By unanimous decision, the board of St. Paul’s Heritage Preservation Commission recently recommended that a developer be allowed to demolish a longtime Lowertown bar and replace it with a seven-story, 90-unit apartment building.

Commission staff said that though the one-story brick building that houses Kelly’s Depot Bar dates back to 1924, the structure has been heavily altered over the years and is not considered a particularly historic addition to the Lowertown Historic District.

The decision puts developer Jim LaValle and TJL Development LLC one step closer to the construction of market-rate housing at 241 E. Kellogg Blvd.

Nevertheless, one commission member spoke about his frustrations — not with the developer, but with the Commission’s review process. Board member David Wagner said developers are submitting relatively generic proposals to the HPC in hopes of surviving the stringent review process.

In the case of Kelly’s, the exterior of the boxy new building will be lined with red brick, cast stone and cement panels vaguely reminiscent of the century-old Lowertown commercial buildings that have been remodeled into housing and artist lofts.

Wagner questioned whether the commission’s exacting standards were stifling architectural flair and creativity.

“What are we doing wrong in this, where we end up with buildings that are just merely non-objectionable, instead of looking at something where ‘I’m so proud to see this being a contributing element to our Lowertown neighborhood’?” asked Wagner, an architect, before turning his attention to LaValle and his development team during a public meeting Thursday. “I’m sure you guys are very talented designers, but you’re forced into this box of limits and constraints. This process is failing us as a city.”

When modern new structures are built within a historic district, federal historic preservation guidelines seem to call for them to be compatible with, yet differentiated from, the historic buildings around them.

There’s some wiggle room in the language, however, that could be subject to interpretation.

“I think we can do better in guiding this process, and getting really wonderful buildings that do more than just hit notes of ‘it’s compatible’ … and create things that are really rich and enduring,” Wagner said.

Architect David Wagner on the review process that led to a relatively bland proposal, architecturally speaking, for 7-story apartment building where Kelly’s Depot Bar sits. He says developer has designers that could be more creative, but HPC process stifles them. Part ii pic.twitter.com/y8Omvpx5oc — FredMelo, Reporter (@FrederickMelo) November 16, 2018

More on Kelly’s Depot Bar: HPC board member David Wagner, an architect, says the proposed 7-story apartment building looks generic and it’s not the developer’s/designer’s fault. The historic review process seems to stifle creativity, and it doesn’t have to be that way, he says. pic.twitter.com/OttHMRKbQf — FredMelo, Reporter (@FrederickMelo) November 16, 2018

HPC members did not discuss Wagner’s concerns at length, though they noted that LaValle made some changes to his proposal in response to their concerns about color schemes, window designs, paneling and other minor elements.

They also noted that the HPC serves as an advisory body to the mayor’s office and is not the final word on development.

LaValle said later in an email to the Pioneer Press that historic districts provide “a playbook to guide development. It gives a lot more certainty.”

“That said, it is still really hard to get a large group to all agree on a certain paint or brick color or where those elements should be located,” he added. “Yes, that does conflict with more creative approaches.”

“If we were to have designed an all-glass, sleek tower on the Kelly’s parcel that would not have met the requirements of the HPC, do you think that creativity would be more beneficial to the built environment in this great neighborhood in our great city?”

WHAT DO THE FEDS SAY?

Secretary of the Interior Standards and Guidelines don’t explicitly call for new buildings to look particularly historic.

In fact, they discourage it.

They’re mostly concerned with maintaining existing historic properties as-is. The guidelines note that if the new additions are “removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment (should) be unimpaired.”

Even the federal guidelines around “preservation” of existing historic properties discourage “changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding … features or elements from other historic properties.”

In yet another category — “rehabilitation” — the guidelines note that “new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.”

Yet another set of guidelines apply when it comes to “restoration” of historic sites, with an emphasis on preserving features and materials that are “physically and visually compatible” with the time period being restored.

A fourth set of guidelines apply to “reconstruction” of historic properties that have fallen apart.

LISTENING SESSIONS STILL UNDERWAY

When it comes to potentially micromanaging development, the Heritage Preservation Commission has heard some of these criticisms before. An online survey at the city’s “Open St. Paul” web portal has drawn nine published responses, most of them critical of what respondents described as city overreach.

“The cost of following overly-stringent criteria is hurting historic properties and homeowners,” said a respondent. “I would love to see the HPC as a resource, providing tools and referrals of how to do things right, as opposed to an expensive burden on homeowners.”

Another wrote, “Historic preservation was set up to save character, but not be unreasonable and cost prohibitive. … Don’t put that cost on a select few homeowners to benefit all.”

In May, following a public hearing that drew more than 100 property owners to the basement of St. Paul City Hall, city officials put a series of proposed amendments to the HPC’s governing ordinance on hold and switched directions.

Instead of new review fees and expanded authority, the HPC began a series of listening sessions in each of the city’s nine historic districts. The first session took place Aug. 23 in Dayton’s Bluff.

A meeting for residents of western Summit Avenue is scheduled for Dec. 4 at the Summit Center for the Arts and Innovation.

A listening session for residents of the the Historic Hill District will take place Dec. 11 at the Hallie Q. Brown Center. Meetings will likely take place in January or February for residents of the University/Raymond and Ramsey Hill historic districts.

Also on tap are focus group-type sessions with architects (Jan. 8), contractors (Jan. 15), developers (Jan. 22) and former commission members (Jan. 29).

George Gause, the commission’s lead staffer, said the commission has received a request to convene a fifth session for renters, which has yet to be scheduled.

Gause said results of the discussions will likely be compiled and made public in February.

“So far, we have held five listening sessions,” said Gause on Tuesday, by email. “General reaction is the residents believe in the mission of the HPC, but do want us to consider policy changes that expedite the review process, ease rigidity in the guidelines (such as allow for sustainable technologies) and protect the character, which is important to the residents.”

At the request of the mayor’s office, the commission’s regularly scheduled Thursday night meetings are likely to move to 3:30 p.m. from 5 p.m. to save costs for nighttime security and staffing.

Mayor Melvin Carter’s office has also expressed interest in having the regular meetings televised on cable access television. The HPC has 13 members. Summit-University resident Leetta Douglas was appointed by Carter in October, and three members will step down on Jan. 1 as a result of term limits.