Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-1986HAST INGS HER r TAGE PRESERVAT ION oor,lr~ I SS I ON ~,linutes of the i,,teeting of September 17, 1986 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Simacek at 7:30 P.~.I. !.lembers Present: Olson, Jacobsen, Goderstad, Halm, Hoeschen, and S i macek. ~embe r s Absent: Peterson 1. Approval of the minutes of ~ay 29, 1986. ]4aim moved and Goderstad seconded approval of the minutes as printed. For the motion: 6; opposed: none. ~. Suilding P~r~it analication: Jack Smith, 211E. 2nd. Hr. Smith applied for building permit to enclose the back stairway of his property. The building inspector referred the application to the Preservtion Commission. The Certificate of No Change Committee met on July 25, 1986. They declined to issue certificate and directed staff to approach ~r. Smith. They felt that the location of the bac~ of this building is highly visible and wished to know if Hr. Smith would consider further improvements such as stuccoing the back of the building and the side of the stairway. Staff was unable to contact ~r. Smith by phone and wrote a letter outlining the Commissions request on July 30, 1986. ~r. Smith replied on August 20, 1986. He had asked his contractor for a cost estimate for the addition of the stucco as requested by the Commission. The additional work would increase the cost from $4,100.00 to $8,797.00. [Ir. Smith could not justify investing this much at this time. He did offer to consider stuccoing at soiae time in the future particularly if his neighbor does so. The major concerns expressed by the Commissioners were as follows. Original historic material is not involved because the back of the building and the stairway themselves are more recent construction. There was no objection to the work itself as an improvement for the benefit of the tenants. The Commissioners agreed however that the back of this building is highly visible from the parking lot and the river and that a series of unrelated improvements, though necessary, would not benefit the overall appearance of this alley or the downtown. Commissioner Jacobsen pointed out that the HRA design guidelines stated "In general, it is expected that restoration or remodeling will contribute to the visual unity of the building, neighboring buildings, and the neighborhood". Commissioner Hoeschen pointed out that the HRA's ~,laster Plan addressed the appearance of the alleys as a crucial issue. He felt that the Preservation Commission should immediately underta:<e to provide a general design policy and locate financial assistance for all property owners in order to insure that the alleys and backs of the buildings would be dealt with comprehensively. Based on the above discussion, C~nmission felt that ~Ir. Smith should be informed that the commission did not approve release of the permit by the building inspector for the following reasons: (1) the HPC has no objection to work which corrects a hazardous condition. However, if enclosing the staircase can be delayed until next spring, Mr. Smith may be able to do a more complete and compatible job. (2) The HPC will immediately start work with the HRA, the City and the property owners to iniate an alley improvement program. (3) The adjacent property owner is also interested in improving the appearance of the back of his building and it makes sense to have both he and Hr. Smith coordinate their work. Hoeschen moved and Goderstad seconded to inform the Suilding Inspector and ~r. Smith that the HPC does not approve of the work proposed on the grounds that it does not contribute to the visual unity of the building, neighborhing buildings and the neighborhood. They request that !,Ir. Smith delay the work, or that part of it not necessary for health and safety reasons, pending the developn~ent of an overall alley and building back improvement program. For the motion: 6; opposed: none. 3. AII~y QQmmitt~ - Chairman Siinacek appointed himself, Goderstad, Olson and Hoeschen as a committee to develop an alley and building back improve~nt program. Commissioner Hoeschen was appointed Chairman. Chairman asked staff to bring the subject up to the HRA and the City Administrator. The Committee is to report to the Commission on October 22. 4. Review of building permit, Hain Street properties, 114 E. 2nd. The building owners were late in applying for building permit. They did meet with staff to discuss the design and followed staffs suggestions. The C~mission reviewed the work and had no objection to the work that has been done. There will be no objection to issuing a building permit for this work provided that the owner includes painting the eyebrows and window frames and cleaning the cornice to the work included in the permit. The Commission discussed the problem of work being done or started before a building permit was applied for thereby denying the commission their authority to review projects in a timely manner so to advise property owners before materials were ordered or work was undertaken. A number of other projects now being considered in the downto/~n historic district were noted. A delay in applying for the building permit tends to put the HPC in the position of going along with an unsatisfactory design or causing the owner to waste time and materials, tn the extreme case original designs or materials may be destroyed before the HPC has an opportunity to work with the property ~ner. Olson moved and Goderstad seconded to approve this building permit retroactively with the provisions that the eyebrows and wind~ frames be painted and the cornice be cleaned. For the motion: 6~ opposed: none. 5. Legal Notice The Commissioners decided that it would be wise to place a legal notice in the newspaper notifying the owners of historic properties that a review process does exist and that they should contact the HPC before buying materials or signing contracts. In addition, staff was asked to contact the newspaper to see if an article could be written for general information. The legal notice and article will be cleared with the Building Inspector. For the motion: 6; opposed: none. G. Ad]ournr~snt Maim mow~d and Hoaschen seconded adjournment at 9:00 p.m. For the motion: 6; opposed: none.