite 300 350 St Peter Sveet Saint Paul, Mirmesola SS701-ISIO 23 January 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hail Saint Paul, Minnesot� 55102 Deaz Ms_ Anderson: �t� .:� ��.j. y�, Tekphone: 611-266-9090 Focsimile: 672-266-9099 The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on January 28, 1998 concerning an appeal of a decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission (agenda item #27). The appellants' attorney, Mark Vaught, has requested that the hearing be postponed as one of the appellants will be out of town. I would like to request that the appeal hearing be postponed to February 25, 1998. I have confirmed this new date with all parties involved. The case information is as follows Appel]ants: Tricia Leonard, Greg and Cazol Clark FII'C File: #2884 Purpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to grant approval of a building permit to consiruct a structure with one dwelling unit and four gazage stalls (proposed by Ronald Severson). Address: 420 Portiand Avenue (south side between Summit and Arundel) Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, J f ��`i°yL ��" `�""�� Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Robert Kessler, LIEP Director Charles Skrief, HPC Chair Dauid Heide, HI'C Vice Chair Peter Warner, CAO John Miller Ron Severson Mazk Vaught QFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRON2d�T1'CAL PBOTECTION Raben Kessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemmt, Mayar 5 7anuary 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the Clty Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: 7AWRYPROFESSIONAL BUILDING Suite 300 350 St Peter Street Saint Paul, .LI'mnesota SSIO2-I510 98 �57 2/ Telephone: 612-2669090 Facrimi[e: 61 L266-9099 I would like to request that a public heazing before the City Counci] be scheduled for Wednesday, January 28, 1998 for the following appea] of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision: Appellants: Tricia Leonard, Greg and Caroi Clazk HPC Fi1e: #2884 Purpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to grant approval of a building permit to construct a structure with one dwelling unit and fow garage stalls(proposed by Ronaid Severson). Address: 420 Portland Avenue (south side between Summit and Arunde]) The Heritage Preservation Commission held several public hearings on this matter and voted 11 - 0 on March 27, 1997 to approve 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, �'�'�. �� Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Robert Kessler, LIEP Tracey Baker, HPC Chair Charles Skrief, HPC Vice Chair Peter Wamer, CAO John Miller Ron Severson Mazk Vaught l� i:^ a._ . �.. i .�_..,. :■ Ji��v 6 `f 19Q8 y8- 35'7 From: Aaron Rubenstein To: CCOUnci1.COUNCIL.nancya, CCOUnci1.COUNC2L.marye Date: 12/2/97 11:21am Subject: 420 Portland I sent a letter to Nancy (dated 11 J.971 requesting a public hearing on December 10 for an appeal o£ the HPC approval of a new carriage house at 420 Portland Avenue. Please remove this item Erom the December lOth agenda. I am working on rescheduling the appeal £or December 22 or January 28 (because the HPC needs to act on a formal resolution on the matter on December 11). CC: CCouncil.COUNCIL.jerryb, CCouncil.COUNCIL.gerrym, ... OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTTONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Robert Xessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nonrs Caleman, M¢yor 7 November 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: LOWRYPROFES.SIONAL BUILDA'G Suite 300 350 S� Peter Street Saint Paul, Minrseso[a 55102-I510 98-�5� Zelephorse: 612-266-4090 Facsimile: 612-266-9099 I would like to request that a public heazing before the CiTy Council be scheduled for Wednesday, December 10, 1997 for the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision: Appellant: HPC File: Pwpose: Address: S-i�� ricia Leo.�cvd� Cr��s c.v.� ltcrol L�nu�- .5K #2884 Appeal a Heritage Preservation Comm3ssion decision to grant approval of a building permit to conshuct a two-story carriage house with one dwelling unit and four gazage stalls (proposed by Ronald Severson). 420 Portland Avenue (south side between Summit and Mackubin) The Heritage Preservation Commission held several public hearings on this matter and voted 11 - 0 to approve the requested permit on Mazch 27, 1997. This City Council public hearing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-9087 if you ha�e any questions. Sancerely, � )l f ��"" �� ,,, U '� �"� Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Robert Kessler, LIEP Tracey Baker, HPC Chair Peter Warner, CAO Ron Severson John Miller Mark Vaught OFfICE OF LICENSE, MSPECTIONS AND EIdVIRONMEN'IAL PROTECTION Robert Kessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, MQyor LCJWRYPROFESSIONAL BUfLDING Suite 300 350 St. Pe[er Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-I510 18 February 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota SS 1Q2 98" 3 5? Telephone: 612-266-9690 F¢csimile: 672-266-9099 RE: HPC File #2884: Gregory Clark, Cazol Clark, and Patricia Leonard, appellants City Council Hearing: 25 February 1998 PURPOSE: To consider an appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's approval of a building permit application to construct a new sttucture containing one dwelling unit and four garage stalls at 420 Portland Avenue. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION A TION• Approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval. PUBLIC TESTIMONl': Four people spoke; three of them expressed concems about the project. Dear Ms. Anderson: Gregory Clark, Carol Clazk, and Patricia Leonard, a11 residents of 415 Summit Avenue, have appealed the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) to approve Ronald Severson's plans to construct a new structure at 420 Portland Avenue, which is directly behind 415 Summit Avenue. Mr. Severson's proposa] was reviewed and discussed by the HPC at five meetings. The commission intially held a concept review of the project in July of 1995. A second, informa] concept review occurred in November of 1996. The commission held a public heazing on the proposal on February 27, 1997, at which four members of the public spoke; after some discussion, the HPC laid over the matter. The project was again reviewed at the Mazch 13, ] 997 HPC Design Review Committee meeting and was fmally approved, by an 11-0 vote, at the Mazch 27, 1997 HPC meeting. The design of the proposed project evolved as a result of each of these meetings (as numerous attached plans for the building show). The commission, inadvertently, did not formally pass a resolution approving the proposed project until January 8, 1998 (10-0 vote). The commission's approval of Mr. Severson's pro,ject was appealed by the above-named parties in April of 1997. A heazing on the appeal was held in abeyance pending negotiations among concemed parties (this process was approved by the City Attorney's office)_ Those negotiations appazently were not entirely successful and the appellants have asked for the appeal to go forward. The April 8, 1997 letter of appeal from Mark Vaught, the appellants' attomey, identifies four general q8-35? Ms. Nancy Anderson Re: HPC Appeal / 420 Portland Avenue 18 February ] 998 Page Two grounds for the appeal. The first states that the application, or project, does not conform to the requirements of Chapters 73 and 74 of the Legislative Code; specifics aze not given. Chapter 73 is the ordinance establishling the HPC and its processes, etc. Chapter 74 contains the ordinances establishing historic districts and sites, including the desigi review guidelines for the Historic Hili Disuict in which the subject site is ]ocated. The second and fourth gounds cited in the letter of appeal relate to zoning code requirements and pazking and pedestrian easements; these issues aze not within the jurisdiction of the HPC. T'he third issue cited, front yard parking, is addressed in the HPC's resolution. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on February 25, 1998. Slides of the site will be available at the Council meeting if Councilmembers wish to view them. I have attached the documentation reviewed by the HPC in making its decision. The first group of documents aze those most important to understanding the current situation--a location map, a site plan and elevations of the proposed building, the HPC's resolution, the appeal letter, and two follow-up letters. The remaining documents are those reviewed by the commission at the six meetings mentioned above. Very truly yours, ��-�,� /U�C��,V��y�J Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Attachments cc: City Councilmembers Robert Kessler, LIEP Peter Wamer, CAO Mark Vaught Ronald Severson John Miller Charles Skrief, HPC Chair David Heide, HPC Vice Chair 98-3s � 420 PORTLAND APPEAL: TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 5-12 13-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-28 29-52 53-54 55-78 79-81 82-86 87-102 I. Introduction Area map Plans approved by HPC 3.27.97 HPC resolution granting approval (1.8.98) Letter of appeal (4.8.97) Foliow-up letters conceming appeal II. Information reviewed b��C (in chronological order� Plans--1995 proposal 11.6.96 informal concept review meeting--summary and plans Staffreport and attachments for 2.27.97 HI'C review 2.27.97 HPC summary Materials conceming 3.13.97 HPC Design Review Committee review--cover memo, plans, 1903 Sanbom map, Secretary of the Interior's standazds and guidelines, summary, letter from Mazk Vaught John Miller's 3.21.97 response to Mr. Vaught New information concerning HPC review on 3.2799--cover memo, summary, letter to Councilmember Blakey from Ramsey Hill Association Additional information reviewed by HPG-11.1 ].97 letter to Judy McLaughlin from Mervyn Hough; 11.18.97 letter to Councilmember Blakey from Ramsey Hill Association; 1989 plans for carriage house on same site, approved by HPC, and 1992 revisions � 114111-14 l� � --� o00 0� f�S (� Efl V • �� o o c� CHURtN ME ) C o OQ� o O � � � �� i-� �� - - STat�l � g p o o� {� { U-- � ,� � I ST �t� 5 O 'f 0 l,! • O 7 : �� ' � � � a �� u, �y, � ,o¢oo-�o C7 � °_ ¢ � ° ' 6 o p 'o 0 � o 00000 l�o 000�-� o Po2TC,�v� ��. S�T� -�, � �° `�� _� � 0 0 0 z O � o � b o a � �� •��`�E.., � 0 � � J � '�� : � ,C • �.� ��\ 5 ZX �� o z c� � � 0 . . � �� > O ` � � . � �a� � Z7 �� o � � �N� % 42� ��1ZTt,�t7 APPUCANT- �`^�' `L� �V�l�D1..� PURPOSE �Lh1 �'T fLU�T C1�R2lRtrl N' D�� FlLE # �iQg�._ DATE �: Z�� r � PLNG. DIST�_ MAP # � � SCALE 1' = 200' LEGEND ��. hpc district boundary %////////. . - . .. - 0 one family � two famity ��-Q muftiplefamily Lnorth� .�.a. • • ^ commerciai � �� industriai V vacant �lJ , �v ASPHALT —� � PAVEM �NT �� AP.a0W5 IMDVC4TE �� DRAir1AGE S�OFE ;� [� r� �'' t�,�' EXISTING / j �� pQ LI�CS J �� \ ¢� �' `? � 9� � V� � � < ,�C � R l� \ 420 POR7LAND E. �� > � s� ' ��f: � DRNEwAY . � y P� � � � \ ) � � � ,� O �Jl� . . , � � ,f. �I � q8-357 & r�FS wi IR RAILWG �� I � � e�� u'1 , o e� � i � � Q� P�� f > 2>. I d . � � o , �i '�° 1 J : . I � �� I v . � � .� 1 � �i I cF �9cFC \ � / � o � N � PROPERTY LINE � �o w ( z r� F- I � u d O � a I i w f o�� . i SITE PLAN 1 1116" = 1'-0" `1'�'��J� NEW 7RcE PATIO HEDGE Q�- - — — — — r 90.00' a� ! '�` 5 � 5 � a A ' — � 9� �� NEW AftBOR- � VVTAE TREES BASEMENT �' `-`' STAiRS � �o� r � � �o 415 SUMMIT AVE. PoRCH W N a ` 2 1/2 S50RY � WOOD FRAME BUILDWG � 1 �1 SITE PLAN �� ,�/ r = , 7�� i �L��lS roN 'CH�S �� o�l�Wit�� APPf�� 13 f ��'C, 3•Z'�• 97 � ��°�'� — + I ` h > > �t� / I_ 2.�,�1 r1 L` � l`'i L� 1�.{l�C Z 1 �^. /'� � q8-357 c 0 � W m N 9 N m N m h W N � � � N 1H'J13H 9N^IYjJ 9 m N m � � 00 � ❑O � 1N9i3N `JNil13J w 0 < � U .�b � � � W � W S U � / � ` W � � ` y \ �'^ � � o _ 1 z 0 �=- � � b J -� W '� � U (ll i� w n � 98 � � w � w _ U vi z 0 r- � >_ w� J � W :. r +� cn = u� � � � n � 98-357 m �r �N � 6 �K� WU p O �2p< 'v�o33 e �� o , w N 1 � I O I � � � " I �~ N �i Z � � o �' N O V I N � O � � ❑0 � ❑ �� W W � V / Z O � C > w � w S H � 0 z u 98-3s� U r7 w � W _ U tn Z O � ¢ > w � w 2 H � � N � 98-�s7 r� � �, o � � w �4 w " 0 T o U C/� z Q d L� � � J LL. � z 0 U w � jU 9g-367 , �� c a z C_� M? w �4 �, wo �� U cn z < � � � 0 0 � 11 98•357 I�'! z 0 � a > � J LJ H N 4 w 2 t- C � Z t� 98 -35 7 CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION CONIlVIISSION RESOLUTION FILE NUMBER 2asa DATE 8 January 1998 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to review building permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservarion Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and WHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a carriage-house-]ike structure at 420 Portland Avenue within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District; and WHEREAS, the proposed building site is currently used for off-street pazking by residents of 415 Summit Avenue; there is a two-stall gazage and unpaved driveway and pazking azeas; and WI3EREA5, the Historic Hill District Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the following: III. New Consbuction, A. General Principles: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic Hi11 District is to maintain the district's scale and quality of design. ...New construction should be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setbacl� color, material, building elements, site design, and character ojsurrounding structures and the area. III. B. Massing and Height: New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height and scale of existing adjacent structures. Typical residential structures in the Historic Hill District are 25 to 40 feer high The height of new construction should be no lower than the average height of all buildings on both block faces; measurements should be made from street level to the highest point ojthe roofs. Ill. D. Materiats and Details: ...The materials and details of new construction should relate to the materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferred roof materials are cedar shingles, slate and tite; asphalt shingles which match the approximate color and texture of the preferred materials are acceptable subsiitutes. ...Materials, including their colors, will be reviewed to determine their appropriate use in retation to rhe overall design of the structure as well as to surrounding structures. 777. E. Building Etements: Individual elements of a building should be integrated into its composiJion for a balanced and complete design. These elements for new construction should compliment existing adjacent structures as well. I77. E. 1. Roofs: ... The skytine or profile of new construction should relate to the predominant roof shape of existing adjacent buildings. 771. E. 2. YVindows and Doors: The proportion, size, rlrythm and detailing of windows and doors in new construction should be compatible with that of existing adjacent buildings. ...Facade openings of the same general size as those in adjacent buildings are encouraged. ...Wooden double-hung windows are traditional in the Historic Hitl District and should be the first choice when selecting new windows. III. E. 3, Porches and Decks: In general, houses in the Historic Hilt District have raofed front �� 98-35 7 Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #2884 Page Two porches.... If a porch is not built, the transition from private to public space should be articulated with some other suitable desigrr element. III. F. Site, 1. Setback: New buildings should be sited at a distance not more thwz S% out-of-line from the setback of existing adjacent buildings. Setbacks greater than those of adjacent buildings may be allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at corners. This happens quite often in the Historic Hil] area and can lend detightful variation to the street. III. F. 3. Garages and Pmking: Where alleys do not exist, garages facing the smeet or driveway curb cats may be acceptable. Garage doors should not face the street. If this is found necessary, single garage doors should be used ro avoid the horizontal orientation of rivo-cm gmage doors. Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Resideniial parking spaces should be located in rear yards. ...All parking spaces should be adequately screened from Yhe streei and sidewalk by landscaping, and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon evidence presented at its Mazch 27, 1997 public hearing on said permit application, made the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed building site is a pivotal and difficult site. It is visible from Summit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenue and a public park, and there aze lazge buildings to the south and west that are close to the property lines. This lot can be construed as both the reaz yazd of the Winter House at 415 Summit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed carriage house concept (and "front yazd" parking adjacent to Portland) is a reasonable approach to developing the parcel for the following reasons: a) the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street parking for residents of the WinYer House; b) the parcel has historically been a rear yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appears as a reaz yard due to its relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story carriage house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a building that is very close to the Winter House in proximity and that is related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The W inter House was built on a through-lot with Summit and Portland frontages; the recent subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the Winter House to surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site. 2. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines: a. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, co]or, material, building elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the azea." b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and character would be related to, hut do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integrated for a balanced and complete design. c. Though the side elevation would not be parallel to that of ttie Winter House, the street-facing elevation would be perpendicular to the street like those of other structures on this block of Portland. d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the rear yard nature of the site, the �T q8-357 Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #2884 Page Three carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the historic carriage house on the site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the only other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Western and Arundel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed strucrure. e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nariue of the building. f. Pazking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping. Single garage doors would avoid the horizontal orientation of doubie doors. The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. These sorts of anomalies in design and deve]opment add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district and its chazacter. 3. In addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the federal Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design and materials aze related to and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the Winter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is historic rather than mimics the historic structure and confuses the rivo; and the development would not have an adverse impact on the character-defining features of the site and the azea. The building's design is similar to the rear addition of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appropriate for a new secondary siructure. A new bnilding of unrelated design and materials would detract from the historic integrity of the site; and WAEREAS, though there are, or may be, zoning issues, legal issues, and other issues pertaining to the proposed development, they aze not within the jurisdiction of the Heritage Preservation Commission; the commission must grant or deny approval of permits based on Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code and the district design review guidelines; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation Commission grants approval of a building permit for the proposed structure, based on the revised plans including only the east elevation mazked 3C-1, and subject to the condition that an appropriate crown molding be added above the transom windows. MOVED BY Baker SECONDED BY Aauser IN FAVOR 10 AGAINST 0 ABSTAIN 0 Decisions of the Heritage Preservatios Commission are final, 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 zaning aode requiremenCs, and does not constitute approval for tax credits. 15 9�-357 S. Maxx Vau�Frr anorneyAr Law Suiu 700 Su Wesc Fifrh Saett Saint Paul, Minneson 55102 (612)297-6400 FAX (612) 224-8328 April 8, 1997 Aaron Rubenstein LIEP 350 Saint Peter Street Suite 3�0 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: File #2884 Dear Mr. Rubenstein: On behalf oE my clients Gregory Clark, Carol Clark and Patricia Leonard, all residents o£ 415 Summit Avenue, Saint Yaul, Minnesota 55102; and Laurel Frost and Mervyn Hough, residents of 73fi Portland Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102; each of whom is an aggrieved party as that term is used in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 73.06(h), please consider this letter as the appeal of the aggrieved parties to the City Council, pursuant to the cited section, of the approval of the above-entitled matter by the Heritage Pzeservation on April 27, 1997. The grounds for the appeal are generally as £ollows: l. The application as approved fails to meet the requirements of Chapter 73 and 74 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code relating to design and other functions regulated by the cited chapters; 2. Specifically, the application fails to comply with the Saint Paul Zoning Code requirements with respect to outside storage of trash, snow removal and storage, property line setbacks, provision of the proper number and spacing of parking places on the property, and trafPic circulation; 3. The application contains provisions for a front yard parking lot in violation of the provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; 4. The application violates certain pedestrian and parking easements which attach to the property. My clients have agreed with Mr. Severson to engage in negotiation with respect to the application. All parties have �� q8-357 Aaron Rubenstein April 8, 1997 Page Two agreed to maintain the status quo so long as the negotiations are proceeding. Therefore, though the agreement of the parties calls for my clients to perfect this appeal, they ask that no action be taken to schedule a hearing thereon until such time as the negotiations are abandoned as fruitless. In the event that happens, written noti£ication will be provided to your office. I assume this document is sufficient to perfect the appeal under the cited code provision. If I incorrect, please noti£y me immediately. Please direct a11 neces'sarv written communications and notices regarding this appeal to my o£fice. Very truly yours, ��C� �� :�,� � S. Mark Vaugfit Attorney at Law �� . � � 98�35 ? Warren E Pemrson Ierome P Filla DaniellV�ll Fram Glenn A Besgman Iohn M¢hael Mdler Michael T Obede Kenne[hA Amdahf Steven H Bmns' PaullV Fahning Timothy P Russell Es[herE McGinnis • � ; � a 'Us'F:£�S"S=i;O,N A�i�::94 Swtc { )0 50 East Flhh Street 5[ Paul, MN 55101-I 1�7 1612129I-R��; Ibt?4 2?A-1753 facsimde Aieh'in ) Silvec O( Coun<el Direct Dial ►290-6909 October 7, 1997 S. Mark Vaught, Esq. 6 West Fifth Street, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55102 BY FACSIMILE aHn u.s. �=v RE: Purahase of Property Adjacent to Nathan House & Mews Condominium Our File No.: 11127f950001 Dear Mr. Vaught: I met recently with Ron Severson regarding development of the property to the north of 415 Summit Avenue. Mr. Severson and some of your clients have evidently met a couple of times in order to discuss the situation and try to reach some mutually satisfactory arrangement. According to the information which I have received from Mr. Severson, it appears that at least some of your clients are taking the position that they will not agree to the building of any residential structure on that property under any conditions. If, in fact, that is their posi�ion, there seems to be little use in continued discussions or engaging the services of a mediator. (Please see Paragraph 4 of my letter of March 28, 1997 and your notes of our phone conversation of that same date.) Accordingly, please consider this letter Mr. Severson's notice to you pursuant to your letter of March 27, 1997, that the negotiations appear fruitless and that Mr. Severson will take the appropriate steps in two weeks in order to obtain the appropriate approval.s trom the City to comnlete the project. In the meantime, of course, Mr. Severson and I would certainly be willing to continue meaningful discussions if you or your clients are interested in doing so. Thank you. JMM:cnd cc: Ron 5everson iller Celebrating V � our � V LjJ V v ,� � Anni�ers.u�� •4� 50 42\9`TCD IN \\'ISCO\Si� f / � V 98-35? S. MARK YAUGHT A tt o rn ey At Lau� Suite700 `"- '��! Ci r;i;'�' �^ Six Wut Fifth Stteet '- � - � = � , Sainc Paul, Minnesota SS 1Q2-1420 (612) 297-6400 97 C'r � I w!!; i i� I I FAX (612) 224-8328 October 10, 1997 Aaron Rubenstein LIEP 350 Saint Peter Street Suite 300 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Anolication of Ronald Severson to Construct a Cazriaa House at 42Q Portland Avenue; Heritage Preservation �OG1Yi[iSaiGi1 :7.ie :i0. l. Dear Mr. Rubenstein: By letter dated April 8, 1997, a copy of which is enclosed, a number of my clients, who were affected parties, appealed the decision o£ March 27, 1997 by the Commission in the above- referenced matter. My letter to you of April 8, 1997, mistakenly states that the decision appealed fzom was made on April 27, 1997. The correct decision date is March 27,.1997. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, which decision zvas made _ after cOnsultation with Assistant City Attorney Peter'Warner, the appeal has been held in abeyance while the parties have attempted to negotiate the mattar. On October 7, 1997, Mr. Severson's attorney in£ormed my clients in writing that Mr. Severson was abandoning the furthez negotiations as fruitless. Accordingly, this letter is to request that the appeal be scheduled for hearing before the appropriate body. Upon your receipt of this letter, please contact me or have Mr. Warner do so to arrange for the scheduling o£ the appeal and the submission of additional �a*_�erwork an b�half of mv clients. Ver- uly ours, - � L�� S� Mark Vaught Attorney at Law cc Peter Warner, Esq:,_with enclosure Susan Bergen, without.enblbsure_ Carol and,Greg Clark, without enclosure.,. _,, I,aurel Frost, without enclosure Mervyn Hough, without enclosure . Tricia Leonard, without enclosure John Michael Miller, Esq., without enciosure �y �� 0 , � � ` 'i i � ; � L C n 9 � ; S u � � � O M O S .� b � ' y Y RON SEVERSON : 98-357 .r. � � rn � o- Z � 1 L -�a � � O � � �('� 1 �� N -a --a � �✓ {A)�YGIINY�ONE . x�oc�wts.m+ssnx ' . 612-636•6889 �� 6BB9.9E9'Zl9 O S � a 0 J � s � 3JA'HQIS3N NOSX3i13S NOd A'3'7d 1d3JNOJ z � � � � -i i 1 � <! < � � ' � � d�' �! z! �; �', � Z F c > � w r � 3 i ZI .' y 8-35? Meetin�Sim�maz3' informal concept review mceYing re: 420 Portland Avenue carriage house 6 November 1996 present: Ron Seveison, Bob Limning, David Heide, Charies S1Qie� Aazon Rubenstein smuniary prepazed by Rubenstein Severson presented two designs, one with fow garage stalls facing Portland and a 25' &ont setback and one with four stalls facing west and a 15' &ont seWack (both desigos similar to those now proposed in February 1497 but buildings were parallel with east properiy line and not with Portland). Heide: should Uris cazriage house read as an independent sWcture or resemble the original part of the Winter House or the simpler rear addition? Lunning: could go either way; could entertain good contemporary design tespectCul but not closely related to main building; secondary buildings tended to be simpler; tlus building could be simpler in form and detailing than the front part of the house--that would be more appropriate; these designs try awfully hard--perhaps too hazd--to follow feedhack given at previous HPC meeting. Heide: proposed carriage house is more elaborate than the rear addition of the house; concerned about false historic precedent for carriage house at this location; no sense of pedestrian entry; concemed about quality of unbuilt spaces on the ]ot. Slvief: troubled by gazage doors so visible from Portland--important sUretch of Portland, view &om Portland gerhaps more important than from Sunuuit. Limning: packing court at reaz of 415 Summit, with gazage doors facing west, better than doors facing Portiand from every perspective except view from building to west; nced to look at how to screen and unprove relationship with Portland, be welcoming from Portland--show entrance or pedestrian way. Discussion about pedestrian design connection between building and Portland. Discussion about replica6on/mimicry versus contemporary but compatible design; Heide concerned about false historicity; guidelines seem to ailow either approach. The remainder of the discussion focused on plan B--with gazage doors facing west. Lunning: plan B better meets ]arger neighborhood and public interests; suggested building could follow both east and north properly lines (trapezoidal shape)--building huns perhaps with porch element. Heide: openings not proportionate to scale of building and overly detailed. Discussion about garage doors and type; perhaps set back 1' from wali. Lunning: encoutaged Severson to look at quality of entire space, particulazly for building to the west Heide: second story windows larger than first; what about windows penetrating the comice--lower cornice? Severson: will look at revising plans and getting variance for plan B. Heide: suggested that illustrations, even small iine drawings, showing entire views from park and Portland would be usefiul (carriage house, main house, apartment bwlding, trees). Apartment building to west very close to street, not set back 25'. ZZ � ` -I' -�. . r �• � / /: ,. - �, , � . . ` ;` , - � . , f /� � . � . . . - � , i ,".' .J : l .j Ct ' � ..-..... _t . ;: / G - . � �J` � !J� Q� :_;? : �'�� /`/ �\� d� = f `O l � L o �� , � , / .�: ��` � . /� 1 ," � -��,;,�r ;i /. :;\ � „\ �� / /1 C�-, \, / � ��Sr � ?k � / ,% ��-j ��C i i� �,:, i � �� i c ' / / I ii n 1 \ / � � p�i�aEF.TY Ut:E — _. L -� T 1 ��go ,� Ff.rir w � il I� � � , w ~ � I � � a 0 � a � �� I i i� � A °�T q � 98 35 7 \ � � � S 4i sj OF �%'q � FS � �� . J � � � � � � � \ �� ;:-, 90.00' � �t:52°52'25"E - � I 1 PkOPOSED G4RAGE & -- � LOFT i 25'-0" T - – l { _ ' � - 5ASEMEIJT SiAiRS FOnCH a�s sunnr,�uT AvE 2 1/2 STORY 1NGG� FR4NE BUILOING w � � c� ` o^ I � � �n � � i SlTE PLAN � 1/16" = 1'-0" I 1t��4 /�i�� at,l,ow I N 6� S Pt�G�ES 1�P� pl!�� 8 [l•6•Q6 � �k�i,rc�tkL Gtil�ctPT 2�UI�� / � �� I 1 � � -I � � � I � 4 � o r v 4' �_ J� ' � 9� w ?� J � w a ' 0 � a � w N �O^ �� I �(L U�1 \� '�o;,>, �.s Z3 � 98- 35 7 r �:� � I��; � ;g, � , ��, �;. f ��,; c: � � i � il� ; �d � i /� i 6-.S c V c J 4 j%11 !i r— ' I I I :I ) i{ i�� I I�� i� I I 1 I 1 I I I' I I If � � I � 4 I p y I `1 C I :I I �� b � I� h � i{ I 1 1 I � li N � __ �: , .; 1 �� e ' - i , i , �, @ �� f I '� �' j; � ' �' ! �� , ��1' �, ; � � , " j� I`; � �, � j; �� , I i I !'� ilt � � � _ � � i i �� ° � ' l; ; j i ,----� N �� { ` J i;i�, � � � �l �� i �Hp:3H ONi713� � � 1H0�'3H'JN'113� , ? � C j � i � i �,, f < � w � 0 � � 1 ...b 2� � 98-3s7 z 0 � Q > w � w 2 F-- C � Z / � q8-3s7 , Z; °; W "o J � I:J _ � II � I � � ri � ( 2 �� " 98-3s7 z 0 �_ � > W J W S t � � N 2� � 9�-357 � �� `� � 1 z � J � LL � � � Z� � 98-357 HPC FILE #2884 CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMA�SSION STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: Construct cazriage house APPLICANf: Ronald Severson DA'I`E OF APPLICATION: 2.14.97 DATE OF HEARING: 227.97 LOCATION: 420 Portland Avenue (south side betweea Westem(Summit and Arundel) HPC SITE/DISTRICT: FIistoric Hill IJisfrict CATEGORY: N. A. CI.ASSIFICATION: Major STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 4.23.9'i BY: Aazon Rubenstein A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject site is a flat, dirt lot used for off-street pazking for the residents of 415 Summit Avenue which adjoins to the south. A two car gazage was constructed in the southwest comer of the site 1.3 yeazs ago. To the west is a]azge, four story, brick condominium building and to the east is the triangular Nathan Hale Park. The E. W. Winter House at 415 Summit is a two and one-half story residence constructed in 1882 in a vemaculaz Second Empire sryle and later remodeled in the Queen Anne style. Elements of both styles are evident. A two story reaz addition was consiructed in 1886. Cass Gilbert designed an 1892 remodeling. The Winter House is categorized as pivotal. The structure has a mansazd roof (rear addiuon hipped) with wood shakes, clapboazd siding, double hung windows, and a limestone foundation. In the 1980s, the building was converted into four condominium units. A new, east side, pyramidal ]ripped roof, entry porch was approved by the T in 1987. B. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant proposes to construct a two story "carriage house" residence, with four gazage stalls at ground levei, on the east side of the lot. C. GITIDELINE CITATIONS: The Historic Hill Heritage Preservation Distriet guidelines for design review include the following: III. New Construcdon, R. General Principles: The basic principle for new construcdon in the Historic Hill District is to maintain the district s scale and quality of design. ...New construction should be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setbact� color, materiaf, building elements, site design, and rharacter ofsurroundingstructures and the area. III. B. Massing and Height: New construcdnn should conform to the massing, votume, height and scale of exisdng adjacent struciures. Typicat residendal structures in the Historic Hill District are 25 to 40 feet high. The height ofnew consmrction shoutd be no lower than the average height ofall buildings on both block faces; measurements should be made from street level to the highest point of the roofs. 2y 9'8- 35' 7 HPC Stafl Report: File #2884 Page Two III. D. Materials and Details: ..,The materials and details ofnew construction should relate to the materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferred roof materials are cedar shingles, slate and tile; asphalt shingles which match the approzzmate color and texture of the preferred materials are acceptable substitutes. ..Materials, including their colors, will be reviewed to determine their appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure as well as to surrounding structures. III. E. BuildingElements: Individual elements ofa buildingshould be integrated into its composition for a balanced and complete design. These elements for new construction should compliment eristing adjacent structures as well. III. E. 1. Roofs: ...The skyline or profile ofnew construction should relate to the predominant roof shape of ezisting adjacent buildrngs. Ill. E. 2. Windows and Doors: The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing ofwindows and doors in new construction should be compadble with that ofexisting adjacent buildings. ...Facade openrngs of the same general size as those in adjacent buildrngs are encouraged. ... Wooden double-hung wrndows are tradrtional in the Historic Hi11 District and should be the first choice when selecting new windows. Ill. E. 3. Porches and Decks: In general, houses in the Historic Hidl District have roofed front porches.... Ifa porch is not built, the transitlon from private to public space should be articulated with some other suitable design element. IIZ F. Site, 1. Setback: New buildings should be sited at a drstance not more than S% out-of-line from the setback ofexisting adjacent buildings. Setbacks greater than those of adjacent buildings may be allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at corners. Thrs happens quite often in the Historic Hill area and can lend delightful varration to the street. Ill. F. 3. Garages and Parking.• Where alleys do not exist, garages jacing the street or driveway curb cuts may be acceptable. Garage doars should not face the street. If this is found necessary, single garage doors should be used to avoid the honzontal orientaaon of nvo-car garage doors. Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be located in rear yards. ...All parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping. D. ffiSTORY AND DISC[TSSION: The 420 Portland lot was subdivided in 1990 from the 415 Summit Avenue lot to the south. It is both the rear yazd of the Winter House and a sepazate pucel fronting on Portland, a situation that presents challenges for development--not the least of which is off-street pazking. The 415 Siuumit wndominiums have a pazking easement which requ'ves two parldng spaces in the reat lot for each of the four condominium units (though this requizement can be waived by any condo owner). The current applicant wants to provide nine off-street pazking spaces--two for four units and one for either a condo unit or the carriage house unit The City's off-street pazking requirement for the site would be seven spaces (1.5 spaces x 5 units, rounded down). From a design perspective, a new 3� 98-357 HPC Siaff Report: File �#2$84 Page Three cazriag�house-type strucUUe should 1) be related but suhservient to the Winter House and 2) resemble a carriage house yet be compatible with the grand buildings along Porttand Avenue. The applicant, Mr. Severson, bought the 420 Portland lot a year of so ago and lives in the Winter House. In 1989, the HPC and BZA approved plans for conshuction of a carriage house on this site, wlrich project included one dwelling anit and five gazage stalls in a sort of I,-shaped building and three off- slreet pazldng spaces. In 1992, the HPC and BZA approved modifications to that plan w}uch included two dwelling units in an L-shaped, carriage-house-like, shucture and 14 underground pazldng spaces. In July 1995, the HPC Design Review Committee did a concept review of Mr. Severson's first proposal --to build a three story, mansazd roofed residence with two gazage stal]s. That design was not partiwlazly well received and the HPC chair offered to have a small goup of HPC members meet with the applicant to consult informally and in more detail about the design issues. The fundamental concem eapressed at the July 1995 meeting was that the design started to be a carriage house but wasn't and that it needed a stronger design relationship to the Winter House. The infomzal meeting happened a yeaz later, in November 1996, with Mr. Severson, Bob Lunning, David Heide, Charles Sl�ief, and HPC staff attending, at which time several new designs--related to those now proposed--were reviewed (notes attached). E, kTNDINGS: 1. The applicant is proposing three design schemes for HPC review, all variations on a two story carriage house. Scheme 3X has a) a 25' front setback from Portland in order to avoid need for a setback variance, b) a 36' long building with two double garage doors, and c) two pazking spaces in the front yazd which wouid requ've a variance. The 3X building is smaller than the other two designs, resulting in the cariiage house's bedroom being located in the basement--the applicant's least prefened design. The app]icant may want to add a dormer with one window on north and south elevations of the 3X design. Scheme 3B is a 40' long building with single gazage doors, a 19.5' front setback, and two parking spaces in the front yard. It is the applicant's second choice. Scheme 3A is the applicant's preferred design. It is the same as 3B but with angled, second story overhangs at the northeast and southeast comers. 2. Proposed materials aze as follows. Roofing would be Timberline asphalt shingles, matching the eacisting gazage; the Winter House has a wood shingled roof. 5iding would be dutch lap woal siding milled to match that on the Winter House; wood-shingles in dormer gable ends. Trim and eaves wouid be wood; eave design sunplified from that of Winter House by deleting dentils. Windows would be 1/1 douhle-hung with insulated glass with full scseens--either Andersens with brown vinyl cladding matching color of Winter House windows or, more ]ikely, Marvin wood windows. Doors and entry hood wouid be of woal. Roof ridges would be painted metal with a wooden crown molding and tin balls. Other details: rockfaced block foundation above grade; probabty built-in gutters; paint scheme to match the Winter House; balcony design closely matches those on Winter House. 31 98-35 7 HPC Staff Report: File #288A Page Four 3, Schemes 3X and 3B conform to the disirict's design guidelines. They would be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, color, material, building elements, site design, and character of s�sroundiug structures and the azea. The angle of the building on the site would reflect the relationship of Portland to Sumnut and would mean the carriage house would be squaze with its Portland neighbors. The building elemenu add up to a highly detailed, complex design for a carriage house that could be simplified but is acceptable as is. Tke first story of the north elevation, however, is elccessively blank; the applicant is willing to considet adding small square windows here and in place of ]azger windows on the first floor of the east elevation (possibly then deleting glazing on garage doors). Consideration should also be given to adding these windows to the south elevation. The proposed two pazking spaces set back ten feet from Portland would be acceptable, if wel] screened, given the front yardlback yazd nature of the site. A detailed landscaping plan should be provided. 4. The proposed 3A design, with its angled second story overhangs, is excessively complicated for a carriage-house-type structure. Historic carriage house, though they can be finely detailed, have simpler forms. A cazriage house should look like a secondary structure. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staffrecommends a) denial of the proposed scheme 3A and b) approval of the proposed schemes 3X and 3B subject to the following condition: The HPC or its staff shall review and approve fmal construcdon plans (including added first story, north elevation windows), and a detailed landscaping plan to ensure adequate screening of pazking. 32 GENERAL BUILDING PERMlT - g8 -357 DEPARTMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL �..J u I t..J CTl'Y OF SAINT PAUL 2' I d• J � I OFF[CE OF LICENSE, INSPECf70NS AND � ENVIRONMENTALPROTECIION � BUILDING INSPECf10NAND DES7GN � 350 St Pefer Stree! - Suite 300 � F�t1111t Np, �� Saim Pau( Milmesota 55102d570 672-266-AD90 =OATE' a ��_ipWNE �Oi OWNEfiS ADDRESS- �� L�rII/�I � � ❑ OLO ❑ NEW TYPE CONST. GRADING STUCCOOR ❑ BUf LD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PIASTER ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTER ❑ REPAIR NUMBER l0T STRUC- W'orH TURE ESTIMATED VALUE ' DETA1 LS !� REMRRK$: SIDE CROSSSTREETS A ODITIO N OR TRA SIDE lOT CLEARANCE BUII.DINC HEIGNT ( STORIES 9ASEMENi TOTAL FLOOR AREA YES ❑ NO S�. FT. 1NCLUDEBASEMENT ►ERMiT FEE •�AN CHECK STATE SURCHARGE TOTALFEE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT ALL IN- FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT ALl PERTINENT STATE REGULATIONS AND CITY ORDINANCES WI LL BE COM- PLI£O W ITN IN PERFORMf MG THf WORK FOg i.VVHICH THISPERMiT IS ISSUED. \ A 1.� STATE VALUATION CASHIER USE ONLY WHEN VALIDATED THIS IS VOUR PERM�T St. �¢ _ �1DDRESS; 1]�F1oe==' �_ �3'33 TYPE OF OCCUPANCY ❑ DRYWALL ❑ FENCE e` i � � /^ ` / � , \ \ .. / / I � C9 F \ � C � � & Ait ol � �� PROPERTY LINE � i �� — — wl z � � � �f ai 0 � � 1 I w ( <�'.�j O ^ O O I �� N SiTE P�AN PATIO � \ 9. \ EXIS7ING LILACS ASrHALT —'� �� PAVEMENT HE�GE > � p / �� . . Lll. �,� PRO�OSED GAFEAGE 8� f o � v � LOFT l I � � � � � 2�. ' � f 4 ' O � � � \ ">� � � � � � — -- �--- �� 5�� 9�, > NEW ARBOR- � VITAE TREES BASEMENT '�' STAIRS z � PORCH 415 SUMMIT AVE. 2 7/2 STORY WOOD FRAME BUILDING ' 9 � 0 98-357 � 'QL F (��, � ry� � �O \ r� �) w a 0 � � I w o "' �^ I�° .- n � � � 1 1/16" = 1'-0" �� SC��I�� 3 X (2s' �rwNT s�-��c�J n ' � `EXISTIPJG �E TREE � � <� CO C. VvALK & TEPS W! IR N RAILfNG � �� 98-357 x � w � w _ U cn z 0 � Q > w J W _ }-- � � z C O�S I{rt�lS �y �� o P �- 24 �-��,�� D �� 3� 7 98-3s7 N N� m N W N � N W N X r`� W � W _ C� � 6-.S � N 0 N 1H'J13H � �. ■ � �, 0 a 1H913H pNlll3� v Z O � Q >o � .� �., - � �� 4 � w � 3b �' 98-$s7 . � .� � � 3 � � � �- � x � w � w _ v � � � � � � � �.., � � 3 � z � �' � � z 0 � �_ �i° �., - �� y � m I �JC� NOI1tl�t1Q3 31tl9M3N bL888LEZT9 8£:LL L66IJLZIL� `j y8-�5� x � w � w _ � � z 0 � Q > W J L11 i � � � � 3 � ./-6 9�-35� X � W � � _ U (l) Z O � ¢ > w � w �- � w � 39 � 98-357 ,� � � � � �; �3 � s � n z ,r, r() w , C �^ / N W N T w U � � ¢ � � � U O x za �ad a�ins N�s3a �znomn x sz�z-sse-at9 �v � 4Z�ZL L66ZISt/Z0 / \9• �� O� �J� ,� 0�` � -}. p0 � � � � a V ��,��/ �e e�� S• � � / . � \ � � / F -�'/,s � I C9 � 9 �'F b ( N ^ PROPERiY LINE ' �O J I � � w a 0 � a I � w I O N O � OO � � r M � 1 Exi� °� ULACS � �� ASPHAIT —� �PAVEMENT HEDG� 415 SUMMIT AVE. 2 7/2 STORY N100D FRAME BUi _DING A 98-357 ti0 &O ��FL,� � � 'QO � o EXIS7ING �� < SREE r S ��F� ��k CO C. 4JAlK � & TEPS W/ IR N RAILING & ATE �, EXI , LIL i• � o � �, vi � � o ! � � I � I � � � -1- I "v `D __- ._- -----_.__. � w� z J H � w a 0 � a� �., � {o ( �o � n � � SITE PLAN � ' � �� ` � � ,i, s° _ , �—o° � 4c�4eN�� 3f� �to 3i� ((9.5 ��as�c S£T�i�LI�.� ,, ?�" Ji 4. � O Q / Q� NEw' TREE PAf10 X� � / \> � / .\ � \ \ � > �j \ � / �\/ � � � p � � � / � 4r ) i �� Pp�� Q V C" �' // �� NEW ARSOR- VITAE TREES BASEMENT —� STAIRS FORC ��i i, ¢� X, 9d'-357 m �� w S W � C� v7 z U � Q > LL, _ J p w i 2 � F U � : � � Z n � � w z � 0 v 4 � � � G'1 � � / � 98�35� N� m N m N N N � � _ � - _ 6 w a 1H013H ONlI13� . _ 1H913H 9NI113J c�i .b �� W � W S U � z O f"' Q J o Ll_1 " � II � iD W M �3 l� g8-3s-r m � w � w _ � � z 0 �_ Q > w � � _ �- � 0 N � ; � � , q8-3s7 � � W � W _ U � Z O F= Q > w � � � � � � �7 ,� 98-3� 7 � e � � W T � N W o � ? C� C/� ^�, ;:, � Z Q 6 ' J � � � L1- fl ab O b • � M �f � n � ^ Q V, � � �. �' + �' r . n T0 39Cd Q�If1H N�J53Q FpIftOfYVt £L£Z-8£S-Ei9 51 i � ��:;, ��}� 46 �.?:. Y� . 9Z�ZL�i L66I/Bi/Z0 �'f � 98- 3s � Q w � w _ U � Z O r= Q > w J W _ � � Q Z s � w � 0 � Q � � � d � �� 98-35 7 Q � w � � � � �.,-� z 0 � Q > w J W i�- � Q W - 1 V � V Q � � � 0 � � _ 3 a 0 r- � r v lLJ � Li..l _ U (I� O a � w w' t— Q W i 98-�57 0 u i� i � U.� � � �L' � lJ� � !— 3 �� J � �� / Z0 39dd 85�LL L66T/LL/Z0 q�. y M.. ,. F: � NO21G�43 31C�JM3N �: - bL808L£ZT9 r, 98- 3s � Q � � � � _ V z � O � Q > � � w _ F- � O � ,�D � gg-35� � � W � W z � � z 0 � a > W � W � � W � �l �-3" �18 357 Q � w �4 w� z� U � Z Q J C L.l. � � � 52 ?� 98-3s � HPC Meeting Summary / 2.27.9� re: 420 Portland AvenuefFile #2884 Construct new carriage house applicant: Ronald Severson summary by Aaron Rubenstein Rubenstein showed photos and slides of the site; mentioned that he had notified 436 Portland residents of HPC meeting and they notified 415 Summit residents; a neighbor had raised issues of trash storage, 6'-lugh fence vs. landscaping, and locarion of ninth paddng spot. Baker asked for clazification that staff recommends appmval with smaller first Aoor east windows; Rubenstein responded `�es". Albers asked about screening and landscaping requirements. Severson said he plans to live in the cazriage house, wants to withdraw plan 3A from consideration given staff ob,jection to it, and is open to HPC's design suggestions. Hazgens: likes scheme 3B with single garage doors and smaller fust story east windows. Severson: would like IiPC approval for both 3X and 3B designs given the uncertainty about getting a frrnrt setback variance. Slvief: pointed to informal concept review swnmary on p. 25 of packet, which suggests some problems with the proposed designs; designs aze too elaborate given the nature of the building; also concemed about relationship with the park, especially the balcotry--the building should be a restrained backdrop, have better manners. Heide: concurs with much of Skrief's comments; still confused by what the building is hying to be and its relationship with the e�sting building; his wmments from the 11.6.96 meeting still apply. Chair Baker asked for any public comment. Gary Ballman, Ramsey Hill Association representative: RHA has not had a chance to foimally review the proposal and he invited Severson to neat RHA boazd meeting. Cazol Clazk, 415 Sununit: owns existing gazage; new gazage spaces would be � she has problems bacldng out of gazage because of tight lot; condo association was not informed of HPC meeting; listed a number of concems; unplications for condominium legal documents; she catmot use existing gazage as there is no paving. Rubenstein inteaupte3 and said the concems of Ms. Clazk and other neighbors about legal issues, Mr. Severson's handling of the process, and other non-design issues are valid concems but not appropriate to discuss at the HI'C; the HPC deals with design issues addressed in the district guidelines and must make a decision based solely on the design guidelines. Laurel Frost, 436 Portland: subject lot is not a front and rear lot--it is a front lot; a building cannot be a main and accessory building; believes this is a main building. Mervyn Hough, 436 Portland, president of Nathan Hale Park Condominium Association: west elevation and landscaping do not take into accoimt their situation; has a problem with the concegt; concemed ahout landscaping, gazbage and screening; wants four single garage doors and wants plans to be follow i.e., changes require approval. Severson responded briefly. Albers: documents not adequate for permit approval, especially for approval of two schemes. Frame: concurs with Albers, particulazly inappropriateness of approving two different plans. Heide: proposed building is intended to represem a historic carriage house that was never there, blurs what is historic and new. Hargens: agrees with Heide; a pivotal and difficult site; moved layover. Albers: suggested denial of pemilt--plans not sutliciently detailed. Frame seconded the layover motion. �3 98-3s� FIPC Meeting Summary / 2.27.97 re: 420 Portland Avenue/File #2884 Page Two Hazgens: there are other, broader issues [besides design] to be resolved Kubenstein: it is reasonable to review and act on two design schemes givea difficulty and imcer[ainty of the development process; HPC should avoid non-design issues and, whether layover or denial, should be cleaz about reasons for action. Hazgens: the design of the building is ambiguous. Lazson: supports layover rather than denial. discussion about layover to Mazch 13 Design Review Committee meeting. Motion to lay over passed 10 - 0. �� q8-357 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Ma}ror MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: HPC Design Review Committee Auon Rubenstein � �� 420 Portland 10 March 1997 OFFICE OF LiCENS$ A'SPECITONS AND EN VII20NMENTAL PROTEC.'TfON RobertKus(er, Diruwr IAWRYPXOFFSSIONAL BUD.DA'G Suite 300 3505[ Petsr Sfreet Saint Pau� Minreesom 55102-I510 Telephone: 612466-9090 Faanmile: 672-266-9099 Todd Bradley has prepazed revised elevations for the 420 Portland carriage house. Because of the pivotal, highly visible natwe of the site, Chazles Slvief would like to have the Design Review Committee review and discuss the revised plans on Thursday and then have the full commission review and vote on the project on Mazch 27. The revised elevations show a simplified, hipped roofed design Included are three versions of the east e]evation, a north elevation with fsst story windows added, and two variarions of the west elevation. Mr. Bradley has stated that the revised design is meant to reflect the reaz wing of the 415 Swnnut building and could be fiuther distinguished from the main building by simplifying or eliminating moldings and possibly by changing some materials. I have included in this packet the information from the February 27 HPC meeting, a summary of the February 2? discussion, copies of earlier plans for the site FYI, and a 1903 Sanbom insurance map section showing that a two-story out building was located at the northeast corner of the lot. (A 1901 Rascher map labels the outbuilding as 1.5 stories; both maps provided by Tracey Baker). Also included are seven pages from the federal Secretary of the Interior's standazds and guidelines with references to distinguishing between new construction and historic structures. I would like to point out that these guidelines are not included in the guidelines for any of the local districts and perhaps ought to be. I expect this might be a more contentious issue in the neaz future (re: Lawel and Mackubin}. �� 63I07/1997 02:34 612-338-2323 VIiJOVICN DESGN BUILD PAGE �_� � C_i r7 W � � W � T U (n z 0 � Q w °; �. w� � ,� �� u M �6 03/07/1997 02:34 612-33 a VUJOVICH DESGN EUILD PAGE 03 9� 3s7 L� � W ^ �a � x v c_� � z U � d 5 w � N w �� n � ., �� >t ' ' , t 03/07/1997 02:34 612-338-2323 UUJOVICH DESGN BUILD PAGE 64 q8-35� �� w� �� W z � > �- � z o� � � � w � w � � � � r��' .. ,. . , 03/07/1997 02:34 _ , -� j S 612-338-2323 VUJOVICN DESGN BUILD , M U 1 J w � w z U C/) PAGE 05 98-35� Z. O �- ¢ � � � � � O � � �� a ; � Sy 03/07/1997 02:34 612-338-2323 VUJOVICH DESGN EUILD _ , PAGE 66 98-�35 � � � � w z �} � � ;i;; �� (, i. � 0 Q! > w w ti � Z a n a :� � , 03/07/1997 02:34 612-338-2323 _ VLUOVICH DESGN EUILD PAGE 07 � ''' � � 98�357 .a� , �� ; :.;. k •�: =�� : , , Ej �� ; �� .ti � N � N � � N N r � � �� d�❑ � � ❑�❑ � r 1 ` 1�' \\ (�� ❑ � � \ ` 1 � � ��(c��❑ �� .� o�� oo�� a � ❑ �I� � � � ,� �o o�❑ w , �� ❑C1�.`�.. � ,, � .. � � . �� 03107(1997 02:34 �-, 612-338-2323 VUJOUICH DESGN BUILD PAGE 88 48-357 b �,, U � W � W � V V� � Q � � �, �� ' °.r �. , ' � {li'' aq �!- z 0 � Q � w w � w }� 5 ; C 'l� r . . ''__'_ ' _ ' _ ' _ 's _. _ _ ,. '_ - _ — ' __" ' ' ' - _ _ —__ _ __'_ '_ __—__ _- _ -r•--- --:.,: , _ , y �,_._ - --- -- -t-�— - ---- `0�-=�_._ . =-- ---- --� � i =r°�- - ----- -_ _ _�- -�_e=— N-Ab' - Nb31S3M.----- �� - �— _�-- � - -- r-= Fg �R-=-=- :: �:.-�.-, . • .e � ` � �� . � � - . - _ � : i � " � - -- __ , �: L_� �� —_ � - ' _ � -' � -- -- - - ' - c•--. - -- -"--- -�� `. - — ��"° .t =__ "- -."-- ,_�.— ,�: -- - - - -- . — -. - �: . �: �� . Yo�� " _'_ _ _ �� _— _ �._--„ _ __ _ ' 9� e t ' .� �.. ' - �g� i �---- . �� `__— -��_ ' _ '_ _—`— ±� � �4 "� '. i" — , _ ' f • b ♦ V.ts:_ i � � ,� � - � � ``\ � � ^�� r � � � _ �.° .� `'� i � : r» ; .� I _,-... __.. . . — '__ ___'__ ,- ' � , -- - - - � � . .;�� Y _ i .:. -----' �— _«__ _ - . --- - - - - r ♦ . - :._-. � � -- � �, ♦ ' ' - --- - -- ---- •^ m C -- --- -�---- - – � � - — - _� r . " `` � i . : � � ' �r. �� . __. __..._:. ... _. � -- - � --- -� � ,0 - -.... - ' - - --- --- - - - - - � : � , . - °� � . . _ �__ . ---�--=---•- --�— — - 1]' � i � �ti �, �. Q ; .�' • -- O ' a+ - �{ ^ _— ' �� i �4'= . � ----- —�---= -- -----y-- -- .J � d.0. - �J�-- \i 3' p y �___ _ O . . . . _ _ _ '. .— ' � __ .' _ _"' "_' ' ? � � � � ¢ � 1 .p P'�a 0 - _ 1____.—'__'___ ____ _ _ . -, ..-:_ _-__ _ .. ___ _ _ __ - _ .'–.. . ._�c._�_ -� - --- - ---�–' ------• � -- - . ` � ---- - -' - Z 1 � . . . — ' . .,�-' . . " '0 __. _ 0__–..– � __ ___.__ --. __ _.– `➢ g -�:_ i—= �___ _____ ___- — � _ - -- - � � �- �_ --- --_ ---- o S� t N � -' — — — — -- a,— — -- r - -- -- -- -- — - — -- — � - — 0- --_-- o � _. � _ — a • —�__--_ � O . i-- -- -- —..-.--- ------ >---- -- �----- — - 4 �' - .o. =+ 1 0 a -_ -- � � I � � ' ° �'�'- - _ _-- - @` - -�_ �L?s=_-� - -- � . \ � - - � _— - - o . �� F \ ` . 0 � � ` Y� ' �d 1Vi 4� N _—___ __--1—_-_ _ c� , O� _� " . . � 2 ' o``o\> O� i< _ � ________ � � 1� . _ _: �. . �� P c; � • _ S0 � r 4 --- _i�_- _ � o z `�=' -- �a N —._" � _" __ .______' _ ___—_-- _ O 'l m -_ -__ _ __ __ __'_ � . .. , 0� __._�i'/" _—�-� ^+ 4�• i � ' � _ - _____�_ --_ _-_ _" _ �- -_ �f___ "_" -_"- _ __' _ �'" /� _ . . . L � T t _..:. o'. ➢ � . . ' ��__ � _' " ' _ _ ' _ . 0 ` ��o ._�..; _ _ �1N.� � . .� . Q �— � .� ..:;_� :-q`� o �.:�,..,._. � � � ,� :. ..a:_.,.,:._. - `i' " � ,,�, �-ri�,_.,_-.. . � 4 ' � � . '`�� a. ;°>:..�_ ' - � , � � A _ ► 0 1 . N J � � — �� . t ar at_ � '�� - - --- i.- _ - 1 � z •� � - -= - -. : ; .:�:��_ _-_.____._ea�� 1�1f-i�F/= = m �__- = z -- ` � N � - - v�ca=cvv ' ' . j, i£ 61 /Z � 6 � ; / � . ` � S/ 1` '.- _�..� - _. . �� " _ ' / p�_. . ' - '0. - -. : ;--- ,----, � ,-x. , -- - -� ----�- .� b3 ! � N Q e t N [� * r� �� x .\'. �- i � CF.0. OFFICE OF LiCENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVtRONMENTALPR07ECTtON Ro6estKusler, Dirutor CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co]eman, Ma}ar FAX MEMO To: From: Date: � � ��z�� ' `�; r;. �� i lr fax tel Aaron Rubenstein tel 266-4Q87 fax 266-9099 �� d�! 1 Total pages including cover memo: C� J Message: � �� ./ ��S�Y ��.'�,� I � l.�`�� i ��.`:� �'' h 1 � (! IAWRYPROFESSIONAL BUIIDA'G Suite 300 3505[ PeterStreet SaintPaul Minnesota 55101-I510 1� ��1.� ��v�- �`�" � ��, J 5��-�G �� ( ?elephone: 6I L266-9090 Factimile: 61 b2669099 � '' i ^ , 1 Y s 1' �,, -1� p �� h�,� �,�,: t' l /�/��/ ,� ��/� _ I �� / �. ♦� • �� ..� -y � ^� , .> ; J � � � „T ,v . - � � � g,� ��/Y[':_c�1- , ,_. 7, � i, _� ��.',��:R�� _� �: �.. � . - _ " 98-35 7 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Preservation Assistance Division �! n Washington, D.C. � 'f 'i � For We 6y tLe Superin�endent of Documenn, U.3. Oovemmeat Prin[in6 Othee Wuhington, D.C. ROW2 �/ � q8-357 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION Thr tnllowing Swndar3s am tobe applie�i to spetific rel+abiBtaHon projects in a reawnable manner, taqng into considerofinn economic and txhmcal Ra>ibilitv. Ul A pmperty shal! be used for its historic purpose or be piaced in i new use Nat requim miniwl clunge ro the deEining chancteristics of the building and its site and environment � (D The historic chancter of a pmperty shali be renined and preserved. The rcmovai of historic materiais or altention of feacutes and spaces that chancterize a property sluli be avoided. �(y l31 Each property shall be eecognized u a physical record of its fime, place, and use. Changes that a�erte a false unx of historical devdopmenl, such K u adding conjectunl featum oz archilectunl demm4s from other buildings, sha11 not be undertakm lil Most propenies change orer 6me; thox clunges thaf have acquircd historic significance in U�eir own right shal I be refained and preserved. (5) Disiinctive featuces, finisha, ind mnstmction techaiques m enmpVn of rnftsmmship that chancterize i historic property shill be preserved. 161 Deterionted historic featum ehall be rcpaind nther tiva ttplaced. Whue the severity of dHeriontion rcquircs replacement of a distinctive feature, the new featurt sha31 match thc o1d in design, mloq te:ture, and othervisual quaiities and, whae possible, materials. Repiacemmt of missing featuxxs shall be substantiated by documenfary, physical, or pictorinl evidmce. l� Chemical or physicat txatments, such u sandblasting, that duu damage to historic materials ahall not be used. The surfa<e cleaning of shuo- tures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gmtlest means possibie. � (SI Signific�nt archtologiai resources affected by a project shall be protened and prcxsved. lf such resources must be disturbed, mitigation meas� urn shali be unde�ken. 191 New additions, esterior altentions, or rclated new construction shall not destmy historic materials that chancterize the property. The new work �� shall be differcMiated from the old and shali be mmpatible witA the msssing, sizq scale, and architectunl featurzs to protect the historic integrity of the property and its envimnment. _ L 1301 New additions and adjacent or rtlated new construction shall be und<rtaken in such a manncr that if rcmoved in the futurt, Ihe essential form �� and integrity of the historic pwperty and its rnvironment would be unimpaittd. i � 98-357 As stated in thr drtiniN��n, thr treatment "mhabilitation" assumr that at least enme rcpairor alterahon af the hutoric building will br n�edid in ordrr tu provide tot nn etiinmt nmtrmp�e�nrv use; hnwever, these rrpa¢s and alteranon must not damage or dcstmy m, terials, fratures or finishe� that arr �mportant m denning thr buiiding> hisroric character. Far rxampie, certain treatmrnts—if improperly applied—may ousr or amleratr phvsical detr� rioradun ot hL<tont build[ng Thu can indude using impropet rcpomring or extmor masonry cleaning tethmques. or mhoduring insuWtinn that damages his�uric hbrio ln almmt all nt these situations, use of thc�e materiaLt and treatmmts will result in a projecY [hat dnes not mert the Swndards. Similartv, eaterior alditiom' that dupticate the form, mat�Riai. arnf d�Kailing nf the stiucture to the e:tent that they comprumisc the historic cfiaract�v nf � thr structure wili tail tn meet thr Stand. rds. Technical Guidance Publications The National Park Serv�ce. U.S. Departmen[ of thr Interior, mndutts a variety of activitirs to guide Fedrrai agrnaes.5tates, and thr genrral pubhi m historic prrservatinn pm�ett work. In add�tion to c�tabluhmg sLindard> anJ guidrlines, the Service develops, publishcs, and di�tribuhs [echmcal intomwnun on appropriate pttxrvatiun trea[ments. in<luding Pre�ervahon Briefs, caae �tudies, and 1'reservatiun Tech Notes. A Catalug of H�storic Prrservation Publicatinas with shxk numbers, prices, and ordering infurtnation may be obtaine+i by writing: Presrrvatinn Ax��s- Wnce Div�s�on, Trchnical Prcxrvanon Services, P.O. Boz 37127, Washington, D.C. 20013T27. �'= "1 �� i I 98-3s� ess of carefully documenting the hutorical appearance. Where an important architectural EeaNre is missing, its recovery u always recom- mended in the guidelines as the fi•st or preferred, course of action. Thus, if adequate historical, pictorial, and physical documentation exists w that the featurn may be accurately reproduced, and if it is desireable to re<stablish the feature as part of the building's historiwl ap- pearance, then designing and constructing a new feacure based on such info�matwn is apprapriate. However, a second acceptable option for the replacement feature is a new design that is compatible with the remaining chacacter-defining featum of the historic building. The new design should always cake into account the size, scale, and material of the historic building itself and, most importantly, should be ciear(y dif- terentiated so that a faLse historical appearance ss not created. Alterations/AddiHons to Historic Buildings Some exterior and intedor alterations to the historic building are generally needed to assure its continued use, bue it is most important that such alt�ations do not radicafty change, obscure. or destroy chazattec�efining spates, materiats, features, or finishes. Alterations may in- dude providing additional parking space on an existing historic building sire; cutting new entmnces or windows on secondary elevations: m- sercing an additional floor, installing an mtirely new mechanical rystem; or creating an atrium or light well. Alreration may also include the selective removal of buildings or other features of the environment or building site that are intrusive and thereEoce detract Erom the overall historic character. The const�uction o( an «terior addition to a historic building may seem to be essential for the new use, but it is emphasized in the gufdelines that such new additions should be avoided, if possible, and considered only aEter it is determined that those needs cannot be met by altering � secondary, i.e., non characterdefining interior spaces. IE, after a thorough evaluation of interioz solutions, an exterior addition is still judged � to be the only viable alternative, it should be designed and constructed to be clearly differentiated from the historic building and so that the character-defining teatures are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed. Additions to historit buildings are rcferenced within specifit sections of the guidelines such as Site, RooE, Structurel Systems, etc., but are also considered in more detail in a separate section, NEW ADDITIONS TO H15TORIC BUILDINGS. Health and Safety Code Requirements; Energy Rettofi[ting These sections of the rehabilitation guidance address work done to meet health and saEety code requirements (for example, providing barrier- free access to historic buildingsJ; or retrofitting measures to conserve energy (for example, instaliing solar collectcn in an unobtrusive loca- tion on ehe sice). Although this work is quite o4ten an important aspect of rehabilitation projects, it is usuatly not part oE the ovecall Qcoce:s ot protecting or repairing character-defining features; rathea such work is assessed for its potential negative impact on the building's hisroric charattec Por this reason, part�cular care must be taken not ro radically change, obscure, damage. or destroy character-defining materials or features in the process of rehabilitation work to meet code and energy requirements. 30 ! / y8-357 BUILDING SITE Recommended Nof Retommersded ldentiFying, retaining, and preserving buildings and their features `' Removing or radically changing buildings and their features or site as wetl as featutes ot the site that are important in defining its �C features which are important in defining the overall historic overall hisroric character. Site features can indude driveways, �Y character of the building site so that, as a result, the character is walkways, lighting, fencing, signs, benches, fountains, welis, ter- diminished. races, canal systems, plants and trees. berms, and drainage or io- rigation ditches; and archeological Eeatures that are important in defining the history of the site. /y Retaining the historic relationship between buildings, landscape f �� features, and open space. Protecting and maintaining buildings and the site by providing proper drainage to assure tltat water dces not erode foundation wails: drain toward the budding; nor erode the historic landstape. Removing or relocating hisroric buildings or landscape features, thus destroying the historic relationship between buildings, land- scape features, and open space. Removing or relocating historic buildings on a site or in a complex of related hisroric stmctures—such as a mill wmplex or farm—thus diminuhing the historic charatrer ot the site or mmplex. Moving buildings onto the site, thus creating a false historical ap- pearance. Lowering the grade level adjacent to a building to pertnit develop- ment of a forme:ly below-grade area such as a basement in a man- ner that would drastically change the historic relahonship ot the building to its site. Failing ta main[ain site drainage so that buildings and site features are damaged or destroyed: or. alternatively, changing the site grading so that water no lon,ger drains propedy. i5 The re]ationship between a historic building or building and landscape features within a property's boundaries—or the building site—helps to deEine the historic charocter and shouid be considered an integral part of overall planning for rehabiliWtion project work. � � 98-357 BUILDING SITE (<onnnutd) Ttrc following work is highGghted to in8iate that it represents tf�e Particu3uly compSez technical ar design upects oE ttFubilitation proiett work and shouid oniy bt comidered after the preservaHon concems listed above have becn addressed. Recommended Not Recommended Design for Missing Historic Famtes Da�ing aed castrueting a new [adm d a bmlding or site � w}en the histolic fatuie is eovip3etdy a�nde8. wch as an outbuilding, eejrace, a driveway. It may bc ba�ed on fiistorical. Pietorial, and phyaicil doeimrcntation: a bt a smw de�igi that a eomytibk with tF�e histocie eharxeQ af drc buildinB atd aee. � Creating a false historical appearance berause the replaced feature is based on insufficient historical, pictorial, and physical documen- htion. y Introducing a new building or site feature that is out of scale or �\ otherwise inappropriate. Introducing a new hndscape feature or plant material that is visual- ly incompatible with the site or that destroys site pattems or vistas. Alterations/Additions ior the New Use Dni�in8 new oiuite parking, loadin6 docka, a rampt when tequired bY the new use w lhat they aee as unob4vaEve as posible and asswe the pt'xrvation of durathr-defining L•eatu[o of the sitt. Pladng parking facilities directly adjacent to historic buildings when autamobiles may cause damage to the buildings or 4andscape hatures or be intrusive to the building site. Daig�ing new ezterior additions to (tistoric building+ or ad- Introduring new construction onto the building site which is visual- � jacent new construRion which b compaHbk wich the historic � ly incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, materials, color and �2uraeter of the site and which p�serve the historic rdation- tezture or which destroys hisroric relationships on the site. ahiP herivem a building or buiida�gs, lud�cape featurts, and oPm sPM• Rmaving nocbig�tificant bui)dic�, additiorn, or aite �feahvss which detact hom the historie cFuracter of !he s4. Removing a historic building in a compiex, a building feature. or a site feature which is important in defining the historic charocter of the site. 48 � O �j�-35� DISTRICT NEIGHBORHWD knntinurJ) The following work is highlighted because it represents the partitularly complex technical or design aspects o! rehabilitation projects and should only be ronsidered after the preservation concerns listed above have been addressed. Recornmended Not Recommended Design for Missing Historic Features Designing and construtting a new Eeatute oE the building, streetscape, oz landscape when the historic feature is com- pletdy missing, ruch as row house steps, a porch, strcetlight, or temce. St may be a testoration based on historicaS, pic- torial, and physical docvmentarion; or be a new design that is compatible with the historic character of ehe district or neighborhood. � Geating a Palse historical appearance because the replaced (ea[ure is based on insufficient historical, pictorial and physical documen- tation. Introducing a new buiiding, streetscape or landscape feature that is out of scale or ocherwise inappropriate to the setting's h�stonc character, e.g., replacing Qicket fencing wich chain tink fencing. Alterations/Additions for the New Use Designing requ'ued new parking so that it is as unobtnuive as possible, i.e., on side streets or at the iear of buildings. "$hared" parking should also be planned so that several business can utilize osu pazking area as opposed to imtoduc- ing random, multiple lots. Placing parking facilities direcdy adjacent to hisroric buddmgs which tause the removal o! historic plantings, relocation ot paths and walkways, or block�ng of alleys. Designing and constiucting new additions to historic buildings when requircd by the new use. New work shrnild be compatible with the hisroric charocter of the district or neig}�borhoad in teruLS of siu, scale, daign, materiat, color, and t�ture. Removing nonsignificant buildings, additions, or stteetscape and landsupe features which detract from the historic character of the district or the neighborhood. introducing new construction into historic districts that is visually incompatible or that destroys histonc relationships w�thm the district or ne�ghborhood. Removing a historic buildmg, buildmg feature, or landscape or streetscape feamre that is important in deFining the overall hisronc character oF the distnct or the neighborhood. 51 7� q�-357 NEW ADDITIONS TO An atwched ezrerior addition to a hisroric building ezpands its "outer Iimits" to create a new pro- HISTORIC BUILDINGS ��e. Because such expansion has the capability to radically change [he historic appeazance, an exterior addition should be tonsidered only after it has been determined that the new use cannot be wccessfully met by altering nonKharacter-defining intcrior spaces. If the new use cannot be met in this way. then an attacfied exterior addition is usually an atteptable altemative. New additions shuuld be designed and constructed w that the character-deFining features of the historic building are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process o( rehabilitation. New design should always be dearly differentiated w that the addition does not appear ro be par[ of the hisroric resources. 2ecommend¢d Placing tunctions and services required for the new use in non- characterdetining interior spaces rother than installing a new addi- tion. Not Recommended Expanding the size of the historic building by constructing a new addition when the new use could be met by altering nontharacter- defining interior spaces. Constructing a new add�tion so that there is the least possible loss of historic materials and so that character-de£ining features are not obscssred, damaged, or destroyed. Locatmg the attached exterior addition at the rear or on an in- conspicuous side ot a historic building; and limiting its size and scale �n relationship to the historic building. Attaching a new addition so that the character-defining features of the historic building are ubscured, damaged, or destroyed. Designing a new addition w that its size and scale in rela[ion to the histonc buildmg are out ot prapartion, thus diminishing che historic charatter. � Des�gning new additions m a manner that makes dear what is�j Duplicating the exact torm, material, style. and detailing of the historic and what is new. 7J� hisroric building in the new addition so that the new work appears �, to be part ot the historic building. � Imitating a historic stvle or penod of architxture in new addit�ons, especially for contemporary uses such as drive-in banks or garages. 58 �Z q�- 357 NER' ADDITION5 TO HISTORIC BUILDING5lcunnnuedl Rerommended � Considering [he attached exterior addition both in tertns of the new use and the appearance of other buildings in the historic district or neighborhood. Design Por the aew work may be contemporary or may reference design motifs Erom the hiscoric buifding. in either case. it should always be dearly differentiated Erom the hisroric building and be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relation- ship ot wlids to voids, and cotor. Not Recorrtmended Designing and constructing cew additions that resu{t in the diminu- tion or loss of the hisroric character of the resource, induding i�s design, materials, workmanship. location, or setting. Using the same wall plane. roof line. comice height, materiats, siding lap or window type to make additions appear to be a par� ot the his[oric building. Placing new additions such as balconies and greenhouses on non- characterdefining efevations and limiting the size and scale in rela- tionship to the historic building. � Designing additional stories, when required for the new use, that are set back from the wall plane and are as inconspicuaus as possi- ble when viewed Ezom the street. Designing new additions such as mulcistory greenhouse additions tfiat obscure, damage, or destroy character-deiining Peatures ot the his[oric building. Constructing additional srories so that the historic appearance ot the building is radically changed. 59 �3 q8-35� Heritage Preservation Commission Design Review Committce Case summary re: proposed carriage house at 420 Portland/file #2884 13 Mazch 1997 present: Slaie� Cermak, Albers, Guelcher Rubenstein shawed photographs and slides of the site and surrounding azea, summarized the case, and mentioned that site plan review will be required of the project, that the applicant proposes to store trash in small carts on the south side of the existing 2-caz gazage, and that the City Attomey's of'fice has advised that the HPC should make a decision based on the ]ristoric district guidelines and not be concemed about legal matters between private parties. Ron Severson, the applicant, spoke. Cermak: likes the compalibility of the revised design with 415 Summit more; relates better to rear of 415 Summit and the e�sisting gazage; sees an attempt to recreate what might have been there--a carriage house-- rather than a sepazate structure; squaring the building with the side properiy line would tie it better to 415 Summit and make it relate better to the pazk; latest scheme is more appropriate but not acceptable for a building pemvt. Slaief: asked if possibie to have more complete elevation. Bradley and Severson: will have for 3.27 HPC meeting. Todd Bradley, project designer: intent with this revised design is to simplify and resemble the 415 5ummit reaz addition; intent of previous design was to make the building look as good as possible. Mazk Vaught, attorney representing owners of two condominiums at 415 Sumnvt: Severson cannot build the proposed project, has no more control of this site than Portland Avenue and Nathan Hale Pazk; discussed discretion versus obligation of HPC to review all permit applications; suggested referring to HPC's legal counsel his 3.13.971etter to the HPC. Cazol Clazk, 415 Summit Avenue: pazking on site would be for sale and would not be &ee for 415 Summit residents; there is not sufficient pazldng or traf�ic circulation room; opposed to pazking in the front yazd; discussed trash; Severson's plan shows a path and hedges on the 415 Smwnit condo association's property. Laurel Frost, 436 Portland: the carriage house shown on the 1903 map and the project approved by the HPC in 1989 happened prior to the lot spiit in 1990 in which the 420 Portland pazcel was sepazated from the 415 Sumnut lot; this is now a different situation and property; the pazcel is being treated as a pazking lot rather than a front yazd facing Portland. Mervyn Hough, 436 Portland: if the HPC approves these or similaz plans, would detailed plans come back to the commission for review? 31mef yes. Hough: the proposed west elevation is very plain, should have as much design consideration as the rest of the building, would like HPC to consider his perspective (he lives immediately to the west); spoke about the four garage stalls; only one good plan should be approved rather than two. Site plan issues: believes gazbage will end up being stored in a dumpster in the driveway; where would snow be stored?; parldng in ihe front yazd is being deak with casually; the existing lilacs should be removed and a landscaping plan should be careful]y reviewed. Patricia Leonard, 415 Summit: asked what happens if first floor of carriage house is later converted to living space; discussion followed. Vaught: my clients cannot be forced to buy pazking spaces from Mr. Severson. (Commissioners Hauser and Heide were also present during at least part of the discussion.) �� g�-357 s. M�x vAUGFrr AtrornevAt Lau� Suite 70C Six West Fifrh Stteet Sa�nt Paul, Minnesota 57102 {6t2) 297b4Q0 FAX (612) 224-8328 March 13, 1997 Members of the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission Suite 300 350 Saint Peter Street , Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Application of Ronald Severson before the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission to construct a Carriage House at 420 Portland Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, File #2884 Dear Commission Members: I represent Gregory and Carol Clark, the owners of Unit l, and Patricia Leonard, the owner of Unit 4, of Nathan House & Mews, a Condominium, located at 415 Summit Avenue. The Clarks and Ms. Leonard have engaged me to represent their interests as unit owners with respect to certain real property located at 420 Portland Avenue upon which Ronald Severson is proposing to construct a carriage house. Certain design considerations a£ that project are currently before the HPC for approval. Each of my clients holds certain easement rights to the property located at 420 Portland Avenue for both pedestrian access and parking purposes. None of clients has been asked nor has any agreed to waive any of those easement _rights. The rights are delineated in Article IV.4, and Article IV.5. o£ the Condominium Declaration, dated July 24, 1990, and recorded in the Of£ice of the Ramsey County Recorder on July 25, 1990 as Document No. 2555404. Copies o£ the relevant provisions o£ the Declaration are appended for your review and for that o£ your legal counsel. Each o£ the Clarks and Ms. Leonard has a"blanket" easement across the property at 420 Portland Avenue for pedestrian access and each unit owned by the parties has an additional easement Por two (2) parking spaces on the property. Neither the Clarks nor.Ms. Leonard are currently prepared to waive any rights attendant upon those easements. Since such waiver would be a necessary condition precedent to the construction of any carriage hpuse by Mr. Severson, construction o£ the project which is before you represents a legal impossibility. �_� �� 98-3�7 Heritage Preservation Commission March 13, 1997 - Page Two Mr. Severson has no more Current legal right to construct a carriage house upon the real estate at 420 Portland Avenue than he does to construct one in the middle o£ a public street or within the boundaries of a public park. Unless and until he secures such a right through acquiring waivers of the easement rights accorded owners o£ each of the condominium units at 415 Summit Avenue, any consideration of his proposed project by the APC or any other body is inappropriate and premature. Additionally, even i£ the project was ripe for current consideration, it does not appear that Mr. Severson has provided for trash storage, various setback requirements and his proposal does not in any way comply with city off street parking spacing requirements. Mr. Severson must allow the parking of two vehicles on the property £rom each of four condominium units at 415 Summit Avenue. He must provide an additional off street parking spaCe for the carriage house itself, for a total of nine of£ street parking spaces. Since he must allow two spaces for each unit, but may not "force" any unit to purchase a garage unit, he may not legally� count the four garage units shown beneath the carriage house living quarters as discharging all or part of the o££ street parking requirement unless and until he presents contracts or sale documents with the unit owners to purchase or occupy the carriage house garage stalls in discharge of their parking easement rights. Without use o£ all four carriage house garage units to discharge o£f street parking requirements, there clearly is not su£ficient room on the lot to provide the necessary off street spaces. Indeed, there may not be such room on the lot even if all £our carriage house stalls are utilized to discharge the current off street parking requirements. Regardless, even if Mr. Severson accomplishes waiver o£ the parking easements, he still may not proceed, as noted above, unless and until he secures a waiver o£ the blanket pedestrian easement across the property £rom all of the condominium unit owners. Since my clients, all oP the fee owners of two of those units, decline to waive their pedestrian easement rights to 420 Portland Avenue, the project envisioned by Mr. Severson remains impossible to accomplish from a legal standpoint. In seeking design approval £rom the HPC, Mr. Severson not only has the cart before the horse, he has the cart on a difPerent continent £rom the colt which one day might grow into a horse. Since the staPf support accorded the HPC, like that of other volunteer boards and commissions, is a steadily and rapidly declining commbdity, it would seem an inopportune time to spend a �6 98- 357 Heritage Preservation Commission March 13, 1997 Page Three portion of that valuable staff resource conducting a design review of a project which currently can not occur. Accordingly, the HPC is requested to remove the item from consideration or at least postpone £urther consideration and ultimate approval until Mr. Severson demonstrates the current legal right to proceed with the project. in addition, and in the alternative, the HPC is urged to transinit the legal points raised in this letter to legal counsel Por his or her review and recommendation. Very truly you� % y ��w� � /.�c�,� S. Mark Vaught Attorney at Law cc Gregory and Carol Clark Patricia Leonard 7� �.�. ..11 +�i��. �� -� �r 2555404 foregoing. S. Easements fihrough Walls Within Walls. Easements are hereby deciared and granted to install, lay, maintain, repair and replace aay wires, pipea, ducts, conduita, public utility lines or structural components running through the walIs of the unita, whether or not such walls lie in whole ar in part within the unit bouadariea. 4. Essement for Offstreet Parking and Vehicutar and Pedestrian Access to Portland Avenne. A bianket easement for pedeatrian acceas from Portland Avenue to the Property, and vice versa, for vehicular offstreet parking spaces (two (2) for each unit), and for vehicular access to the offatzeat par�ng apaces &om Portland Avenue and vice versa is hereby established over and acroae the entirety of the northerly of the two (2) Additional Reai Estate parceia (the "North Parcel"). Declarant, or hia successora or assigna, shall have the option to delimit the boundaries of these easement areas by ezecuting aa easement grant or deciaration, setting forth the legal descriptiona of the easement areas, and recording the same in the office of the Ramsep Caunty Recorder. At auch time as Declarant adda Lhe North Parcel to the Condominium, the easement(s) shall disappear (the amendment hereto ehali contain a provision terminating the easement(s)),'the offatreet parking apaces shall become limited common elements of the units in the Condominium, and the number of offstreet parlang spaces allocable to each unit�shall be reduced from two (2) to one (1). Each unit owner in the Ccndominium, however, ahall have the right of firat re£usa2 to purchase from Dec2arant one (1) � garage unit if Declarant constructs garage uaits on the North Pa: cel. b. Easements to Rnn With Land. All easements rights and obligatioas creatzd in this Article are affirmative and negative easements, running with the land, perpetuaIlq in full force and effect, and at all times ahall inure to tha beaefit of and be binding upan Deciarant, its succeasars and assigna, and any unit owner, pui�chaser; mortgugee and other person '�iaving any interest in the Condominium or any part or portion thereof. � -- AxTTCr� v _ :. .... ... ....:.. . ..:... 1. Membership in Association. A unit owner shall by virtue of such interest be a member of the Association and ahall remain a nember of said Association until such time as hia intereat in the Condominium ceases for any reason, at which time his membership in said Asaociation ahall sutomaticalip cease. When one or more peraona hold an interest in a unit, all auch persans shall be members. 2 Compiisnce with Decla:ation, ByIaws and Rules sad. Regulations of Associat3on. Each unit owner and occupant of a unit shail camply with all iil ti., S ! � �� , � i 1 � t _ I � � I 98 $�p�',-x�a:.�..--- ... ._._„�.w.rrs_.s��.-..--....._� _.. _. ... . ,., y8- 357 Warren E Peterson �erome P Filla Dar.iel Witt Fram Glenn A. Bergman Iohn Michael Miiler Michael T Obe��e Kenneth A Amdahl Sieven H. Bruns' Paul W. Eahning Timothy P. Russell Esther E. McGinnis S. Mark Vaught Attorney at Law Suite 700 Six West Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 �� : � PROFESSfONAL-ASSOG�IATION�. Oirect DiaL #290 March 21, 1997 �`.�.��; n _ . _ ; '_-: y'_' -- n �� . � -. �' :.� � � �o Suite 300 50 East Fihh Street St. Paul, MN 5510I-1197 (6I21291-8955 (6121 22&I753 facsimile Melvin �. Silver, Of Counse, BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL RE: Application of Ronald Seversoa before the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission to construc� a Carriage House at 420 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, bIII 55102 File #2$84 Our File No.: 11127/950001 Dear Mr. Vaught: I zepresent Ronald and Marnie Severson with respect to the construction of a carriage house and garages on the property owned by them north of the Nathan House & Mews Condominium (the "Severson Parcel"). They have forwarded to me a copy of a letter which you sent to the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission {"HPC") dated March 13, 1997. I have reviewed that letter and have the following comments: 1. You refer to the "blanket easement" which your clients currently have with respect to the Severson Parcel. Even if it could be construed as a"blanket easement" at this tu-t�e, the Seversc;,s clearly have the right to 1?mit the boundaries of the easement areas as provided in Article IV, Section 4 of the Declaration, a copy of which was attached to your letter to the HPC. This language obviously contemplates that the Seversons, as the successors to the developer, can at their discretion, � remove any "blanket" nature of the easement. Moreover, - it is clear from other provisions in the Declaration that � it was always the intent of the Declarant that the o Severson Parcel would be developable by the owner of that N parcel. r.r 6 � •AL50 ADMRTED IN W ISCONSIN e'elcbratin:� �� our �� v �Ci�� v J 7 �V J,� 1nni.ere.�r 7y 98-3$ 7 S. Mark Vaught March 21, 1997 Page 2 2. Contrary to the assertions on Page 2 of your letter to the effect that the Seversons are "puttinq the cart before the horse", we believe that the opposite is true. As you correctly point out, the approval by the HPC and other aqencies of the City does not necessarily take precedence over private agreements. The Declaration is such a private agreement. Unfortunately, it appears what your clients are doing in this particular case is to place the HPC (or other City Agenciesj in tne position of being a binding arbi.trator in what is clearly a dispute between private parties regarding the terms and conditions of a private agreement. That is not the role of the HPC and I do not believe that the HPC should be placed into that position. The HPC should be evaluating the proposal on its merits in accordance with their criteria, rather than trying to construe the Declaration. Your assertion that the plans by Mr. Severson, if approved by the HPC, will never come to fruition, is, in our opinion, simply i.ncorrect. At the very least, it is not an argument which the HPC should be deciding. Once the Seversons receive approval from the HPC, they plan to go forward with the project. If your clients still object, it is at that point that they could seek the appropriate injunctive or declaratory relief through the courts. We also agree with the genezal point made in the last paragraph of your letter but reach the opposite conclusion. That is, for the HPC and/or the City Attorney's Office to get involved in the construction of a private agreement would be a waste of their valuable time and resources. 3. If you have had any direct contact with the City Attorney's Office regarding this, it would be appreciated if you would provide me with the name of the City Attorney so that this letter can be relayed to the City Attorney. ga 98- 3s 7 S. Mark Vaught March 21, I997 Page 3 Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments which you may have regarding this. Thank you for your cooperation. JMM:bap cc: Ronald and Marnie Severson \ Heritage Preservation Commission HPC Staff Member Aaron Rubenstein rely Michael Miller � 98 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemon, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preseroarion Commission FROM: Aazon Rubenstein �,,�, RE: 420 Portland DATE: 25 Mazch 1997 OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTLONS AND ENVD20NMENTAL PROTECTTON RobertKersle>, Dirutor TAWRYPROFFSSIONAL BU2DWG Sui7e 300 3505[ PererSo-eet SainiPou7, Mimiessoto 55102-75]0 Telephone: 61L266-9090 Facsimile: 672-266-9099 Ron Severson and his designer, Todd Bradley, will present to the commission on Thursday further revised elevatioas for the proposed carriage house residence at 420 Portland. The project was discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting on Mazch 13 but committee chair Charles Slaief thought the project too important for the full commission to not review. Commission members Terri Cermak and David Heide met this moming at the LIEP o�ce with Mr. Severson and Mr. Bradley to further discuss the project. This meeting was my idea, based on my belief that the project could meet the historic district guidelines with some additional revisions to the design. Chazles S1Qief had also planned to attend the meeting but ultimately was unable to come. A summary of the meeting follows. Severson: presented revised plans with surface parking space next to building moved a bit to east, balcony one foot wider, glass removed from garage doors; windows will be added to first story of south elevation; would also add skylight above bathroom on west roof slope. Heide: false sense of historicism discussed at November 6, 1996 meeting with Severson, still feels that the proposed desigi blurs these boundaries; why not simply a well designed new building?; proposed design is sort of a carriage house/gazage/house, don't have a problem with a building on the site but have a problem with a fake old building. Cermak: yes, but given the building context, pzoposed type of design may be necessary to pull it off, par[iculazly with relationship to 415 Summit; a totally sepazately designed building would look out of place. Heide: okay; balcony and some other details--gable ends, door hoods, etc: -aze misleading historically and should be simplified; also, suggest adding brackets under balcony to give visual support. Cermak and Heide: discussed continuous east comice vs. gable; simplify balcony to distinguish it from the house, e.g., square balusters, iron railing, slats, or simpler hunings; simple door hoods with simpler brackets. Heide: okay with transom above french doors but not segmental transom; chimney? Severson: no chimney (Bradley said after meeting that fueplace could have a painted metal class B vent, will add to elevations). Cermak: like french doors with gable above and broken eave line; she and Heide suggested even widening the doors and balcony. Severson: differentiate building from 415 Summit with paint colors? Cermak: would not advise doing sa-the proposed building, the existing gazage, and 415 Summit would be a goup of related buildings. Heide: perhaps colors not the same as on 415, or used in different places than on main building; tivs building shwld not be a fake old building. � 98-357 Heritage Preservation Commission re: 420 Pordand 25 Mazch 1997 Page Two Rubenstein: should west elevation have a gable and, if so, how should it be treated so that it looks 1�1ce it has a reason for being other than decoration? Discussion and ageement about having a gable with a transom above the paired windows. Heide: should the &ont walk lead to the middle of a wall? Discussion about a diagonal walk connecting the sidewalk and front entry more direcUy. Rubenstein: what about the issue of pazking in the front yazd? Cermak: dcesn't have a problem with pazking in what has become a&ont yard; new property line is an imaginary line that dcesn't change the perception of the huildings, particululy tha[ 41S Summit was built on a through lot with frontages on Summit and Portland and the Portland side is historically the reaz yazd of the Winter House. Discussion about the possibility of having eight rather than nine pazldng spaces on the site, and which front yazd space to eliminate. Commissioner Heide commented after the meeting: this case is a particulazly difficult design problem and the proposed design is generally much improved compazed to what was initially submitted. �3 q8-3s � Heritage Preservation Commission Case Summary: proposed camage house at 420 Portland Av., File #2884 27 Mazch 1997 Rubenstein reviewed the proposed project, the revised site p]an and elevations, a letter from Ramsey Hill Association to Councilmember Blakey about the project, and several issues relating to the proposal. Cmsr. Albers: aze there historic cazriage houses that face the street as the proposed building does? Rubenstein: there's one on Portland just east of House of Hope Church; not sure if there aze others. Ron Severson, the applicant, spoke briefly; said the balcony and door hood designs have been simplified; imagined french doors would have removable grids but full light [without gridsj would be okay. Cmsr. Buetow: full light would be preferabl�-tend to simplicity. There was no public testimony offered; the public hearing was closed. Cmsr. Heide: moved approval of the revised pians, inciuding the east elevation marked "preferred", subject to the condition that appropriate crown molding be added above the transom windows. Cmsr. Buetow seconded the motion. Cmsr. Albers: is this (the part of the lot fronting on Portland) a front yard? Rubenstein: responded, in part, that it is sort of both a front yazd and a rear yazd, and explained further. Cmsr. Aibers: the guidelines say no parking in a front yard. Rubenstein responded again. Cmsr. Buetow: this property is historically a rear yard. Cmsr. Albers: parking ought to be adequately screened from the street. Cmsr. Heide called the question; the commission voted 11-0 to end discussion. The motion to grant approval, as noted above, passed 11 - 0. summary prepazed by Aaron Rubenstein � 98•357 , �`�'�- � �� 400 Selby Avenue, Suite M, St. Paul, MN 5�502 Shaping the future of a historic neighborhood in Saint Paul March 14, 1997 Councilmember Jerry Blakey Suite 310 City Ha1UCourt House Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Councilmember Blakey, � a a m �"� •--.✓ N -� r �. Y C"') = ' w �, � -- _ � � _. --,- � � At the March 13 meeting ofthe Ramsey Hill Association Mr. Ronald Severson presented a plan for construction of a residential unit with 4 ground level garage stalls on property located at 420 Portland Avenue. It is our understanding that until about 1990 this parcel was the rear yard of property located at 415 Summi[ Avenue. Several questions were raised at the meeting regarding this parcel that could not be answered by Mr. Severson creating confusion for the ILamsey Hill Board. Primary among these deal with setback requirements and variances needed. Because of this we will be unable to make a recommendation to the city on the proposed project without correct information. The Board, therefore, has asked that your office request an opinion from the City Attorney on the following questions to clarify these issues. The property owner stated that he will come back to the Board for review and approval once our questions are answered and the necessary variances have been applied for: l) Is it possible to divide a zoning lot thus creating a new lot and, at the same time, taking the other parcel out of compliance with the zoning code with regard to setbacks and lot coverage? 2) What avenues does the city have to enforce the zoning code and require the owners at 415 Summit to bring their property back into compliance with respect to setbacks and lot coverage? 3) Since the proposed structure is the primary residential structure on the property at 420 Portland, what are the required setbacks and maximum allowable lot coverage? 4) Are there different setbacks required when a lot and new residential structure abut a city park? 5) Prior to the change of ownerslup, a site plan for parking and landscaping only had been approved by the city. To date no work has been done to meet tlus approved plan. What avenues does the city have to force property owuers to comply with subnoitted plans? �'."� "e =- � � � �j� 98-357 On behalf ofthe Board I want to thank you for your assistance. We will await your response before proceeding with ourreview. Sincerely, > ' �� / / � ix r� j� G� �z tx , J `�Judy McLauglilin, President Cc: Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission Ronald Severson i Nov-13-97 12:25P A Toast To Bread 612 778-8805 . �J�� ludy McLaughlin, President �� Ramsey Hill Association, November t 1, 1997 " DearJudy, 26 years ago when Niarlou and 1 bought 436 Portland Ave. there were lots oP problems in the neighborhood more important than the rear yard at 415 Summit Ave. But with a front yard on Summit and a back yard facing onto Portland , Nathan Hale Park and abutting the east s'sde of our building, it was clear to mc then that a major design cantroversy was comin� sometime in [he future. To me, common sense said that 415 Summit (then a drug treatment center) wouid someday want to build garages on this site. I've always feared that something ugly or inappropriate would be built there. Never, did l foresee the estended battle that would ensue over severa] different plans proposed for this site. I think we've been arguing for near]y 8 years. It was fears and threats like this that prompted a smai! group of us to found the Ramsey Hill Association, Oid Town Restorations and then the Preservation Commissioa in thc 1970's. Those were dark and uncertuin yeazs in this neighborhood. But now it is c[ear that tfiose organizations have served our neighbothood very well and have served us well on this controversial property. Today we are faced with a quandary. One ofihose organizations, the Preservation Commission, has voted to approve Mr. Severson's ptan. And now the Ramsey Hitl Association is faced wifh the following questions to answer. l, tias the Preservation Commissian made a huge biunder? Is it incompetent? Does Mr. 5everson's plan meet the Commissions' guidetines? 2. Should the Ramsey Hiil Association use its' considerable clout to further undermine thz Preservation Commission? At this time it is my opinion that the Ramsey tiill Association should not lend support ta this appeal because the proposed plan af Mr. 5everson now meots ail of the guidelines of the Preservation Commission. tt now aiso meets its' parkin� obligations for 415 Summit and Mr. Severson has made 3 important concessions to the residents of 436 Yortland Ave (cedar shakes on the roof, a much improved western ele��ation and a plan for the planning and maintenancz oi the landscaping}. It is now a better pian than we have a legal right to expect. This new building will be handsome profiled against thc rather plain and monulithic eastem fa�ada of 436 Port�and Ave. Rather than support one side over the other I Lhink the Ramsey Hill Associatioo should send chis issue back to the 2 concemed parties with the request that they Sit down with a �� t i�. -•',� �� ,. 1�`� '� ,f-� �� i�.. . . 1 . r LT � — � : . _ — , bJ. . i� , , _. :�" - . .. � % , 9'� �s� V � Nov-13-97 12:25P A Toast To Bread 98-3s7 612 778-8805 P.03 neutrai attomey and draw up the papers necessary to resolve the last reasonable legal issues. As t see it there are 5 topics to focus on. i. The Ciarks' legitimate concems that they wouid have the right to rebuild on repair their garagu in the event of a disaster. 2. The legai scructure should be drawn up for the Gazden Committee. This shoufd invofve ali affected resideats that chose to participate. 3. The legal structure for long term maintenance ofthe pazking area should be drawn up 4. Assurances should be obtained from the Preservaiion Commission that neither its' staff or the Commission will approve changes to the enal plan without notifying interested parties. 5. The St. Paul Building Department shouid eaamine che pazking pfan to verify thnt the parking plan meets St. Paul Parking Codes. There is no �eason why thesc issues cannoi be resolved quickly. It is not easy for me to come forward on this matter because; 1. I have been one of the leading opponents of many plans proposed for this site. Our small group of neighbors has been downtown regularly for ciose to 8 years arguing our case. 1 think all oF us qualify for combat status. I've even gone downtown to read the condo documents of 415 Summit to make sure that iheir parking obligations were honored. I did this at a time when City Hall and even the residents of 415 Summit were largeiy indifferent to these obligations. 2. I don't really want to give up the moming sun streaming though my living and dining room windows or the view of the 2 Spruce trees, 2 Linden trees and the 2 Mapie trees that [ personalVy planted in t3athan Hale Pazk when Dutch Eim disease devastated our neighborhood. 3. I don't like breakirtg rank with the group that has fought long and hazd to preserve the architectural integrity of this important lot. ! would much rather say that we had reached a consensus. But we have not, so I feef morally bound to speak out when the battle goes fotward even when we should be in the final streich of a very good agreement. t'm pr�ud to call myself a preservationist and i'm willing to go to great lenbths to protect the tristoric and architectural legacy of our neighborhood But aow thai we have a good plan it is time for us old war-horses to call an end to the waz and show that we can afso be good neighbors, once we have negotiated our diffcrences. 'Ihere are many that have said that just garages or even nothing shoutd be built on this site, but these arguments ate seriou3ly flawed because � �� Nov-13-97 12;25P A Toast To Bread 612 778-8805 `�8 3 5 7 1, It is unrealistic to think that someone living in Minnesota woutdn't want a garage. 2, We don't own the Iand and Mr. Severson does. Therefore we aze not in a legal porition to propose plans for his property. And I think our objcctions and questions must be reasonabte and legal. l think it woutd be unconscionabie for anyone involved in this debate to have designs on buyin� the land if Nfr. Severson can somehow be forced to self at a cheap price. 3. Garages would still block the view of the park of both my apartment and the apartment of Izurel FrosY. If anyone doubts this ihey should go to the 2" floor, rear baicony at 436 Portland and try to look out over our gara�es. You can see the sky and the top of some trees, but you couldn't see a park if there was one on the other side. 4. To the best of my know4edge every good tooking garage buiit in our neighborhood in the last scveral yeazs has dormers, windows, tall roofs and even fake doors for hay. At aur condominium we even have a ti�ht and curtains in the gazages 2" story window. It's as if someonc lives on the second floor of these garages or at lexst we'd iike to create that illusion. So what woutd be so teiribty wrong if people actually lived in some of these new structures. ARer all it doesn't takc up any extra land space. 5. There is no assurance that someone eise would bulld someihing better than Mr. Severson is proposing. Ail we need do is look around our neighborhood to know that we aren't protected from 6ad design. 1 am one of those with serious doubts about the effectiveness of the Preservation Commission. In fact I get angry and fi'ustrated with it. But aRer serious thought t must come to its' defense. I don't think our neighborhood can make a habit of appeaIing the decisions of the Preservat�on Commission. lt should only be done when it is clear that the Preservation Commission has ignored its' own guideli�es. Irtstead we shoufd be looking at ways to improve it. Therefore, to support this appeal is a very serious matter. So seri�us that I worry about the future of the Commission. If we aren't careful, peopte outside the Preservation movement are going to say "those preservationists on Ramsey Hill can't be pleased. Do they have an endless capacity io fi�ht and a willin�ness to destroy each other? Are these fights about important issues?" I would like to be able to continue to say " We are a group ofgood neighbots that caze deeply about our historic legacy but we are not unreasonable or mcan spirited." m 9�3s 7 Nov-13-97 12:25P A Toast To Bread 612 778-8805 P.05 In this particular casc 1 think wc are ciose to the goint where everyone im•olved can declace victory and feel some satisfaction that the system, even though it is flawed, can aad does work. Sincerely, � �l ��,.�.... Mervyn Houglt i� 98-3s7 Shaping the future of a historic neighborhood in Saint Pau! 400 Selby Avenue, Suite M, St Paul, MN 55102 November 18, 1997 Councilmember Jerry Blakey Saint Paul City Council 310-A City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Councilmember Blakey, � � 0 �� cil w At its November 13 Neighborhood Issues meeting the Ramsey Hill Association approved a resolution requesting that the City Council uphold the a��eal of the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission decision for property located at 420 Portiand Avenue for the foilowing reasons: 1) the proposed structure and existing gazage may exceed the maximum 30% pertnitted lot coverage; 2) the necessary variances have not been detemuned nor applied for; 3) the proposed paved azea is not in keeping with efforts by the city of Saint Paul and the Ramsey Hill neighborhood to maximize green space in residential azeas; 4) the proposed front yard parking necessary to meet off-street parking requirements is inappropriate. 5) the Portland Avenue side does not complement the existing properties facing Portland. In making this decision the foliowing facts carried great influence: 1) This property is a Portland Avenue lot. At one time it served as the reaz yard for 415 summit Avenue, however, the lot split approved on June 12, 1990 created a new residential lot with a Portland Avenue address. The property owner concurred at the meeting. 2) Under the Saint Paul Zoning Code this property has a front yazd along Portland Avenue with side yards on the east and west sides. 3) The proposed building is the primary dwelling unit for this address. It is not an accessorv structure for 415 Summit Avenue, even though the design may incorporate certain featutes from the dwelling on Summit. 4} Section 73.06 (�(3) of the Saint Paul I.egislative Code (Heritage Preservation Section) states: In tlie case of a proposed new building, that such building wili raot in itself, or by reason of its Zocatian on the site, materially impair the architectural or historic value of buildings on adjacent sites or i�a the immediate vicinity within the historic preservatioia site. �I 98-3s7 The proposed dwelling structure carries non of the front-facing features of other homes found on Portland Avenue or throughout the historic district as indicated by the property owner's diagram entitled "north elevation" (attached). These features include a main entrance facing Portland, a porch typical of the residential strucmres in this neighborhood and appropriate azchitectural detail for the front of a dwelling. This is contradictory to the portion of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance raferenced above. 4) The proposed sideyazd pazking is expressly prohibited by the Saint Paul Zoning Code. 5) The proposed front yard pazking is expressly prohibited by the Zoning Code. 6) The proposed structure is closer to the existing garage than the 18 feet required under the Zoning Code. F'inally, legal issues were raised at the meeting regazding easement rights owned by persons other than the property owners. While they raise questions about site control they were not considered as a part of this decision. These matters aze best resolved in a more appropriate forum. The Ramsey Hill Association believes that the review and approvai by the Heritage Preservation Commission was premature because the applicant does not have cleaz site control and because appropriate variances have not been applied for. Neither the community nor the Heritage Preservation Commission can make a judgement on the design of the structure without knowledge of where the structure may legaily be placed on the site, what variances may be necessary or whether or not the structure may legally built on the site. In this instance. the A�sociation believed the Heritage Preservation Commicsion erred in its decision The applicant should be encouraged to re-apply for HPC review when control of the site has been resolved, appropriate variances have been applied for and the community review process regarding the variances is complete. On behalf of the Association I want to thank you for your attention to this issue and your continued interest in onr neighborhood. � � �� M�ughlin, Presi e t sey Hill Association Cc: City Councilmembers District 8 Planning Council Ron Severson 9Z 3: m �� l.� w ��A �') �� G� y J � �v.i.4':nN 5.�. � ' :,l �-a� J' �j <I'� ` } 4 0 �� ^� ;� �_.., � .��; I i� _ i_ � fC CJ � 1 � � y C �_+ i �� C - 5 C �v � �' V � U� I 'C,'' � , r• -� � - T� - ' _ 0 l O" ` N N� o; W � � y3 : � V � � _ ` � ' �!� V U] �'�� 1 98 m f � z <'' FQ CJ �� F� Q2n G� Y � �� H�� z;; �° O� U� w W < H G: �S '��" o �� 3 F �° > o� � 4` �� 0 z " U �3 U � �O � ��3 � �:s � �m ��E � <U �"� C � LY �o� z " Z O E y c: A�� aZ �U� �r�s� ��oz � O z`.'' c� x <; W�O� �Qo� QY�iF"�� C-�' Q'i = c� �� aoZ< �� - P. < P.� K J� V� UZ <:. t;� Ar_ y< H �? ! Y.� C� C" = � �� o_ R�U�3 �� z�� Z� ��, aa<< � U a � a � �� .�'"i. m= � v C 4: H = F a � � � O �� F� ` U F� � w� � 0 Q � �O �o a ' y. ° E�� O F P-1 S O �' W �G a= �� . .; * _- - `�.��'ti.�� l_.- -- �'• - -- --� �'',_ '';;• .. _ � . � � V Z C� a� 0 cc Y3 �F� O A �; �� '� z� F w;� Uza x � 0 a � �"' > r.-�a � W� a x� W � �� ., �, �''-+ o � U� � m -I F-� V �2 �� Z �, �� .� ¢ <y �go w ��F U°k z " Z o= A �� ^�Z a� (.] � o C'S G-a 5 � ``^' � n i �� t7 x <o Q GS�� C S � ! m�;s O.-� _a Ai0.'io� Q < ��3� WUz< � � � a� F+ z C!] �z � wQ 3 0 � � :. �_ L'3 � F° zZ a� � E� � � G�'� �' � � O R �� r�= a 0. �< �; a$ �� z 9� 1 �'T''� � ��'�i . � .._ �Lt;,:._ .�;'a =. �-.. T _:f , . : "� S� f` � �+ ��:_ . �:.�TL =� ��Fjr ��i+.�•• ~�• �: - . � � : i ��'�1 ��' ;-„ t-ti i - � �� •�4 � , {, � � , � i � = .-.� + ,A� ; `�?�� _ , k��li� t� ..; : a ,� ;�,y� o. �.� - i � - � .�?'�. 7 +,� �'.: y. • J. r ♦ . � —<- . a ��; � � , � ;'iy� t �i _' � .� � � t l ._� : ,�._"',: � `a'� �.t� _� '• _'�.: �., .r'*� r �pi. ��El��f i �� t '. 1`: . , I�� :j.-�. .:� _ �� •�,;,�_-:. EI{IlEI `:,; � i g �� . �_. �IY �� . i: � � � ^� : * � - y - -. / y R 1 !� � i y �� 1_ � i. , -, , .=� , :.i� , �/8 357 �" � � �� F� � .�,` .'< ti� F 7� vF � � � s m � 98-35 7 � �'(a0 � o � s � _ : y 5. � � �� F y 0 !- i .� ... ' � � *� � N � 1L `'� O) � H T ° �N o '� h � � � L `Z.�. G'J 2 c� - o � � 4- _ _� � � •� r' r (� _. , :: u': , ^ V �.y V � --.- H •;=•� c.� _" � K'�c�r � " a Nf�� W • � J � Q. � � w � W4 � 4 v �� F z 0 Ow U� � W �� Q W; �a � Q �� 9�-357�� O� �� Q U �� ; � �a a � w � �� ¢ � �n° � � 0 � � 0 a �� } � V F 98-3s7 � � u � O� �� ¢ �U � � W�, �z � W¢ � z ¢ J F a � U z Oz �o � '��L, : r �� ,�. >> W �� F �p W ¢ W � �� ¢ � Q z � 6 � H �� _ o x � � U � �¢ U � Q m � o'. a, �o i x: �0.: ��Z d�F: Council File ORf GINA� Presented By Referred To Green Sheet RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� 2 WHEREAS, Ronald Severson made application to the Heritaae Preservation 3 Commission (the commission) pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 73 for a building 4 permit to conshuct a carriage-house-like structtue at 420 Portland Avenue within the Historic 5 Hill Heritage Preservation District; and 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, on February 27, 1997, the commission conducted a public hearing on the proposal. After discussion, the matter was laid over and the project was again reviewed on March 13, 1497, and finally approved on Mazch 27, 1997. However, the commission, inadvertently, did not forxnally pass a resolution approving the project until January 8, 1998; and WIIEREAS, on Apri18, 1997, Gregory Clark, Carol Clazk and Patricia Leonazd appealed the Mazch 27, 1997, commission decision but elected to enter into negotiations with the applicant in the hope that the applicant and the appellants might resolve their differences; and WHEREAS, the negotiations between the parties failed to reach an acceptable compromise and the appellants requested that their appeal be heard by the Saint Paul City Council; and WHEREAS, the commission in its Resolution No. 2884 granted approval of the building permit based upon revised plans including only the east elevation marked 3G 1, and subject to the condition that an appropriate crown molding be added above the transom windows in light of the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation guidelines. In particular, based upon the evidence presented at the March 27, 1997, public hearing, the commission made the following findings of fact: 27 1. The proposed building site is a pivotal and difficult site. It is visible from 28 Suuunit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenue and a public pazk, and there are 29 large buildings to the south and west that are close to the property lines. 30 This lot can be construed as both the reaz yazd of the Winter House at 415 31 Simunit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed 32 carriage house concept (and "front yard" pazking adjacent to Portland) is a 33 reasonable approach to developing the parcel for the following reasons: a) 34 the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street pazking for 35 residents of the Winter House; b) the pazcel has historically been a rear 36 yazd, it is used as a rear yard, and it appears as a reaz yazd due to its 37 relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story 38 carriage house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a 39 building that is very close to the Winter House in proximity and that is 40 related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The Winter House -3s� �� 9� -3 57 ' ORIGfN;� 2 uilt on a through-lot with Summit and Portland frontages; the recent 3 subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the 4 Winter House to sutrounding land nor the historical nature of the site. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 zs 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 2. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines: [%�I la c. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhytl�m, setback, color, material, building elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the area." The building elements, materials, scale, height, and character would be related to, but do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integrated for a balanced and complete design. Though the side elevation would not be parailel to that of the Winter House, the street-facing elevation would be perpendicular to the street like those of other structures on this block of Portland. d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the rear yard nature of the site, and the carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the historic carriage house on the site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the only other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Western and Anmdel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed structure. e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nature of the building. £ Pazking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping. Single gazage doors would avoid the horizontai orientation of double doors. The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. These sorts of anomalies in design and development add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district and its chazacter. 3. In addifion, the proposed structure and site development conform to the federal Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design and materials aze related to and compatible with the primary, adjacent, lvstoric building, i.e., the Winter House; the design distnaguishes between what is new and what is historic rather than mimics the historic structure and confuses the two; and the development would not have an adverse impact on the character- defining features of the site and the area. The building's design is similaz to the rear addition of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appropriate for a new secondary shucture. A new buildina of unrelated design and materiais would detract from the historic integrity of the site; and 2 q�-3s7 OR1GiNAL 3 WI�EREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06(h), Tricia 4 Leonard, Crreg Clark, and Carol Clazk duly filed with the Council an appeal from the 5 determination made by the commission and requested that a hearing be held before the City 6 Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said commission; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 73.06, a public hearing was set on for January 28, 1998, but, at the request of appellants' attorney, the matter was postponed to Febniary 25, 1998; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 1998, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, having heazd 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 deny the appeal of Patricia Leonard, Gregory Clazk and Carol Clark on the basis that their has been no showing that the commission made any error in fact fmding or procedure in this matter; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Patricia Leonazd, Crregory Clark and Carol Clark, the Zoning Administrator and the Heritage Preservation Commission. Reguested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date I�S ,��_ Adoption Certified by Council Se�$tary BYc Appxoved by Mayos: te � By: BY: Fosm Approved by City Attorney a .�'� �� `•l— Z �' S� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: OFFICE OF T'I�, CITY ATTORNEY " J3 J � PegBir75 CityAttorney CITY OF S AINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor CivilDivision 400 Ciry Hal[ I S Wes1 Keliogg Blvd. Saira Pau1, Minnesot¢ 55102 Telephone: 612 266-8770 Facsimiie: 6I2 298-5619 Apri121, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal by Gregory Clark, Carol Clazk and Patricia Leonard HPC Resolution No. 2884 February 25, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Pau1 City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your eazliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, i�%Ge�l�l �!�✓�— Peter W. Wazner Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosure � i a i � � :_ . _ . - : :_. . : .�._> ..: .. : .....: : . _ _ ' .:; � ; _ _ � - - _ . _ . _ - --==�=� 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #3 Taken February 22, 1998 - ' � :.:.: ..� ., , :_: s , ....... .; ...::: - .....,:,;,:: .':'. ..�:.__ -. "..<:::::=::::.-.-.:_;<;.>�_:::._: _::...; ;::- .............. ... .:::... .:.:� :• :,:::: :. _ .- .•.,: .: ....: ...:..,.. ,; .;_. , : :. : : . . . �- � �� ..�.. '-. . . .. _ . _.r.i ' � i " �.� w 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #4 Taken February 22, 1998 - � � F . � ' i. »�.3�+��"�*�';,;` .. . _� ' ' :y, � ��, J,� . � -��-�. � ` �� F �r� z — :fiyfwk'S'� - ' '. ' g - ��- � - F E T1 ly `=. ......__._ ..._.___�f ':_i - �� R >� ±a 1 y. � �i� / i '� 1 �/ - , - �_�- ' � ul ' � n ��i � � I '_ _. '- `- : _[ :;_:..: ..,,.�:, _ :. :..;:.;,.; � .: . . .... .: .. :: :• :_-:.,-� - . :_.< . ......: . . ... _..: ..: :-:. :.. , . ... . .. . .. ::... .: >:-:: � , - - : -. :: _ ..:. : : �: s°-�._:. ; :.., . _ �.:.�-:. :. _, .,.:�_.;_.... -.:::: .,..;.__.::.� - _: _ - - - -- �=�. : _ i' I I i i, ` :`. 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 F ��az'y 25, 1998 APPellants' PhotograPh #2 Taken Fe.bruar.�, 22. 1998 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 �s; - :.:rs �.-z:_`: _:r: -; : .c ._..-::t � � . - _ : ::.::: . _ ...-:_:._ .: _.::':':"_':: �: .. ._ . ., ...-. -...r ... .. - 'r.: � -':_.::- ... . :,._ . �- : r --. : [ ..-:..; _�::_- _ ._-m«._> . ., - ' _' -. __.. :'{ Appellants' Photograph #1 Taken February 22, 1998 � a y' , _:._� � �... � � j i . �� . �.,.:;.. � � �� .�� - i ��-�-- - � � � �-�:.:: - - � ,.. : ! _ _ � . � `r ;9J �i� t. s. 4.^'^ �... : �� J— > 1 � ` : , �� . k; eka. —,.. _/ _,�� r � ' �� '^n, _ _ '''= � -_ : .. - . �, ,�;.,: � � � . � - �`'�.�-..: � . _ � � � — . -- ::�d�� : . _ .. �. ,��. - ��. � e _ y�� ;� r � , 4 � ,'�� ►� _ ��-- �- � -_ :... :_� ;.-� __. _ . ., .. ,.._ .;- = -. .,: = --.-=� .. __<:�_ _. _ - ------------ - - - --- , ,., - ---�,_____�� 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 - February 25, 1998 _. :, : >-. ::.,. , :::.....:....�.-:.. .:.,_:..._. � ::......... .. _:-::::.-_:-_:'-::-: ;::: �_ ,_. :. .: :-- ,, .._...:-_ _<_., :::. -; =�:::_.:..;;,•:::°___:_:':,::;_<'::;:; �:..:'-:, Appellants' Photograph #5 , . Taken February 22, 1998 I i I i ;.. - : . ...... .:::.:. ,.,_ __.._ ::. � ,. ..... :. . ::. :..::.::: . . ._ .: .:.. . . . _::�; ::.�: -: ,.. .:. <:, .:: � i i _ � ; - _ _ _ : .l : _... :::. , _ _ -- --- - _::� 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #6 Taken February 22, 1998 M i — <A .i e�':� J - I `4�I � 11 g": a' z ,.�. ,�,. �, _ - _— . . � . . - � � . . —'_____ . . . � c �� 5 �� . - �j�, '. a ' ,r ' . " _ � :ir, .:. ri ,� . _ - _ _ �a..�., ti ` � �`� :- -�-, '�-� - - ,� �f � � _ °" — - _ - � �t 4 + N �,. R' �+ � � : �.` �� .�� F � .. � ��'• � � . . � . . - � � . . � � T• . . . _ � � �� - �- �.. _. . -� .� � a :- .. - _ ._.< fi�SfT �- �.. _��. � � E _ � / _,—. _ : y _ _ — c ��r T , o � ' ta ' > �__,.. � -- - `i i v � _ _ - .. _ w__�- u-_ -_ - 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Counail Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellant's Photograph #7 Taken February 22, 1998 � — — — I 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #8 Taken February 22, 1998 � �� y,> C�,.:� '� � . ., I� � ;�I�� ;; ��, �� : � , _�, �� -:_ �,-.; ,.� ��. � � a+F .- — �:; �' �E _�iii� . �� < - �. ��- -- � '� :•; y� � r � � � ;� r+ +^'% � ' � .. �M1� 1.. . _ x.� ��. - - �.'". K . ' "tyY i... ra �� wi ` � � - � �a.a'rv�� . . ' i ;,�` N- s:-�:,. : ' � . . . , -- � � � - � . < _ ..._ .....:>_..�:_:. .:. :- -.:.• _ . ... --: �:.-:... .__ -.:.: :_. : ,;:;:,::,..:: :_. ;::..:::_::::-,. _i , :,. _...., _ _, _...; -. ;:�»_,.� , ...:. ..::. : ...._: ..: . .. ...: _. -.. �.- . . ..: .. ,. e ._ _:..:: L: :-�. �.: '-,.: ., . _ , ,. . ..: _._: :�,� _ : .,: : �...:�_�� 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Ag�da Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #9 Taken February 22, 1998 � : . .. . - ,.:..:.:._:. _ - - _. ._.... , . :.. -: ; :. :_._.: ....__..:>.... .:. _ - � ....::�._ _._... . � _. .-- ',; - - t,- � _:..:.:.:.;.;,.._.,. ,-...:-..::::. _ ,._ ....� :. . .... .....:...... ....:::.a� ..: `.:.:: �: ......_ ......:...::.��>::_ _ - - _ _ � _.. ' - -' . . - - . " . �.�c__._.._ ..::......... _::._._. .....;.,.. . . . . . . . . . , " j � ' ' � I � __'� _ _ __ '� -'. _ _ ' - . "_" ' _'__-____ _T-��_ ..._.. - � _ : :: i :E:F 29:...... � .i :'.....:. _ . : . .;.. _....:. .::- :-. ;:� . .._.:'""' . ... j � , � � ::. .:... . = .. - . . 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appel2ants' Photograph #10 Taken February 22, 1998 i � ; 7 �. �� . �. . . :. s � — � � '_ et �. �� 4 �' � \ � � � ' �<� i4 .�. � . .. . ... . .. . -�� / �� _. , - � � ---- _.. ., - � . _ r�= .� .�»r�� s�;= < � �= � - �;�' ��h4 3 � � n �.\ . �; y� I : _ �" � � � tr .. ._ . v : _ -�._ _ ._. . :: t.�c� "__"_ .. ��W.��--� - . . .. ^'� . . '. _ '_+wl._....:. _ . �� e-m:�.y_�• ��+ !` f _l1 / � _� �" �� j )�� , . . .. . i.� . � ��J - - i :': �:::: :::.::: � .:. : : :: ::, . :. :..... .:. :.,; :;_:; - .;::: -,-_._: ..::::....... _...._::-.:i � , ...: . . . . .. .. ..:: <:_.:_ ..,.:_-_.... -:;;_ =�,� . . .. ...:...:. :.r ,._ .. _ . .. . ._ _: -, <_ . .:. -. , :�.: - ..:.,.:. ,: � _I � � i -- ...- _.,,..:. _: ., ,,.... - , � , :_..,..:;:°::-:;_ ..: _. :__� _ - - - - ': �: d 420 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 - Appellants' Photograph #11 Taken February 22, 1998 42D Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota City Council Agenda Item #46 February 25, 1998 Appellants' Photograph #12 Taken February y2, 1ggg � -� -� _ / : . � �.+� -�� i , � � ��4 i �_ �, m. ��,r �r�i � � _ . . Vi.`�'�:.�. se ... . �;',.."",,,,-_� . , � � .. . . . .. . �.�-. �rc. ,.0 _ . � :Y `"'F"• �" �.�. �. '^-:._-�-...° � r .,p.�c "..'�eN� - . _ .. ¢` �\�� .�?��. . � o i� � ala , � r,�, ��. 5 � ' 4 Y�� -`� ., ; �,. � " " _, � �4 �. S M { . � f ��Y^ P � � N� i�F �� -.. �°'�: i ,. _w , : -�- :v ._ - �..�; u , � _._ __� �° . �. � - i .�� .�.��" r .�� '�� :�:-_ _ S. MARK VAUGHT Attornev At Law Suire 700 Six West Fifrh Saett Saint Paui, Minnesoa 5402-1420 j612)297-6M100 FAX (612) 224-8328 February 23, 1998 Councilmember Jim Reiter 320-A City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Pau1, Minnesota 55102 ��-'� S` RE: Appeal by Greg and Carol Clark and Patricia Leonard of the Heritage Preservation Commissian decision regarding 420 Portland Avenue; City Covncil meeting of February 25, 1998; Agenda Item #46 Dear Councilmember Reiter: i represent the:appellant's in.the,ahave-referenced matter who bring-the appeal because-they are._aggrieved by a decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission ori�inally made on.March 27, 1997, but.not formalized by,written resolution until January 8, 1498. My clients all have ownership interests in Nathan House and Mews, a Condominium Association, located at 415 Summit Avenue, immediately abutting the subject property. Each has legally enforceable pedestrian and parking easements over and to the subject property at 420 Portland which are discussed in greater detail below. The purpose of this letter is to.summarize the numerous reasons for my client's appeal. Some of those reasons are presented in my letter of March 13, 1997 to the Heritage Preservation Commission. Your attention is also drawn to two letters to Councilmember Blakey from Judy McLaughlin, President of the Ramsey Hill Association, dated March 14, 1997 and November 18, 1997, respectively. All three communications are in the informational packet for your meeting, I believe. The November 18, 1997 2etter indicates concurrence by the Ramsey Hill Association, with the appeal oE my clients as result of a neighborhood issues meeting about the project held on November 13, 1997, and it is particularly persuasive about the reasons there£ore. I commend its thoughtfulness and reasoning to you. This appeal is brought for many reasons. In no particular order, nor necessarily in order of imgortance, they may be summarized as follows:" 1. The proposal approved by the Heritage Preservation �� 0 - � 51 � Saint Paul City Cauncil February 23, 1998 Page Two _ Commission (HPC) in March, 1997, was £or a carriage house which was thirty six (36) feet in width. Much of the material be£ore you contains diagrams proposing a width o£ forty (40) £eet. The di£ference is not immaterial. The applicant, Ronald Severson, currently has an application £or a number o£ variances pending before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for the proposed project. That proposal, never approved by the HPC, ca11s for a width o£ Porty (40) feet. The BZA application also requests relief from yard setback requirements and from parking stall size and location requirements. Without BZA approval, HPC approval is irrelevant. Further, the proposal be£ore the BZA is not the same proposal previously presented and approved by the HPC. Even if Mr. Severson secures BZA approval of his variances, it seems likely that reapproval by the HPC o£ the "altered" design will be necessary. For those reasons the Council should grant the appeal and remand the matter to the HPC for consideration by both the BZA and the HPC of a common design. 2. The orientation o£ the proposed carriage house building makes it clear that the parking for the property (that which is required for the parcel itself and that-which is guaranteed to my clients because they hold parking and pedestrian easements over the subject parcel) is either £ront yard garking or side yard parking, or both. In either case, given the requirements of city ordinances and the zoning code, the proposed parking is tot'ally inappropriate and completely out of char.acter with the immediatelv surrounding properties. 3. The orientation of the proposed carriage house on the lot means that the side of the building will face the front o£ the lot. This orientation is not dissimilar to that of a home placed on a lot on Ashland Avenue several years ago, which was deemed to be inappropriate and which was ordered removed by the City. The fact that the side of the proposed building would face the front o£ the lot means that the structure, if built, would be totally out of character with any building or either side o£ Portland Avenue on the £ull block and £or that reason alone, ought not to be allowed. 4. The small size o£ the lot in question in terms of square footage and the necessity, because of existing easements to guarantee both pedestrian and parking access across the lot to residents of 415 Summit Avenue, would require some unusual and in the main, unacceptable, £eatures. First, th�e "front" of the carriage house would face and would be, at its closest point, less than £ive (5) £eet £rom Nathan Hale Park, a neighborhood treasure the enjoyment of which would be materially negatively aEfected by the construction. Second, the carriage house, again at its closest point, would be approximately eight (8) £eet from the structure in which my clients' condominium units are located. Third, the ��,�5�� Saint Paul City Council February 23, 1998 , Page Three � , , carriage house structure would be a mere fdur.(4) feet from an enclosed exterior staircase to the basement oE the condominium property at 415 Summit Avenue. The impac of this proximity upon the £unctioning oP the cellar door which must be swung up and out � to access the down staircase is obvious. The mass•and placement of , the Carriage house structure on the lot is unacceptable and presents a clear negative impact on my clients' adjoining property. 5. The footprint o£ the proposed building and the existing two car garage (which because the applicant has £ailed to provide proper paving on the lot is unusable? on the lot arguably exceed the percentage coverage requirements of the local ordinances £or the zoning lot in question. 6. The argument implicit in the HPC sta£f report and £indings that 420 Portland and any proposed structure thereon should be seen as "accessory" to the building at 415 Summit is disingenuous and plainly not true. Though the two properties are historically part o£ the same zoning lot, two distinctions are - relevant. First, the portion of the prior zoning,Tot now known as, 420 Portland never contained an accessory buil'ding o£ the size or residential character of the proposed carriage house/garage. At most,' a small out building was at one time located on the 420 Portland portian of the lot. Second, the properties are now separate and distinct zoning lots, without common ownershig, as a result o£ the 1990 lot split and bear no more or less relationship to each other, in terms of allowed uses, than any two other adjacent properties anywhere in the city. 7. The necessity, because of the parking easements held by my- clients and other owners of property at 415 Summit, Eor providing at least nine o£f street parking places on the subject parcel would require, if indeed it is even possible, such a torturing o£ the zoning code parking requirements as to call into serious question both the desirability and feasibility of the entire project. And, jamming all of that parking and a carriage house onto the lot would negatively impact other neqessary functions such as winter snow removal and storage and trash retrieval which would of necessity need to be performed at a much heightened level i£ a residential struCture were shoehorned onto this lot. - $. As indicated in my letter to the HPC of March 13, 1997, the applicant, Mr. Severson, does not have complete site control of the parcel. In other words, his proposal is premature. My clients have a blanket easement £or pedestrian access o�zer the entire 420 Portland property flowing from the Condominium Declaration which is recorded in the Office of Ramsey County Recorder. At the time of the recording the two parcels were a single zoning lot and Mr. o��,�S� Saint Paul City Council February 23, 1998 Page Four Severson took the property through purchase subject to the easements. While the recorded document allows delineation of the pedestrian easement, as o� this date, Mr. Severson has not chosen to'do so and unless and until he does and unless and until that delineation survives whatever searching inquiry or challenge to which my clients may wish to subject it,._Mr. Severson has no more right to build on the propert� than he does in the middle of a public street or park. Additionally, each condominium unit at 415 Summit, of which there_are four, by virtue of the same recorded doaument, has an easement right to two parking spaces on the property at 420 Portland. These eight spaces are in addition to the off street parking requirements for the lot as a result o£ Mr. Severson proposed construction. On in£ormation and belie£, none o£ the unit owners has waived the requirements: Therefore, given that the applican cannot force any of the easement holders to accept and pay for parking in the proposed carriage house garage spaces, the parcel does not contain su££icient room to provide the parking spaces required by the easement and room to build the proposed carriage house also. Apparently; the HPC was advised by its staf£ no'only that it need not consider the site control arguments, but that it could not. O£ course, that isn't true. Why would the city- waste its. staff time and resources considering a project which because of the easement and variance requirements isn't even presently possible. At a minimum, the appeal ought to be granCed and the matter sent back to the HPC for further consideration when and if the variance and site control issues are resolved. Both my clients and I will be present at the public hearing to ansvrer any questions you might have. Ve tr yo ss, � S. Mark Vaug t Attorney at Law cc Jan Karan -r � Louis C. Sudheimer 439 Portland Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Councilman Blakey Saint Paul City Council City Hall 44 W. Kellogg Bivd. Saint Paul, MN 5102 Re: The 5everson's Carriage House Proposal & the FIIPC Appeal Dear Councilman Blakey: ��"� February 25th, 1998 Attached are photostatic copies of a hastily assembled four page petition contauiing the signatures of 39 neighbors, neazly all of whom live within one block of, and literally surrounding the Nathan Hale park and this Carriage House site. 7erry, As you can see, this is a very important issue to many Ramsey Hill Residents. Many of us feel that, on this issae, the Ramsey Hill Association's leadership has made a serious error, and does NOT represent us, or many other neighbors, on their very ill-advised decision to support the appeal of a properly made HPC decision. It is very important that what is constructed on this highly visibie site, right next to a lovely public park and visible to passers-by and tourists from Summit Avenue, our Ciry's Cadillac thoroughfare, be historically appropriate and aesthetically pleasing. Both of the two designs that have been approved by the HPC for this site are excellent solutions, either would be a wonderful enhancement of our City and the neighborhood. However, a very small group (only 5 condo owners) of vocai and well-connected opponents are against � HPC approved proposals. In addifion, ss far as I've been able to determine, the oppanents have no alternative solutions or proposals for this important site that are acceptable w them, their apparent go:il is for nothine to be built This is not a fair posifion of opposition, private land rights are involved here. In addition, the Ramsey F3ill Associazion Leadership's decision to support an Appeal to overturn a valid and carefully considered decision by the HPC is misguided and even worst, it smacks of "insider" influence and favors, as two of the five most acfive opponents are RHA Board members. We urge you to postpone any decision on this matter, unless you wish to deny the appeal for it's obvious lack of ineri� In either event, postponement or denial, we also urge you to assemble a delegarion of both opponents and supporters to attempt to craft an acceptable compromise before this matter comes up to you again through an apgeal of the ZAB grocess. Jerry, this issue is symptomatic of a larger set of historic district issues and City wide issues. Sincerely, Louis C. Sudheuner on behalf of well over 50 Ramsey Hill nnmediate Neighbors 648-7718 � .- c��, � S �7 February 8, 1998 We, the undersigned, want the St. Paul City Council to support the St. Paui Heritage Preservations ��nan;t approval of the carriage house proposal at 420 Portland Ave. because: i) Tlus is clearly a backyard. An au�liary structure (carriage house) is the onty logical and appropriate design for this lot. 2) Mr. Severson has gone through all the steps that are normally expected af a builder. A. He has attained approval of the Preservarion Commission after long consultation with them. B. Iie has attempted to negotiate with his immediate neighbors and has made several concessions to them. We believe that some of his neighbors are now making unreasonable demands. 3) The catriage house design Mr. Severson has proposed is a very good one. We believe it is as good as the beautiful new garage on Summit Court. 4) This design will be a handsome addition to the perixueter of Nathan Hale Park. 5) It is important to the long term viability of the Preservation Commission. � �.3� ��r'��.-� �-� �/z ��° ��-�'.G�6 J �/ � �`' 3�.r`{�� . �� S� 22Z l� Z,� � Z ).� l ) ti�� 6 ��(� �� ". �� } S�: �lz-l.t, � C 2�"�"� � � �� r��-�; 7'��yr� , �36 �ov�l� �� s� �� C;'�u��-� G�� 3� ;�� -� � S� j' ; i '' y . �� ` ,// ��e �� ,��.� �- � ��.� �1 �' �c��M C.,� >�6 f-N�� t� � �� Q-.:.`� Z'2 = ��`f i � ST�� c �-��.-�/ .��n �� 2; �6/ Sv,�"�" -� /^ y_S� �� len�l�"-- � S U.9e5�ef�'+ !7-v� �j� ��u1t �9 / - �.� 5 �' � �.-.�.�.'�� -v-�-`.�.� ss �-�-..._ A�� :, P�\ ��- � 3 S 8 c��ob �� crv��. � � �` • �c<,-�. � � �31 � v 4 L S �'�'�O�c.,,�,�-Cu'-2- 5't` �°t8 . �'(�g� `� , , � � �, �. �'. ��s-��I 1.�r,�-� �--�� . .� /'a��-� .��`I � � � , ��i� —� a!,�.c�-�--� `3 8� 3- ��v� Ct�-e -�{n�,�,.Q a 91.� a_ ��l c��_ �s�? February 8, 1998 i We, the undersigned, want the St. Paul City Council to support the St. Paul Heritage Preservations i,nan;mo� approval of the carriage house proposal at 420 Portland Ave. because: 1) This is clearly a backyazd. An auxiliary structure (carriage house) is the only logical and appropriate design for this lot. 2) Mr. Severson has gone through all the steps that are normally expected of a builder. A He has attained approval of the Preservation Commission aRer long consultation with them. B. Ha has attempted to negotiate with his immediate neighbors and has made several concessions to them. We believe that some of his neighbors are now making unreasonable demands. 3) The carriage house design Mr. Severson has proposed is a very good one. We believe it is as good as the beautifui new garage on Summit Court. 4) This design will be a handsome addition to the perimeter of Nathan Ha1e Park. 5) is ' ortant to the long t viabili of the Preservation Commission. ��, � � �-4'-1 (1 1 --f �- l {-'� C � �j �/`� . �`� � ,��w� _ . ! � �"" �j � ��? �Lt�ilJ �S Z2 --� > �' ')' �� /��z;�,� _ , ��yU,f j�'�v, ,� } � ; � _� � sr�� '��°-�� 3 `� c�. C\ � �'1�-�'cwc'1� ��, �5�� February 8, 1998 We, the undersigned, want the St. Paul City CouncIl to support the St. Paul Heritage Preservations unan;mous approval of the carriage house proposat at 420 Portland Ave. hecause: 1) This is clearly a backyazd. An auxiliary stzuchue (carriage house) is the only logical and appropriate design for this lot. 2) Mr. Severson has gone through all the steps that are nornially expected of a buiider. A. He has attained approval ofthe Preservation Commission after long consultation with them. B. He has attempted to negoriate with his immediate neighbors and has made several concessions to them. We believe that some of his neighbors are now making unreasonable demands, 3) The carriage house design Mr. Severson has proposed is a very good one. We believe it is as good as the beautiful new gazage on Summit Court. 4) This design will be a handsome addition to the perimeter ofNathan T3ale Park. 5) It is important to the long term viability of the Preservarion Commission. � � ��-�' ,� ��-� �, ��;� � ��,.�� o�� y��p��o �,� ��a'`"��'�'� 3 2/0 �.�.�i� 6• /� ✓G (,'? p C �<,�x„"'d' .:,.. . February 8, 1998 ��-3s`7 We, the undersigned, want the St. Paul City CouncIl to support the St. Paul Heritage Preseroations unanimous approvai of the carriage house proposal at 420 Portiand Ave. because: 1) This is clearly a backyard. An auxiliary structure (casiage house) is the only logical and appropriate design for this lot. 2) Mr. Severson has gone through all the steps that are normally expected of a builder. A He has attained approval of the Preservarion Commission after long consultataon with them. 3) 4) 5) l B. He has attempted to negotiate with his immediate neighbors and has made several concessions to them. We believe that some of his neighbors aze now making unreasonable demands. The carriage house design Mr. Severson has proposed is a very good one. We believe it is as good as the beautifixl new garage on Summit CourC. Thia design will be a handsome addition to the �rimeter of Nathan Hale Park. Tt is important to the Iong term viability of the Preservation Commission. � �1 �,�� 1 �.�,� - �� -�-� -, a � `�`r1 _� �� ..��,�- �`�4 ��`�` � � � � h,1cu'� d, u �� p�� 1�i�C�u��i��(�� z�3 ��IS . �l�� d��N� G� � �- � � a�e—. 1�.� A_ l,c, � c� �. � ��}'� n �t�5 �a��,�w..� � �J�c�u. .., � u.� 2� P� �� ` �.5� �� . � ��i ( -►�rl�t,�-. �°� .G-�—�i'YG--�- �ov / S�� q ��- fi . _�='��. ��.- —�— —' - `��'-'- - E —!— - 400 Selby Avenue, Suite M, St. Paul, MN 55102 November 18, 1997 Councilmember 7erry Blakey Saint Paul City Council 310-A City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota SS1Q2 Dear Councilmember Blakey, °� � " �S'� the future ot a historic neighborhood in Saint Pau) At its November 13 Neighborhood Issues meeting the Ramsey Hill Association approved a resolution requestittg that the City Council uphold the aggeal af the 5aint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission decision for property located at 420 Portiand Avenue for the following reasons: 1) the proposed structure and existing garage may exceed the maximum 30% pernutted lot coverage; 2) the necessary vaziances have not been deternuned nor applied for; 3) the proposed paved area is not in keeping with efforts by the city of Saint Paul and the Ramsey Hill neighborhood to maximize green space in residentiai azeas; 4) the proposed front yard parking necessary to meet off-street pazking requirements is inappropriate. ° 5) the Portiand Avenue side does not complement the existing properties facing Portland. In making this decision the foliowing facts carried great influence: 1) This property is a Porfland Avenue lot. At one time it served as the rear yard for 415 summit Avenue, however, the lot split approved on June 12, 1990 created a new residential lot with a Portland Avenue address. The property owner concutred at the meeting. 2) Under the Saint Paul Zoning Code this property has a front yard along Portland Avenue with side yards on the east and west sides. 3) The proposed building is the primary dwelling unit for this address. It is not an accessorv structure for 415 5ummit Avenue, even though the design may incoiporate certain features from the dwelling on Summit. 4) Section 73.06 (n(3) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code (Heritage Preservation Section) states: In the case of a proposed new building, that such building will not in itself, or by reason of its loeation on the szte, materially impair the architectural or hiszoric value of buildings wz adjacerct sztes or in the immediate vicinity within tlze historic preservatiore site. �� - �s `1 The proposed dwelling structure cames non of the front-facing features of other homes found on Portland Avenue or throughout the historic district as indicated by the property owner's diagram entiUed "north elevation" (attached). These features inciude a main entrance facing Portland, a porch typical of the residential struetures in this neighborhood and appropriate architectural detail for the front of a dwelling. TFus is contradictory to the portion of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance referenced above. 4) The proposed sideyard parking is expressly prohibited by the Saint Paul Zoning Code. 5) The pzoposed front yard patking is expressly prohibited by the Zoning Code. 6) The proposed structure is closer to the e�sting garage than the 18 feet required under the Zoning Code. Finally, legal issues were raised at the meeting regazding easement rights owned by persons other than the properiy owners. While they raise questions about site control they were not considered as a part of this decision. These matters aze best resolved in a more appropriate forum. The Ramsey Hill Association believes that the review and approval by the Aeritage Preservation Commission was premature because the applicant does not have clear site control and because appropriate variances have not been applied for. Neither the community nor the Heritage Preservation Commission can make a judgement on the design of the structure without knowledge of where the structure may legally be placed on the site, what variances may be necessary or whether or not the structure may legally built on the site. In this instance the Association believed the Heritage Preservation Commission erred in its decision. The applicant should be encouraged to re-apply for HI'C review when control of the site has been resolved, appropriate vaziances have been applied for and the community review process regarding the variances is complete. On behalf of the Association I want to thank you for your attention to this issue and your continued interest in our neighborhood. / �� McJ�aughlin, Presi t sey Hill Association Ca City Councilmembers District 8 Planning Council Ron Severson ��_� m � N N 0 0 N N 3 ❑ �S N .� � V N � 23 Qo ■ �f a 0 N ❑Q � ❑ � � U � �.IJ W ( L � l V I Z O � ¢ > w . w ° � �� O � z� OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RobertKessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nornr Coleman, Mayor LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUIGD7NG Saite 300 350 St Peter Sveet Saint Paul, Mirmesola SS701-ISIO 23 January 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hail Saint Paul, Minnesot� 55102 Deaz Ms_ Anderson: �t� .:� ��.j. y�, Tekphone: 611-266-9090 Focsimile: 672-266-9099 The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing on January 28, 1998 concerning an appeal of a decision by the Heritage Preservation Commission (agenda item #27). The appellants' attorney, Mark Vaught, has requested that the hearing be postponed as one of the appellants will be out of town. I would like to request that the appeal hearing be postponed to February 25, 1998. I have confirmed this new date with all parties involved. The case information is as follows Appel]ants: Tricia Leonard, Greg and Cazol Clark FII'C File: #2884 Purpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to grant approval of a building permit to consiruct a structure with one dwelling unit and four gazage stalls (proposed by Ronald Severson). Address: 420 Portiand Avenue (south side between Summit and Arundel) Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, J f ��`i°yL ��" `�""�� Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Robert Kessler, LIEP Director Charles Skrief, HPC Chair Dauid Heide, HI'C Vice Chair Peter Warner, CAO John Miller Ron Severson Mazk Vaught QFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRON2d�T1'CAL PBOTECTION Raben Kessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemmt, Mayar 5 7anuary 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the Clty Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: 7AWRYPROFESSIONAL BUILDING Suite 300 350 St Peter Street Saint Paul, .LI'mnesota SSIO2-I510 98 �57 2/ Telephone: 612-2669090 Facrimi[e: 61 L266-9099 I would like to request that a public heazing before the City Counci] be scheduled for Wednesday, January 28, 1998 for the following appea] of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision: Appellants: Tricia Leonard, Greg and Caroi Clazk HPC Fi1e: #2884 Purpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to grant approval of a building permit to construct a structure with one dwelling unit and fow garage stalls(proposed by Ronaid Severson). Address: 420 Portland Avenue (south side between Summit and Arunde]) The Heritage Preservation Commission held several public hearings on this matter and voted 11 - 0 on March 27, 1997 to approve 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, �'�'�. �� Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Robert Kessler, LIEP Tracey Baker, HPC Chair Charles Skrief, HPC Vice Chair Peter Wamer, CAO John Miller Ron Severson Mazk Vaught l� i:^ a._ . �.. i .�_..,. :■ Ji��v 6 `f 19Q8 y8- 35'7 From: Aaron Rubenstein To: CCOUnci1.COUNCIL.nancya, CCOUnci1.COUNC2L.marye Date: 12/2/97 11:21am Subject: 420 Portland I sent a letter to Nancy (dated 11 J.971 requesting a public hearing on December 10 for an appeal o£ the HPC approval of a new carriage house at 420 Portland Avenue. Please remove this item Erom the December lOth agenda. I am working on rescheduling the appeal £or December 22 or January 28 (because the HPC needs to act on a formal resolution on the matter on December 11). CC: CCouncil.COUNCIL.jerryb, CCouncil.COUNCIL.gerrym, ... OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTTONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Robert Xessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nonrs Caleman, M¢yor 7 November 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: LOWRYPROFES.SIONAL BUILDA'G Suite 300 350 S� Peter Street Saint Paul, Minrseso[a 55102-I510 98-�5� Zelephorse: 612-266-4090 Facsimile: 612-266-9099 I would like to request that a public heazing before the CiTy Council be scheduled for Wednesday, December 10, 1997 for the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation Commission decision: Appellant: HPC File: Pwpose: Address: S-i�� ricia Leo.�cvd� Cr��s c.v.� ltcrol L�nu�- .5K #2884 Appeal a Heritage Preservation Comm3ssion decision to grant approval of a building permit to conshuct a two-story carriage house with one dwelling unit and four gazage stalls (proposed by Ronald Severson). 420 Portland Avenue (south side between Summit and Mackubin) The Heritage Preservation Commission held several public hearings on this matter and voted 11 - 0 to approve the requested permit on Mazch 27, 1997. This City Council public hearing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-9087 if you ha�e any questions. Sancerely, � )l f ��"" �� ,,, U '� �"� Aaron Rubenstein Preservation Planner cc: Robert Kessler, LIEP Tracey Baker, HPC Chair Peter Warner, CAO Ron Severson John Miller Mark Vaught OFfICE OF LICENSE, MSPECTIONS AND EIdVIRONMEN'IAL PROTECTION Robert Kessler, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, MQyor LCJWRYPROFESSIONAL BUfLDING Suite 300 350 St. Pe[er Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-I510 18 February 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretary to the City Council 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota SS 1Q2 98" 3 5? Telephone: 612-266-9690 F¢csimile: 672-266-9099 RE: HPC File #2884: Gregory Clark, Cazol Clark, and Patricia Leonard, appellants City Council Hearing: 25 February 1998 PURPOSE: To consider an appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's approval of a building permit application to construct a new sttucture containing one dwelling unit and four garage stalls at 420 Portland Avenue. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION A TION• Approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval. PUBLIC TESTIMONl': Four people spoke; three of them expressed concems about the project. Dear Ms. Anderson: Gregory Clark, Carol Clazk, and Patricia Leonard, a11 residents of 415 Summit Avenue, have appealed the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) to approve Ronald Severson's plans to construct a new structure at 420 Portland Avenue, which is directly behind 415 Summit Avenue. Mr. Severson's proposa] was reviewed and discussed by the HPC at five meetings. The commission intially held a concept review of the project in July of 1995. A second, informa] concept review occurred in November of 1996. The commission held a public heazing on the proposal on February 27, 1997, at which four members of the public spoke; after some discussion, the HPC laid over the matter. The project was again reviewed at the Mazch 13, ] 997 HPC Design Review Committee meeting and was fmally approved, by an 11-0 vote, at the Mazch 27, 1997 HPC meeting. The design of the proposed project evolved as a result of each of these meetings (as numerous attached plans for the building show). The commission, inadvertently, did not formally pass a resolution approving the proposed project until January 8, 1998 (10-0 vote). The commission's approval of Mr. Severson's pro,ject was appealed by the above-named parties in April of 1997. A heazing on the appeal was held in abeyance pending negotiations among concemed parties (this process was approved by the City Attorney's office)_ Those negotiations appazently were not entirely successful and the appellants have asked for the appeal to go forward. The April 8, 1997 letter of appeal from Mark Vaught, the appellants' attomey, identifies four general q8-35? Ms. Nancy Anderson Re: HPC Appeal / 420 Portland Avenue 18 February ] 998 Page Two grounds for the appeal. The first states that the application, or project, does not conform to the requirements of Chapters 73 and 74 of the Legislative Code; specifics aze not given. Chapter 73 is the ordinance establishling the HPC and its processes, etc. Chapter 74 contains the ordinances establishing historic districts and sites, including the desigi review guidelines for the Historic Hili Disuict in which the subject site is ]ocated. The second and fourth gounds cited in the letter of appeal relate to zoning code requirements and pazking and pedestrian easements; these issues aze not within the jurisdiction of the HPC. T'he third issue cited, front yard parking, is addressed in the HPC's resolution. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on February 25, 1998. Slides of the site will be available at the Council meeting if Councilmembers wish to view them. I have attached the documentation reviewed by the HPC in making its decision. The first group of documents aze those most important to understanding the current situation--a location map, a site plan and elevations of the proposed building, the HPC's resolution, the appeal letter, and two follow-up letters. The remaining documents are those reviewed by the commission at the six meetings mentioned above. Very truly yours, ��-�,� /U�C��,V��y�J Aazon Rubenstein Heritage Preservation Planner Attachments cc: City Councilmembers Robert Kessler, LIEP Peter Wamer, CAO Mark Vaught Ronald Severson John Miller Charles Skrief, HPC Chair David Heide, HPC Vice Chair 98-3s � 420 PORTLAND APPEAL: TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 5-12 13-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22-28 29-52 53-54 55-78 79-81 82-86 87-102 I. Introduction Area map Plans approved by HPC 3.27.97 HPC resolution granting approval (1.8.98) Letter of appeal (4.8.97) Foliow-up letters conceming appeal II. Information reviewed b��C (in chronological order� Plans--1995 proposal 11.6.96 informal concept review meeting--summary and plans Staffreport and attachments for 2.27.97 HI'C review 2.27.97 HPC summary Materials conceming 3.13.97 HPC Design Review Committee review--cover memo, plans, 1903 Sanbom map, Secretary of the Interior's standazds and guidelines, summary, letter from Mazk Vaught John Miller's 3.21.97 response to Mr. Vaught New information concerning HPC review on 3.2799--cover memo, summary, letter to Councilmember Blakey from Ramsey Hill Association Additional information reviewed by HPG-11.1 ].97 letter to Judy McLaughlin from Mervyn Hough; 11.18.97 letter to Councilmember Blakey from Ramsey Hill Association; 1989 plans for carriage house on same site, approved by HPC, and 1992 revisions � 114111-14 l� � --� o00 0� f�S (� Efl V • �� o o c� CHURtN ME ) C o OQ� o O � � � �� i-� �� - - STat�l � g p o o� {� { U-- � ,� � I ST �t� 5 O 'f 0 l,! • O 7 : �� ' � � � a �� u, �y, � ,o¢oo-�o C7 � °_ ¢ � ° ' 6 o p 'o 0 � o 00000 l�o 000�-� o Po2TC,�v� ��. S�T� -�, � �° `�� _� � 0 0 0 z O � o � b o a � �� •��`�E.., � 0 � � J � '�� : � ,C • �.� ��\ 5 ZX �� o z c� � � 0 . . � �� > O ` � � . � �a� � Z7 �� o � � �N� % 42� ��1ZTt,�t7 APPUCANT- �`^�' `L� �V�l�D1..� PURPOSE �Lh1 �'T fLU�T C1�R2lRtrl N' D�� FlLE # �iQg�._ DATE �: Z�� r � PLNG. DIST�_ MAP # � � SCALE 1' = 200' LEGEND ��. hpc district boundary %////////. . - . .. - 0 one family � two famity ��-Q muftiplefamily Lnorth� .�.a. • • ^ commerciai � �� industriai V vacant �lJ , �v ASPHALT —� � PAVEM �NT �� AP.a0W5 IMDVC4TE �� DRAir1AGE S�OFE ;� [� r� �'' t�,�' EXISTING / j �� pQ LI�CS J �� \ ¢� �' `? � 9� � V� � � < ,�C � R l� \ 420 POR7LAND E. �� > � s� ' ��f: � DRNEwAY . � y P� � � � \ ) � � � ,� O �Jl� . . , � � ,f. �I � q8-357 & r�FS wi IR RAILWG �� I � � e�� u'1 , o e� � i � � Q� P�� f > 2>. I d . � � o , �i '�° 1 J : . I � �� I v . � � .� 1 � �i I cF �9cFC \ � / � o � N � PROPERTY LINE � �o w ( z r� F- I � u d O � a I i w f o�� . i SITE PLAN 1 1116" = 1'-0" `1'�'��J� NEW 7RcE PATIO HEDGE Q�- - — — — — r 90.00' a� ! '�` 5 � 5 � a A ' — � 9� �� NEW AftBOR- � VVTAE TREES BASEMENT �' `-`' STAiRS � �o� r � � �o 415 SUMMIT AVE. PoRCH W N a ` 2 1/2 S50RY � WOOD FRAME BUILDWG � 1 �1 SITE PLAN �� ,�/ r = , 7�� i �L��lS roN 'CH�S �� o�l�Wit�� APPf�� 13 f ��'C, 3•Z'�• 97 � ��°�'� — + I ` h > > �t� / I_ 2.�,�1 r1 L` � l`'i L� 1�.{l�C Z 1 �^. /'� � q8-357 c 0 � W m N 9 N m N m h W N � � � N 1H'J13H 9N^IYjJ 9 m N m � � 00 � ❑O � 1N9i3N `JNil13J w 0 < � U .�b � � � W � W S U � / � ` W � � ` y \ �'^ � � o _ 1 z 0 �=- � � b J -� W '� � U (ll i� w n � 98 � � w � w _ U vi z 0 r- � >_ w� J � W :. r +� cn = u� � � � n � 98-357 m �r �N � 6 �K� WU p O �2p< 'v�o33 e �� o , w N 1 � I O I � � � " I �~ N �i Z � � o �' N O V I N � O � � ❑0 � ❑ �� W W � V / Z O � C > w � w S H � 0 z u 98-3s� U r7 w � W _ U tn Z O � ¢ > w � w 2 H � � N � 98-�s7 r� � �, o � � w �4 w " 0 T o U C/� z Q d L� � � J LL. � z 0 U w � jU 9g-367 , �� c a z C_� M? w �4 �, wo �� U cn z < � � � 0 0 � 11 98•357 I�'! z 0 � a > � J LJ H N 4 w 2 t- C � Z t� 98 -35 7 CITY OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION CONIlVIISSION RESOLUTION FILE NUMBER 2asa DATE 8 January 1998 WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission is authorized by Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code to review building permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservarion Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and WHEREAS, Ronald Severson has applied for a building permit to construct a carriage-house-]ike structure at 420 Portland Avenue within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation District; and WHEREAS, the proposed building site is currently used for off-street pazking by residents of 415 Summit Avenue; there is a two-stall gazage and unpaved driveway and pazking azeas; and WI3EREA5, the Historic Hill District Heritage Preservation District guidelines for design review include the following: III. New Consbuction, A. General Principles: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic Hi11 District is to maintain the district's scale and quality of design. ...New construction should be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setbacl� color, material, building elements, site design, and character ojsurrounding structures and the area. III. B. Massing and Height: New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height and scale of existing adjacent structures. Typical residential structures in the Historic Hill District are 25 to 40 feer high The height of new construction should be no lower than the average height of all buildings on both block faces; measurements should be made from street level to the highest point ojthe roofs. Ill. D. Materiats and Details: ...The materials and details of new construction should relate to the materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferred roof materials are cedar shingles, slate and tite; asphalt shingles which match the approximate color and texture of the preferred materials are acceptable subsiitutes. ...Materials, including their colors, will be reviewed to determine their appropriate use in retation to rhe overall design of the structure as well as to surrounding structures. 777. E. Building Etements: Individual elements of a building should be integrated into its composiJion for a balanced and complete design. These elements for new construction should compliment existing adjacent structures as well. I77. E. 1. Roofs: ... The skytine or profile of new construction should relate to the predominant roof shape of existing adjacent buildings. 771. E. 2. YVindows and Doors: The proportion, size, rlrythm and detailing of windows and doors in new construction should be compatible with that of existing adjacent buildings. ...Facade openings of the same general size as those in adjacent buildings are encouraged. ...Wooden double-hung windows are traditional in the Historic Hitl District and should be the first choice when selecting new windows. III. E. 3, Porches and Decks: In general, houses in the Historic Hilt District have raofed front �� 98-35 7 Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #2884 Page Two porches.... If a porch is not built, the transition from private to public space should be articulated with some other suitable desigrr element. III. F. Site, 1. Setback: New buildings should be sited at a distance not more thwz S% out-of-line from the setback of existing adjacent buildings. Setbacks greater than those of adjacent buildings may be allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at corners. This happens quite often in the Historic Hil] area and can lend detightful variation to the street. III. F. 3. Garages and Pmking: Where alleys do not exist, garages facing the smeet or driveway curb cats may be acceptable. Garage doors should not face the street. If this is found necessary, single garage doors should be used ro avoid the horizontal orientation of rivo-cm gmage doors. Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Resideniial parking spaces should be located in rear yards. ...All parking spaces should be adequately screened from Yhe streei and sidewalk by landscaping, and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon evidence presented at its Mazch 27, 1997 public hearing on said permit application, made the following findings of fact: 1. The proposed building site is a pivotal and difficult site. It is visible from Summit Avenue, it abuts Portland Avenue and a public park, and there aze lazge buildings to the south and west that are close to the property lines. This lot can be construed as both the reaz yazd of the Winter House at 415 Summit Avenue and as a lot fronting on Portland Avenue. The proposed carriage house concept (and "front yazd" parking adjacent to Portland) is a reasonable approach to developing the parcel for the following reasons: a) the site is used for, and needs to accommodate, off-street parking for residents of the WinYer House; b) the parcel has historically been a rear yazd, it is used as a rear yazd, and it appears as a reaz yard due to its relationship to the Winter House; c) there was historically a two-story carriage house on the site; and d) it provides a design solution for a building that is very close to the Winter House in proximity and that is related to it in terms of form, materials, details, etc. The W inter House was built on a through-lot with Summit and Portland frontages; the recent subdivision of the site changes neither the physical relationship of the Winter House to surrounding land nor the historical nature of the site. 2. The proposed structure conforms to the district guidelines: a. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, co]or, material, building elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the azea." b. The building elements, materials, scale, height, and character would be related to, hut do not mimic, the adjacent Winter House. Individual design elements are integrated for a balanced and complete design. c. Though the side elevation would not be parallel to that of ttie Winter House, the street-facing elevation would be perpendicular to the street like those of other structures on this block of Portland. d. The proposed setback from Portland is reasonable given the rear yard nature of the site, the �T q8-357 Heritage Preservation Commission Resolution: File #2884 Page Three carriage house nature of the proposed building, the fact that the historic carriage house on the site was located up to the north property line, and the fact that the only other structure on the block face (the south side of Portland between Western and Arundel) is located closer to the street than would be the proposed strucrure. e. A front porch would not be appropriate given the carriage house nariue of the building. f. Pazking spaces would be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping. Single garage doors would avoid the horizontal orientation of doubie doors. The unusual nature of the building and site results from the rarity of a through-lot. These sorts of anomalies in design and deve]opment add richness, interest, and delight to the historic district and its chazacter. 3. In addition, the proposed structure and site development conform to the federal Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for new construction on an historic site. The proposed building's design and materials aze related to and compatible with the primary, adjacent, historic building, i.e., the Winter House; the design distinguishes between what is new and what is historic rather than mimics the historic structure and confuses the rivo; and the development would not have an adverse impact on the character-defining features of the site and the azea. The building's design is similar to the rear addition of the Winter House with simplified detailing, which is appropriate for a new secondary siructure. A new bnilding of unrelated design and materials would detract from the historic integrity of the site; and WAEREAS, though there are, or may be, zoning issues, legal issues, and other issues pertaining to the proposed development, they aze not within the jurisdiction of the Heritage Preservation Commission; the commission must grant or deny approval of permits based on Chapter 73 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code and the district design review guidelines; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation Commission grants approval of a building permit for the proposed structure, based on the revised plans including only the east elevation mazked 3C-1, and subject to the condition that an appropriate crown molding be added above the transom windows. MOVED BY Baker SECONDED BY Aauser IN FAVOR 10 AGAINST 0 ABSTAIN 0 Decisions of the Heritage Preservatios Commission are final, 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 zaning aode requiremenCs, and does not constitute approval for tax credits. 15 9�-357 S. Maxx Vau�Frr anorneyAr Law Suiu 700 Su Wesc Fifrh Saett Saint Paul, Minneson 55102 (612)297-6400 FAX (612) 224-8328 April 8, 1997 Aaron Rubenstein LIEP 350 Saint Peter Street Suite 3�0 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: File #2884 Dear Mr. Rubenstein: On behalf oE my clients Gregory Clark, Carol Clark and Patricia Leonard, all residents o£ 415 Summit Avenue, Saint Yaul, Minnesota 55102; and Laurel Frost and Mervyn Hough, residents of 73fi Portland Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102; each of whom is an aggrieved party as that term is used in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 73.06(h), please consider this letter as the appeal of the aggrieved parties to the City Council, pursuant to the cited section, of the approval of the above-entitled matter by the Heritage Pzeservation on April 27, 1997. The grounds for the appeal are generally as £ollows: l. The application as approved fails to meet the requirements of Chapter 73 and 74 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code relating to design and other functions regulated by the cited chapters; 2. Specifically, the application fails to comply with the Saint Paul Zoning Code requirements with respect to outside storage of trash, snow removal and storage, property line setbacks, provision of the proper number and spacing of parking places on the property, and trafPic circulation; 3. The application contains provisions for a front yard parking lot in violation of the provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; 4. The application violates certain pedestrian and parking easements which attach to the property. My clients have agreed with Mr. Severson to engage in negotiation with respect to the application. All parties have �� q8-357 Aaron Rubenstein April 8, 1997 Page Two agreed to maintain the status quo so long as the negotiations are proceeding. Therefore, though the agreement of the parties calls for my clients to perfect this appeal, they ask that no action be taken to schedule a hearing thereon until such time as the negotiations are abandoned as fruitless. In the event that happens, written noti£ication will be provided to your office. I assume this document is sufficient to perfect the appeal under the cited code provision. If I incorrect, please noti£y me immediately. Please direct a11 neces'sarv written communications and notices regarding this appeal to my o£fice. Very truly yours, ��C� �� :�,� � S. Mark Vaugfit Attorney at Law �� . � � 98�35 ? Warren E Pemrson Ierome P Filla DaniellV�ll Fram Glenn A Besgman Iohn M¢hael Mdler Michael T Obede Kenne[hA Amdahf Steven H Bmns' PaullV Fahning Timothy P Russell Es[herE McGinnis • � ; � a 'Us'F:£�S"S=i;O,N A�i�::94 Swtc { )0 50 East Flhh Street 5[ Paul, MN 55101-I 1�7 1612129I-R��; Ibt?4 2?A-1753 facsimde Aieh'in ) Silvec O( Coun<el Direct Dial ►290-6909 October 7, 1997 S. Mark Vaught, Esq. 6 West Fifth Street, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55102 BY FACSIMILE aHn u.s. �=v RE: Purahase of Property Adjacent to Nathan House & Mews Condominium Our File No.: 11127f950001 Dear Mr. Vaught: I met recently with Ron Severson regarding development of the property to the north of 415 Summit Avenue. Mr. Severson and some of your clients have evidently met a couple of times in order to discuss the situation and try to reach some mutually satisfactory arrangement. According to the information which I have received from Mr. Severson, it appears that at least some of your clients are taking the position that they will not agree to the building of any residential structure on that property under any conditions. If, in fact, that is their posi�ion, there seems to be little use in continued discussions or engaging the services of a mediator. (Please see Paragraph 4 of my letter of March 28, 1997 and your notes of our phone conversation of that same date.) Accordingly, please consider this letter Mr. Severson's notice to you pursuant to your letter of March 27, 1997, that the negotiations appear fruitless and that Mr. Severson will take the appropriate steps in two weeks in order to obtain the appropriate approval.s trom the City to comnlete the project. In the meantime, of course, Mr. Severson and I would certainly be willing to continue meaningful discussions if you or your clients are interested in doing so. Thank you. JMM:cnd cc: Ron 5everson iller Celebrating V � our � V LjJ V v ,� � Anni�ers.u�� •4� 50 42\9`TCD IN \\'ISCO\Si� f / � V 98-35? S. MARK YAUGHT A tt o rn ey At Lau� Suite700 `"- '��! Ci r;i;'�' �^ Six Wut Fifth Stteet '- � - � = � , Sainc Paul, Minnesota SS 1Q2-1420 (612) 297-6400 97 C'r � I w!!; i i� I I FAX (612) 224-8328 October 10, 1997 Aaron Rubenstein LIEP 350 Saint Peter Street Suite 300 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Anolication of Ronald Severson to Construct a Cazriaa House at 42Q Portland Avenue; Heritage Preservation �OG1Yi[iSaiGi1 :7.ie :i0. l. Dear Mr. Rubenstein: By letter dated April 8, 1997, a copy of which is enclosed, a number of my clients, who were affected parties, appealed the decision o£ March 27, 1997 by the Commission in the above- referenced matter. My letter to you of April 8, 1997, mistakenly states that the decision appealed fzom was made on April 27, 1997. The correct decision date is March 27,.1997. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, which decision zvas made _ after cOnsultation with Assistant City Attorney Peter'Warner, the appeal has been held in abeyance while the parties have attempted to negotiate the mattar. On October 7, 1997, Mr. Severson's attorney in£ormed my clients in writing that Mr. Severson was abandoning the furthez negotiations as fruitless. Accordingly, this letter is to request that the appeal be scheduled for hearing before the appropriate body. Upon your receipt of this letter, please contact me or have Mr. Warner do so to arrange for the scheduling o£ the appeal and the submission of additional �a*_�erwork an b�half of mv clients. Ver- uly ours, - � L�� S� Mark Vaught Attorney at Law cc Peter Warner, Esq:,_with enclosure Susan Bergen, without.enblbsure_ Carol and,Greg Clark, without enclosure.,. _,, I,aurel Frost, without enclosure Mervyn Hough, without enclosure . Tricia Leonard, without enclosure John Michael Miller, Esq., without enciosure �y �� 0 , � � ` 'i i � ; � L C n 9 � ; S u � � � O M O S .� b � ' y Y RON SEVERSON : 98-357 .r. � � rn � o- Z � 1 L -�a � � O � � �('� 1 �� N -a --a � �✓ {A)�YGIINY�ONE . x�oc�wts.m+ssnx ' . 612-636•6889 �� 6BB9.9E9'Zl9 O S � a 0 J � s � 3JA'HQIS3N NOSX3i13S NOd A'3'7d 1d3JNOJ z � � � � -i i 1 � <! < � � ' � � d�' �! z! �; �', � Z F c > � w r � 3 i ZI .' y 8-35? Meetin�Sim�maz3' informal concept review mceYing re: 420 Portland Avenue carriage house 6 November 1996 present: Ron Seveison, Bob Limning, David Heide, Charies S1Qie� Aazon Rubenstein smuniary prepazed by Rubenstein Severson presented two designs, one with fow garage stalls facing Portland and a 25' &ont setback and one with four stalls facing west and a 15' &ont seWack (both desigos similar to those now proposed in February 1497 but buildings were parallel with east properiy line and not with Portland). Heide: should Uris cazriage house read as an independent sWcture or resemble the original part of the Winter House or the simpler rear addition? Lunning: could go either way; could entertain good contemporary design tespectCul but not closely related to main building; secondary buildings tended to be simpler; tlus building could be simpler in form and detailing than the front part of the house--that would be more appropriate; these designs try awfully hard--perhaps too hazd--to follow feedhack given at previous HPC meeting. Heide: proposed carriage house is more elaborate than the rear addition of the house; concerned about false historic precedent for carriage house at this location; no sense of pedestrian entry; concemed about quality of unbuilt spaces on the ]ot. Slvief: troubled by gazage doors so visible from Portland--important sUretch of Portland, view &om Portland gerhaps more important than from Sunuuit. Limning: packing court at reaz of 415 Summit, with gazage doors facing west, better than doors facing Portiand from every perspective except view from building to west; nced to look at how to screen and unprove relationship with Portland, be welcoming from Portland--show entrance or pedestrian way. Discussion about pedestrian design connection between building and Portland. Discussion about replica6on/mimicry versus contemporary but compatible design; Heide concerned about false historicity; guidelines seem to ailow either approach. The remainder of the discussion focused on plan B--with gazage doors facing west. Lunning: plan B better meets ]arger neighborhood and public interests; suggested building could follow both east and north properly lines (trapezoidal shape)--building huns perhaps with porch element. Heide: openings not proportionate to scale of building and overly detailed. Discussion about garage doors and type; perhaps set back 1' from wali. Lunning: encoutaged Severson to look at quality of entire space, particulazly for building to the west Heide: second story windows larger than first; what about windows penetrating the comice--lower cornice? Severson: will look at revising plans and getting variance for plan B. Heide: suggested that illustrations, even small iine drawings, showing entire views from park and Portland would be usefiul (carriage house, main house, apartment bwlding, trees). Apartment building to west very close to street, not set back 25'. ZZ � ` -I' -�. . r �• � / /: ,. - �, , � . . ` ;` , - � . , f /� � . � . . . - � , i ,".' .J : l .j Ct ' � ..-..... _t . ;: / G - . � �J` � !J� Q� :_;? : �'�� /`/ �\� d� = f `O l � L o �� , � , / .�: ��` � . /� 1 ," � -��,;,�r ;i /. :;\ � „\ �� / /1 C�-, \, / � ��Sr � ?k � / ,% ��-j ��C i i� �,:, i � �� i c ' / / I ii n 1 \ / � � p�i�aEF.TY Ut:E — _. L -� T 1 ��go ,� Ff.rir w � il I� � � , w ~ � I � � a 0 � a � �� I i i� � A °�T q � 98 35 7 \ � � � S 4i sj OF �%'q � FS � �� . J � � � � � � � \ �� ;:-, 90.00' � �t:52°52'25"E - � I 1 PkOPOSED G4RAGE & -- � LOFT i 25'-0" T - – l { _ ' � - 5ASEMEIJT SiAiRS FOnCH a�s sunnr,�uT AvE 2 1/2 STORY 1NGG� FR4NE BUILOING w � � c� ` o^ I � � �n � � i SlTE PLAN � 1/16" = 1'-0" I 1t��4 /�i�� at,l,ow I N 6� S Pt�G�ES 1�P� pl!�� 8 [l•6•Q6 � �k�i,rc�tkL Gtil�ctPT 2�UI�� / � �� I 1 � � -I � � � I � 4 � o r v 4' �_ J� ' � 9� w ?� J � w a ' 0 � a � w N �O^ �� I �(L U�1 \� '�o;,>, �.s Z3 � 98- 35 7 r �:� � I��; � ;g, � , ��, �;. f ��,; c: � � i � il� ; �d � i /� i 6-.S c V c J 4 j%11 !i r— ' I I I :I ) i{ i�� I I�� i� I I 1 I 1 I I I' I I If � � I � 4 I p y I `1 C I :I I �� b � I� h � i{ I 1 1 I � li N � __ �: , .; 1 �� e ' - i , i , �, @ �� f I '� �' j; � ' �' ! �� , ��1' �, ; � � , " j� I`; � �, � j; �� , I i I !'� ilt � � � _ � � i i �� ° � ' l; ; j i ,----� N �� { ` J i;i�, � � � �l �� i �Hp:3H ONi713� � � 1H0�'3H'JN'113� , ? � C j � i � i �,, f < � w � 0 � � 1 ...b 2� � 98-3s7 z 0 � Q > w � w 2 F-- C � Z / � q8-3s7 , Z; °; W "o J � I:J _ � II � I � � ri � ( 2 �� " 98-3s7 z 0 �_ � > W J W S t � � N 2� � 9�-357 � �� `� � 1 z � J � LL � � � Z� � 98-357 HPC FILE #2884 CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMA�SSION STAFF REPORT FILE NAME: Construct cazriage house APPLICANf: Ronald Severson DA'I`E OF APPLICATION: 2.14.97 DATE OF HEARING: 227.97 LOCATION: 420 Portland Avenue (south side betweea Westem(Summit and Arundel) HPC SITE/DISTRICT: FIistoric Hill IJisfrict CATEGORY: N. A. CI.ASSIFICATION: Major STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 4.23.9'i BY: Aazon Rubenstein A. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject site is a flat, dirt lot used for off-street pazking for the residents of 415 Summit Avenue which adjoins to the south. A two car gazage was constructed in the southwest comer of the site 1.3 yeazs ago. To the west is a]azge, four story, brick condominium building and to the east is the triangular Nathan Hale Park. The E. W. Winter House at 415 Summit is a two and one-half story residence constructed in 1882 in a vemaculaz Second Empire sryle and later remodeled in the Queen Anne style. Elements of both styles are evident. A two story reaz addition was consiructed in 1886. Cass Gilbert designed an 1892 remodeling. The Winter House is categorized as pivotal. The structure has a mansazd roof (rear addiuon hipped) with wood shakes, clapboazd siding, double hung windows, and a limestone foundation. In the 1980s, the building was converted into four condominium units. A new, east side, pyramidal ]ripped roof, entry porch was approved by the T in 1987. B. PROPOSED CHANGES: The applicant proposes to construct a two story "carriage house" residence, with four gazage stalls at ground levei, on the east side of the lot. C. GITIDELINE CITATIONS: The Historic Hill Heritage Preservation Distriet guidelines for design review include the following: III. New Construcdon, R. General Principles: The basic principle for new construcdon in the Historic Hill District is to maintain the district s scale and quality of design. ...New construction should be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setbact� color, materiaf, building elements, site design, and rharacter ofsurroundingstructures and the area. III. B. Massing and Height: New construcdnn should conform to the massing, votume, height and scale of exisdng adjacent struciures. Typicat residendal structures in the Historic Hill District are 25 to 40 feet high. The height ofnew consmrction shoutd be no lower than the average height ofall buildings on both block faces; measurements should be made from street level to the highest point of the roofs. 2y 9'8- 35' 7 HPC Stafl Report: File #2884 Page Two III. D. Materials and Details: ..,The materials and details ofnew construction should relate to the materials and details of existing nearby buildings. Preferred roof materials are cedar shingles, slate and tile; asphalt shingles which match the approzzmate color and texture of the preferred materials are acceptable substitutes. ..Materials, including their colors, will be reviewed to determine their appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure as well as to surrounding structures. III. E. BuildingElements: Individual elements ofa buildingshould be integrated into its composition for a balanced and complete design. These elements for new construction should compliment eristing adjacent structures as well. III. E. 1. Roofs: ...The skyline or profile ofnew construction should relate to the predominant roof shape of ezisting adjacent buildrngs. Ill. E. 2. Windows and Doors: The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing ofwindows and doors in new construction should be compadble with that ofexisting adjacent buildings. ...Facade openrngs of the same general size as those in adjacent buildrngs are encouraged. ... Wooden double-hung wrndows are tradrtional in the Historic Hi11 District and should be the first choice when selecting new windows. Ill. E. 3. Porches and Decks: In general, houses in the Historic Hidl District have roofed front porches.... Ifa porch is not built, the transitlon from private to public space should be articulated with some other suitable design element. IIZ F. Site, 1. Setback: New buildings should be sited at a drstance not more than S% out-of-line from the setback ofexisting adjacent buildings. Setbacks greater than those of adjacent buildings may be allowed in some cases. Reduced setbacks may be acceptable at corners. Thrs happens quite often in the Historic Hill area and can lend delightful varration to the street. Ill. F. 3. Garages and Parking.• Where alleys do not exist, garages jacing the street or driveway curb cuts may be acceptable. Garage doars should not face the street. If this is found necessary, single garage doors should be used to avoid the honzontal orientaaon of nvo-car garage doors. Parking spaces should not be located in front yards. Residential parking spaces should be located in rear yards. ...All parking spaces should be adequately screened from the street and sidewalk by landscaping. D. ffiSTORY AND DISC[TSSION: The 420 Portland lot was subdivided in 1990 from the 415 Summit Avenue lot to the south. It is both the rear yazd of the Winter House and a sepazate pucel fronting on Portland, a situation that presents challenges for development--not the least of which is off-street pazking. The 415 Siuumit wndominiums have a pazking easement which requ'ves two parldng spaces in the reat lot for each of the four condominium units (though this requizement can be waived by any condo owner). The current applicant wants to provide nine off-street pazking spaces--two for four units and one for either a condo unit or the carriage house unit The City's off-street pazking requirement for the site would be seven spaces (1.5 spaces x 5 units, rounded down). From a design perspective, a new 3� 98-357 HPC Siaff Report: File �#2$84 Page Three cazriag�house-type strucUUe should 1) be related but suhservient to the Winter House and 2) resemble a carriage house yet be compatible with the grand buildings along Porttand Avenue. The applicant, Mr. Severson, bought the 420 Portland lot a year of so ago and lives in the Winter House. In 1989, the HPC and BZA approved plans for conshuction of a carriage house on this site, wlrich project included one dwelling anit and five gazage stalls in a sort of I,-shaped building and three off- slreet pazldng spaces. In 1992, the HPC and BZA approved modifications to that plan w}uch included two dwelling units in an L-shaped, carriage-house-like, shucture and 14 underground pazldng spaces. In July 1995, the HPC Design Review Committee did a concept review of Mr. Severson's first proposal --to build a three story, mansazd roofed residence with two gazage stal]s. That design was not partiwlazly well received and the HPC chair offered to have a small goup of HPC members meet with the applicant to consult informally and in more detail about the design issues. The fundamental concem eapressed at the July 1995 meeting was that the design started to be a carriage house but wasn't and that it needed a stronger design relationship to the Winter House. The infomzal meeting happened a yeaz later, in November 1996, with Mr. Severson, Bob Lunning, David Heide, Charles Sl�ief, and HPC staff attending, at which time several new designs--related to those now proposed--were reviewed (notes attached). E, kTNDINGS: 1. The applicant is proposing three design schemes for HPC review, all variations on a two story carriage house. Scheme 3X has a) a 25' front setback from Portland in order to avoid need for a setback variance, b) a 36' long building with two double garage doors, and c) two pazking spaces in the front yazd which wouid requ've a variance. The 3X building is smaller than the other two designs, resulting in the cariiage house's bedroom being located in the basement--the applicant's least prefened design. The app]icant may want to add a dormer with one window on north and south elevations of the 3X design. Scheme 3B is a 40' long building with single gazage doors, a 19.5' front setback, and two parking spaces in the front yard. It is the applicant's second choice. Scheme 3A is the applicant's preferred design. It is the same as 3B but with angled, second story overhangs at the northeast and southeast comers. 2. Proposed materials aze as follows. Roofing would be Timberline asphalt shingles, matching the eacisting gazage; the Winter House has a wood shingled roof. 5iding would be dutch lap woal siding milled to match that on the Winter House; wood-shingles in dormer gable ends. Trim and eaves wouid be wood; eave design sunplified from that of Winter House by deleting dentils. Windows would be 1/1 douhle-hung with insulated glass with full scseens--either Andersens with brown vinyl cladding matching color of Winter House windows or, more ]ikely, Marvin wood windows. Doors and entry hood wouid be of woal. Roof ridges would be painted metal with a wooden crown molding and tin balls. Other details: rockfaced block foundation above grade; probabty built-in gutters; paint scheme to match the Winter House; balcony design closely matches those on Winter House. 31 98-35 7 HPC Staff Report: File #288A Page Four 3, Schemes 3X and 3B conform to the disirict's design guidelines. They would be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback, color, material, building elements, site design, and character of s�sroundiug structures and the azea. The angle of the building on the site would reflect the relationship of Portland to Sumnut and would mean the carriage house would be squaze with its Portland neighbors. The building elemenu add up to a highly detailed, complex design for a carriage house that could be simplified but is acceptable as is. Tke first story of the north elevation, however, is elccessively blank; the applicant is willing to considet adding small square windows here and in place of ]azger windows on the first floor of the east elevation (possibly then deleting glazing on garage doors). Consideration should also be given to adding these windows to the south elevation. The proposed two pazking spaces set back ten feet from Portland would be acceptable, if wel] screened, given the front yardlback yazd nature of the site. A detailed landscaping plan should be provided. 4. The proposed 3A design, with its angled second story overhangs, is excessively complicated for a carriage-house-type structure. Historic carriage house, though they can be finely detailed, have simpler forms. A cazriage house should look like a secondary structure. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staffrecommends a) denial of the proposed scheme 3A and b) approval of the proposed schemes 3X and 3B subject to the following condition: The HPC or its staff shall review and approve fmal construcdon plans (including added first story, north elevation windows), and a detailed landscaping plan to ensure adequate screening of pazking. 32 GENERAL BUILDING PERMlT - g8 -357 DEPARTMENT CITY OF SAINT PAUL �..J u I t..J CTl'Y OF SAINT PAUL 2' I d• J � I OFF[CE OF LICENSE, INSPECf70NS AND � ENVIRONMENTALPROTECIION � BUILDING INSPECf10NAND DES7GN � 350 St Pefer Stree! - Suite 300 � F�t1111t Np, �� Saim Pau( Milmesota 55102d570 672-266-AD90 =OATE' a ��_ipWNE �Oi OWNEfiS ADDRESS- �� L�rII/�I � � ❑ OLO ❑ NEW TYPE CONST. GRADING STUCCOOR ❑ BUf LD ❑ AND EXC. ❑ PIASTER ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTER ❑ REPAIR NUMBER l0T STRUC- W'orH TURE ESTIMATED VALUE ' DETA1 LS !� REMRRK$: SIDE CROSSSTREETS A ODITIO N OR TRA SIDE lOT CLEARANCE BUII.DINC HEIGNT ( STORIES 9ASEMENi TOTAL FLOOR AREA YES ❑ NO S�. FT. 1NCLUDEBASEMENT ►ERMiT FEE •�AN CHECK STATE SURCHARGE TOTALFEE APPLICANT CERTIFIES THAT ALL IN- FORMATION IS CORRECT AND THAT ALl PERTINENT STATE REGULATIONS AND CITY ORDINANCES WI LL BE COM- PLI£O W ITN IN PERFORMf MG THf WORK FOg i.VVHICH THISPERMiT IS ISSUED. \ A 1.� STATE VALUATION CASHIER USE ONLY WHEN VALIDATED THIS IS VOUR PERM�T St. �¢ _ �1DDRESS; 1]�F1oe==' �_ �3'33 TYPE OF OCCUPANCY ❑ DRYWALL ❑ FENCE e` i � � /^ ` / � , \ \ .. / / I � C9 F \ � C � � & Ait ol � �� PROPERTY LINE � i �� — — wl z � � � �f ai 0 � � 1 I w ( <�'.�j O ^ O O I �� N SiTE P�AN PATIO � \ 9. \ EXIS7ING LILACS ASrHALT —'� �� PAVEMENT HE�GE > � p / �� . . Lll. �,� PRO�OSED GAFEAGE 8� f o � v � LOFT l I � � � � � 2�. ' � f 4 ' O � � � \ ">� � � � � � — -- �--- �� 5�� 9�, > NEW ARBOR- � VITAE TREES BASEMENT '�' STAIRS z � PORCH 415 SUMMIT AVE. 2 7/2 STORY WOOD FRAME BUILDING ' 9 � 0 98-357 � 'QL F (��, � ry� � �O \ r� �) w a 0 � � I w o "' �^ I�° .- n � � � 1 1/16" = 1'-0" �� SC��I�� 3 X (2s' �rwNT s�-��c�J n ' � `EXISTIPJG �E TREE � � <� CO C. VvALK & TEPS W! IR N RAILfNG � �� 98-357 x � w � w _ U cn z 0 � Q > w J W _ }-- � � z C O�S I{rt�lS �y �� o P �- 24 �-��,�� D �� 3� 7 98-3s7 N N� m N W N � N W N X r`� W � W _ C� � 6-.S � N 0 N 1H'J13H � �. ■ � �, 0 a 1H913H pNlll3� v Z O � Q >o � .� �., - � �� 4 � w � 3b �' 98-$s7 . � .� � � 3 � � � �- � x � w � w _ v � � � � � � � �.., � � 3 � z � �' � � z 0 � �_ �i° �., - �� y � m I �JC� NOI1tl�t1Q3 31tl9M3N bL888LEZT9 8£:LL L66IJLZIL� `j y8-�5� x � w � w _ � � z 0 � Q > W J L11 i � � � � 3 � ./-6 9�-35� X � W � � _ U (l) Z O � ¢ > w � w �- � w � 39 � 98-357 ,� � � � � �; �3 � s � n z ,r, r() w , C �^ / N W N T w U � � ¢ � � � U O x za �ad a�ins N�s3a �znomn x sz�z-sse-at9 �v � 4Z�ZL L66ZISt/Z0 / \9• �� O� �J� ,� 0�` � -}. p0 � � � � a V ��,��/ �e e�� S• � � / . � \ � � / F -�'/,s � I C9 � 9 �'F b ( N ^ PROPERiY LINE ' �O J I � � w a 0 � a I � w I O N O � OO � � r M � 1 Exi� °� ULACS � �� ASPHAIT —� �PAVEMENT HEDG� 415 SUMMIT AVE. 2 7/2 STORY N100D FRAME BUi _DING A 98-357 ti0 &O ��FL,� � � 'QO � o EXIS7ING �� < SREE r S ��F� ��k CO C. 4JAlK � & TEPS W/ IR N RAILING & ATE �, EXI , LIL i• � o � �, vi � � o ! � � I � I � � � -1- I "v `D __- ._- -----_.__. � w� z J H � w a 0 � a� �., � {o ( �o � n � � SITE PLAN � ' � �� ` � � ,i, s° _ , �—o° � 4c�4eN�� 3f� �to 3i� ((9.5 ��as�c S£T�i�LI�.� ,, ?�" Ji 4. � O Q / Q� NEw' TREE PAf10 X� � / \> � / .\ � \ \ � > �j \ � / �\/ � � � p � � � / � 4r ) i �� Pp�� Q V C" �' // �� NEW ARSOR- VITAE TREES BASEMENT —� STAIRS FORC ��i i, ¢� X, 9d'-357 m �� w S W � C� v7 z U � Q > LL, _ J p w i 2 � F U � : � � Z n � � w z � 0 v 4 � � � G'1 � � / � 98�35� N� m N m N N N � � _ � - _ 6 w a 1H013H ONlI13� . _ 1H913H 9NI113J c�i .b �� W � W S U � z O f"' Q J o Ll_1 " � II � iD W M �3 l� g8-3s-r m � w � w _ � � z 0 �_ Q > w � � _ �- � 0 N � ; � � , q8-3s7 � � W � W _ U � Z O F= Q > w � � � � � � �7 ,� 98-3� 7 � e � � W T � N W o � ? C� C/� ^�, ;:, � Z Q 6 ' J � � � L1- fl ab O b • � M �f � n � ^ Q V, � � �. �' + �' r . n T0 39Cd Q�If1H N�J53Q FpIftOfYVt £L£Z-8£S-Ei9 51 i � ��:;, ��}� 46 �.?:. Y� . 9Z�ZL�i L66I/Bi/Z0 �'f � 98- 3s � Q w � w _ U � Z O r= Q > w J W _ � � Q Z s � w � 0 � Q � � � d � �� 98-35 7 Q � w � � � � �.,-� z 0 � Q > w J W i�- � Q W - 1 V � V Q � � � 0 � � _ 3 a 0 r- � r v lLJ � Li..l _ U (I� O a � w w' t— Q W i 98-�57 0 u i� i � U.� � � �L' � lJ� � !— 3 �� J � �� / Z0 39dd 85�LL L66T/LL/Z0 q�. y M.. ,. F: � NO21G�43 31C�JM3N �: - bL808L£ZT9 r, 98- 3s � Q � � � � _ V z � O � Q > � � w _ F- � O � ,�D � gg-35� � � W � W z � � z 0 � a > W � W � � W � �l �-3" �18 357 Q � w �4 w� z� U � Z Q J C L.l. � � � 52 ?� 98-3s � HPC Meeting Summary / 2.27.9� re: 420 Portland AvenuefFile #2884 Construct new carriage house applicant: Ronald Severson summary by Aaron Rubenstein Rubenstein showed photos and slides of the site; mentioned that he had notified 436 Portland residents of HPC meeting and they notified 415 Summit residents; a neighbor had raised issues of trash storage, 6'-lugh fence vs. landscaping, and locarion of ninth paddng spot. Baker asked for clazification that staff recommends appmval with smaller first Aoor east windows; Rubenstein responded `�es". Albers asked about screening and landscaping requirements. Severson said he plans to live in the cazriage house, wants to withdraw plan 3A from consideration given staff ob,jection to it, and is open to HPC's design suggestions. Hazgens: likes scheme 3B with single garage doors and smaller fust story east windows. Severson: would like IiPC approval for both 3X and 3B designs given the uncertainty about getting a frrnrt setback variance. Slvief: pointed to informal concept review swnmary on p. 25 of packet, which suggests some problems with the proposed designs; designs aze too elaborate given the nature of the building; also concemed about relationship with the park, especially the balcotry--the building should be a restrained backdrop, have better manners. Heide: concurs with much of Skrief's comments; still confused by what the building is hying to be and its relationship with the e�sting building; his wmments from the 11.6.96 meeting still apply. Chair Baker asked for any public comment. Gary Ballman, Ramsey Hill Association representative: RHA has not had a chance to foimally review the proposal and he invited Severson to neat RHA boazd meeting. Cazol Clazk, 415 Sununit: owns existing gazage; new gazage spaces would be � she has problems bacldng out of gazage because of tight lot; condo association was not informed of HPC meeting; listed a number of concems; unplications for condominium legal documents; she catmot use existing gazage as there is no paving. Rubenstein inteaupte3 and said the concems of Ms. Clazk and other neighbors about legal issues, Mr. Severson's handling of the process, and other non-design issues are valid concems but not appropriate to discuss at the HI'C; the HPC deals with design issues addressed in the district guidelines and must make a decision based solely on the design guidelines. Laurel Frost, 436 Portland: subject lot is not a front and rear lot--it is a front lot; a building cannot be a main and accessory building; believes this is a main building. Mervyn Hough, 436 Portland, president of Nathan Hale Park Condominium Association: west elevation and landscaping do not take into accoimt their situation; has a problem with the concegt; concemed ahout landscaping, gazbage and screening; wants four single garage doors and wants plans to be follow i.e., changes require approval. Severson responded briefly. Albers: documents not adequate for permit approval, especially for approval of two schemes. Frame: concurs with Albers, particulazly inappropriateness of approving two different plans. Heide: proposed building is intended to represem a historic carriage house that was never there, blurs what is historic and new. Hargens: agrees with Heide; a pivotal and difficult site; moved layover. Albers: suggested denial of pemilt--plans not sutliciently detailed. Frame seconded the layover motion. �3 98-3s� FIPC Meeting Summary / 2.27.97 re: 420 Portland Avenue/File #2884 Page Two Hazgens: there are other, broader issues [besides design] to be resolved Kubenstein: it is reasonable to review and act on two design schemes givea difficulty and imcer[ainty of the development process; HPC should avoid non-design issues and, whether layover or denial, should be cleaz about reasons for action. Hazgens: the design of the building is ambiguous. Lazson: supports layover rather than denial. discussion about layover to Mazch 13 Design Review Committee meeting. Motion to lay over passed 10 - 0. �� q8-357 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Ma}ror MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: HPC Design Review Committee Auon Rubenstein � �� 420 Portland 10 March 1997 OFFICE OF LiCENS$ A'SPECITONS AND EN VII20NMENTAL PROTEC.'TfON RobertKus(er, Diruwr IAWRYPXOFFSSIONAL BUD.DA'G Suite 300 3505[ Petsr Sfreet Saint Pau� Minreesom 55102-I510 Telephone: 612466-9090 Faanmile: 672-266-9099 Todd Bradley has prepazed revised elevations for the 420 Portland carriage house. Because of the pivotal, highly visible natwe of the site, Chazles Slvief would like to have the Design Review Committee review and discuss the revised plans on Thursday and then have the full commission review and vote on the project on Mazch 27. The revised elevations show a simplified, hipped roofed design Included are three versions of the east e]evation, a north elevation with fsst story windows added, and two variarions of the west elevation. Mr. Bradley has stated that the revised design is meant to reflect the reaz wing of the 415 Swnnut building and could be fiuther distinguished from the main building by simplifying or eliminating moldings and possibly by changing some materials. I have included in this packet the information from the February 27 HPC meeting, a summary of the February 2? discussion, copies of earlier plans for the site FYI, and a 1903 Sanbom insurance map section showing that a two-story out building was located at the northeast corner of the lot. (A 1901 Rascher map labels the outbuilding as 1.5 stories; both maps provided by Tracey Baker). Also included are seven pages from the federal Secretary of the Interior's standazds and guidelines with references to distinguishing between new construction and historic structures. I would like to point out that these guidelines are not included in the guidelines for any of the local districts and perhaps ought to be. I expect this might be a more contentious issue in the neaz future (re: Lawel and Mackubin}. �� 63I07/1997 02:34 612-338-2323 VIiJOVICN DESGN BUILD PAGE �_� � C_i r7 W � � W � T U (n z 0 � Q w °; �. w� � ,� �� u M �6 03/07/1997 02:34 612-33 a VUJOVICH DESGN EUILD PAGE 03 9� 3s7 L� � W ^ �a � x v c_� � z U � d 5 w � N w �� n � ., �� >t ' ' , t 03/07/1997 02:34 612-338-2323 UUJOVICH DESGN BUILD PAGE 64 q8-35� �� w� �� W z � > �- � z o� � � � w � w � � � � r��' .. ,. . , 03/07/1997 02:34 _ , -� j S 612-338-2323 VUJOVICN DESGN BUILD , M U 1 J w � w z U C/) PAGE 05 98-35� Z. O �- ¢ � � � � � O � � �� a ; � Sy 03/07/1997 02:34 612-338-2323 VUJOVICH DESGN EUILD _ , PAGE 66 98-�35 � � � � w z �} � � ;i;; �� (, i. � 0 Q! > w w ti � Z a n a :� � , 03/07/1997 02:34 612-338-2323 _ VLUOVICH DESGN EUILD PAGE 07 � ''' � � 98�357 .a� , �� ; :.;. k •�: =�� : , , Ej �� ; �� .ti � N � N � � N N r � � �� d�❑ � � ❑�❑ � r 1 ` 1�' \\ (�� ❑ � � \ ` 1 � � ��(c��❑ �� .� o�� oo�� a � ❑ �I� � � � ,� �o o�❑ w , �� ❑C1�.`�.. � ,, � .. � � . �� 03107(1997 02:34 �-, 612-338-2323 VUJOUICH DESGN BUILD PAGE 88 48-357 b �,, U � W � W � V V� � Q � � �, �� ' °.r �. , ' � {li'' aq �!- z 0 � Q � w w � w }� 5 ; C 'l� r . . ''__'_ ' _ ' _ ' _ 's _. _ _ ,. '_ - _ — ' __" ' ' ' - _ _ —__ _ __'_ '_ __—__ _- _ -r•--- --:.,: , _ , y �,_._ - --- -- -t-�— - ---- `0�-=�_._ . =-- ---- --� � i =r°�- - ----- -_ _ _�- -�_e=— N-Ab' - Nb31S3M.----- �� - �— _�-- � - -- r-= Fg �R-=-=- :: �:.-�.-, . • .e � ` � �� . � � - . - _ � : i � " � - -- __ , �: L_� �� —_ � - ' _ � -' � -- -- - - ' - c•--. - -- -"--- -�� `. - — ��"° .t =__ "- -."-- ,_�.— ,�: -- - - - -- . — -. - �: . �: �� . Yo�� " _'_ _ _ �� _— _ �._--„ _ __ _ ' 9� e t ' .� �.. ' - �g� i �---- . �� `__— -��_ ' _ '_ _—`— ±� � �4 "� '. i" — , _ ' f • b ♦ V.ts:_ i � � ,� � - � � ``\ � � ^�� r � � � _ �.° .� `'� i � : r» ; .� I _,-... __.. . . — '__ ___'__ ,- ' � , -- - - - � � . .;�� Y _ i .:. -----' �— _«__ _ - . --- - - - - r ♦ . - :._-. � � -- � �, ♦ ' ' - --- - -- ---- •^ m C -- --- -�---- - – � � - — - _� r . " `` � i . : � � ' �r. �� . __. __..._:. ... _. � -- - � --- -� � ,0 - -.... - ' - - --- --- - - - - - � : � , . - °� � . . _ �__ . ---�--=---•- --�— — - 1]' � i � �ti �, �. Q ; .�' • -- O ' a+ - �{ ^ _— ' �� i �4'= . � ----- —�---= -- -----y-- -- .J � d.0. - �J�-- \i 3' p y �___ _ O . . . . _ _ _ '. .— ' � __ .' _ _"' "_' ' ? � � � � ¢ � 1 .p P'�a 0 - _ 1____.—'__'___ ____ _ _ . -, ..-:_ _-__ _ .. ___ _ _ __ - _ .'–.. . ._�c._�_ -� - --- - ---�–' ------• � -- - . ` � ---- - -' - Z 1 � . . . — ' . .,�-' . . " '0 __. _ 0__–..– � __ ___.__ --. __ _.– `➢ g -�:_ i—= �___ _____ ___- — � _ - -- - � � �- �_ --- --_ ---- o S� t N � -' — — — — -- a,— — -- r - -- -- -- -- — - — -- — � - — 0- --_-- o � _. � _ — a • —�__--_ � O . i-- -- -- —..-.--- ------ >---- -- �----- — - 4 �' - .o. =+ 1 0 a -_ -- � � I � � ' ° �'�'- - _ _-- - @` - -�_ �L?s=_-� - -- � . \ � - - � _— - - o . �� F \ ` . 0 � � ` Y� ' �d 1Vi 4� N _—___ __--1—_-_ _ c� , O� _� " . . � 2 ' o``o\> O� i< _ � ________ � � 1� . _ _: �. . �� P c; � • _ S0 � r 4 --- _i�_- _ � o z `�=' -- �a N —._" � _" __ .______' _ ___—_-- _ O 'l m -_ -__ _ __ __ __'_ � . .. , 0� __._�i'/" _—�-� ^+ 4�• i � ' � _ - _____�_ --_ _-_ _" _ �- -_ �f___ "_" -_"- _ __' _ �'" /� _ . . . L � T t _..:. o'. ➢ � . . ' ��__ � _' " ' _ _ ' _ . 0 ` ��o ._�..; _ _ �1N.� � . .� . Q �— � .� ..:;_� :-q`� o �.:�,..,._. � � � ,� :. ..a:_.,.,:._. - `i' " � ,,�, �-ri�,_.,_-.. . � 4 ' � � . '`�� a. ;°>:..�_ ' - � , � � A _ ► 0 1 . N J � � — �� . t ar at_ � '�� - - --- i.- _ - 1 � z •� � - -= - -. : ; .:�:��_ _-_.____._ea�� 1�1f-i�F/= = m �__- = z -- ` � N � - - v�ca=cvv ' ' . j, i£ 61 /Z � 6 � ; / � . ` � S/ 1` '.- _�..� - _. . �� " _ ' / p�_. . ' - '0. - -. : ;--- ,----, � ,-x. , -- - -� ----�- .� b3 ! � N Q e t N [� * r� �� x .\'. �- i � CF.0. OFFICE OF LiCENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVtRONMENTALPR07ECTtON Ro6estKusler, Dirutor CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Co]eman, Ma}ar FAX MEMO To: From: Date: � � ��z�� ' `�; r;. �� i lr fax tel Aaron Rubenstein tel 266-4Q87 fax 266-9099 �� d�! 1 Total pages including cover memo: C� J Message: � �� ./ ��S�Y ��.'�,� I � l.�`�� i ��.`:� �'' h 1 � (! IAWRYPROFESSIONAL BUIIDA'G Suite 300 3505[ PeterStreet SaintPaul Minnesota 55101-I510 1� ��1.� ��v�- �`�" � ��, J 5��-�G �� ( ?elephone: 6I L266-9090 Factimile: 61 b2669099 � '' i ^ , 1 Y s 1' �,, -1� p �� h�,� �,�,: t' l /�/��/ ,� ��/� _ I �� / �. ♦� • �� ..� -y � ^� , .> ; J � � � „T ,v . - � � � g,� ��/Y[':_c�1- , ,_. 7, � i, _� ��.',��:R�� _� �: �.. � . - _ " 98-35 7 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Preservation Assistance Division �! n Washington, D.C. � 'f 'i � For We 6y tLe Superin�endent of Documenn, U.3. Oovemmeat Prin[in6 Othee Wuhington, D.C. ROW2 �/ � q8-357 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION Thr tnllowing Swndar3s am tobe applie�i to spetific rel+abiBtaHon projects in a reawnable manner, taqng into considerofinn economic and txhmcal Ra>ibilitv. Ul A pmperty shal! be used for its historic purpose or be piaced in i new use Nat requim miniwl clunge ro the deEining chancteristics of the building and its site and environment � (D The historic chancter of a pmperty shali be renined and preserved. The rcmovai of historic materiais or altention of feacutes and spaces that chancterize a property sluli be avoided. �(y l31 Each property shall be eecognized u a physical record of its fime, place, and use. Changes that a�erte a false unx of historical devdopmenl, such K u adding conjectunl featum oz archilectunl demm4s from other buildings, sha11 not be undertakm lil Most propenies change orer 6me; thox clunges thaf have acquircd historic significance in U�eir own right shal I be refained and preserved. (5) Disiinctive featuces, finisha, ind mnstmction techaiques m enmpVn of rnftsmmship that chancterize i historic property shill be preserved. 161 Deterionted historic featum ehall be rcpaind nther tiva ttplaced. Whue the severity of dHeriontion rcquircs replacement of a distinctive feature, the new featurt sha31 match thc o1d in design, mloq te:ture, and othervisual quaiities and, whae possible, materials. Repiacemmt of missing featuxxs shall be substantiated by documenfary, physical, or pictorinl evidmce. l� Chemical or physicat txatments, such u sandblasting, that duu damage to historic materials ahall not be used. The surfa<e cleaning of shuo- tures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gmtlest means possibie. � (SI Signific�nt archtologiai resources affected by a project shall be protened and prcxsved. lf such resources must be disturbed, mitigation meas� urn shali be unde�ken. 191 New additions, esterior altentions, or rclated new construction shall not destmy historic materials that chancterize the property. The new work �� shall be differcMiated from the old and shali be mmpatible witA the msssing, sizq scale, and architectunl featurzs to protect the historic integrity of the property and its envimnment. _ L 1301 New additions and adjacent or rtlated new construction shall be und<rtaken in such a manncr that if rcmoved in the futurt, Ihe essential form �� and integrity of the historic pwperty and its rnvironment would be unimpaittd. i � 98-357 As stated in thr drtiniN��n, thr treatment "mhabilitation" assumr that at least enme rcpairor alterahon af the hutoric building will br n�edid in ordrr tu provide tot nn etiinmt nmtrmp�e�nrv use; hnwever, these rrpa¢s and alteranon must not damage or dcstmy m, terials, fratures or finishe� that arr �mportant m denning thr buiiding> hisroric character. Far rxampie, certain treatmrnts—if improperly applied—may ousr or amleratr phvsical detr� rioradun ot hL<tont build[ng Thu can indude using impropet rcpomring or extmor masonry cleaning tethmques. or mhoduring insuWtinn that damages his�uric hbrio ln almmt all nt these situations, use of thc�e materiaLt and treatmmts will result in a projecY [hat dnes not mert the Swndards. Similartv, eaterior alditiom' that dupticate the form, mat�Riai. arnf d�Kailing nf the stiucture to the e:tent that they comprumisc the historic cfiaract�v nf � thr structure wili tail tn meet thr Stand. rds. Technical Guidance Publications The National Park Serv�ce. U.S. Departmen[ of thr Interior, mndutts a variety of activitirs to guide Fedrrai agrnaes.5tates, and thr genrral pubhi m historic prrservatinn pm�ett work. In add�tion to c�tabluhmg sLindard> anJ guidrlines, the Service develops, publishcs, and di�tribuhs [echmcal intomwnun on appropriate pttxrvatiun trea[ments. in<luding Pre�ervahon Briefs, caae �tudies, and 1'reservatiun Tech Notes. A Catalug of H�storic Prrservation Publicatinas with shxk numbers, prices, and ordering infurtnation may be obtaine+i by writing: Presrrvatinn Ax��s- Wnce Div�s�on, Trchnical Prcxrvanon Services, P.O. Boz 37127, Washington, D.C. 20013T27. �'= "1 �� i I 98-3s� ess of carefully documenting the hutorical appearance. Where an important architectural EeaNre is missing, its recovery u always recom- mended in the guidelines as the fi•st or preferred, course of action. Thus, if adequate historical, pictorial, and physical documentation exists w that the featurn may be accurately reproduced, and if it is desireable to re<stablish the feature as part of the building's historiwl ap- pearance, then designing and constructing a new feacure based on such info�matwn is apprapriate. However, a second acceptable option for the replacement feature is a new design that is compatible with the remaining chacacter-defining featum of the historic building. The new design should always cake into account the size, scale, and material of the historic building itself and, most importantly, should be ciear(y dif- terentiated so that a faLse historical appearance ss not created. Alterations/AddiHons to Historic Buildings Some exterior and intedor alterations to the historic building are generally needed to assure its continued use, bue it is most important that such alt�ations do not radicafty change, obscure. or destroy chazattec�efining spates, materiats, features, or finishes. Alterations may in- dude providing additional parking space on an existing historic building sire; cutting new entmnces or windows on secondary elevations: m- sercing an additional floor, installing an mtirely new mechanical rystem; or creating an atrium or light well. Alreration may also include the selective removal of buildings or other features of the environment or building site that are intrusive and thereEoce detract Erom the overall historic character. The const�uction o( an «terior addition to a historic building may seem to be essential for the new use, but it is emphasized in the gufdelines that such new additions should be avoided, if possible, and considered only aEter it is determined that those needs cannot be met by altering � secondary, i.e., non characterdefining interior spaces. IE, after a thorough evaluation of interioz solutions, an exterior addition is still judged � to be the only viable alternative, it should be designed and constructed to be clearly differentiated from the historic building and so that the character-defining teatures are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed. Additions to historit buildings are rcferenced within specifit sections of the guidelines such as Site, RooE, Structurel Systems, etc., but are also considered in more detail in a separate section, NEW ADDITIONS TO H15TORIC BUILDINGS. Health and Safety Code Requirements; Energy Rettofi[ting These sections of the rehabilitation guidance address work done to meet health and saEety code requirements (for example, providing barrier- free access to historic buildingsJ; or retrofitting measures to conserve energy (for example, instaliing solar collectcn in an unobtrusive loca- tion on ehe sice). Although this work is quite o4ten an important aspect of rehabilitation projects, it is usuatly not part oE the ovecall Qcoce:s ot protecting or repairing character-defining features; rathea such work is assessed for its potential negative impact on the building's hisroric charattec Por this reason, part�cular care must be taken not ro radically change, obscure, damage. or destroy character-defining materials or features in the process of rehabilitation work to meet code and energy requirements. 30 ! / y8-357 BUILDING SITE Recommended Nof Retommersded ldentiFying, retaining, and preserving buildings and their features `' Removing or radically changing buildings and their features or site as wetl as featutes ot the site that are important in defining its �C features which are important in defining the overall historic overall hisroric character. Site features can indude driveways, �Y character of the building site so that, as a result, the character is walkways, lighting, fencing, signs, benches, fountains, welis, ter- diminished. races, canal systems, plants and trees. berms, and drainage or io- rigation ditches; and archeological Eeatures that are important in defining the history of the site. /y Retaining the historic relationship between buildings, landscape f �� features, and open space. Protecting and maintaining buildings and the site by providing proper drainage to assure tltat water dces not erode foundation wails: drain toward the budding; nor erode the historic landstape. Removing or relocating hisroric buildings or landscape features, thus destroying the historic relationship between buildings, land- scape features, and open space. Removing or relocating historic buildings on a site or in a complex of related hisroric stmctures—such as a mill wmplex or farm—thus diminuhing the historic charatrer ot the site or mmplex. Moving buildings onto the site, thus creating a false historical ap- pearance. Lowering the grade level adjacent to a building to pertnit develop- ment of a forme:ly below-grade area such as a basement in a man- ner that would drastically change the historic relahonship ot the building to its site. Failing ta main[ain site drainage so that buildings and site features are damaged or destroyed: or. alternatively, changing the site grading so that water no lon,ger drains propedy. i5 The re]ationship between a historic building or building and landscape features within a property's boundaries—or the building site—helps to deEine the historic charocter and shouid be considered an integral part of overall planning for rehabiliWtion project work. � � 98-357 BUILDING SITE (<onnnutd) Ttrc following work is highGghted to in8iate that it represents tf�e Particu3uly compSez technical ar design upects oE ttFubilitation proiett work and shouid oniy bt comidered after the preservaHon concems listed above have becn addressed. Recommended Not Recommended Design for Missing Historic Famtes Da�ing aed castrueting a new [adm d a bmlding or site � w}en the histolic fatuie is eovip3etdy a�nde8. wch as an outbuilding, eejrace, a driveway. It may bc ba�ed on fiistorical. Pietorial, and phyaicil doeimrcntation: a bt a smw de�igi that a eomytibk with tF�e histocie eharxeQ af drc buildinB atd aee. � Creating a false historical appearance berause the replaced feature is based on insufficient historical, pictorial, and physical documen- htion. y Introducing a new building or site feature that is out of scale or �\ otherwise inappropriate. Introducing a new hndscape feature or plant material that is visual- ly incompatible with the site or that destroys site pattems or vistas. Alterations/Additions ior the New Use Dni�in8 new oiuite parking, loadin6 docka, a rampt when tequired bY the new use w lhat they aee as unob4vaEve as posible and asswe the pt'xrvation of durathr-defining L•eatu[o of the sitt. Pladng parking facilities directly adjacent to historic buildings when autamobiles may cause damage to the buildings or 4andscape hatures or be intrusive to the building site. Daig�ing new ezterior additions to (tistoric building+ or ad- Introduring new construction onto the building site which is visual- � jacent new construRion which b compaHbk wich the historic � ly incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, materials, color and �2uraeter of the site and which p�serve the historic rdation- tezture or which destroys hisroric relationships on the site. ahiP herivem a building or buiida�gs, lud�cape featurts, and oPm sPM• Rmaving nocbig�tificant bui)dic�, additiorn, or aite �feahvss which detact hom the historie cFuracter of !he s4. Removing a historic building in a compiex, a building feature. or a site feature which is important in defining the historic charocter of the site. 48 � O �j�-35� DISTRICT NEIGHBORHWD knntinurJ) The following work is highlighted because it represents the partitularly complex technical or design aspects o! rehabilitation projects and should only be ronsidered after the preservation concerns listed above have been addressed. Recornmended Not Recommended Design for Missing Historic Features Designing and construtting a new Eeatute oE the building, streetscape, oz landscape when the historic feature is com- pletdy missing, ruch as row house steps, a porch, strcetlight, or temce. St may be a testoration based on historicaS, pic- torial, and physical docvmentarion; or be a new design that is compatible with the historic character of ehe district or neighborhood. � Geating a Palse historical appearance because the replaced (ea[ure is based on insufficient historical, pictorial and physical documen- tation. Introducing a new buiiding, streetscape or landscape feature that is out of scale or ocherwise inappropriate to the setting's h�stonc character, e.g., replacing Qicket fencing wich chain tink fencing. Alterations/Additions for the New Use Designing requ'ued new parking so that it is as unobtnuive as possible, i.e., on side streets or at the iear of buildings. "$hared" parking should also be planned so that several business can utilize osu pazking area as opposed to imtoduc- ing random, multiple lots. Placing parking facilities direcdy adjacent to hisroric buddmgs which tause the removal o! historic plantings, relocation ot paths and walkways, or block�ng of alleys. Designing and constiucting new additions to historic buildings when requircd by the new use. New work shrnild be compatible with the hisroric charocter of the district or neig}�borhoad in teruLS of siu, scale, daign, materiat, color, and t�ture. Removing nonsignificant buildings, additions, or stteetscape and landsupe features which detract from the historic character of the district or the neighborhood. introducing new construction into historic districts that is visually incompatible or that destroys histonc relationships w�thm the district or ne�ghborhood. Removing a historic buildmg, buildmg feature, or landscape or streetscape feamre that is important in deFining the overall hisronc character oF the distnct or the neighborhood. 51 7� q�-357 NEW ADDITIONS TO An atwched ezrerior addition to a hisroric building ezpands its "outer Iimits" to create a new pro- HISTORIC BUILDINGS ��e. Because such expansion has the capability to radically change [he historic appeazance, an exterior addition should be tonsidered only after it has been determined that the new use cannot be wccessfully met by altering nonKharacter-defining intcrior spaces. If the new use cannot be met in this way. then an attacfied exterior addition is usually an atteptable altemative. New additions shuuld be designed and constructed w that the character-deFining features of the historic building are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process o( rehabilitation. New design should always be dearly differentiated w that the addition does not appear ro be par[ of the hisroric resources. 2ecommend¢d Placing tunctions and services required for the new use in non- characterdetining interior spaces rother than installing a new addi- tion. Not Recommended Expanding the size of the historic building by constructing a new addition when the new use could be met by altering nontharacter- defining interior spaces. Constructing a new add�tion so that there is the least possible loss of historic materials and so that character-de£ining features are not obscssred, damaged, or destroyed. Locatmg the attached exterior addition at the rear or on an in- conspicuous side ot a historic building; and limiting its size and scale �n relationship to the historic building. Attaching a new addition so that the character-defining features of the historic building are ubscured, damaged, or destroyed. Designing a new addition w that its size and scale in rela[ion to the histonc buildmg are out ot prapartion, thus diminishing che historic charatter. � Des�gning new additions m a manner that makes dear what is�j Duplicating the exact torm, material, style. and detailing of the historic and what is new. 7J� hisroric building in the new addition so that the new work appears �, to be part ot the historic building. � Imitating a historic stvle or penod of architxture in new addit�ons, especially for contemporary uses such as drive-in banks or garages. 58 �Z q�- 357 NER' ADDITION5 TO HISTORIC BUILDING5lcunnnuedl Rerommended � Considering [he attached exterior addition both in tertns of the new use and the appearance of other buildings in the historic district or neighborhood. Design Por the aew work may be contemporary or may reference design motifs Erom the hiscoric buifding. in either case. it should always be dearly differentiated Erom the hisroric building and be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relation- ship ot wlids to voids, and cotor. Not Recorrtmended Designing and constructing cew additions that resu{t in the diminu- tion or loss of the hisroric character of the resource, induding i�s design, materials, workmanship. location, or setting. Using the same wall plane. roof line. comice height, materiats, siding lap or window type to make additions appear to be a par� ot the his[oric building. Placing new additions such as balconies and greenhouses on non- characterdefining efevations and limiting the size and scale in rela- tionship to the historic building. � Designing additional stories, when required for the new use, that are set back from the wall plane and are as inconspicuaus as possi- ble when viewed Ezom the street. Designing new additions such as mulcistory greenhouse additions tfiat obscure, damage, or destroy character-deiining Peatures ot the his[oric building. Constructing additional srories so that the historic appearance ot the building is radically changed. 59 �3 q8-35� Heritage Preservation Commission Design Review Committce Case summary re: proposed carriage house at 420 Portland/file #2884 13 Mazch 1997 present: Slaie� Cermak, Albers, Guelcher Rubenstein shawed photographs and slides of the site and surrounding azea, summarized the case, and mentioned that site plan review will be required of the project, that the applicant proposes to store trash in small carts on the south side of the existing 2-caz gazage, and that the City Attomey's of'fice has advised that the HPC should make a decision based on the ]ristoric district guidelines and not be concemed about legal matters between private parties. Ron Severson, the applicant, spoke. Cermak: likes the compalibility of the revised design with 415 Summit more; relates better to rear of 415 Summit and the e�sisting gazage; sees an attempt to recreate what might have been there--a carriage house-- rather than a sepazate structure; squaring the building with the side properiy line would tie it better to 415 Summit and make it relate better to the pazk; latest scheme is more appropriate but not acceptable for a building pemvt. Slaief: asked if possibie to have more complete elevation. Bradley and Severson: will have for 3.27 HPC meeting. Todd Bradley, project designer: intent with this revised design is to simplify and resemble the 415 5ummit reaz addition; intent of previous design was to make the building look as good as possible. Mazk Vaught, attorney representing owners of two condominiums at 415 Sumnvt: Severson cannot build the proposed project, has no more control of this site than Portland Avenue and Nathan Hale Pazk; discussed discretion versus obligation of HPC to review all permit applications; suggested referring to HPC's legal counsel his 3.13.971etter to the HPC. Cazol Clazk, 415 Summit Avenue: pazking on site would be for sale and would not be &ee for 415 Summit residents; there is not sufficient pazldng or traf�ic circulation room; opposed to pazking in the front yazd; discussed trash; Severson's plan shows a path and hedges on the 415 Smwnit condo association's property. Laurel Frost, 436 Portland: the carriage house shown on the 1903 map and the project approved by the HPC in 1989 happened prior to the lot spiit in 1990 in which the 420 Portland pazcel was sepazated from the 415 Sumnut lot; this is now a different situation and property; the pazcel is being treated as a pazking lot rather than a front yazd facing Portland. Mervyn Hough, 436 Portland: if the HPC approves these or similaz plans, would detailed plans come back to the commission for review? 31mef yes. Hough: the proposed west elevation is very plain, should have as much design consideration as the rest of the building, would like HPC to consider his perspective (he lives immediately to the west); spoke about the four garage stalls; only one good plan should be approved rather than two. Site plan issues: believes gazbage will end up being stored in a dumpster in the driveway; where would snow be stored?; parldng in ihe front yazd is being deak with casually; the existing lilacs should be removed and a landscaping plan should be careful]y reviewed. Patricia Leonard, 415 Summit: asked what happens if first floor of carriage house is later converted to living space; discussion followed. Vaught: my clients cannot be forced to buy pazking spaces from Mr. Severson. (Commissioners Hauser and Heide were also present during at least part of the discussion.) �� g�-357 s. M�x vAUGFrr AtrornevAt Lau� Suite 70C Six West Fifrh Stteet Sa�nt Paul, Minnesota 57102 {6t2) 297b4Q0 FAX (612) 224-8328 March 13, 1997 Members of the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission Suite 300 350 Saint Peter Street , Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Application of Ronald Severson before the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission to construct a Carriage House at 420 Portland Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, File #2884 Dear Commission Members: I represent Gregory and Carol Clark, the owners of Unit l, and Patricia Leonard, the owner of Unit 4, of Nathan House & Mews, a Condominium, located at 415 Summit Avenue. The Clarks and Ms. Leonard have engaged me to represent their interests as unit owners with respect to certain real property located at 420 Portland Avenue upon which Ronald Severson is proposing to construct a carriage house. Certain design considerations a£ that project are currently before the HPC for approval. Each of my clients holds certain easement rights to the property located at 420 Portland Avenue for both pedestrian access and parking purposes. None of clients has been asked nor has any agreed to waive any of those easement _rights. The rights are delineated in Article IV.4, and Article IV.5. o£ the Condominium Declaration, dated July 24, 1990, and recorded in the Of£ice of the Ramsey County Recorder on July 25, 1990 as Document No. 2555404. Copies o£ the relevant provisions o£ the Declaration are appended for your review and for that o£ your legal counsel. Each o£ the Clarks and Ms. Leonard has a"blanket" easement across the property at 420 Portland Avenue for pedestrian access and each unit owned by the parties has an additional easement Por two (2) parking spaces on the property. Neither the Clarks nor.Ms. Leonard are currently prepared to waive any rights attendant upon those easements. Since such waiver would be a necessary condition precedent to the construction of any carriage hpuse by Mr. Severson, construction o£ the project which is before you represents a legal impossibility. �_� �� 98-3�7 Heritage Preservation Commission March 13, 1997 - Page Two Mr. Severson has no more Current legal right to construct a carriage house upon the real estate at 420 Portland Avenue than he does to construct one in the middle o£ a public street or within the boundaries of a public park. Unless and until he secures such a right through acquiring waivers of the easement rights accorded owners o£ each of the condominium units at 415 Summit Avenue, any consideration of his proposed project by the APC or any other body is inappropriate and premature. Additionally, even i£ the project was ripe for current consideration, it does not appear that Mr. Severson has provided for trash storage, various setback requirements and his proposal does not in any way comply with city off street parking spacing requirements. Mr. Severson must allow the parking of two vehicles on the property £rom each of four condominium units at 415 Summit Avenue. He must provide an additional off street parking spaCe for the carriage house itself, for a total of nine of£ street parking spaces. Since he must allow two spaces for each unit, but may not "force" any unit to purchase a garage unit, he may not legally� count the four garage units shown beneath the carriage house living quarters as discharging all or part of the o££ street parking requirement unless and until he presents contracts or sale documents with the unit owners to purchase or occupy the carriage house garage stalls in discharge of their parking easement rights. Without use o£ all four carriage house garage units to discharge o£f street parking requirements, there clearly is not su£ficient room on the lot to provide the necessary off street spaces. Indeed, there may not be such room on the lot even if all £our carriage house stalls are utilized to discharge the current off street parking requirements. Regardless, even if Mr. Severson accomplishes waiver o£ the parking easements, he still may not proceed, as noted above, unless and until he secures a waiver o£ the blanket pedestrian easement across the property £rom all of the condominium unit owners. Since my clients, all oP the fee owners of two of those units, decline to waive their pedestrian easement rights to 420 Portland Avenue, the project envisioned by Mr. Severson remains impossible to accomplish from a legal standpoint. In seeking design approval £rom the HPC, Mr. Severson not only has the cart before the horse, he has the cart on a difPerent continent £rom the colt which one day might grow into a horse. Since the staPf support accorded the HPC, like that of other volunteer boards and commissions, is a steadily and rapidly declining commbdity, it would seem an inopportune time to spend a �6 98- 357 Heritage Preservation Commission March 13, 1997 Page Three portion of that valuable staff resource conducting a design review of a project which currently can not occur. Accordingly, the HPC is requested to remove the item from consideration or at least postpone £urther consideration and ultimate approval until Mr. Severson demonstrates the current legal right to proceed with the project. in addition, and in the alternative, the HPC is urged to transinit the legal points raised in this letter to legal counsel Por his or her review and recommendation. Very truly you� % y ��w� � /.�c�,� S. Mark Vaught Attorney at Law cc Gregory and Carol Clark Patricia Leonard 7� �.�. ..11 +�i��. �� -� �r 2555404 foregoing. S. Easements fihrough Walls Within Walls. Easements are hereby deciared and granted to install, lay, maintain, repair and replace aay wires, pipea, ducts, conduita, public utility lines or structural components running through the walIs of the unita, whether or not such walls lie in whole ar in part within the unit bouadariea. 4. Essement for Offstreet Parking and Vehicutar and Pedestrian Access to Portland Avenne. A bianket easement for pedeatrian acceas from Portland Avenue to the Property, and vice versa, for vehicular offstreet parking spaces (two (2) for each unit), and for vehicular access to the offatzeat par�ng apaces &om Portland Avenue and vice versa is hereby established over and acroae the entirety of the northerly of the two (2) Additional Reai Estate parceia (the "North Parcel"). Declarant, or hia successora or assigna, shall have the option to delimit the boundaries of these easement areas by ezecuting aa easement grant or deciaration, setting forth the legal descriptiona of the easement areas, and recording the same in the office of the Ramsep Caunty Recorder. At auch time as Declarant adda Lhe North Parcel to the Condominium, the easement(s) shall disappear (the amendment hereto ehali contain a provision terminating the easement(s)),'the offatreet parking apaces shall become limited common elements of the units in the Condominium, and the number of offstreet parlang spaces allocable to each unit�shall be reduced from two (2) to one (1). Each unit owner in the Ccndominium, however, ahall have the right of firat re£usa2 to purchase from Dec2arant one (1) � garage unit if Declarant constructs garage uaits on the North Pa: cel. b. Easements to Rnn With Land. All easements rights and obligatioas creatzd in this Article are affirmative and negative easements, running with the land, perpetuaIlq in full force and effect, and at all times ahall inure to tha beaefit of and be binding upan Deciarant, its succeasars and assigna, and any unit owner, pui�chaser; mortgugee and other person '�iaving any interest in the Condominium or any part or portion thereof. � -- AxTTCr� v _ :. .... ... ....:.. . ..:... 1. Membership in Association. A unit owner shall by virtue of such interest be a member of the Association and ahall remain a nember of said Association until such time as hia intereat in the Condominium ceases for any reason, at which time his membership in said Asaociation ahall sutomaticalip cease. When one or more peraona hold an interest in a unit, all auch persans shall be members. 2 Compiisnce with Decla:ation, ByIaws and Rules sad. Regulations of Associat3on. Each unit owner and occupant of a unit shail camply with all iil ti., S ! � �� , � i 1 � t _ I � � I 98 $�p�',-x�a:.�..--- ... ._._„�.w.rrs_.s��.-..--....._� _.. _. ... . ,., y8- 357 Warren E Peterson �erome P Filla Dar.iel Witt Fram Glenn A. Bergman Iohn Michael Miiler Michael T Obe��e Kenneth A Amdahl Sieven H. Bruns' Paul W. Eahning Timothy P. Russell Esther E. McGinnis S. Mark Vaught Attorney at Law Suite 700 Six West Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 �� : � PROFESSfONAL-ASSOG�IATION�. Oirect DiaL #290 March 21, 1997 �`.�.��; n _ . _ ; '_-: y'_' -- n �� . � -. �' :.� � � �o Suite 300 50 East Fihh Street St. Paul, MN 5510I-1197 (6I21291-8955 (6121 22&I753 facsimile Melvin �. Silver, Of Counse, BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL RE: Application of Ronald Seversoa before the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission to construc� a Carriage House at 420 Portland Avenue, St. Paul, bIII 55102 File #2$84 Our File No.: 11127/950001 Dear Mr. Vaught: I zepresent Ronald and Marnie Severson with respect to the construction of a carriage house and garages on the property owned by them north of the Nathan House & Mews Condominium (the "Severson Parcel"). They have forwarded to me a copy of a letter which you sent to the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission {"HPC") dated March 13, 1997. I have reviewed that letter and have the following comments: 1. You refer to the "blanket easement" which your clients currently have with respect to the Severson Parcel. Even if it could be construed as a"blanket easement" at this tu-t�e, the Seversc;,s clearly have the right to 1?mit the boundaries of the easement areas as provided in Article IV, Section 4 of the Declaration, a copy of which was attached to your letter to the HPC. This language obviously contemplates that the Seversons, as the successors to the developer, can at their discretion, � remove any "blanket" nature of the easement. Moreover, - it is clear from other provisions in the Declaration that � it was always the intent of the Declarant that the o Severson Parcel would be developable by the owner of that N parcel. r.r 6 � •AL50 ADMRTED IN W ISCONSIN e'elcbratin:� �� our �� v �Ci�� v J 7 �V J,� 1nni.ere.�r 7y 98-3$ 7 S. Mark Vaught March 21, 1997 Page 2 2. Contrary to the assertions on Page 2 of your letter to the effect that the Seversons are "puttinq the cart before the horse", we believe that the opposite is true. As you correctly point out, the approval by the HPC and other aqencies of the City does not necessarily take precedence over private agreements. The Declaration is such a private agreement. Unfortunately, it appears what your clients are doing in this particular case is to place the HPC (or other City Agenciesj in tne position of being a binding arbi.trator in what is clearly a dispute between private parties regarding the terms and conditions of a private agreement. That is not the role of the HPC and I do not believe that the HPC should be placed into that position. The HPC should be evaluating the proposal on its merits in accordance with their criteria, rather than trying to construe the Declaration. Your assertion that the plans by Mr. Severson, if approved by the HPC, will never come to fruition, is, in our opinion, simply i.ncorrect. At the very least, it is not an argument which the HPC should be deciding. Once the Seversons receive approval from the HPC, they plan to go forward with the project. If your clients still object, it is at that point that they could seek the appropriate injunctive or declaratory relief through the courts. We also agree with the genezal point made in the last paragraph of your letter but reach the opposite conclusion. That is, for the HPC and/or the City Attorney's Office to get involved in the construction of a private agreement would be a waste of their valuable time and resources. 3. If you have had any direct contact with the City Attorney's Office regarding this, it would be appreciated if you would provide me with the name of the City Attorney so that this letter can be relayed to the City Attorney. ga 98- 3s 7 S. Mark Vaught March 21, I997 Page 3 Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments which you may have regarding this. Thank you for your cooperation. JMM:bap cc: Ronald and Marnie Severson \ Heritage Preservation Commission HPC Staff Member Aaron Rubenstein rely Michael Miller � 98 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemon, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Heritage Preseroarion Commission FROM: Aazon Rubenstein �,,�, RE: 420 Portland DATE: 25 Mazch 1997 OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTLONS AND ENVD20NMENTAL PROTECTTON RobertKersle>, Dirutor TAWRYPROFFSSIONAL BU2DWG Sui7e 300 3505[ PererSo-eet SainiPou7, Mimiessoto 55102-75]0 Telephone: 61L266-9090 Facsimile: 672-266-9099 Ron Severson and his designer, Todd Bradley, will present to the commission on Thursday further revised elevatioas for the proposed carriage house residence at 420 Portland. The project was discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting on Mazch 13 but committee chair Charles Slaief thought the project too important for the full commission to not review. Commission members Terri Cermak and David Heide met this moming at the LIEP o�ce with Mr. Severson and Mr. Bradley to further discuss the project. This meeting was my idea, based on my belief that the project could meet the historic district guidelines with some additional revisions to the design. Chazles S1Qief had also planned to attend the meeting but ultimately was unable to come. A summary of the meeting follows. Severson: presented revised plans with surface parking space next to building moved a bit to east, balcony one foot wider, glass removed from garage doors; windows will be added to first story of south elevation; would also add skylight above bathroom on west roof slope. Heide: false sense of historicism discussed at November 6, 1996 meeting with Severson, still feels that the proposed desigi blurs these boundaries; why not simply a well designed new building?; proposed design is sort of a carriage house/gazage/house, don't have a problem with a building on the site but have a problem with a fake old building. Cermak: yes, but given the building context, pzoposed type of design may be necessary to pull it off, par[iculazly with relationship to 415 Summit; a totally sepazately designed building would look out of place. Heide: okay; balcony and some other details--gable ends, door hoods, etc: -aze misleading historically and should be simplified; also, suggest adding brackets under balcony to give visual support. Cermak and Heide: discussed continuous east comice vs. gable; simplify balcony to distinguish it from the house, e.g., square balusters, iron railing, slats, or simpler hunings; simple door hoods with simpler brackets. Heide: okay with transom above french doors but not segmental transom; chimney? Severson: no chimney (Bradley said after meeting that fueplace could have a painted metal class B vent, will add to elevations). Cermak: like french doors with gable above and broken eave line; she and Heide suggested even widening the doors and balcony. Severson: differentiate building from 415 Summit with paint colors? Cermak: would not advise doing sa-the proposed building, the existing gazage, and 415 Summit would be a goup of related buildings. Heide: perhaps colors not the same as on 415, or used in different places than on main building; tivs building shwld not be a fake old building. � 98-357 Heritage Preservation Commission re: 420 Pordand 25 Mazch 1997 Page Two Rubenstein: should west elevation have a gable and, if so, how should it be treated so that it looks 1�1ce it has a reason for being other than decoration? Discussion and ageement about having a gable with a transom above the paired windows. Heide: should the &ont walk lead to the middle of a wall? Discussion about a diagonal walk connecting the sidewalk and front entry more direcUy. Rubenstein: what about the issue of pazking in the front yazd? Cermak: dcesn't have a problem with pazking in what has become a&ont yard; new property line is an imaginary line that dcesn't change the perception of the huildings, particululy tha[ 41S Summit was built on a through lot with frontages on Summit and Portland and the Portland side is historically the reaz yazd of the Winter House. Discussion about the possibility of having eight rather than nine pazldng spaces on the site, and which front yazd space to eliminate. Commissioner Heide commented after the meeting: this case is a particulazly difficult design problem and the proposed design is generally much improved compazed to what was initially submitted. �3 q8-3s � Heritage Preservation Commission Case Summary: proposed camage house at 420 Portland Av., File #2884 27 Mazch 1997 Rubenstein reviewed the proposed project, the revised site p]an and elevations, a letter from Ramsey Hill Association to Councilmember Blakey about the project, and several issues relating to the proposal. Cmsr. Albers: aze there historic cazriage houses that face the street as the proposed building does? Rubenstein: there's one on Portland just east of House of Hope Church; not sure if there aze others. Ron Severson, the applicant, spoke briefly; said the balcony and door hood designs have been simplified; imagined french doors would have removable grids but full light [without gridsj would be okay. Cmsr. Buetow: full light would be preferabl�-tend to simplicity. There was no public testimony offered; the public hearing was closed. Cmsr. Heide: moved approval of the revised pians, inciuding the east elevation marked "preferred", subject to the condition that appropriate crown molding be added above the transom windows. Cmsr. Buetow seconded the motion. Cmsr. Albers: is this (the part of the lot fronting on Portland) a front yard? Rubenstein: responded, in part, that it is sort of both a front yazd and a rear yazd, and explained further. Cmsr. Aibers: the guidelines say no parking in a front yard. Rubenstein responded again. Cmsr. Buetow: this property is historically a rear yard. Cmsr. Albers: parking ought to be adequately screened from the street. Cmsr. Heide called the question; the commission voted 11-0 to end discussion. The motion to grant approval, as noted above, passed 11 - 0. summary prepazed by Aaron Rubenstein � 98•357 , �`�'�- � �� 400 Selby Avenue, Suite M, St. Paul, MN 5�502 Shaping the future of a historic neighborhood in Saint Paul March 14, 1997 Councilmember Jerry Blakey Suite 310 City Ha1UCourt House Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Councilmember Blakey, � a a m �"� •--.✓ N -� r �. Y C"') = ' w �, � -- _ � � _. --,- � � At the March 13 meeting ofthe Ramsey Hill Association Mr. Ronald Severson presented a plan for construction of a residential unit with 4 ground level garage stalls on property located at 420 Portland Avenue. It is our understanding that until about 1990 this parcel was the rear yard of property located at 415 Summi[ Avenue. Several questions were raised at the meeting regarding this parcel that could not be answered by Mr. Severson creating confusion for the ILamsey Hill Board. Primary among these deal with setback requirements and variances needed. Because of this we will be unable to make a recommendation to the city on the proposed project without correct information. The Board, therefore, has asked that your office request an opinion from the City Attorney on the following questions to clarify these issues. The property owner stated that he will come back to the Board for review and approval once our questions are answered and the necessary variances have been applied for: l) Is it possible to divide a zoning lot thus creating a new lot and, at the same time, taking the other parcel out of compliance with the zoning code with regard to setbacks and lot coverage? 2) What avenues does the city have to enforce the zoning code and require the owners at 415 Summit to bring their property back into compliance with respect to setbacks and lot coverage? 3) Since the proposed structure is the primary residential structure on the property at 420 Portland, what are the required setbacks and maximum allowable lot coverage? 4) Are there different setbacks required when a lot and new residential structure abut a city park? 5) Prior to the change of ownerslup, a site plan for parking and landscaping only had been approved by the city. To date no work has been done to meet tlus approved plan. What avenues does the city have to force property owuers to comply with subnoitted plans? �'."� "e =- � � � �j� 98-357 On behalf ofthe Board I want to thank you for your assistance. We will await your response before proceeding with ourreview. Sincerely, > ' �� / / � ix r� j� G� �z tx , J `�Judy McLauglilin, President Cc: Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission Ronald Severson i Nov-13-97 12:25P A Toast To Bread 612 778-8805 . �J�� ludy McLaughlin, President �� Ramsey Hill Association, November t 1, 1997 " DearJudy, 26 years ago when Niarlou and 1 bought 436 Portland Ave. there were lots oP problems in the neighborhood more important than the rear yard at 415 Summit Ave. But with a front yard on Summit and a back yard facing onto Portland , Nathan Hale Park and abutting the east s'sde of our building, it was clear to mc then that a major design cantroversy was comin� sometime in [he future. To me, common sense said that 415 Summit (then a drug treatment center) wouid someday want to build garages on this site. I've always feared that something ugly or inappropriate would be built there. Never, did l foresee the estended battle that would ensue over severa] different plans proposed for this site. I think we've been arguing for near]y 8 years. It was fears and threats like this that prompted a smai! group of us to found the Ramsey Hill Association, Oid Town Restorations and then the Preservation Commissioa in thc 1970's. Those were dark and uncertuin yeazs in this neighborhood. But now it is c[ear that tfiose organizations have served our neighbothood very well and have served us well on this controversial property. Today we are faced with a quandary. One ofihose organizations, the Preservation Commission, has voted to approve Mr. Severson's ptan. And now the Ramsey Hitl Association is faced wifh the following questions to answer. l, tias the Preservation Commissian made a huge biunder? Is it incompetent? Does Mr. 5everson's plan meet the Commissions' guidetines? 2. Should the Ramsey Hiil Association use its' considerable clout to further undermine thz Preservation Commission? At this time it is my opinion that the Ramsey tiill Association should not lend support ta this appeal because the proposed plan af Mr. 5everson now meots ail of the guidelines of the Preservation Commission. tt now aiso meets its' parkin� obligations for 415 Summit and Mr. Severson has made 3 important concessions to the residents of 436 Yortland Ave (cedar shakes on the roof, a much improved western ele��ation and a plan for the planning and maintenancz oi the landscaping}. It is now a better pian than we have a legal right to expect. This new building will be handsome profiled against thc rather plain and monulithic eastem fa�ada of 436 Port�and Ave. Rather than support one side over the other I Lhink the Ramsey Hill Associatioo should send chis issue back to the 2 concemed parties with the request that they Sit down with a �� t i�. -•',� �� ,. 1�`� '� ,f-� �� i�.. . . 1 . r LT � — � : . _ — , bJ. . i� , , _. :�" - . .. � % , 9'� �s� V � Nov-13-97 12:25P A Toast To Bread 98-3s7 612 778-8805 P.03 neutrai attomey and draw up the papers necessary to resolve the last reasonable legal issues. As t see it there are 5 topics to focus on. i. The Ciarks' legitimate concems that they wouid have the right to rebuild on repair their garagu in the event of a disaster. 2. The legai scructure should be drawn up for the Gazden Committee. This shoufd invofve ali affected resideats that chose to participate. 3. The legal structure for long term maintenance ofthe pazking area should be drawn up 4. Assurances should be obtained from the Preservaiion Commission that neither its' staff or the Commission will approve changes to the enal plan without notifying interested parties. 5. The St. Paul Building Department shouid eaamine che pazking pfan to verify thnt the parking plan meets St. Paul Parking Codes. There is no �eason why thesc issues cannoi be resolved quickly. It is not easy for me to come forward on this matter because; 1. I have been one of the leading opponents of many plans proposed for this site. Our small group of neighbors has been downtown regularly for ciose to 8 years arguing our case. 1 think all oF us qualify for combat status. I've even gone downtown to read the condo documents of 415 Summit to make sure that iheir parking obligations were honored. I did this at a time when City Hall and even the residents of 415 Summit were largeiy indifferent to these obligations. 2. I don't really want to give up the moming sun streaming though my living and dining room windows or the view of the 2 Spruce trees, 2 Linden trees and the 2 Mapie trees that [ personalVy planted in t3athan Hale Pazk when Dutch Eim disease devastated our neighborhood. 3. I don't like breakirtg rank with the group that has fought long and hazd to preserve the architectural integrity of this important lot. ! would much rather say that we had reached a consensus. But we have not, so I feef morally bound to speak out when the battle goes fotward even when we should be in the final streich of a very good agreement. t'm pr�ud to call myself a preservationist and i'm willing to go to great lenbths to protect the tristoric and architectural legacy of our neighborhood But aow thai we have a good plan it is time for us old war-horses to call an end to the waz and show that we can afso be good neighbors, once we have negotiated our diffcrences. 'Ihere are many that have said that just garages or even nothing shoutd be built on this site, but these arguments ate seriou3ly flawed because � �� Nov-13-97 12;25P A Toast To Bread 612 778-8805 `�8 3 5 7 1, It is unrealistic to think that someone living in Minnesota woutdn't want a garage. 2, We don't own the Iand and Mr. Severson does. Therefore we aze not in a legal porition to propose plans for his property. And I think our objcctions and questions must be reasonabte and legal. l think it woutd be unconscionabie for anyone involved in this debate to have designs on buyin� the land if Nfr. Severson can somehow be forced to self at a cheap price. 3. Garages would still block the view of the park of both my apartment and the apartment of Izurel FrosY. If anyone doubts this ihey should go to the 2" floor, rear baicony at 436 Portland and try to look out over our gara�es. You can see the sky and the top of some trees, but you couldn't see a park if there was one on the other side. 4. To the best of my know4edge every good tooking garage buiit in our neighborhood in the last scveral yeazs has dormers, windows, tall roofs and even fake doors for hay. At aur condominium we even have a ti�ht and curtains in the gazages 2" story window. It's as if someonc lives on the second floor of these garages or at lexst we'd iike to create that illusion. So what woutd be so teiribty wrong if people actually lived in some of these new structures. ARer all it doesn't takc up any extra land space. 5. There is no assurance that someone eise would bulld someihing better than Mr. Severson is proposing. Ail we need do is look around our neighborhood to know that we aren't protected from 6ad design. 1 am one of those with serious doubts about the effectiveness of the Preservation Commission. In fact I get angry and fi'ustrated with it. But aRer serious thought t must come to its' defense. I don't think our neighborhood can make a habit of appeaIing the decisions of the Preservat�on Commission. lt should only be done when it is clear that the Preservation Commission has ignored its' own guideli�es. Irtstead we shoufd be looking at ways to improve it. Therefore, to support this appeal is a very serious matter. So seri�us that I worry about the future of the Commission. If we aren't careful, peopte outside the Preservation movement are going to say "those preservationists on Ramsey Hill can't be pleased. Do they have an endless capacity io fi�ht and a willin�ness to destroy each other? Are these fights about important issues?" I would like to be able to continue to say " We are a group ofgood neighbots that caze deeply about our historic legacy but we are not unreasonable or mcan spirited." m 9�3s 7 Nov-13-97 12:25P A Toast To Bread 612 778-8805 P.05 In this particular casc 1 think wc are ciose to the goint where everyone im•olved can declace victory and feel some satisfaction that the system, even though it is flawed, can aad does work. Sincerely, � �l ��,.�.... Mervyn Houglt i� 98-3s7 Shaping the future of a historic neighborhood in Saint Pau! 400 Selby Avenue, Suite M, St Paul, MN 55102 November 18, 1997 Councilmember Jerry Blakey Saint Paul City Council 310-A City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Councilmember Blakey, � � 0 �� cil w At its November 13 Neighborhood Issues meeting the Ramsey Hill Association approved a resolution requesting that the City Council uphold the a��eal of the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission decision for property located at 420 Portiand Avenue for the foilowing reasons: 1) the proposed structure and existing gazage may exceed the maximum 30% pertnitted lot coverage; 2) the necessary variances have not been detemuned nor applied for; 3) the proposed paved azea is not in keeping with efforts by the city of Saint Paul and the Ramsey Hill neighborhood to maximize green space in residential azeas; 4) the proposed front yard parking necessary to meet off-street parking requirements is inappropriate. 5) the Portland Avenue side does not complement the existing properties facing Portland. In making this decision the foliowing facts carried great influence: 1) This property is a Portland Avenue lot. At one time it served as the reaz yard for 415 summit Avenue, however, the lot split approved on June 12, 1990 created a new residential lot with a Portland Avenue address. The property owner concurred at the meeting. 2) Under the Saint Paul Zoning Code this property has a front yazd along Portland Avenue with side yards on the east and west sides. 3) The proposed building is the primary dwelling unit for this address. It is not an accessorv structure for 415 Summit Avenue, even though the design may incorporate certain featutes from the dwelling on Summit. 4} Section 73.06 (�(3) of the Saint Paul I.egislative Code (Heritage Preservation Section) states: In tlie case of a proposed new building, that such building wili raot in itself, or by reason of its Zocatian on the site, materially impair the architectural or historic value of buildings on adjacent sites or i�a the immediate vicinity within the historic preservatioia site. �I 98-3s7 The proposed dwelling structure carries non of the front-facing features of other homes found on Portland Avenue or throughout the historic district as indicated by the property owner's diagram entitled "north elevation" (attached). These features include a main entrance facing Portland, a porch typical of the residential strucmres in this neighborhood and appropriate azchitectural detail for the front of a dwelling. This is contradictory to the portion of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance raferenced above. 4) The proposed sideyazd pazking is expressly prohibited by the Saint Paul Zoning Code. 5) The proposed front yard pazking is expressly prohibited by the Zoning Code. 6) The proposed structure is closer to the existing garage than the 18 feet required under the Zoning Code. F'inally, legal issues were raised at the meeting regazding easement rights owned by persons other than the property owners. While they raise questions about site control they were not considered as a part of this decision. These matters aze best resolved in a more appropriate forum. The Ramsey Hill Association believes that the review and approvai by the Heritage Preservation Commission was premature because the applicant does not have cleaz site control and because appropriate variances have not been applied for. Neither the community nor the Heritage Preservation Commission can make a judgement on the design of the structure without knowledge of where the structure may legaily be placed on the site, what variances may be necessary or whether or not the structure may legally built on the site. In this instance. the A�sociation believed the Heritage Preservation Commicsion erred in its decision The applicant should be encouraged to re-apply for HPC review when control of the site has been resolved, appropriate variances have been applied for and the community review process regarding the variances is complete. On behalf of the Association I want to thank you for your attention to this issue and your continued interest in onr neighborhood. � � �� M�ughlin, Presi e t sey Hill Association Cc: City Councilmembers District 8 Planning Council Ron Severson 9Z 3: m �� l.� w ��A �') �� G� y J � �v.i.4':nN 5.�. � ' :,l �-a� J' �j <I'� ` } 4 0 �� ^� ;� �_.., � .��; I i� _ i_ � fC CJ � 1 � � y C �_+ i �� C - 5 C �v � �' V � U� I 'C,'' � , r• -� � - T� - ' _ 0 l O" ` N N� o; W � � y3 : � V � � _ ` � ' �!� V U] �'�� 1 98 m f � z <'' FQ CJ �� F� Q2n G� Y � �� H�� z;; �° O� U� w W < H G: �S '��" o �� 3 F �° > o� � 4` �� 0 z " U �3 U � �O � ��3 � �:s � �m ��E � <U �"� C � LY �o� z " Z O E y c: A�� aZ �U� �r�s� ��oz � O z`.'' c� x <; W�O� �Qo� QY�iF"�� C-�' Q'i = c� �� aoZ< �� - P. < P.� K J� V� UZ <:. t;� Ar_ y< H �? ! Y.� C� C" = � �� o_ R�U�3 �� z�� Z� ��, aa<< � U a � a � �� .�'"i. m= � v C 4: H = F a � � � O �� F� ` U F� � w� � 0 Q � �O �o a ' y. ° E�� O F P-1 S O �' W �G a= �� . .; * _- - `�.��'ti.�� l_.- -- �'• - -- --� �'',_ '';;• .. _ � . � � V Z C� a� 0 cc Y3 �F� O A �; �� '� z� F w;� Uza x � 0 a � �"' > r.-�a � W� a x� W � �� ., �, �''-+ o � U� � m -I F-� V �2 �� Z �, �� .� ¢ <y �go w ��F U°k z " Z o= A �� ^�Z a� (.] � o C'S G-a 5 � ``^' � n i �� t7 x <o Q GS�� C S � ! m�;s O.-� _a Ai0.'io� Q < ��3� WUz< � � � a� F+ z C!] �z � wQ 3 0 � � :. �_ L'3 � F° zZ a� � E� � � G�'� �' � � O R �� r�= a 0. �< �; a$ �� z 9� 1 �'T''� � ��'�i . � .._ �Lt;,:._ .�;'a =. �-.. T _:f , . : "� S� f` � �+ ��:_ . �:.�TL =� ��Fjr ��i+.�•• ~�• �: - . � � : i ��'�1 ��' ;-„ t-ti i - � �� •�4 � , {, � � , � i � = .-.� + ,A� ; `�?�� _ , k��li� t� ..; : a ,� ;�,y� o. �.� - i � - � .�?'�. 7 +,� �'.: y. • J. r ♦ . � —<- . a ��; � � , � ;'iy� t �i _' � .� � � t l ._� : ,�._"',: � `a'� �.t� _� '• _'�.: �., .r'*� r �pi. ��El��f i �� t '. 1`: . , I�� :j.-�. .:� _ �� •�,;,�_-:. EI{IlEI `:,; � i g �� . �_. �IY �� . i: � � � ^� : * � - y - -. / y R 1 !� � i y �� 1_ � i. , -, , .=� , :.i� , �/8 357 �" � � �� F� � .�,` .'< ti� F 7� vF � � � s m � 98-35 7 � �'(a0 � o � s � _ : y 5. � � �� F y 0 !- i .� ... ' � � *� � N � 1L `'� O) � H T ° �N o '� h � � � L `Z.�. G'J 2 c� - o � � 4- _ _� � � •� r' r (� _. , :: u': , ^ V �.y V � --.- H •;=•� c.� _" � K'�c�r � " a Nf�� W • � J � Q. � � w � W4 � 4 v �� F z 0 Ow U� � W �� Q W; �a � Q �� 9�-357�� O� �� Q U �� ; � �a a � w � �� ¢ � �n° � � 0 � � 0 a �� } � V F 98-3s7 � � u � O� �� ¢ �U � � W�, �z � W¢ � z ¢ J F a � U z Oz �o � '��L, : r �� ,�. >> W �� F �p W ¢ W � �� ¢ � Q z � 6 � H �� _ o x � � U � �¢ U � Q m � o'. a, �o i x: �0.: ��Z d�F: