Title
Memorializing City Council action taken on October 20, 2010, to affirm the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission in this matter and deny the after-the fact building permit application submitted by Bill Bernier for the property commonly known as 280 Maple Street in Saint Paul.
Body
WHEREAS, on or about August 4, 2010, staff from the City's department of safety and inspections (DSI) received complaints that work was being done at the property commonly known as 280 Maple Street which is classified as a contributing structure to the Daytons Bluff Historic District; and
WHEREAS, DSI determined that the owner of the said property was Bill Bernier and then instructed Bernier to apply for building permits and approval by the Citys Historic Preservation Commission (HPC); and
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2010 Bernier filed submitted an application to the HPC for approval; and
WHEREAS, DSI staff inspected the said property and, based upon their inspection, determined that the work had been performed on the said property without first obtaining the necessary approvals and permits from the Historic Preservation Commission and the Department of Safety and Inspections included: replacing windows, altering the size, material, profile, styles and details of original windows, replacing trim boards and window casings, patching-in siding, and installing a new steel door on the front elevation; and
WHEREAS, Having provided notice to Mr. Bernier, the HPC conducted a public hearing on September 9, 2010, at which Dernier did not appear and, following the close of the said hearing, the HPC moved, based upon all the testimony and records before the HPC including the following findings and conclusions set forth in the HPC staff report dated September 2, 2010, to deny Berniers building permit applications:
1. The property is considered contributing to the character of the Daytons Bluff Historic District.
2. Staff was unable to locate any historic photos of the property but was able to access street view photos from 2009. Two-over-two and one-over-one, wood, double hung windows are visible in these photos.
Siding
3. It appears that the wood lap-siding was patched with a wood filler product and new wood boards. That work complies with the guideline that states, Deteriorated wooden siding should be replaced with new material resembling the original in width, thickness and profile, and texture. Due to lack of detailed photographs prior to work commencing, staff cannot determine if the drip caps and other features were replaced to match existing, as it appears some profiles may have been altered.
Trim
4. Exterior architectural features such as window and door moldings should be retained. Window and door moldings were replaced and it appears the profiles may have been altered on a few of the openings; this does not comply with the guideline.
Windows
5. Windows are considered a character defining architectural feature. The removal of the original/early, wood, double-hung windows does not comply with the principle that states, The removal or alteration of distinctive architectural features should be avoided.
6. The window openings were altered/blocked-in to fit the replacement window size. This does not comply with the guideline that states, Window openings should not be enlarged or reduced to fit new units.
7. The removal and alteration of the casing does not comply with the guideline that states, Historic window casings or surrounds should be retained wherever possible; if replacement is necessary the original profile should be replicated.
8. The new sash does not duplicate the existing or other appropriate models, as the configuration, size, material and profile and style do not match the windows that were replaced. The new single-hung, slider and casement windows also do not sit in the same plan as the historic windows. Some are set back, but most are almost flush with the casing.
9. There is only one, combination storm/screen window installed at the property that is too narrow and extends beyond the casing that was installed in the second floor window opening on the south elevation. New screens or storm windows should be full-frame and flush-mount and should be wood or aluminum with a baked enamel finish. Divisions in storms or screens should not conflict with those of the sash. Because of the style of the window and/or the placement of the window in the opening, a storm or screen window would not be able to be installed.
Entries
10. The front door that was removed was a solid, panel door that was not original or compatible with the style of the property. Its removal did not result in the loss of historic fabric.
11. The door that was installed is a paneled, steel door without lights and does not comply with the guideline that states, steel-covered, hollow-core doors should not be installed unless compatible with the appearance of the building. The door style is not compatible with the appearance of the building. The transom over the door was retained, however it appears the profile and size of the opening may have been altered to fit either the door size below of pane of glass in the transom. The guideline states, Historic trim should not be removed from the entry for the installation of steel doors and entry openings should not be enlarged or reduced to fit a new door. The alterations of the entry do not comply with the guidelines.
12. This proposal will have a negative impact on the property and the program for preservation in the Daytons Bluff Historic District.
WHEREAS, in a Notice of Decision letter dated September 10, 2010, the HPC advised Mr. Bernier that his after-the-fact building permit application had been unanimously denied by the HPC and further, that the HPC had ordered the replacement of the subject propertys windows, door, and casings in order to match the original configuration, size, material and profile within 60-days of the HPC decision. The Notice of Decision letter further advised Bernier that the replacement windows shall be setback in the opening so that full-frame and flush-mount storm windows or screens with a historic profile and horizontal bar on the exterior that line up with the meeting rail shall be installed. The letter further advised Bernier to work with HPC staff to verify that the windows, door, storm/screen windows and trim comply with the guidelines of the Daytons Bluff Historic District. The letter finally advised Bernier that once these conditions were met HPC staff would approve his building permit applications. The Notice of Decision letter also advised Bernier that he could appeal the HPCs decision to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2010 and pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 73.06, Mr. Bernier, filed a written request to appeal the HPCs decision and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the HPC; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Leg. Code § 73.06 and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was conducted by the Saint Paul City Council on October 20, 2010, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, all the testimony, the report of staff, and all the records, minutes and resolution of the Commission; does hereby
RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby affirms the decision of the HPC in this matter. The Council finds that the appellant, Mr. Bernier, has failed to demonstrate any error in the facts, findings, or procedures of the HPC in this matter; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Bill Bernier is hereby denied; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the findings, conclusions, and orders of the HPC set forth above and as contained in the HPC Staff report dated September 2, 2010, and the denial letter of the HPC dated September 10, 2010 as noted above, are all hereby incorporated herein by reference and further are adopted by the Council as its own reasoning in this matter; and be it
FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall immediately mail a copy of this resolution to Mr. Bernier, the Zoning Administrator, the Building Official, and the Heritage Preservation Commission.