Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC-Minutes-20080617 HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting of June 17, 2008 Held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall in the City Council Chambers I. Quorum : Goderstad, Behnke, Martin, Simacek, Sovik-Siemens, and Hellie present. Staff: Fortney; Chairman Goderstad called the meeting to order. II. Minutes May 20, 2008. A. A motion by Martin for approval was made and seconded by Simacek; motion carried. III. Review of building permits or design proposals nd A.319 2 St W- roof (staff approved) th B.223 7 St W - roof (staff approved) th C.215 7 St W - construct a pergola Justin Fortney presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to build a pergola over the existing deck on the rear of the house. It will be attached to the home above the patio door. The opposite end of the pergola will be supported by columns similar to the ones on the front porch. On top of the pergola will be solar screening that will deflect the tree litter as seen in the photographs. The solar screen is detachable as it will be removed for winter. Cathleen Jahnke, applicant, showed the HPC an example of the solar screen that would be placed on the top of the pergola seasonally. She noted that a green version is made but it is a bright green and the black would be more obscure. Commissioner Simacek said its location is in an inconspicuous location and it may be more appropriate there than the existing deck. Commissioner Behnke asked the applicant if the pergola was going to be made out of wood. Jahnke said it was all wood except the two columns will be aluminum and look like the columns on the porch. Motion by Martin, second by Behnke to approve the installation of the pergola as proposed; motion carried. th D.209 7 St W - remove driveway and move garage Justin Fortney presented the staff report. The applicants are proposing to remove their front driveway in conjunction with the street reconstruction project.The existing garage would move 24’ from the alley to access it from the alley. This would be accomplished by installing new garage doors on the rear of it that are styled to mach a carriage house. This is currently the only home on the block that has garage access from West 7th Street. The applicants intend for the proposed location for the garage to be temporary. At a future date the applicants may wish to permanently attach the garage to the home or rebuilding onto the rear of the home and add a rear addition. Approval of the currently proposed move would not imply future approvals for another garage move or demolition, attaching it to the home, or any alterations to the home. The applicants want the garage placement to be temporary, because they are not ready to build the addition to the rear of the home at this time, but due to the street reconstruction project occurring now, they believe it would be appropriate to remove the driveway at this time. The applicants are also proposing to replace the existing front walkway with pavers, which will not require HPC approval. The garage is presently 2.5’ from the side property line. The applicants wish to place it that same distance from the property line. However, the current regulations require 5’. The applicant may wish to pursue a variance if the HPC approves the garage move. The HPC may make a recommendation for a variance if the outcome will affect the integrity of the property. Staff does not believe this situation would warrant a recommendation. Although the guidelines do not make a recommendation of front versus rear driveways the Original Hastings Design Standards (OHDS) of the Zoning Ordinance which apply to this area do. OHDS regulations do not allow new garages to be built accessing the street when there is an open alley present. This is to be consistent with the unique historic character of the neighborhood. Rear access is certainly preferable and this change would not materially reduce the integrity of the site or district. The proposal would not alter the house or garage other than the location of the garage and additional doors. Adding additional garage doors to the rear may be preferable to removing what appear to be the original garage doors. The applicant has brought the new garage door proposals to the meeting. One could also interpret the guidelines to mean the garage should not be moved out of line with the other garages. Staff is interested in how the HPC would interpret the guidelines. Andrew McCoy, applicant, showed the HPC an example of the doors he wishes to use. They had raised panels and small-elongated windows on the top. Behnke asked the applicant if the doors were wood. McCoy said they would probably have to be to get the look he wants. Behnke said the HPC can only look at this current proposal and not future requests. He added that this current request will be looked at as if it is permanent, as it very well could be. Commissioner Martin said this approval could effect future requests because if the applicant applies to further alter the garage or demolish it, it will be easer to make the case for it as it would be less historic due to it having been moved an had new doors installed. Simacek said approving the request would improve the streetscape of the district by removing a front driveway. Simacek said that a side entry garage off of the alley would require nearly the entire backyard to be paved similar to the neighbors in order to accommodate a vehicle turning into it. Martin said that due to the HPC recognizing the trade-offs between the guidelines in regards to keeping structures with similar setbacks and improving the district streetscape by removing the only front driveway on the block, she would make the following motion: Motion by Martin, second by Simacek to approve the installation of the two new garage doors in the rear of the garage and move the entire garage 20 feet north while keeping the side setback from 30 inches up to 5 feet depending on the requirements of the Zoning Code, Planning Commission, and City Council with the following conditions; motion carried. Goderstad, Behnke, Martin, Simacek in favor- Sovik-Siemens opposed- Hellie did not vote. The existing driveway must be removed Zoning and building codes must be followed The construction will be inline with the proposal shown to the HPC, including the two single panel doors with high-elongated windows. nd E.319 2 St W- replace fence and repair chimney masonry Justin Fortney presented the staff report. The applicants are proposing to replace the existing wire fence along the west side of their property with an exact replacement. Instead of using metal “T” post to hold the fence they would use 4” round treated posts like the ones at the gate. The existing fence is rusted, bent, and has old stumps grown into it. The fence would remain in the same location. The front iron fence will remain unchanged. All 3 of the chimneys required minor masonry repair when water was found to be leaking in near one of the chimneys. The masonry coves needed replacement because they had deteriorated. An experienced mason replaced them with matching cement with 2/3 lime sand. This area of the chimney is not visible from the ground and the work has been complete. The amount of repair is minor and probably doesn’t require action by the HPC. The applicants are also in the middle of having some repointing done to the stonework. There was an application in the file with multiple requests including mortar repair, but staff has been unable to find an approval for it. The work is being done by a skilled mason with an appropriate mortar, which is 3 parts lime sand to 1 part cement. Its color matches perfectly to the original and grey mortar from past patchwork is being replaced. Sovik-Siemens said she is concerned the new wood posts would be much more visible than the existing metal “T” posts. Fortney said if the posts are not painted, they would be less noticeable than the white ones shown in the picture from the manufacturer. Motion by Martin, second by Behnke to approve the replacement of the wire fence and repointing as proposed; motion carried. nd F.203 2 St E - new sign (A Scrap’n Time) (Pulled from agenda) Fortney said the sign contractor was not able to get the applicant the sign rendering in time for the meeting, to her disappointment. Commissioner Martin said to inform the applicant that a committee meeting could be held for her. Fortney said he would inform her. II. Business A.Determine when prospective Commissioners would be interviewed. The commissioners instructed staff to setup a special meeting to interview prospective Commissioners in August, preferably on a Tuesday. IV. Information and Reports A.Notice of open house regarding the Hastings River Bridge replacement (June th 18) B.Fortney informed the HPC that the brewery ruins were demolished at Ramsey st and East 1 Street. Fortney explained that that the Council had approved the demolition by approving the site for condominiums. Although the condo project has not yet moved forward they have continued to extent its approvals. During this time the property has been vandalized and had transients living in it. The building Safety Department had given the property owners a lengthy list of violations that were in need of rectification. Because of the cost of fixing the violations was so high, the property owners elected to demolish the buildings because they had planned on demolishing them eventually. This all transpired in between the last HPC meeting and this one. Staff was going to inform the HPC of the probability of demolition and was shocked to see that it was decided and accomplished so quickly. The HPC had chosen not to study the site during several designation studies and attempting to place an injunction on demolition as the buildings are about to be demolished would not have been politically practical for that reason. Sovik-Siemens said she believes more could have been done and thinks the HPC should have been notified. Simacek agreed with staff that the HPC had ample time to study the structure in the past. V.Adjourn. Motion by Martin, second by Warg to adjourn; motion carried. – 8:49 P.M.