Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-2004 ~ HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 17, 2004 Regular Meeting 7:00 pm I. QUORUM: Commissioners Present: Warg, Boler, Sovik-Siemens, Goderstad, Warg, Martin, Hellie Commissioner Absent: Simacek Staff Present: Grossman, Wiekert II. MINUTES OF June 15, 2004 Commissioner Hellie asked to clarify his statement on the cost difference between treated wood and cedar. He asked to change the cost from $7.00 to $5.00 and remove the comment about it being double. ~ Goderstad moved and Boler seconded motion to approve the minutes. Motion carried. III. MINUTES OF August 2, 2004 Special Meeting Commissioner Goderstad moved and Commissioner Boler seconded to approve the minutes as presented by staff. Motion passed. IV. MINUTES OF August 9, 2004 Special Meeting Commissioner Goderstad moved and Commissioner Boler seconded to approve the minutes as presented by staff. Motion passed. V. REVIEW OF BUILDING PERMITS OR DESIGN PROPOSALS. Applications 1) 208 6th Street E. - Robert & Juline Glazebrook - Fence application along side and backyard. ~ Wiekert briefly summarized the owners request to add a fence to the side and rear of the house. She stated the owner wishes to include a gable on the side of the house with a gate at this location and also a gate at the ~. rear location. She presented color photos to the Commissioners and stated the owner was present for any additional questions. Commissioner Boler asked if the gable would be located at both gates. They asked if the gate would be similar to the fence. Julie Glazebrook stated the gable would only be located at the side of the house and the gate would be similar to the fence. Commissioners were concerned about the height of the fence on the side of the house. The guidelines indicate that fence heights should be 42 inches. They wanted to clarify how far back the fence would be located on the side of the house. Ms. Glazebrook stated they determined the height of the fence due to the size of their dog. The main reason for the fence was because of their dog. - Commissioners Hellie was concerned about the materials used for the fence. He was concerned about the durability of the lattice. He recommended that the lattice should be i inch thick and increase the amount of posts and place the posts to 4-6 feet apart to ensure the structure would be in place. He also recommended that the lattice be placed for ease of replacing any damaged lattice by sections for future repaIrs. Motion by Goderstad and second by La Breck to approve the fence design as presented by the owner. Motion carried. 2) 400 5th Street E - Annie Rother - Cover Soffit and Fascia in aluminum. Commissioner Boler was concerned about covering up soffits even if there is minimal original material left on the home. Believes they should keep what is left of the original soffit and they should repair the materials. The contractor stated the house has been resided and the owner would like to complete the exterior with the aluminum soffits and they would like a low maintenance material. /- Director Grossman stated the Commissioners can measure their assessment on the amount of original material left on the house. They can also consider if this house is a contributing property, in which case it is not. ,,--. Commissioners commented that the contractor will only be covering up the soffit and not removing the wood trim around the house. The soffit is not irreversible and the original wood would not be completely lost. Motion by Martin and seconded by La Breck to approve the covering of the soffits as presented by the contractor. Motioned passed: 6 Ayes, 1 Nays, Boler dissenting. 3) 402 E. 6th Street - Jerry Smith - Residing of the garage. Commissioners were concerned with losing the door. They felt the old doors should be kept and the contractor could make them decorative and not use able from the inside. They were also not really sure about the vertical siding. They understood that the house is not the original siding. Walter Mallette, the contractor, brought in a sample of the siding and pictures of the shed and house. He stated that he could keep the doors there and have it fixed and not operable from the inside. He stated that the changes can be done and he would talk to the owner about the changes. ,,--. Commissioners stated they did not want the siding to be similar to the house. They recommended board-on-board, cedar bevel lap, or tongue & grove. They stated they did not want the trim boards and would like to keep the vertical siding as it is in the pictures. Commissioners recommend that the shed be painted white to match the color of the neighborhood. Commissioners asked what material he would be using for the shingles. Mr. Mallette stated that they would be architecturally design and not the 3-tab shingles. He included they could be black like the neighborhood or a dark grey color. Motion by Hellie and seconded by Martin to approve the cedar siding with the following conditions. 1) 4" Cedar Bevel lap 2) Keep the door, but it can be fixed and not operational. 3) Paint the siding white. - Motioned passed: 7 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion passed --- Motion by Boler and seconded by Martin to approve the re-roofing with the architectural design shingle in charcoal grey or dark grey. Motioned passed. Business 1) 101 E 4th St. - Dakota County Courthouse (City Hall) Sample of the stone was given to the Commissioners. Motion by Boler and seconded by Goderstad to approve the replacement of the four stones on the steps at City Hall as presented. Motioned passed. VI. INFORMATION AND REPORTS 1) 717 Eddy St. - St. John's Lutheran Church Commissioners stated the decision on the siding was complete. No additional comments were made regarding 51. John's Lutheran Church. ~ 2) Pop Machines & New Signs in Historic Districts Commissioners suggested eliminating pop machines on the building fronts in the Historic District. They asked staff to research other city's on regulating pop machines in historic districts. They also asked staff to check on regulations with outdoor furniture. Commissioners felt plastic furniture was not appropriate in the downtown area. Commissioners suggested regulating florescent signs in the Historic District. They felt florescent signs are not appropriate in the downtown district. 3) Ordinance Amendment Director Grossman reviews the city ordinance with the Commissioners. They added the process for Certificate of Approval. Staff asked for comments on the wording of the ordinance. - Concern on the word "major" for the desire of a public hearing and the Commissioners were not sure if that is clear enough and who would determine if some projects are "major" while other projects may not be. -- Discussion was made that the Commissioners would vote on a project and decide if a project was a "major" project and request that a public hearing be in place. Commissioners were concerned about confidentiality when a person has a complaint about design in the historic district. Commissioners asked when the start of the Interim Protection would be in place if a house was in the process of nomination. Director Grossman stated that it would be start when the owner receives the notice. Motion by Boler and seconded by Goderstad to approve the revised ordinance to present to City Council. Motion passed. 4) Conference and training - Minnesota Historical Society Director Grossman stated the conference would be very informative and requests a Commissioner to contact him if they would like to go to the conference. Funding would be available for an additional person to attend. ".,..- Adjournment With no further busine,ss, Goderstad moved and Boler seconded to close the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 pm. Respectfully submitted, Courtney Wiekert Recording Secretary