Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-1988HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION CO!~It~ISSION ~41nutes of Special Meeting June Present: Simacek, Hoeschen, Jacobsen, Goderstad, Olson Absent: Maim, Petersen The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the Church's requests at a special meeting on June 8, 1988. The Church was represented at this meeting by Pastor Damrow, Turney Hazlett and Dean Grussing. Bill and Debbie Falk, the purchasers, were also present. The Commission's comments and actions on the items are numbered below to match the numbers on Mr. Harmening's memorandum to the Planning Commission. 1. Minor Subdivision Comments: The Commission understands that the subdivision lot line has been agreed to by both the buyer and the seller. The Commission noted that the subdivision does not alter the National and local designation of the property as a protected site. The Commissions major concern is to avoid dividing up the property with visual barriers which are not appropriate for the historic character of the property. Their intent is to maintain the appearance of the original yard to the exigent which is practically possible. The original size and landscaping of the yard around the house are part of the design of the residence at the time it was built. The Falks stated that any fencing would be iron or wood in a traditional pattern. Hoeschen moved and Olson seconded to recommend approval of the subdivision with the condition that any fencing be appropriate to the property. For the motion: 5; opposed: none. Setback Variance reauest The Commission has no objections to the setback variances related to the new lot line. 3. $~tback variance - addition to garage The Commission concurs with the City Planners recommendations for the setback variances. The Commission will review any building permits submitted for additions to the garage. 4. Parking lot ~etback variance ae Comments: Mr. Hazlett explained the Churchs position on parking. The Commissioners noted that a variance was also requested to reduce the number of parking spaces needed for the Carriage House from 43 to the 9 existing spaces. They also noted that the design of the parking lot called for a 20 foot 6 & depth for the parking spaces and questioned whether 60 degree angle parking requires a 20' depth. They were under the impression that something less, such as 17', was feasible, if that is the case, the variance might not be needed. The Church representatives said that if they could get by with~a smaller lot that would be in their interest as well. The Commissioners noted that if a parking lot was proposed in the future a building permit would be required and they would be reviewing that permit. They did not want to give the impression that approval of the variance constituted automatic approval of a parking lot building permit. The Commission understands that approval of this variance is a contingency of the purchase agreement agreed to by the buyer and seller. Goderstad moved and Olson seconded to recommend approval of these variances with reservations: This approval is not be be construed as prior approval of a parking lot building permit when or if a permit is applied for. The Commission strongly recommends other parking solutions to the Church. For the motion: 5; Opposed: None. Parking Variance- ~arriage H~use The Commission had no objection to the parking space variance· 7. ~tructure Setback and parking sDace variance for the Church building. The Commission did not consider or act on these requests because they do not pertain to the historic property· pQssible curb c~ts along the east ~ide of ~dd¥ Street adjacent to the historic Dropertv. The Commissioners considered the City's plan for curb cuts to alleviate the Churchs parking condition. They noted that the Planning Commission may recommend the use of curb cuts as a condition for some of the parking space variances. The Commlssloners expressed a preference for curb cu~ parking as opposed to a new parking lot on the historic property. Olson moved and Goderstad seconded that the Commission has no objection to curb cuts on Eddy Street adjacent to the property· For the motion: 5~ Opposed: None. g. pro~osed ne~ garage Although no variances were requested by the Falks for a new garage to be located north of the house along the alley the Commissioners discussed the proposed location with the~. The Commissioners understand that the location of the proposed garage shown on the site plan may not be the final location. The Commission will consider the location along with a building permit for the garage when it is applied for. The Falks said that the location which they currently prefer would be approximately 15' further east of the location shown. They also plan to build a garage which will be consistent in appearance with the house.