Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Minutes 20090519 HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting of May 19, 2009 Held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall I. Quorum : Goderstad, Dahl, Martin, Sovik-Siemens, and Simacek present. Staff: Fortney; Chairman Goderstad called the meeting to order. II. Minutes A.April 21, 2009. A motion by Martin for approval was made and seconded by Sovik- Siemens; motion carried. III. Review of building permits or design proposals A.706 Vermillion St- Front entry Justin Fortney presented the staff report. The applicants are proposing to replace the front door on the enclosed porch with a new door and sidelights. The wider entry will sit in the original porch entry. Mark Borchardt, applicant, stated the proposed door is mahogany and is different from the preliminary proposal that didn’t take into account the specific door that they would choose. He added that they are also interested in replacing the windows and siding this summer. Vise Chair Martin, acting as Chair, asked if we could take action on the windows at this meeting. Fortney said we could if the Commission feels they have enough information about the proposed products and layout. Fortney asked if the window divisions were on the inside or outside of the glass. Borchardt said they come in many different formats. Commissioner Sovik-Siemens asked if the glass in the proposed door was clear or frosted. Borchardt said it was clear but it was slightly textured. A motion by Simacek to approve the proposed mahogany door and sidelights on the east elevation of the porch, seconded by Dahl; motion carried. Goderstad abstained. Commissioner Simacek asked the applicant if he was proposing the window divisions to be in between the glass or adhered to the outside of the window. Borchardt said they would be on the outside. Simacek asked if the example he showed was exactly what he was going to use. Borchardt said it is for some of the windows. Simacek said if time is not an issue the applicant should apply at a later meeting with examples of all the windows he will use. Martin added that re-siding must also be approved by the commission. B.513 Vermillion St – new fence Fortney presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to install a new picket fence in front of the house and along one side. Christine Peterson said the fence will be 42 inches tall and she would like it made of vinyl, but she could use wood. She added that she is not looking forwarded to the required maintenance of repainting wood. Commissioner Dahl said she has a cedar fence that she stains white. She added that it wears off rather than flakes off like paint. It can be presser washed and re-stained. A motion by Sovik-Siemens to approve the proposed wood picket fence, seconded by Martin; motion carried. C.1629 Vermillion St – Leduc - rain barrels Chad Roberts, Executive Director of the Dakota County Historical Society presented the proposal. We are interested in placing two wooden rain barrels in one location on the north side of the house where the summer kitchen attaches to it. One down spout will fill both barrels with rain for watering gardens. There will be an interpretive plaque explaining the purpose of the barrels and the fact that they were used during this period, but not at the LeDuc. Martin said that rain barrels are not covered in the guidelines. A motion by Simacek to approve the proposed rain barrels, seconded by Sovik-Siemens; motion carried. Roberts said they are not prepared to bring the gazebo proposal forward yet. IV. Business A.Meet with prospective commissioner Past Commissioner Frank LaBreck has applied to once again serve on the Heritage Preservation Commission. He attended the meeting to meet new commissioners. A motion by Martin to recommend that the Mayor approve LaBreck to serve on the HPC, seconded by Sovik-Siemens; motion carried. B.Bridge Environmental Assessment Fortney presented the staff report. HPC is requested to make a recommendation to the City Council, including the following staff comments, for inclusion in the City’s comments on the EA. The Environmental Assessment (EA) discusses the need for, alternative plans, and the impact of the three bridge types, with their construction work, on natural, historic, and archaeological resources, on views to and from the bridge, and on the local society and economy. A link to the EA has been posted on the main page of the City web site. The Historic districts east and west of the bridge on Second Street, the City Hall and other sites on Vermillion, and archaeological sites located within the construction zone have been identified and impacts discussed. The physical impact of shock or vibration caused by excavation or demolition has been identified and mitigation measures discussed. Staff finds that the historic resources, as identified by MnDOT’s consultants and staff, have been addressed. The City Council on June 15 will consider a resolution asking that MnDOT revisit impacts that we feel have not been addressed, or not adequately addressed. The HPC’s recommendations th will be included in this resolution. There will be an open house on May 20 for public comment. Presentations will be made at 4:00, 5:00 and 6:00. Comments, including preference for bridge type and other impacts, will be recorded. HPC members are invited to attend and record comments there as well. This lattice tower is located on the east side of the bridge, north of the NSP substation. The EA does not include this tower because it was not identified as a resource and is not impacted by the bridge project. We think it dates from the 1950 bridge construction or earlier. A similar tower on the west side of the bridge will be replaced with a monopole, as part of the bridge project, because it has to be moved for the new bridge. The alternate bridge designs will allow the height to be reduced. The issue is how replacement with a monopole would be funded. NSP estimated a cost around $575,000. MnDOT has not included this in their costs. MnDOT’s position is that the City can choose to make the replacement part of the aesthetic budget. That budget is for desired appearance related improvements. Lattice tower replacement would use most of the budget available for roadway improvements. A mitigation reduces an impact created by the new bridge construction, within the bridge budget. If the lattice tower’s intrusion in the view of the Commercial Historic District and the former Courthouse from the bridge is greater from a new bridge, then it should be mitigated by replacement with a monopole within the scope and cost of the bridge project. Staff suggests that construction of a new bridge to the west of the existing bridge will make the lattice tower more intrusive than it is today. 1. The current approach aligns the tower against the mill buildings and wooded elevations obscuring its silhouette against the skyline. The new alignment will make it more prominent. A shorter monopole would be less noticeable from the new bridge’s alignment. 2. The existing bridge’s arch superstructure screens the lattice tower from the existing bridge. Of the three proposed designs the cable and girder types would reduce or eliminate the superstructure, thus making the tower more noticeable. 3. Two lattice towers flanking the existing arch bridge represent the same generation of engineering technique - all are assembled steel structures of lines and angles. With the st construction of a 21 Century bridge both lattice towers should be replaced with monopoles as a consistent example of today’s engineering and design in the same way. The second item of concern that is not included in the EA is the monument next to the bridge at nd 2 St E. The location is with specific permission of MnDOT. MnDOT may require its removal. MnDOT has recommended that the monument be removed, by and at the cost of the City, to prevent its damage or destruction during construction and removal. It appears that removal of the monument’s stone walls would be equivalent to destroying it to save it from damage. At this time it does not appear that it would have to be moved to accommodate construction of a new bridge, its approaches, or a trail connection. Staff recommends that the plaque be removed for safekeeping, and the stone walls be protected by hay bales or other buffering. Whatever damage it sustains could be repaired. If it has to be removed for new construction, then the City will have to decide where and in what form is should be reconstructed. A motion by Sovik-Siemens to officially make the above comments concerning the lattice tower and monument to the Minnesota Department of Transportation in response to the Environmental Assessment of the proposed Highway 61 bridge project, seconded by Simacek; motion carried. V.Information and Reports A.Thank You Letter Martin stated that she would like to write a letter to the Mayor on behalf of the HPC thanking him for the kind words of support for preservation at the last City Council meeting. B.HPC Vacancies Fortney said the HPC has received no further applications for its vacancies. C.Hazel Jacobsen-Theel birthday celebration Goderstad said HazelJacobsen-Theel will be celebrating her birthday at the Leduc Mansion at 2:30 to 4 p.m. Sunday, May 31. D.Mississippi Belle Sign The Mississippi Belle was contacted by mail and phone to submit an application for the sign they recently installed and have yet to respond. Staff will continue to contact them. E.HPC Real Estate Seminar Fortney said he has looked into the possibility of a seminar for the real-estate industry and it seems possible, but he will have to come-up with a proposal and submit an application. There may be other City Departments that may be involved. V. Adjourn. Motion by Martin, second by Simacek to adjourn; motion carried. – 8:09 P.M.