HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080303 - VII-1VII-1
MEMO
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Nick Egger -City Engineer
Date: February 28, 2008
Re: City Project 2008-1, North Vermillion Area Improvements
Council received the feasibility report for the pro~osed 2008 North Vermillion Area Street &
Utility improvement Program at the February l9 meeting. The public hearing for this project
has been scheduled for the March 3rd Council meeting.
The proposed North Vermillion Area Improvement project is a City initiated project that will
require the votes of six Council members to approve the project.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS $z DESIGN FEATURE ISSUES
The proposed North Vermillion Area Improvements project involves reconstructing 6`i', 7~`,
8`" & 9~' Streets between Vermillion Street and Spring Street, Eddy Street from halfway
between Sd' and 6d` Streets to 1 Od' Street, Spring Street between 6d' and lOd` Streets, on 7~' and
8d' Streets between Vermillion Street and Bailly Street, and on Sibley Street between 6d' and
8d' Streets. The proposed improvement area consists of 26 % blocks of street and utility
reconstruction, along with the reconstruction of three alleys.
2008 Street and Utility Improvements
City of Hastings NearOtd Hastings Historic District
613
,o
al
I. ~~
g....:.__. I -i ~~y~
GTN ST YI~ ~~~ ~ BTM STE
__ .. _ ~
~ SEAS w
_ SCNO01.
I ~
~ IT11 ST ~'! ,
I'rf''I~II 'f '' ~~~-!r ...
;~BIH Sr 5'/
~_
Yrll Sf 1'I
mrH sr Ti
7T11 Sr E
8TH 5T E
Historic Properties
Designation Study
Consetvadon District Guidelines
Hlslorlc District Guldel6>as
•••••••. Existing Hlslorlc Dlslrlct Bountlary
~ STREET RECONSTRUCTION -All street segments are substantially deteriorated and
modern curb and gutter is not present throughout the project area. Ail streets would be
reconstructed to current standards for pavement thickness, and include new modern curb
and gutter. Grades on some street segments would also be modified to improve drainage
capability. The proposed assessment rate for all parcels in the project area is $60/front
foot.
~ STREET WIDTH -This project area contains street segments of varying widths. Several
of the streets within the project are proposed to be reconstructed at a 32 ft. width -the
City's standard street width for low volume residential streets with parking on both sides
of the street. However, in consideration of feedback received at recently held
neighborhood meetings, as well as regard for the Historic Hastings Design Guidelines,
streets to be reconstructed within the Historic District will remain at their existing widths
of 30 feet.
The City's Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) and reviewed this design feature
and recommended approval of the street width design within the Historic District at the
existing width of 30 feet. The Hastings Planning Commission also reviewed this item as
it applies within the Conservation District, where the guidelines indicate streets of up to
32 feet in width are allowed, and recommended the proposed street width designs within
the Conservation District.
6TH ST W
7TH ST W~
2
8TH ST W .
~i
2
9TH ST W
_...,
r
o
a
~, W
_...
_: r a
,~.
+~; _ N i
., ....-~ 30'f30..... ~ ....30739'_.._.._.1
.~ i~
o ~
M ~'
.......i30'I30'......._ ~..... 30'fe
_.___ ~_ •
r .. ~
....
' ' s?
_ m ZO ! ~
:. _ _ _. s
1 y ~ , C
~ j ~ 't C
~ WATER MAIN -Many of the water mains in the project area date back to the original
system of the early 1900's and are beyond the age of sufficient reliability and durability,
and most of the mainlines throughout the area are also undersized for adequate fire flow
capacity. These water mains would be replaced and increased in size to meet the fire
flow requirements. In conjunction with this work, all water services would be replaced
from the main lines out to the right-of--way line.
~ SANITARY SEWER-Like the water system, much of the sanitary sewer system for this
area dates back to the original system and has reached the end of its reliable lifespan,
while other areas have experienced failures and continue to be susceptible to root
intrusion and backups because of the materials they were originally constructed from.
All sanitary sewer main lines and structures are proposed to be replaced.
STORM SEWER-Many new storm sewer segments will be constructed throughout the
project, improving drainage capacity and storm water conveyance.
SIDEWALKS - In general, existing sidewalks in the project area would be replaced with
some areas remaining if they are found to be in good condition. There is one segment of
new sidewalk proposed on 8`" Street between Tyler and Bailly Streets. The proposal is in
accordance with the City's comprehensive sidewalk and trail plan. In addition, there are
a few concerns on which staffhas received comments during the neighborhood meetings,
and from both the Hastings Heritage Preservation and Planning Commissions;
Width -The City's standard sidewalk width has been 5 feet since the late I980's, which
was adopted by the City Council in response to complaints from sidewalk users that
widths narrower than this were not conducive for walking side.
Staff received comments from several of the affected property owners in the Historic
District that they desire for sidewalks to be replaced at a width of 4'/z feet to maintain the
dimensions and proportion of the original sidewalk, as well as to alleviate concerns about
the sidewalks' impact to boulevard trees. The Hastings Heritage Preservation
Commission echoed this feedback with a recommendation to the City Council that
existing sidewalks within the Historic District be reconstructed at a width of 4'/2 feet.
The Hastings Planning Commission also received comments on this item at their
February 25`" meeting for areas within the Conservation District. It was the
recommendation of the Planning Commission that the sidewalks be
constructed/reconstructed at a width of 5 feet within the District.
Sta,~f Recommendation
The HPC°s recommendation to construct 4'/z feet wide walks in the Historic District
conflicts with the Council adopted policy of 5 feet wide walks. Staff is requesting
direction from Council on the width of sidewalks within the Historic District. Staff is
recommending constructing standard 5 ft. wide walks within the Conservation District.
Materials/Appearance -The City's standard sidewalk is a plain concrete material with a
broom finished surface.
Comments were received from some attendees of the neighborhood meetings that
sidewalks in the Historic District should receive a special surface treatment to mimic the
appearance of some segments of existing sidewalks and sidewalks in other Historic
Districts within the City. Stafi's experience with and observation of these types of
designs are that they tend to deteriorate more rapidly, and cost approximately 25% to
50% more than the City's standard design.
In addition, streets in the Historic District (Ramsey and Tyler) that interconnect with
streets proposed for reconstruction have existing sidewalks that do not carry a special
material or textural feature, presenting an issue of discontinuity of design and appearance.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council approve construction of sidewalks using the City's
standard for materials and appearance.
Sidewalks on Private Property -During the development of the project plans, it was the
discovery of Staff that several sidewalk segments reside partly on private property. To
maintain these sidewalk corridors, Staff is recommending obtaining permanent easements
from the effected property owners. Staff will be approaching these property owners to
present the situation and proposed solution. In the event that a property owner is
unwilling to agree to the City's request for an easement, Staff recommends leaving the
affected segments of sidewalks in place.
~ ORNAMENTAL STREET LaGHT1NG -The Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines of the
Original Hastings Design Standards indicate that ornamental lighting fixtures be
implemented as part of the streetscape, at a concentration of four per block. With block
lengths within this project area consistently between 250 and 300 feet, this would result
in light pole spacing of approximately 100 feet assuming lights at each corner. The
City's current policy on street lighting is that all intersections be lit, with blocks longer
than 500 feet in length receive amid-block light. Staffs recommendation is that a light
at each intersection, and one mid block will suffice, resulting in a routine spacing of three
lights per block. An example of this spacing interval can be found along Eddy Street
between 2nd and 5th Streets. However, such lighting has not been incorporated into
recent projects other than along the aforementioned section of Eddy Street, which was
done complete lighting around the perimeter of Wilson Park, and to extend lighting to the
end of the Residential Mixed Use District.
Furthermore, a system of lighting meeting the design guidelines would require the
installation of approximately 75 new ornamental poles and carry a cost on the order of
$500,000 or more, not including continual operation and maintenance costs. This cost is
beyond the City's capacity for bonding for project costs this year while holding to the
proposed assessment rate of $60/frontage foot. To incorporate street lighting into this
project would require the assessment of approximately $100,000 more than what is
currently being proposed, which represents an increase to assessment amounts of
approximately 20%, or to approximately $72/frontage foot. For example, a property
having a $10,000 assessment would need to be increased to approximately $12,000 to
cover the added project expense of ornamental street lighting. Adding lighting to the
project would also require additional project development time, which Staff estimates
could delay project start date by 4-6 weeks, placing the starting date of construction into
late June/early July, and completion into November. For these reasons, Staff has not
inc}uded this feature in the project plans.
Instead, Staff solicited received feedback from the HPC and Planning Commission on
their desires regarding this item. Both Commissions have indicated and made
recommendations to the City Council that the pursuit of ornamental street lighting is
desirable. If the City Council also desires ornamental street lighting be implemented
within the Conservation and Historic Districts, Staff recommends that the Council
consider an annual street lighting project on a much smaller scale, until the areas within
these districts met the guidelines for street lighting.
ST. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHiJRCH ON-STREET PARKING - St. John's Church has
requested that the City construct angled parking in front of their property on both sides of
Eddy Street and extend the existing angled parking on the north side of 8th Street west to
their west property line (see enclosed drawings and pictures). The proposed additional
angled parking would generate a net 11 or ] 2 parking spaces. Staff's does not
recommend construction of the additional angled parking for the following reasons:
^ Conflict with the streetscape design guidelines of the Historic and Conservation
Districts
^ Removal of mature boulevard trees
^ Snow removal concerns
At their most recent meetings, both the HPC and the Planning Commissions made
recommendations to the City Council against allowing angle parking to be added on
Eddy Street. The Planning Commission did recommend to approve St. John's request to
add 4 to 5 parking stalls by attaching a section to the west end of their existing angled
parking along 8`~' Street.
Memos from both HPC and Planning Staff summarizing the Commissions' actions, as
well as a letter from St. John's Lutheran Church, are attached for the Council's reference.
Staff Recommendation
If the Council were to approve angled parking in any of the areas requested, Staff seeks
direction on the financing of such improvements.
^ Shall the City cover all expenses incurred by the installation of the angled
parking?
^ Shall the incremental costs of adding angled parking be assessed back to St.
John's Church?
The costs for the various sections of the angled parking have been estimated as follows:
^ 8`h Street Stalls - $5,000
^ Eddy Street West Side - $10,000
^ Eddy Street East Side - $7,500
BOULEVARD TREE PRESERVATION -The project area contains many mature boulevard
trees. Accordingly, staff has made diligent efforts during the design process to preserve
existing trees to the maximum extent possible while still maintaining the infrastructure
improvement goals of the project. Engineering Department staff worked closely with the
City Forester and Parks Superintendent to determine conditions of existing trees, and
whether project design features have potential in harming existing trees. Staff is also
determining tree species that will be planted in boulevard areas in need of populating and
in cases where trees must be removed due to poor health or where removal is
unavoidable. For this project, a list of 10 trees recommended for removal has been
developed by City Forester Paul Mahoney and Parks Superintendent Kevin Smith. Many
the trees listed are considered risk trees due to poor health, decay, or concerns about long
term stability such that these trees pose a threat to public safety in the event that they
would fall. Other trees obstruct sight lines at intersections, prevent the City's ability to
reconstruct public sidewalk ramps and transitions to meet handicapped access standards,
which also present a concern to public safety.
SUMMARY OF OTHER ISSUES AND COMMENTS
About 30% of the property owners in the area attended the neighborhood meetings, other
than the issues discussed above, those who did attend primarily asked general questions
about logistics of construction, timing of the start and completion of the project, accessibility
during construction, and assessment amounts. All of which staff provided answers for to the
satisfaction of the attendees.
ATTACHMENTS
Several Documents are attached for the Council's reference and use in consideration of the
project proposal:
• May 5, l 988 Letter from HPC Staff John Grossman to St. John's Pastor Damrow
• June 2, l 988 Notice of Public Hearing for Minor Subdivision and Variances
• June 13, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes
• June 14, 1988 City Council Minutes
• February I I, 2008 Letter from St. John's Pastor Damrow to City Council
• April 15, 1987 Letter from Planning Director Tom Harmening to Richard Fuchs of First
National Bank
• May 15, 1988 Parking stall layout plan drawn by City
• Staff Memo and Minutes from February 19 & 26, 2008 HPC Meetings
• Staff Memo and Minutes from February 25, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting
• January 29, 2008 email from Public Works Director Montgomery to City Council
regarding St. John's Parking request
• Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines and Historic District Design Guidelines
• Summary of comments received at February 6-7 Neighborhood Meetings with Staff
response and comments
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Council is requested to adopt the enclosed resolution ordering the improvements, and the
enclosed resolution approving the plans for the project and authorizing the advertisement for
bids.
CITY OF HASTINGS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
PROJECT. No.2008-1
NORTH VERMILLION AREA IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 19`" day of February, 2008, fixed a
date for a Council hearing on the proposed street and sidewalk reconstruction, storm sewer,
sanitary sewer and watermain improvements for the North Vermillion Area Improvements which
include 6`", 7`", 8`", and 9`" Streets west of Vermillion Street (TH 61) to Spring Street, Spring
Street between 6`" Street and 10`" Street, Eddy Street from %z block south of St" Street to I0`"
Street, 7`" and 8`'' Streets east of Vermillion Street to Bailly Street, and Sibley Street between 6`"
Street and 8`" Street, alleys from Vermillion Street west to Eddy Street between 6`" and 8`"
Streets, and the alley from Vermillion Street east to Sibley Street between 7`" and 8`" Streets, and
WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given,
and the hearing was held thereon on the 3`d day of March, 2008, at which all persons desiring to
be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HASTINGS AS FOLLOWS; that
l . Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility
report.
Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the feasibility report dated February
19, 2008.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF HASTINGS, MINNESOTA, THIS 3'm DAY OF
MARCH, 2008.
Ayes:
Nays:
Paul J. Hicks, Mayor
ATTEST:
Melanie Mesko Lee, City Clerk SEAL
CITY OF HASTINGS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR
BIDS FOR PROJECT 208-1
NORTH VERMILLION AREA IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, via resolution adopted the 3rd day of March, 2008 the City Council has ordered the
construction of Project 2008-1, the North Vermillion Area Improvements, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has provided City Staff direction on the design features of said
project.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HASTINGS AS FOLLOWS; that
I . Plans and specifications for the North Vermillion Area Improvements prepared by the Hastings
City Engineer are hereby approved.
2. The City Engineer and City Clerk shall cause to be made a matter of record via this resolution the
decisions regarding design features made by the City Council at the March 3, 2008 Public
Hearing.
The City Engineer shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the Construction Bulletin, on the Quest
Construction Data Network web site, and on the City of Hastings official web site an
advertisement for bids for the construction of the approved Project 2008-1, the North Vermillion
Area lmprovements in accordance with such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement
shall be published for two weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shat] state that bids will
opened at 12:00 Noon, Thursday, April 3, 2008 at Hastings City Hall, and that no bids will
considered unless sealed and fi}ed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's
check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Hastings for 5%of the amount of each
bid.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF HASTINGS, MINNESOTA, THIS 3R° DAY OF
MARCH, 2008.
Ayes:
Nays:
Paul J. Hicks, Mayor
ATTEST:
Melanie Mesko Lee, Ciry Clerk
SEAL
CITY 0~ HASTINGS
~~~
100 SIBLEY STREET, FfASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033.0087 ~s J...i _ is
Phone tS12) 437-4127 =•
Hustings on th6 Mississippi
Percy J. Darnrow, Pastor May 5, 1988
St. John's Lutheran Church
202 W. 8th Street
Hastings
Dear Pastor Damrow,
The Hastings Heritage Preservation Commission viewed your preliminary
concept drawing of the subdivison of the former Fuxber property- at
their meeting on April 27, 1988. They made the following recorrrnendations
for the Church and the new owner to consider.
As I mentioned during our phone conversation ~on April 28, the Corrrni.ssion~~
made no objection to the concept 'of the subdivision. Their basic concern
is for the appearance of the whole property. They want to see the original
scale and proportion of the yards around the house retained by minimizing
the appearance of two properties. In order to accorrrplish this object, they
make the following recorm~endati_ons.
* Additional parking provided by curb cuts rather than by
building lots on the yard west of the house.
* Maintain the existing iron fence in place to preserve the visual
continuity along 8th Street.
* Maximize the use of landscape materials to divide the property
and provide for privacy. If a new fence is needed, screen it by
bushes or hedges which will eventually conceal it.
Fa-tensive landscaping was an integral part of the whole house and yard
plan for this style of house and its period of construction. Therefore
the Preservation Commission views the historic site as a whole rather
than as two properties.
The Carrnission will review and comment upon your subdivision and site plan
as submitted for the Planning Commission. I understand that the location
of the new garage will be on the site plan. Review of the design of the
garage itself will be a seperate process.
Let me know if you have questions or if I may be of assistance.
Yours truly,
John Grossman
HPC Staff
cc: Thomas Harmeing, City Planner
Merlin Wilbur, Building Official
Debbie Falk
An Equal Opportunity Employer
CITY OF HASTIPJGS
MOT I CE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RF2UEST FOR APP20VAL OF
•'~.RItJJR SUBDiVISIOtJ AND VARtAt~ICFS
~JOTICE IS HERBY GIVEN that the Hastings Planning Commission will meet
at 7:30 P.i'M. on June 13, 1983 in th~ City Counci I Chambers located in
the Hastings City Hall for the purpose of revie;ving the following
matter:
A request by St. Johns Lutheran Church for approval of a minor
subdivision of Lot 5,5,7 d~ 8, Block 53, Town of Hastings. This property
is located at the northeast corner of 8th and Eddy Street and is more
commonly known as the lio:ves-Graus/Carriage House property. The
applicant is requesting that theaforementioned pro party b° split into
two parcels such fihat the Hones.-Graus home arould be located on one
parcel :vith the Carriage House structure located on the other parcel.
The applicant is also requesting .several variances including: 7)
Setback variances with respect to existing structures and their
location to the proposed lot line; 2) Parking lot setback variances for
a parking lot which the applicant is considering constructing on the
Carriage House parcel; 3} Variances ;pith respect to the number of
parking spaces required for the Churches full use of the Carriage House
structure as well as parking required for a proposed expansion to the
existing St. Johns Church facility located at the northtirest corner of
8th and Eddy Street. 4} Front and side yard setback variances for a
proposed expansion to the existing St. Johns Church facility located at
the northwest corner of 8th and Eddy Street; 5) Setback variances with
respect to a proposed expansion to an existing storage shed located on
the Carriage House property at the northeast corner of 8th and Eddy St.
Please note that as a Dart of revie~rring matters nertainin9 to oarkinn
needs of the Church, examination will alto he given to the ~~ssibility
9f allo;•ring additional angled on-street aR eking Qn hoth 3th St and
giddy St. •
Prior to the date of the public hearing parsons may view exhibits
pertaining to this matter which are available at the Hastings City Halt
befiween the house of 8:00 A.P•1. - 4:30 P.`•1. :Monday-Friday. Persons may
obtain copies of the exhibits at his or her expense.
All persons are welcome to attend this meeting and make comment.
B~ order of~he Hastings Planning Commission this 23rd day of f•1ay,
1 8' .
Thomas K. Harmeni
rector
Published: 6-Z-
N~STl;tJ~S p1_A'~J1 "JG :~r~'t1SSI0N
J U"JE ] 3, i 933
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission eras called to order at 7:30 p.m.
lembers Present: Commissioners Krook, Or2dge, f<aiser, Anderson, Zendor, Yoalker, and
Chairman Folch
'lembers Absent; Commissioners Ditty and Featherstone
Staff Present: Planning 'lirector Harmening
A motion was made by Canmissioner Krook, seconded by
Commissioner I:a i sec to approve the '•-lay 7.4, 1943 PI ann i ng
Cantu i ss i on m i n utes . ilpon vets taken, Ayes, 7; lJayes, 0.
Canmissioner Featherstone arrived at 7:35 p.m.
M anni ng Director fiarmen i ng i nd i Gated that Advanced I-fames of
Hastings is requesting a rezoning from Ag to R-3 PRA and
preliminary plat approval for a development called Riverwood
4th Addition which is proposed to be located directly south of
the existing Riverwood development. Harmening also indicated the
applicant was requesting a variance to Section ]].05, Subdivision
3b of the Platting Jrdinance which requires that in bloc!<s
tong/r than 500 feet a pedestrian crossway or wal!<ing path is
required. Harrening noted tha i)eveloper was raquirad to
make provisions for walkway on its plat adjacent to the subj~cfi
property. Harmening informed the Planning Commission that the
overall development scheme proposed was similar to the type of
singly family develop.~nent format in the existing Riverwood
Jevelopment.,fn the plat in question the applicant proposes 23
single family homes and ?_ four unit townhouse tots. density is
4.1 units per gross acre and 5.5 units per net acre. Harmening
ravieared with the Planning Commission a number of items pertaining
to the plat including zoning, Comprehensive Plan issues, park land
dedication requir~nents, sidevralks, walkways, proposed lot Payout
setbacks, infrastructure issues, curbing, gas pipeline issues,
concept plan issues, etc.
Chairman FalcfZ opened the public hearing on this rnatter at 7:40 p.m.
As no one •was in attendance to speak on the issue, chairman 1=olch
closed the public haaring at 7:4] p,rn.
••"•7! NIJT~S
PJ$L l C -IE AR I "JG-~ =?~'J I ".1r
3 PR~L I ^i I PJARY PLAT-
RIV=R!1DDp 4T11 AnDfTldiJ
'~•Jembers of the Manning ^ommission discussed in length matters
pertaining to tha proposed development including issues pertaining
to the type of homes proposad to be built in the plat, curbing, gas
pipeline issues, etc. Neil Sietirert, a representative of the applicant,
was in attendance to address issues or questions of the Planning Can:nission,
?']r. Sievert noted the proposed single family homes in this development
were proposed to be modular or stick built homes which would be built on
permanent foundations. The homes would be priced to be affordable, probably
in the mid X70,000 range. Commissioner !<aiser indicated that she was not
in favor of seeing surmountable curbing in the plat, '-1r. Sievrer# pointed
out that one reason for utilizing surmountable curbing eras to allow for
a cost savings which would be passed on to future homQrnrnsrs in the
development.
After discussion, a :notion ~•ias made ~y Commissioner ':roo!c, seconded
by Com:nissionsr Zender, to recom~end that the ity council approve
th~~ rezoning of th-~ "2lverwood 4th Addition area from .Agriculture to
Z-3 °~~. Upon vote taken, Ayes, B; id ayes, 4.
After further discussion, a motion :ras made by Commissioner
Featherstone, seconded by ~ommissionor Voai'cer to recommmend that
action on the pr=o[irninary plat bs tabled such that questions on
various issues of the plat could be worked out. !Ipon vata taken,
Ayes, :o:nmission,~rs Featherstone and Va°licer; 1-dayes, 5.
After further discussion a ,motion was made by ;ornm issioner ?ender,
seconded by Commissioner 'croak to recommend that the City Council
approve the preliminary plat for Riverwood 4th Addition subject to
the following conditions:
1. That pursuant to PdR~C recommendation, the applicant shall donate
approximately 3 acres of land, ~rrlth the remaining park land
dedication requirements to be met with cash. The final location of
the park, tentatively targeted for the area directly south of the
Riverwood 4ti Addition Plat, and the Gash dedication schedule shall
ba :corked out between the city and the applicant. Furtherrnore, it
is recommended by the lJ2ZC that the land dedication twice place not
later than 3/1/39. _ ,
Z. Pursuant to the recommendation from the ••I't2C, the developer shat I
shah plat and dedicate two 20 foot parcels in 'aleck t and ? in
align:nont consistent with the ~ralicway location in '2ivervraod 2nd
Addition. Furtherrnore, the applicant shall install a bituminous path
in those dedicated ;valk~riays as :vela as in the dedicated ~r~allc;vay
location in Riverwood 2nd Addition at the time the i:nprove~n~nts
era installed by the developer in the °iver;wood 4th Addition olat.
Also, duo to the :val;c!vay location it is also recommend^d that one
lot 5s deleted from Flock 1 and 2. in order to achieve adequate and
reasonable lot sizes. The preliminary plat should be revised to
illustrate the rraik;•ray and new lot line locations.
3. That pursuant to the :4ain !'adsstrian Routs System Plan, the applicant
shall install side:vaiks along Riverwood 9rive and Village Trail,
the location of ~,vhich are yet to be determined. The i)ev~loper shall
install th~a sidewalks at the tins the other 'smprovements era
installed by the developer in the River rood 4th Addition Plat.
4. Th•a °Jovoloper shall pay 54,650 in interceptor s~;ver charges.
5. Setback requirements - As previously approv~sd for th~a existing
River:vood developments, the fol{owing recommendations are mad•s:
a. :; ith respect to the single family residential deveiop:nent,
th~ R-2 setback r~aquframents ,rill be in e€fect with several
exceptions. The resulting setbacks ors as follo:vs:
-Front yard setback - ~5' (all structur~ss).
-interior side setbac:c - 5' tall structures)_
-corner side setback - 10' (all structures).
-rear yard setbac:{ - 2(}' for principle structure and 10'
for accessory structure except that Lots 1 throu3h
12, 31ock 1 shall ;maintain a 50' rear yard setback
for alt structures.
b. :'d ith respect to th~a torrnhome tots, tho ~-3 ?~~ standards
shall be in effect with one exception. The rLsulting
setbac~s ar=~ as follows:
-Front yard setback - 2~+ (elf structures).
-rear yard setbac!c - ZO' (all structures).
-Interior side setback - 1/Z buif•ding height except that a
5•~' setback shall be maintained from the north lot lino of
Lot 1, Block 3.
5. Final site plan approval ~sust be riven by tho Planning
Commission and City ~ounci I for the townhouse developments.
7. The prsli~ninary plat shell be revised to illustrate the
proposed lot lives for Hach townhouse on the two proposed
townhouse locations. In the alternative, the to~vnhouse lots
shaft be platted as outlots and repfatted at a later date when
a developrnent proposal is made.
3. The applicant shat! work with the City's utility, engineering,
and fire department to resolve utility and infrastructure
issues. The applicant shalt provide street and utility profiles
:vith respect to the utility crossings of the gas main.
9. River;rood Crive shall be platted with a 5b' right of way with a
40' street width. Vitlage Trail shall be platted with a 50'
right of way width and 35' street width.
1rJ. The applicant shall comply with r•aquiroments of th~a "Jorthern
tdatural was Pipeline Company.
11. The applicant shall provide to the City for approval plans and
specifications for the utility and street irnprove~nents
including the ;vallc~;rays and sidewalks. Furthermore, occupancy
of homes in the plat shall not take place until all the
improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the
City of I~astings subject to security (bond, letter of credit)
which the applicant may provide to the City to insure that the
improvements are completed in a timeEy fashion.
1 Z. That a develop^~ent agreement be entered into to take into
consideration the conditions and understandings :mentioned
above or those that may be recognized at a Later date.
upon vote taken, Ayes, 6; I~ay~s, Commissioners ~eathsrstone and Voellcer.
P i ann i ng t) i r~actar Har:~le n i ng i nd i catad that St. John ~ s ~ uth gran P!13E. (~ H:`-'r'iR I ~JG-?~f !tJ J~
Church was requesting approval of .a minor subdivision of the S'1i3DIslIS10?J rY VARIANCE
Howes Kraus/Carriage House property located at the northeast REQUEST-ST.JOHPJ'S
corner of 3th ?k Eddy Street. In addition, the Church was LIII•HEFtAN CHURCH
requesting a number of variances sane of :vhich were directly
related to the minor subdivision. Harmening briefly reviewed
vrith the Planning Com~-nission the content of the minor subdivision
and variance applications made by the church. Harrnening also
reviewed with the Planning Commission the revievr and recommendations
made by the Heritage Preservation Commission regarding the proposed
minor subdivision and variance request.
Chairman Folch opened the public hearing on this matter at 8:30 p.m.
Comments made were as follows:
Ken Dahl, 7th ~ Eddy St. - ?•Ar. Dahl expressed concerns regarding
parking In the 8th & giddy Street area. ::=4r. ~ahf indicated that
this particular area has turned into a parking lot. i~~1r. Bahl
also indicated that variances should only be granted if a defined
problem exists. Sunday parking does not appear to be a problem
and ?•1r. Dahl indicated he did not feel boulevards should be torn
up for parking purposes. ?••4r. Dahl also indicated the east
side of Eddy Street should be maintained as is.
Turney Hazlet, 10210 Lock Blvd. - '•9r. Hazlet was in attendance
representing St. Johns Lutheran Church. Hazlet indicated that
the parking lot on the Carriage House property is proposed t
be constructed in tyro to five years. Hazlet a{so indicated
the church doss not prefer fihe on street angle parking arrangement.
Percy Damrav, Pastor of St. Johns Lutheran Church, 1111 Hillside St. -
~••9r. Damro:v indicated St. Johns Lutheran Church was requesting
approve I of the parl< i ng space variances for the Carriage blouse
and the proposed addition to the existing church at the northwest
corner of 8th a Eddy Street.
Thera being no further comments from the audience, the Chairman
closed the public hearing at 3:43 p.m. The Manning Commission
discussed in length matters pertaining ~to the proposed minor
subdivision and variance requests made by the church.
After discussion a notion was made by Commissioner !{aiser,
seconded by Cammissioner Featherstone to recommend that the
City Council approve the minor subdivision. Upon vote taken, Ayes,
:3; Hayes, 0.
After further discussion a motion was made by Canrnissioner Featherstone,
seconded by Commissioner Kaiser to recanmend that the fol ioavi ng
variances be granted:
A. Setback variance - Exisfing Structures From PJe:y Lot Line - Qased
upon the location of the existing structures and the associated
problems with developing a now lot line location, the Planning
Ca~nm i ss ion recommends that a rear yard setback vari anco of 15 feet
to 1? feet be granted for the existing Carriage House structure and
that a rear yard setback variance be granted from 35 feet to the
proposed setbac<< of 8 feet to the nearest point on the existing
Howes-6raus structure.
3. S~~bacit ~lar i ante - Add i -i• i an To T~? ~ara~e - t f i s r ecomi~ ndpe~
that approval be given to a rear yard setback variance from the
squired five foot setbac'=c to two feet and that a side yard
setback be granted from the alley to allow a three foot setbactc
rather than the five foot setback tivhich would alloy the addition
to be made at the same setback as the existing garage.
C. Parting Lot Setback Variance - Ina Planning Commission recommended
that a setback variance be granted from the required ten foot
setback from the street right of way lines to the proposed five
foot setback as illustrated on the survey drawing of the property.
Furthermore, it is recommended that a setback variance be granted
from the required 8 foot setback for parking lots from rear lot
lines to the proposed five foot setback as illustrated on the
survey drawing of the property.
0. Parking Space Variance - Carriage House - In light of the built
up and mature nature of the neighborhood in which the Church is
located and the resulting lack of space for off street parking
needs, as well as the fact these same parking needs have
generally existed in the past except .that the church used its
existing facility for meeting space, it is recommended that
approval be given of a variance from the technically..r_equ.i.red
43 aff street parking spaces to.9 spaces (existing3`for the .church;s
use of the Carriage Nouse for 450 sq. ft. of office space on the
upper floor, 800 sq. ft. of meeting and assembly space on the
main floor and 850 sq. ft. of elementary and junior high classroom
space on the lower level ;vh'-ch vrill accomodate 30 children and
three classrooms.
rJpon vote fatten on the variances, Ayes, 8; tJayes, 0.
After further discussion a motion :vas made by Commissioner Kaiser,
seconded by Commissioner Featherstone to recommend that a setbac!c
variance be granted to allow an addition to the existing church from
12 feet to 10 feel- and that a partcing space variance be granted for
the proposed addition to the existing church from 10 spaces to 0 spaces.
Approval of these variances was as per the recommendation made by the
City Planner. After discussion, Commissioner Featherstone indicated
he desired to withdraw his second to the motion as he did not fully
understand the motion made by Ccxnmissioner I:aiser at the tune he provided
the second to the motion.
Aft~:r additional discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner
?ender, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to reccxnmend de•ni,.al of the
structure setback variance for the addition to the churcti'~and the
parking space variance for the proposed addition to the church. The
reasons for this motion was due to the fact that th~a addition to the
church was proposed to be undertaken at some time in the future and
that these variances could be handled more thorough{y at the time an
actual proposal :vas made to construct the addition. Jpon vote taken,
Ayes, Ccmmission•ers Anderson, Zender, Volker; vayes, 5.
After additional discussion a motion arras made by Commissioner Dredge,
seconded by Comaroissioner Kaiser to recommend that in light of the fact
the proposed addition to the church will not extend any closer to the
side lot line than the existing structure (as per the preliminary site
plan dated 4/1b/87), it is recommended that approve! be given of an
interior side setback variance from the required 12 felt to i0 feet
as illustrtated on the site plan for purposes of constructing a class
room addition to the church. Approval of this variance is subject to
the church making application for final site plan approval. Upon vote
taken, Ayes, 3; ~Jayes, 0.
After additional discussion a motion was made by Commissioner
Dredge, seconded by Canmissione.r Featherstone that in light of the
built up and mature naturs of the neighborhood in which the church
is located and the resulting lack of space for off street parking
needs, it is recommended that a variance be granted from the
required 10 spaces to 0 spaces to allow for an addition to the church
which would accomodat~ six classrooms and 120 elementary grade
students. Furthermore, it is recommended that approval of the minor
subdivision and variances be subject to compliance by the applicant
tvith all other city codes, including building and fire codas. Upon
vote taken, Ayes, 7; Mayes, Commissioner Fo{ch.
Planning D i rector Harrne n l ng i nd i cated that "1r. Hunec;ce was VARIANCE REC!1EST-OORPdE~
requesting a 7 foot corner side setback variance so that he may SiOE SETBACK-HtJ'JECi~,
add four feet unto the south end of an existing porch. The side 401 ;'t. 11TH STREET
corner setback of the porch is proposed fo be three feet rather
than the required 10 feet.
itr. Hunecke was in attendance to discuss the variance request with
the Planning Commission. '~4r. Hunecke also provided the Planning
Commission with pictures of his property. Hunecke indicated .
the existing large evergreen, :vhich would be located directly
adjacent to the addition, would remain. He indicated he ~vould
only trim the tree back to allow for the addition to be made. Hunecke
also indicated that the addition was proposed to be a three season
porch with no heat.
After discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Featherstone,
seconded by Commissioner 7_ender to recommend that approval be given
to the variance due to the fact it wit! not have a negative impacfi
on the neighborhood and that the addition will increase the value
and use of the property. I,1pon vote taken, Ayes, 5; idayes,
Ccxnmissioner Kaiser and Krook.
A motion ivas made by Commissioner Kaiser, seconded by Commissioner ORDER PJCLIC HEARIiJC
{reek to order that a public hearing be held on June 27, 1988 l~11lJOR SU3DIVISION
at 7:30 p.m. in order to review a proposed minor subdivision 413 ~?• 4?_2 E. 5TH STRFE~
request made by Dries/Diersen for property located at 4i8 8 4?_2
E. 5th Street. Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; Nayes, 0.
Harmening updated the Planning Commission on the annexation OTHE? 3USitJESS/UPI)AT~S
issue and recent actions taken by the City Council. Harmening
also informed the Planning Commission of the t-letro cast
Development Fair taking place on June 15, 1983.
There being no further business a motion :vas made by Commissioner
Kaiser, seconded by Canmissioner Dredge to adjourn the meeti~-g at 9;45 p.m.
Upon vote taken, Ayes, 8; yayes, 0.
Hastings, tdinnesota
June 14, 1988
The Clty Council of the City of Hastings, Minnesota met in a
al meeting on'Tuesday. June 14, 1988 at 5:30 p.m. In the City Ball
11 Chambers, 100 Sibley Street, Hastings, f4innesota.
14embers Present: Councilmember Ross, Riveness, Bond, Trautmann
and fdayor Stoffel.
Members Absent: Councilmember Kulzer
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and asked
n Harmening, City Planner, to give a sunmary of the recommendations
de by the Planning Canmisslon and Heritage Preservation Canmisston
3arding the various zoning requests made by St. John's Lutheran Church
fh respect to the Ho:aes-Graus/Carriage House property and the Church
~perty located at the northwest corner of 8th 8 Eddy Street. After a
lef summary the following action was taken.
Councilmember Kulzer arrived at 5:45 p.m.
!loved by Councilmember 4lerner, seconded by Councilmember Bond MINOR SUBDIVISION
approve a Minor Subdivision with the condition that any fencing
Called be appropriate to the property. This approval Is contingent
n the sale of Parcel B as Illustrated on the survey submitted by
Church. 7 Ayes; Nayes. None.
Moved by Councilmember l9erner, seconded by Councilmember Ross to SETBACK VARIMICE-
pt the Planning Canmissions recommendation that a rear yard setback EXISTING
ante of 15' to 12' be granted for the existing Carriage STRUCTURES
e structure and that a rear yard setback variance be granted from
to the proposed setback of 8' to the nearest point on the existing
s-Graus structure. This approval is contingent upon the sale of
ei B as illustrated on the survey submitted by Cho Church. 7 Ayes;
s, None.
P•loved by Councilmember 49erner, seconded Dy Councilmember Bond to SETBACK VARIANCE-
ept the Planning Commissions recommendation that approval be given ADDITION TO
a rear yard setback variance from the required 5 toot setback to 2' GARAGE
a sideyard variance to the north side lot line tran 5' to 3' which
Id allow an addition at the same setback as the existing garage
Heritage Commission will review any building permits submitted for
Itions to the garage. This approval is contingent upon the sale of
col B as illustrated on the survey submitted by the Church. 7 Ayes;
es, None.
Moved by Councilmember Werner. seconded by Councilmember Riveness PARY.ING LOT
accept the Planning Canmissions recanmendation that a parking lot SETBACK VARIANCE
back variance be granted from the required 10' setback from street
ht of way Tines to the proposed 5' setback. Futhermore, a setback
lance will be granted from Cho required 8' setback for parking lots
m rear lot Itne to the proposed 5' setback. Approval of these variances
contingent on the sale of Parcel B as illustrated on the survey
milted by the Church. In addition. approval of these variances
subject to the following understandings as recommended by the
Itaoe Preservation Ccmmiss(on:
This approval is not to be construed as giving prior approval of a
parking lot building permit when or if a permit is applied for.
The City strongly recommends other parking solutions to the
Church.
es; Nayes, None.
Moved by Councilmember Riveness, seconded by Councilmember !Verner PARKING SPACE
accept the Planning Commissions recanmendation for approval of a VARIANCE-CARRIAGE
lance from technically required 43 off street parking spaces to 9 HOUSE
cos (existing) for the Church's use of the Carriage House for 450
ft. of office space on the upper floor, 800 sq. ft. of meetino and
ambly space on the main floor and 050 sq. ft, of elementary and
~lor high classroon space on the lower level which will accomodate
ohlldren and three classrooms. Approval of this variance Is'
tingent on the Salo of Parcel 6 as illustrated on the survey
mlttod by the Church. 7 Ayes; Nayes. None.
June 14, 1988 ~~
ttoved by Councilmember Werner, seconded by Councilmember Bond to STRUCTURE S
accept the Planning Commissions recommendation to approve the Interior VARIANCE-AR
s[de setback vartance firom the required 12 feet to 10 feet as TO CHURCri
illustrated on the site plan for purposes of constructing a classroom ,~
addltton to the Church. Approval of this vartance is subject to the
Church making appl~icatlon for tinai site plan approval. and also
contingent upon the sate of Parce! B as Illustrated on the survey
submitted by the Church. 7 Ayes; Nayes, None.
Moved by Councilmember Riveness, seconded by Cauncilnpmber Pierner PARKING SPAC
to accept the Planning Commissions recommendation for approval that a VARIANCE-lSiU
variance be granted from the required 10 spaces to 0 spaces to allow ADDITION 't,
for an addltton to the Church which would accomodate six elass~ooms
and 120 elementary grade students. Fhis approval also includes a °•!
condition that minor subdivision and variances be subject to compliance
by the applicant with all other city codes, including building and fire
codes. This approval is also contingent upon the sale of Parcel B as
Illustrated on the survey submitted by the Church.
F4oved by Councilmember Warner, seconded by Councflmember Riveness
to amend the original motion to grant the variance except for 12 parking
spaces to be located on the existing Carriage House property. The
amendment was withdrawn.
Councilmember Trautmann left the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
Upon vote taken on the original motion: 2 Ayes; Nayes. Kulzer,
Riveness. Stoffel and (Verner.
Moved by Councilmember Werner, seconded by Councilmember Ross to ADJOURNMENT
adJourn the meeting at 7:11 p.m. 6 Ayes; Nayes, None.
1
~
O
"
'
ATTEST_,~~~lo r f?i ~
~ p City Clerk
St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church
202'West Eighth Street
Hastings, MN 55033
65I-438-3730
February 11, 2008
City of Hastings
City Council
1014' Street East
Hastings, MN 55033
Re: 2008 Street Improvements
8~` Street and Eddy Street
Hastings, MN 55033
Dear City Council:
This letter is to request that the Hastings City Council grant St. John's Evangelical
Lutheran Church (St. John's), permission to have increased curb cut parking installed
during the upcoming 2008 street improvements. We at St. John's feel #hat city staff
unfairly refused to consider this request. We feel that a good faith agreement was made
between St. John's and the city in 1988, which they are now reneging on. St. John's
believes that upon reviewing the following letter and attached information, the city
council will decide to grant our request and direct the city to install the curb cut parking
as agreed.
BACKGROUND:
In 1987 St John's bought the entire Furber property (northeast comer of 8`~ & Eddy St)
with the express purpose of providing off street parking for the church. The off street
parking was deemed necessary when an opinion by former City of Hastings Planning
Director, Thomas Harmening, stated that without off street parking a planned building
project for a classraom addition would very likely not be granted without such parking.
In a Letter dated April 15, 1987, he wrote:
"The only manner in which the city could allow the construction of the
classroom facility would be if St. John's Lutheran Church requested and
received from the City Council a variance to the city parking standards.
Considering the fact that the Church does not provide any off street
parking for the existing facility, I would expect that the city would have
very serious reservation about granting a parking variance to allow the
proposed classroom addition. "
A copy of the complete letter is attached.
After St. John's purchased the Farber property for off street pazking, the Hastings
Heritage Preservation Commission expressed it's strong opposition to relocating the
house and, instead of using any part of the property for off street parking, recommended
that curb cut pazking be considered. The City Engineering Department proposed a curb
cut parking design. In fact, they even prepared a street improvement plan (attached)
indicating the proposed parking layout.
Further, in a letter by the Hastings Heritage Preservation Commission, dated May 5, 1988
and signed by John Grossman, the curb cut parking was again recommended. A copy is
attached, but it reads in part:
"The Hastings Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed your
preliminary concept drawing of the subdivision of the former Farber
property at their meeting on April 27, 1988. They made the following
recommendation for the Church and the new owner to consider.
As I mentioned during our phone conversation on April 28, the
Commission made no objection to the concept of the subdivision. Their
basic concern is the appearance of the whole property. They want to see
the original scale and proportion of the yards around the house retained
by minimizing the appearance of two properties. In order to accomplish
this object, they make the following recommendations,
• Additional parking provided by curb cuts rather than by building lots on
the yard west of the house. "
St. John's, in good faith, accepted this proposal and subsequently requested and received
approval of a minor subdivision of the Farber properly to separate the Howes-Graus
House from the Carnage House. The former house was thereby preserved on location and _
the latter was modified to serve as classroom and office space for the church. At the
time, neither the Church nor the City had the necessary funds to construct the curb cut
pazking. Therefore, the Church developed its Long-range plan to construct that parking at
such a time when 8~' and Eddy Streets would be improved.
CITY STAFF'S OPINION:
St. John's request to include curb cut parking in the 2008 street project was made in
November 2007 through phone contact with the City of Hastings Engineering
Department. We delivered the 1988 pazking plan, drawn by the City of Hastings, and
asked for a meeting with the engineering staff. After several contacts with City staff, a
meeting was scheduled in January 2008.
Representatives from St. John's met with members of the city staff on Tuesday, January
22, 2008. We requested that the parking plan, drawn by the City of Hastings Engineering
Department in 1988, be incorporated into the project. During the meeting, city staff
members, Nick Egger, Thomas Montgomery, John Hinzman, and Kevin Smith, indicated
2
that because of the new Design Guidelines for Original Hastings of 2003, the church's
request would not be considered in the street improvement project. They cited the
foIlowing specific reasons that it was denied:
1. Tree removal
2. Street width
3. Sidewalk restraints
4_ Difficult snow removal
ST. JOHN'S REBUTTAL:
I. Tree removal
We realize that trees are an asset to our neighborhood. Seven of the eight trees affected
by curb cut parking were planted by St. John's within the past 20 years. When the
project is complete we will surely replant trees to line up as closely as possible to other
trees on the boulevazd. St. John's Church has planted no less than 11 other trees on our
property within the last 20 years which will not be affected by the proposed parking
design. And that is in addition to many shrubs and other green plantings.
2. Street width
St. John's is willing to cede footage on the north side of 8~' Street and on both sides of
Eddy Street to provide adequate depth for angle parking.
3. Sidewalk restraiats
St John's is the only property along Eddy Street, between 5th and 10'~ Streets, that has
sidewalks. No additional sidewalks are planned for Eddy Street in the street
improvement project. The Church's sidewalk was installed by St. John's and will
continue to be maintained by St. John's. Curb cuts for angle parking will not bring the
sidewalk out of alignment with others when there are no others along the Sa` through l0a'
Street portion of Eddy Street.
4. Difficult snow removal
The city has hauled snow away from the curb surrounding the church only one time in the
last 25 years. St. John's has contracted for snow removal in recent years and we will
continue to do so.
ADDFTIONAL ARGUMENTS:
We recognize that off street parking is ideal. However, such property is not available
near the church. Even if it were, approval for demolition or relocation of one or more
homes in this historic neighborhood would not likely be granted. Our attempt to create
off street parking on our portion of the Farber House lot some years ago meet with harsh
disapproval and led to the City of Hasting curb cut parking design.
As the longevity of life in the U.S. population increases so does the mean age of the
members of our community and St. John's is no exception. As a result, there are and will
continue to be more members with walking difficulty. Perhaps the net gain of 11 pazking
spaces near the church by creating curb cut parking vs. parallel parking seems
insignificant. It does, however, mean for St John's that between 11 and 55 (providing
there are five persons in each vehicle) additional persons will be able to pazk near the
church buiidvng and be spared the challenge of wallcing several blocks to get to church.
The idea of curb cut parking is not unprecedented. Our Savior Lutheran Church, located
on the comer of 9~` and Ashland Streets, has curb cut parking. It has angled on street
pazking not onl~ on the sides of the street adjoining the church property, but also on the
south side of 9 Street which adjoins city property. St. John's is requesting curb cut
parking only on a portion of the streets along the sides of its own property.
CONCLUSION:
We at St. John's are convinced that curb cut parking wi11 not be detrimental to the
neighborhood. It will ease congestion and provide for the safety of St. John's members
as they come to church for worship and other activities.
It is our opinion that the 1988 recommendation letter and curb cut parking plan, proposed
by the Hastings Heritage Preservation Commission and designed by the City of Hastings
Engineering Department, constitutes a legal commitment to allow the curb pazking to be
installed_ Therefore, we feel that despite the new design guidelines of 2003, this previous
commitment should be honored and "grandfathered in".
Thank you for considering our request to grant a variance so that the spaces for curb cut
parking maybe increased for St. 3ohn's in the 2008 street improvement project.
Sincerely,
St. John's Lutheran Church
Ron Stark, Chairman
Encl.
C: file
4
CITY 0 F ~ASTI~NGS
~_
t00 SIBIEY STREET, HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033-0097
Phone{6t~437.412T ''~'~"'' " '`
Hastings on th• Mississippi
Apr i l f 5, 1937
Mr. Richard P. Fuch s
First National Bank Bldg.
Hastings, Minnesota 55433
Re: Classroom addition - St. Johns Lutheran Church
Oear >~ir. Fuchs:
t am writing this lettsr in response to your request that ! provide
canment on the proposed classroom addition to St. Johns Lutheran Church.
Based on the calculations which you have provided it vrould appear that ten
off street parking spaces would be required to accomodate the proposed
classroom addition. These ten spaces are in addition to the 117 spaces
which you have calculated as being required for the existing overall
facility if it were built today. The only manner in which the city could
al i ow -the construction of the classroom faci l !tv would be i f St Johns
Lutheran Church requested and received from the City Council a variance to
the citys parking standards. Considering the fact that the Church does
not provide any off street parking for the existing facility, 1 would
expect that the city would have very serious reservations about granting a
parking varrance to allow the proposed classroom addition. 1 would like'to
point out that the purpose of off street parking, as outlined i n the
Zoning Code, "is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right of
way and so to• prorrate the safety and general wet fare.of the public".
If there should be any questions regarding this matter please feet free-to
ntact Ina at •437-4f Z7.
Si cerel
Thomas K. Harmening, P Wing 4irector
City of Hastings .
TKH:jt V
An Equal Opportunity Employer
b
F
. g
Y
f
g~
O
rr~
rV !!
V
z
U
U
z
da(yy
I..L.
W
2
z
0
o
~T-
~~
~_ I
1' 1
11
~ l__
i__
.J ,~.___-r 1
1 ~ }~ j S
-
r 1 S
~ 1 __ S`J
V __ ! ~ F I
O
~b'
t W
1 ____
~J ____ '
i f
1 _____ _____ ~ 1 ~ 7
~~ m
1 1 1 ~
~ ~ i
~
~ 1 1 7 !
--~ ` i1
-~
»+is ~
1331115 9Nkid$
~•"
1
r
U
Q
ZS'
Q
W
F
Jf
N ~
$• S
F { i
i
K
2 _
F
y
Q
2
lt.
O ~
Y -
Y
J
(~
71
~II,~
_~
's t
.I
Z
~ if ~
Memo
To: Engineering Department
From: Justin Fortney, Associate Planner/ Heritage Preservation Specialist
Date: 2/28/2008
Subject: HPC's Recommendation for Angled Parking on the East Side Of Eddy St
Background:
City ordinance requires the HPC to comment on changes to the streetscape in Historic Districts when
City or private improvements would change the existing conditions. St. John's Lutheran Church asked
the HPC to recommend approval of their proposal that the City install angle parking. The east side of
Eddy Street, north of 7`'' Street, is within the Old Hastings Historic District and adjacent to the Howes
Graus House, placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1977. The HPC held an open
meeting on February 19`h where they heard from representatives from St. John's Lutheran Church
concerning their interest in angled parking on the east side of Eddy St, which is in the Old Hastings
Historic District. After a great deal of discussion the HPC tabled the issue so two absent Commissioners
could provide input and allow for further discussion. They arraigned a special meeting to be held the
next week to provide the council with a recommendation prior to the City Council meeting on March 3`a
HPC Recommendation to the City Council:
The HPC acknowledged that while The HPC did recommend curb cut parking in 1988, it was the
Commissions preferred alternative to the church's proposal to build a parking lot on the Howes Graus
House property, which the church had just acquired. They noted that there were many differences
between then and now. Commissioners said they were operating under a different ordinance with
different guidelines and the subject property was not part of a historic district in 1988. As time passes
and ordinances change, people cannot expect the same options to be available after 20 years. The HPC
stated that their guidelines adopted by the City Council in 2002 specifically say that streets shall not be
widened and to preserve the mature neighborhood tree canopy. After holding 2 public meetings where
they heard from both representatives from the church and opposed citizens from the surrounding area,
the HPC unanimously recommended that the City Council Deny the request with the finding that the
proposal was not in conformance with the Historic Guidelines for Streetscapes, specifically, do not
increase the width of existing streets and preserve the boulevard trees and sidewalks.
Attachments:
Draft HPC Minutes
HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Minutes of the Meeting of February 19, 2008
held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall in the Community Room
I. Quorum: Goderstad, Simacek, Behnke, Sovik-Siemens, and Nellie present. Staff: Fortney, Grossman,
Egger, Montgomery; Chairman Goderstad called the meeting to order.
II. Minutes
A. January 15, 2008. A motion by Sovik-Siemens for approval with a spelling change was made
and seconded by Simacek; motion carried.
IIl. Review of building permits or design proposals
A. 608 Eddy St -Replacing the siding
Justin Fortney presented the staff report.
Paul Troutman with Timberland exteriors said that he will be using a 4-inch lap Hardiboard because
he believes that is what was used on the house. He added that he will increase the window trim
similarly to what was previously around them.
Sovik-Siemens said that she believes projects that were started prior to the beginning of the study
should be able to continue with appropriate plans that were in process.
Motion by Behnke, second by Simacek to approve replacement of the siding with Hardiboard
as proposed; motion carried.
IV. Business
A. Make recommendations to the City Council on the 2008 street reconstruction project adjacent to
the Old Hastings Historic District.
Justin Fortney presented the staff report with Thomas Montgomery, Public Works Director and Nick
Egger, City Engineer providing further details.
Commissioner Sovik-Siemens said that the engineers prefer a 5' sidewalk and she has measured
most of them at 4.5'. Montgomery stated that the City Council has adopted S' sidewalks due to
complaints from citizens after the construction of narrower sidewalks. He added that the HPC's
direction for the new sidewalks in this area would be forwarded to the City Council.
Chairman Goderstad asked how many trees will be removed during this project.
Nick Egger said that l0 trees have been identified for removal due to the risk they pose to safety
because they are diseased or otherwise prone to falling down.
Sovik-Siemens said she noticed that in the past protection for trees disappeared and left roots
exposed and wondered if more could be done to protect them this time. Egger said that they have
done more planning and will be doing more inspections than ever before for this project.
Montgomery agreed.
Goderstad asked which streets will be widened. Egger explained the map showing that all the streets
within the historic district will not be widened. He added that streets outside of it are proposed to be
widened to 32' where there are no constraints. Goderstad asked where walls would be located.
Egger said that some of the major wall projects were going to be at Eddy and 6`" in addition to the
south side of 8`". These major walls will be approximately 2-3 feet tall.
Joe Balsanek of 224 7`" St W asked if a retaining wall was proposed on his property. Montgomery
stated that a small one was to be installed.
Sovik-Siemens asked if any alley work was proposed. Egger said yes, to stabilize the new walls
being installed as part of the Vermillion St wall reconstruction project.
Balsanek asked if historic lighting was proposed with the project. Montgomery said no. Balsanek
said that other districts have lighting and theirs should too. Montgomery said there is not a policy to
install lighting.
Goderstad asked how many lights are in the district. Montgomery said mostly just at intersections.
He added that the City spends $200,000 dollars per year on electricity for streetlights.
Dick Graham of 608 Eddy St asked what the projected cost of decorative streetlights would be for
the project. Egger responded $500,000.
Balsanek said that homeowners in the district must get special permission to perform work on their
homes, why should the City not have to do extra work like the homeowners. Commissioner
Simacek responded that since lighting is not being replaced it does not have to go for approval and
the HPC could then not require it. He added that if a homeowner was changing siding, the HPC
could not require the windows to be replaced.
Balsanek asked if there will be any extra money to improve the district if the streets and sidewalks
are narrowed. Egger answered that the amount of money saved would be negligible because labor
and preparation would not change, only a little less material.
Paul Swanstrom owner of 807 Vermillion asked if there were streetlights in this area before. John
Grossman said that some iron lights existed from the 1920's to the 1950's, but he is not sure how far
they were located into the neighborhood. He added that if the Commissioners wanted streetlights,
they could request a separate program that would install a couple new lights per year.
Graham stated that a few lights per year will eventually get us there.
Andy McCoy of 209 7t" St W said that Wilson Park has an exposed aggregate sidewalk. He asked if
that is what is being proposed here. Montgomery said no they are proposing normal concrete
because it lasts much longer. Balsanek asked if they considered stamped concrete. Montgomery
said they used that downtown and they are not happy with how it is holding-up and they would not
likely consider using it again. Sovik-Siemens added that it is not a historical design.
McCoy asked if the alley behind him could be improved to help with drainage. Montgomery said
they would look at it and would improve it if it could simply be done with a grader.
Behnke asked how much a light pole costs. Egger said $8,000 to buy and install it, not including
energy and upkeep.
Motion by Sovik-Siemens, second by Behnke to approve rebuilding the streets within the
Historic District at existing widths of 30 feet; motion carried.
Motion by Sovik-Siemens, second by Simacek to approve rebuilding the sidewalks at 4.5 feet
wide, which is the width of most of the sidewalks in the district; motion carried.
Motion by Hellie, second by Simacek to approve the design and construction that should
minimize the impact on the existing trees as much as possible; motion carried.
Motion by Simacek, second by Behnke to provide a recommendation for an ornamental
lighting program within the historic district to the City Council; motion carried.
Motion by Sovik-Siemens, second by Hellie to construct retaining walls within the historic
district that are similar to the previously approved Vermillion Street Historic Wall Repair
alternate flat concrete modular block design; motion carried.
Motion by Sovik-Siemens, second by Hellie to amend the motion to require that if fences are
needed on the walls, they must be brought to the HPC for approval; motion carried.
B. Make a recommendation to the City Council on St. John's proposed on street parking that is
adjacent to the Old Hastings Historic District.
Justin Fortney presented the staff report with Thomas Montgomery, Public Works Director and Nick
Egger, City Engineer providing further details.
Percy Damrow, Pastor at St. John's Church explained that parking is essential to any business in
addition to a church. They bought the historic home in 1978 and planned to move it to build a
parking lot until the City expressed apprehension about it. They then sold the house and planted
some trees. The HPC suggested curb cuts for parking. The Engineering department made a diagram
of how the parking could be laid out. On January 22"d we had a meeting with City staff and felt
betrayed when they suggested a private parking lot rather than curb cuts.
David Senter who spoke on behalf of St. John's said that there was a good faith deal with the City.
We felt that the City got what it wanted and now we don't.
Duane Groth who spoke on behalf of St. John's said the City moved the 10 commandments
monument to the church.
Henry Hoeft who spoke on behalf of St. John's said they put the trees there and would put them
back.
Balsanek asked how many parking spaces would be gained after all of this work is done. He added
that the diagram shows 7 spaces proposed, how many parallel cars can be parked there? A couple
people from the audience responded 4. Balsanek responded that a total of 3 spaces would be gained
from this proposed location.
Dan Dancer who spoke on behalf of St. John's asked if you are taking a fair and balanced approach
to the well being and safety, to an unspecified person.
Groth explained that with angled parking people would not have to exit their car in the snow.
McCoy said the diagram shows 22' [between the ends of the angled parking spaces], is that
consistent with the separation between the parallel-parked cars? Egger responded that there would
currently be 14 to 16 feet of space.
McCoy asked if it could be posted that no large cars/ trucks could use these spaces.
Damrow said they could post that in their bulletin.
Goderstad reminded everyone that we are to only be concerned with the east side of Eddy St at this
meeting.
Simacek asked what the width is of a road that posts no parking on one side of it. Montgomery
responded 28' wide or less.
Sovik-Siemens said we are only here to follow our guidelines. Behnke agreed and said it could set a
precedent.
Groth said when you changed your guidelines you should have sent us notice that it wouldn't let us
make curb cuts for parking.
Damrow said the diagram was made at the HPC's Request.
Goderstad said the parking diagram didn't come to the HPC in 1988.
Montgomery said the diagram was done later for a parking analysis to determine ifthe angled
parking could be done within the right-of--way.
John Grossman said the diagram wasn't drawn for the HPC, it was done later for the church to see
what was feasible.
Damrow said John Grossman`s letter suggests that parking could be done with curb cuts rather than
a parking lot.
Behnke said he feels value in holding decisions that were made in the past and I would like to table
it.
Motion by Behnke, second by Simacek to table the request; motion failed to carry. Hellie and
Sovik-Siemens opposed.
Simacek asked if they are really only gaining 3 parking spaces in this area. Groth responded that it
is also a safety concern with opening doors.
Duane said that if you are afraid of affecting precedent, no one else has a 20-year-old letter about it.
Simacek said that the issue is that the request is not inline with our adopted guidelines that we are
here to follow. We are really between a rock and a hard place.
Sovik-Siemens said you would have been notified that the property was included in the district.
Duane responded that we wouldn't have known what that meant to our proposed parking.
Nellie said his concern is that if we approve these 7 spaces and the Planning Commission denies the
one across the street, it would result in a reduced driving area. He added that he does feel as though
he has an obligation to consider a recommendation from 20 years ago, but it was a recommendation.
Sovik-Siemens said that even if they actually gave approval for work to be done on a property 20
years ago and the work was never done and the regulations changed since that time, they would have
no choice but to abide by the new regulations like everyone else.
Damrow said we have been continuing to make the two properties appear as two.
Swanstrom said it makes no sense to have one side of the street different from the other.
Nellie said now it makes sense to have this tabled.
Motion by Nellie, second by Behnke to table the request to a special meeting on Tuesday 26'h at
7:00 P.M.; motion carried
Not an agenda item- Paul Swanstrom owner of 807 Vermilion St wanted to discuss the impacts of
the designation study and designation.
Swanstrom said it appears that designation wouldn't have allowed him to place the vinyl on his
property and you can't even tell that it has vinyl. Swanstrom asked how to not be researched for
designation. Fortney said you would have to ask to be put on the agenda for the Commission to
consider removing it. Fortney added that the most appropriate time to make the case for not being
designated would be when the HPC receives the completed research and recommends properties to
the City Council for designation. All property owners who were selected for research will be
notified of that HPC meeting.
C. Consider selecting 906 Vermillion St for further research for the 2008 Designation Study
Justin Fortney presented the staff report
Keith Estenson said he is interested in buying the property for its historical value, but he is not in
favor of historic designation if it does not provide a benefit. He added that another prospective
buyer may want to build an addition onto it and he wonders if the HPC would approve that.
Commissioner Nellie said we should continue the discussion on this property. It was decided to
continue discussions at the special meeting on Tuesday the 26`h
V. Adjourn. Motion by Behnke, second by Nellie to adjourn and continue the discussion of
items B and C at the Special meeting on February 26th; motion carried. - 9:SOP.M.
HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Minutes of the Meeting of February 26, 2008
held at 7:00 p.m. at CiTy Hall in the City Council Chambers
I. Quorum: Goderstad, Simacek, Behnke, Sovik-Siemens, Warg, Martin, and Nellie present. Staff:
Fortney, Egger, Montgomery; Chairman Goderstad called the meeting to order.
II. Business
D. Make a recommendation to the City Council on St. John's proposed on street parking that is
adjacent to the Old Hastings Historic District. (Tabled Item)
Justin Fortney presented the staff report
Percy Damrow, Pastor at St. John's Church said that we are asking you to recommend approval to
the City Council. He explained that parking is essential to any business in addition to a church. He
added that the church wanted to build an addition in l 987 and the City said it was doubtful because
they were deficient on parking. He said they bought the historic home in 1978 and planned to move
it to build a parking lot until the City expressed apprehension about it. They then sold the house and
planted some trees to blend the two properties together. The HPC suggested curb cuts for parking.
The Engineering department made a diagram of how the parking could be laid out and we have
included the thought of curb cut parking in our lonb range plan. On January 22°d we felt betrayed
when City staff suggested a private parking lot rather than curb cuts.
David Senter who spoke on behalf of St. John's said if you look at the correspondence from ] 988 it
looks like an arrangement was made. He said the City got what it wanted, to save the house. He
added that they will certainly replant trees.
Duane Groth who spoke on behalf of St. John's said if you look at an aerial picture you can see that
angled parking looks more historical. He added that we want angled parking because we don't have
a parking lot. He said that snow along the curbs makes less room for parallel parking. He also said
that he passes up single parallel spaces because it is hard to park in them.
Dan Dancer who spoke on behalf of St. John's said they have no intention to disregard historic
preservation, we have demonstrated that. He said does ownership mean anything anymore. He also
said where do you want us to go, what do you want us to do.
Chris Reese who spoke on behalf of St. John's said our only other option is to put blacktop next to
the carriage house. He added that many historic areas have angled parking like Stillwater, Redwing,
and Cottage Grove. He ended by saying no it doesn't fit historical guidelines but it fits.
Jackie Boler of 402 7`h St W said she saw the Planning Commission meeting on T.V. and wanted to
give some perspective on preservation in the late 1980's. She said the Howes-Graus House was a
locally designated property as well as on the National Register of Historic Places. She read an
excerpt of the historic ordinance in place in 1988 from the 1985 Hastings Historic Handbook
concerning ordinances in place then. ]t said that approval for demolition, moving, or placing a
parking lot on the property would have needed HPC approval and may not have been likely. She
reiterated that it was not a guideline but an ordinance adopted by the Council thereby making it a
law. She said it would be unfortunate if the City staff overstepped their bounds in 1988 and gave
false impressions of what could be obtained in the future. She said there have been many public
hearings since 1987 that adopted guidelines and policies related to streetscapes. She added that the
old guidelines were more fluid than the current ones. She said that she attended the original City
Council meeting with her husband in 1988 and it was way out of order and she is glad to see such a
civil debate this time. She added that the duty of the HPC is not to solve the parking problem or any
homeowner's problems; their job is to interpret the guidelines.
Groth asked how the house south of City Hall was demolished. Commissioner Martin said it was
never protected as a historic property.
Commissioner Warg said it is my understanding that Eddy St. is 32 feet wide and you propose to
double it to 66 feet and that is what worries me. He said that St. Elizabeth Ann Seton wanted
modular classrooms in the parking lot. He said the Commission felt terrible because they knew how
badly they needed the space, but we denied the request because it was not inline with the guidelines.
He added that in 1999 the district was adopted and in 2002 the new guidelines were adopted by City
Council. He said if a building permit were issued and work was never done and the rules changed
along the way, then the building permit would no longer be valid. He added that in this case a
permit was never even obtained.
Martin said that the Commission's scope is to uphold the guidelines.
Rita Dahl of 205 7`'' St W said I would first like to show my support to the Planning Commission
and staff for the recommendations on the street reconstruction project. She said that she attended the
1988 council meeting and spoke against the angled parking. She added that Turney Hazlet spoke on
behalfofthe church at that time and said the church didn't want angled parking and were not asking
for it. She said that curb cut parking does not integrate into the neighborhood and Eddy St. is an
entrance into the neighborhood. She added that in the late 1970's the area lost many Elm trees to
Dutch EIm Disease including the boulevard adjacent to the church and I would hate to see these trees
sacrificed again. She said there is risk to increased traffic and speed and there will be more
confusion having people back up and heading north and south at the same time. She said as a
neighbor I do not park on the street on Sundays or Wednesday evenings to provide more street
parking to the church. She ended by saying that the Planning Commission said they should first look
at a parking lot on the vacant church property next to the gymnasium.
Reese said to the HPC with your motion ask to get information from public safety on safety issues.
We are trying to offer a solution without building a parking lot.
Motion by Martin, second by Simacek to recommend denial of the request to the City Council;
motion carried 7-0
E. Consider selecting 906 Vermillion St far further research for the 2008 Designation Study. (tabled
Item)
Justin Fortney presented the staff report.
Commissioner Simacek said it should not be up to the Commissioners to remove properties from the
study or not recommend them for designation based on requests. The Consultant's and our job is to
use our expertise to recommend properties to the City Council that qualify for designation. If the
City Council wants to not designate properties for various reasons that is up to them.
Martin said our role is to find houses to study and then study them, to determine if they qualify for
designation.
Motion by Simacek, second by Hellie to recommend denial of the request to the City Council;
motion carried 6-0- Commissioner Warg abstained
III. Information and reports
Fortney informed the Commissioners that the next meeting will be held on March 25 rather than 18`j'
so the consultant will be able to attend and give an update on the designation study.
Fortney informed the Commissioners that Commissioner St. James wants to continue to serve on the
Commission and will try to restructure her schedule to do so.
VI. Adjourn.
Motion by Martin, second by Sovik-Siemens to adjourn; motion carried. -8:05 P.M.
Memo
To: Engineering Department
From: Justin Fortney, Associate Planner/ Heritage Preservation Specialist
Date: 2/2812008
Subject: Planning Commission Recommendation for Angled Parking on the West
Side of Eddy St and on the North Side of 8t" St W
Background:
The Planning Commission met on February 25th to make a recommendation to the City Council on the
construction of angled curb cut parking adjacent to St. John's Church. The Planning Commission
reviewed this request because it is within the Original Hastings Design Standards (OHDS) area, which is
often referred to the Conservation District. The Commission heard from representatives from the church
as well as opposed citizens from the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Recommendation to the City Council:
The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend the following action:
I) AIIow angled curb cut parking along the north side of 8th Street consisting of 4-5
additional spaces. Angled curb cut parking is already established, the additional spaces
would not significantly change the character of the street.
2) Deny angled curb cut parking along both sides of Eddy Street. The addition of angled
curb cut parking spaces, widening of the street, loss of street trees, and loss of boulevard
areas is inconsistent with the Original Hastings design standards and would signifcantly
change the character of the street.
The Planning Commission also discussed the request in relation to the ] 988 actions for minor
subdivision and variances for the Howes Graus House, a historic property located directly across Eddy
Street from the church. While they acknowledged the recommendation by the HPC for angled parking,
they did not find the 1988 variance and subdivision approvals to be linked to future commitments for
angled curb cut parking. Commissioners characterized the ] 988 discussion of future parking as a
"possibility'', but did not see it as a commitment.
Planning Staff Recommendation to the City Council
Staff does not support St John's parking request finding it inconsistent with the Original Hastings
Design Guidelines as follows:
1) Street width along Eddy St and 8th Street would be extended beyond the 32 foot limit.
Along Eddy Street the width would be nearly 66 feet, more than double the 32 foot width limit.
2) Removal of existing mature boulevard trees. All of the mature boulevard trees along Eddy
Street would be removed which would significantly alter the character of the roadway.
3) Removal of landscaped boulevard. The landscaped boulevard between the sidewalk and Eddy
Street would be removed; the widened street would be located directly behind the existing
sidewalk with no transition or buffering.
4) Limited increase of parking. Conversion of existing parallel parking spaces to diagonal
parking would achieve a net increase of only 10-1 l parking spaces.
5) Limited use of parking. Parking spaces would remain vacant at most times. Parking use
would likely be limited to Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings.
Attachment
• Draft Planning Commission Minutes
Hastings Planning Commission
February Z5, 2008
Regular Meeting
7:00 p.m.
Chair Truax called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Truax, Hiedeman, Zeyen, Peine, Stevens
Commissioners Absent: Schmitt, McInnis
Staff Present: Planning Director John Hinzman
Associate Planner Justin Fortney
Public Works Director Thomas Montgomery
City Engineer Nick Egger
2. Approval of Minutes -February 1 1, 2007
Motion by Hiedeman to approve the February l I , 2008, meeting minutes. Seconded by Stevens.
Upon vote taken, Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. City of Hastings -Amendment to Home Occupation Ordinance.
Planning Director John Hinzman gave the staff report.
Commissioner Truax confirmed that renewal would be after 4 additional years rather than 2.
Hinzman confirmed this.
Public Hearing opened at 7:03
Public Hearing closed at 7:03 with no comments being made
Action by Planning Commission:
Motion by Stevens to approve the amendment to the home occupation ordinance. Seconded by
Hiedeman.
Upon vote taken, Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried.
OTHER ACTIONS
4. City of Hastings -Review Public Improvements for OHDS Consistency.
Justin Fortney, Associate Planner gave the staff report.
Commissioner Stevens asked Fortney if the Commission can act on the two items separately.
Fortney responded yes.
Commissioner Stevens asked if the HPC has reviewed this request. Fortney responded yes, but
they have tabled St. John's request for on street parking to a special meeting tomorrow.
Commissioner Truax asked if the sidewalk adjacent to St. John's was going to be extended.
Nick Egger, City Engineer said no because of all the boulevard trees and it is not specified in the
comprehensive plan. Truax said parts of it are in disrepair and asked if it will be repaired or
replaced. Egger said like all sidewalks in the project area it will be evaluated.
Commissioner Stevens asked Egger if any of the trees proposed for replacement are located
around St. John's Church. Egger responded no. Egger added that the trees to be replaced were
chosen by the City Forester because of their poor health or risk of coming down.
Commissioner Truax said that when they were discussing the Original Hastings Design
Guidelines they were told there would have to be at least 4 ornamental streetlights per block to
provide adequate light. He asked if this is still the case or would any changes in technology
require less streetlights. Egger responded that it is possible, but they would work with a lighting
engineer to determine the correct amount based on the type of lights. Thomas Montgomery,
Public Works Director added that the city has a policy not to light continuous areas due to high
electrical costs. He also said that ornamental lights are ornamental and are for an improved
streetscape rather than for lighting. Montgomery said that existing streetlights on wooden poles
at intersections will not be removed.
Stevens asked if the lights are put in later, would it cost more than installing them now.
Montgomery said either way they would be installed using directional boring to limit damage to
trees so the cost would be about the same.
Stevens asked what is the smallest width of streets that will be maintained. Egger said it would
be 28 feet.
Truax asked if money was the driving factor in not including streetlights in the area Like was
done on Eddy St. Montgomery said we put the lights in the downtown area, which is the only
reason there are any on Eddy St. There are also some on County Road 42 that were paid for with
a scenic byway grant.
Truax asked if the Guidelines still say to install ornamental Iights. Montgomery said yes, but in
this case the Iights were not included in the bonding, we didn't know about them being
necessary, and there is no money available for them. He added that at the HPC meeting staff
suggested adoption of a street light installation program ifornamental lighting was still desired
within neighborhoods. The Planning Commission may want to consider similar direction.
Truax said that Southview Drive was built narrower to slow traffic. Montgomery replied that
there was only 40 feet of right-of--way available and parking was restricted to only one side.
Dick Graham, 608 Eddy Street said that he has lived in his home for 33 years and the City seems
to be invested in historic preservation. Citizens are asked to do what they wouldn't normally do.
He said that Thomas Montgomery said if they wanted to keep the roads narrow they could. He
added that this is important to keep cars out of there. He said we don't want Eddy Street to be a
feeder street. He added that he was told that the savings from keeping the streets and sidewalks
narrow could provide one blocks worth of ornamental lighting. He ended by adding that his
assessments are in excess of 10,000 dollars.
Truax asked Graham if there was only parking allowed on one side of the street, would it be a
problem. Graham responded that there are not usually cars parked there. He added that the less
concrete the better.
Graham asked if 6th St between Eddy St. and Spring St. was going to be widened. Egger said the
map shows that it is under a different jurisdiction and it may or may not be widened depending
on constraints.
Truax asked Egger if he was open to negotiation of street widths. Egger responded that
negotiation is not the correct description. He said that we are looking at the characteristics of the
rights-of--way and will be limited by trees, walls, etc.
Truax asked what the benefit of widening the streets was. Montgomery said it allows for safer
parking of parallel cars and limiting parking to one side in an existing neighborhood could be
bad. He added that a 30' wide street with cars parked on both sides will slow traffic more than a
28' wide street with cars parked on one side.
Joe Balsanek, 224 W 7th Street said that he wishes we could table this request for another year to
restart this process. He added that when the planning began the Engineering Department didn't
even know that this was a historic district. If they had known we could have discussed
ornamental lighting and sidewalk treatments. He said that changes to the streets can negatively
effect the historical integrity of the historic district and the individual property be distorting the
scale. He added that as a historic homeowner he is required to spend more on projects. He said
that his projects have cost him from 25% to 28% more to complete due to the required Historic
Guidelines. He added that if homeowners have to spend more to maintain their properties under
the guidelines, the City should reciprocate and do the same. He added that he would like all of
the extra money from the road narrowing to be reinvested in ornamental streetlights.
Egger said the savings would be about 20,000 to 30,000 dollars, which would be enough for
about a block of streetlights on one side of the street only.
Balsanek said that I have heard that the streets are being rebuilt because of the Vermillion Street
wall reconstruction project. If this is true there is no need to replace the streets this year and we
can table it until next year.
Truax said this project did not just come up all of the sudden.
Balsanek said that the other two districts have ornamental streetlights and this one does not.
Truax asked if we recommended a narrower road what would staff suggest.
Montgomery replied that if the Commission recommended anything less than 30 feet wide, staff
would recommend there be no parking on one side.
Commissioner Zeyen said if we recommend anything less than 32 feet wide we're ignoring the
plan. He was opposed to making amendments to the Guidelines for the request.
Stevens said that a 32' wide street would accommodate parallel parking.
Action by Planning Commission:
Motion by Zeyen to approve the proposal as stipulated below. Seconded by Stevens.
Reconstruct streets at 32 feet wide to accommodate parallel parking when possible
Boulevard tree placement and preservation
4 foot minimum width sidewalks
4 foot minimum width boulevards
Recommend the adoption of an ornamental street light program
Upon vote taken, Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried.
Truax said to the audience that the Commission would be interested in hearing from the public
concerning the request by St. John's request for curb cut parking on 8`h St W and the west side of
Eddy St.
St. John's Church Pastor Percy Damrow said he has been pastor since 1981. He said he would
like to have the street plan amended to add curb cut parking on 8`'' and Eddy streets. He added
that parking is essential for any business and a church is no different. He said they bought the
historic home for parking and when the City opposed it they sold it and planted some trees. He
added that the City also discouraged adding parking to the landscaped area south of the carriage
house. The HPC suggested curb cuts for parking. The Engineering department made a diagram
of how the parking could be laid out. He said because of this they have had this idea in their
long range plan. He said we appreciate the variances from the Planning Commission and City
Council in 1988, but we still need parking. He said he felt betrayed when they suggested a
private parking lot rather than curb cuts that were recommended in 1988.
David Senter with St. John's said we did everything we were told to do in l 988 and our request
should be grandfathered due to it being worked out prior to the new guidelines.
Duane Groth who spoke on behalf of St. John's said he is a long time member of the church and
added that angled parking is preferable to parallel. He also said parallel parking spots are often
passed up because it is hard to maneuver into.
Ken Dahl of 205 7`h St W adjacent to the request spoke in opposition to the addition of curb cut
parking. Mr. Dahl said his family built their house and has lived there since 1906. He added that
the Commission voted in favor of the staff recommendation to deny this request. He said it is
not an appropriate use of public space. He added that it wasn't a historic neighborhood when
any recommendations were made 20 years ago. He said there are many more homes in a
designation study and this will continue over time. He said this curb cut parking is inappropriate
at this time.
Rita Dahl of 205 7`h W adjacent to the request spoke in opposition to the addition of curb cut
parking. She pointed to a picture of Eddy Street and spoke of its beauty. She added that this is
the entrance to the neighborhood and would only be used for a Limited time on Sundays and
Wednesday evenings. She said it is hard to visualize the loss of beauty this would cause. She
said there are children in the neighborhood and a 66-foot wide road could cause an increase of
traffic and speed in the area. She ended by saying a petition will be passed around the area.
Groth asked the Dahl's questions as they returned to their seats and Chairmen Truax called for
order.
Damrow mentioned that the Church would surely replace the lost trees
Mr. Dahl said the Church used to own their neighbors house and had an opportunity to turn it
into parking at one time but instead sold it.
Rita Dahl said the City should not be providing convenience parking for a private use. She
added that the church has mentioned numerous times that this parking is for convenience.
Groth said they say why provide parking for a private use, but we aren't asking. We aren't
asking, we'll pay for our portion. We didn't do it then because we didn't want to replace the
road.
Dan Dancer who spoke on behalf of St. John's said we have upheld preservation by adhering to
the recommendations of the City. He added that he cannot dispute the beauty of the street, but
there should be appropriate balance of safety of children and the elderly. He ended by saying we
haven't had this opportunity in the past.
Commissioner Peine said the legal posting for the variances and minor subdivision at the June
13`h Planning Commission meeting mentioned the possibility of angled on street parking.
Hinzman said in that staff report for the variances the Planning Director recommended adding of
conditions to the variances like angled parking but the Commission did not add them to the
approval.
Truax read a quote from the minutes from that meeting where Turney Hazlet representing the
church said the Church does not prefer the on street angled parking arrangement. Truax added
that a deal was never made. He said that he sees a lot of references in the 1988 documents about
possibilities not approval. He also said the June 1988 City Council minutes say the approvals of
the variances are not to be construed as giving prior approval of a parking lot building permit
when or if a permit is applied for. Truax said this doesn't give any approval for additional
parking.
Truax said he believes by granting the variance to the parking requirements the Planning
Commission and City Council allowed the church to have less spaces rather than having to
obtain spaces in other ways being proposed.
Truax said if there ever was a time to install additional on street parking spaces it would be now.
The City would be responsible for building them, maintaining them, plowing them, in addition to
accepting liability. He added that the spaces would only be used by St. John's Church and we're
giving up more green and trees.
Damrow said that the spaces may also be used on Fridays by Todd field goers.
Brian Weinkaufwith St. 3ohn's said with a 30-foot wide street that has parallel parking it chokes
traffic and it would be hard to get emergency vehicles down it.
Zeyen asked ifthe HPC will be meeting again on this matter
Hinzman said yes tomorrow night at 7:00 right here.
Zeyen asked if the property was registered as historic when they bought it
Fortney said yes and the district was formed around it in 1999
Stevens said he wouldn't have a problem expanding the 8`h Street angled parking 4 to 5 spaces.
He added that there were possibilities in 1988 for increased angled parking, but in 20 years times
have changed.
Zeyen asked the Church if they have considered building a parking lot on the vacant church
property adjacent to the gymnasium.
Groth said they may want to add on to the church in that area at some point in the future. He
added that they were against curb cut parking, they wanted a parking lot on the historic property.
He said 1 wish we had the right to teardown the historic house in 1988 for parking.
Bruce Reuter with St. John's asked what type of curb is proposed on 8th and Eddy streets. Egger
responded the same type that you find on all newly constructed roads. Reuter said they could
install low curbs that people could drive over and park on.
Action by Planning Commission:
Motion by Stevens to recommend approval of the 4 to 5 additional angled curb cut parking
spaces on 8`h Street W adjacent to St. John's Lutheran Church and recommend denial of angled
parking on Eddy Street. Seconded by Peine.
Upon vote taken, Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried.
5. Discussion -Discuss future amendments to the Adult Use Ordinance and possible rezoning.
Associate Planner Fortney gave the staff report.
Chair Truax asked if the adult use spacing could be changed from 200 feet from any residential
property to 200 feet from any residence or another way that would keep the separation from
homes rather than from zoning for homes.
Stevens asked how we came up with the 200-foot separation. Fortney replied that 200 feet was
adopted with the existing adult use ordinance. Stevens said he was just wondering because St.
Paul requires 1,500 feet.
Peine asked if there was a plan B on where the adult uses could be located. Hinzman responded
no, the industrial park offers the only commercial opportunity on secondary roads that are not
highly visible as opposed to the main roads where other commercial opportunities exist.
Peine asked if we could provide much less than 6% of commercial area to adult uses if the
property was largely vacant. Hinzman responded that court cases mostly look at total available
land and not vacant land.
6. Other Business
Planning Director Hinzman updated the Commission on an ordinance amendment that the city
Council is considering that may change commissions' term limits. Hinzman also noted that
Comprehensive Plan Committee will be meeting on Wednesday the 27th of February.
7. Adjournment
Motion by Zeyen to adjourn the February 25, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. motioned,
seconded by Peine.
Upon vote taken, Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Justin Fortney
Associate Planner
Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Nick Egger
Page 1 of 2
From: Thomas Montgomery
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:33.PM
To: 'Anthony Alongi ; 'Barb Hollenbeck ; 'Danna Elting Schultz'; 'EDWARD RIVENESS (E-mail)';
'Mike Slavik ; 'Paul Hicks (E-mail)'; 'Turney Hazlet'
Cc: Nick Egger; John Hinzman; John Grossman; Dave Osberg
Subject: 2008 North Vermillion Area Street and Utility Improvements - St. John's Lutheran Church Pkg
Attachments: St John's Parking -Close Up.pdf; St John's Parking - Aerial.pdf; PC HRA Docs - St John's
Parking 1988.pdf; Smith Atwood historic home 718 Vermillion St.jpg; Neighborhood Street
Design Guidelines_pdf; eddy st angled pkg req.pdf; 8th st angled pkg req.pdf
Mayor and City Councilmembers,
As part of the proposed 2008 Street and Utility Reconstruction Program, both 8th Street
and Eddy Street would be reconstructed, affecting St. John's Church located at the NW corner of
8th and Eddy along with the church offices located across Eddy Street from the church, behind
the historic Smith-Atwood house. The draft plans call for reconstructing the project streets at
the existing 32 ft. width and preserve the existing angled parking in front of St. John's Church
on 8th Street.
St. John's Church has requested that the City construct angled parking in front of their
property on both sides of Eddy Street and extend the existing angled parking on the north side of
8th Street west to their west property line (see enclosed drawings and pictures). The proposed
additional angled parking would generate a net 1 l or l2 parking spaces. City staff met with
representatives from the church and explained that staff would not be recommending
construction of the additional angled parking for the following reasons:
. The properties are within the Conservation District or the Old Hastings Historic District.
Neighborhood Design Guidelines note that the character of existing neighborhood streets
should be maintained, with 32 ft. wide streets, sidewalks and boulevard trees. The
addition of angled parking would effectively pave the entire 66 ft. wide right of way on
Eddy Street south of the alley, converting the street into a parking lot. The angled parking
would not fit in with the existing character of Eddy Street and would not meet the
Conservation District's design guidelines.
. Six mature trees would be removed from the boulevard on Eddy Street; two trees would
be removed from the north side of 8th Street.
. Snow removal would become an issue as the entire Eddy Street right of way is parking or
sidewalk, leaving no place to push snow.
Background
In 1988, St. John's Lutheran Church purchased the historic Smith-Atwood house, whose
property extended back to Eddy Street. St. John's Church initially proposed moving the house
and utilizing the property for their office and church parking. The Historic Preservation
Commission opposed moving the historic home. The HPC and St. John's Church reached a
compromise under which the property would be subdivided, separating the Sibley St. frontage
from the rest of the historic property. Under this proposal, the existing carriage house was
converted to an office with a smaller parking lot and variances were recommended to allow
fewer parking stalls than ordinances required. As part of the analyzing overall parking needs,
the Engineering Department prepared the enclosed drawing illustrating the maximum number of
parking stalls that could be created on street to address the additional parking needs generated by
2/28/2008
Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Page 2 of 2
the office conversion and planned addition to the church. I have also enclosed 1988
correspondence and Planning Commission minutes on this issue for your information.
The St. John's Church representatives asked how they could further pursue their angled
parking request. 1 asked them to send me a letter explaining their request, noting that I would
forward it to the Council along with other comments staff receives from the February 5th and 6th
neighborhood meetings. I a}so mentioned that they have the opportunity to address the Council
directly on this issue at the public hearing on the proposed 2008 North Vermillion Area Street
Reconstruction Project, which will be held in March.
Please contact me if you have any questions or would like more information about the
parking request.
Tl~owt.as M. Mowtr~ow~.er~
Public Works Director
City of Hastings
1225 Progress Drive
Hastings, MN 55033
651-480-6188
tmontgomery@ci. hastings. mn. us
2/28/2008
ice.. ~ t~"-. ~<~ ~'""v~'~ ~ y' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p J -.Q ^ `'' ~ ,~ ~
V .~ = ~ ~ > u .n ~ ~ may. c ~ .~ ~ ~ y ~ u ~~~ ~ ~ `, ,~,'
.7 ~ r7 ~ -~' ~ _. s~ .. } ~ '~- ~ tYi C. ~ '71~
Residential Guideline 12: Puhiic Landscape anti Sueetscape
T)esi:#;n Guidelines
C7ne important #utture of l-Ts>rtitings'
historic districts and neilhborhoc>ets
is the priginallayout nfgrid-plan
stteeks, alleys, and sidecvalka and
die regular division of blocks and
Ints. The reKUlting nr•,t~vork of
spaces is a part of the city's historic
character. I'he maintenance Ind
rc}pair of streets, sid~t+~~11ks, planting
strips, retaining walls, and fcsncing
re~uir~~: public engineering stan-
ci<~rds that a:m sensitive to the sear
acid appearance of historic areas.
1. The maintenana~ and. dasign of. existing or nets streets in or adjacrnf to
historic districts should rupcct the original plan of intoratnnected streets,
sidewalks, and alleys. 5tretts should not be tn~idened to accommodate
thrauglt traffifand alloys should not be vacated. Cul-de-saf aatd dead-end
scree#s should riot be created in existing grid-plan areas.
Z. PrLSlr1~L' thC' IYGtture nlaigltboTltooci tote Canopy tYheI'eVII pC?SSlble, and
xeplant tti~th regtilarly-spaced frees wheri netc.~ssary. Planting strips and
sidewalks should be pru~served and maintained at nYa.~rirriutn twJid tlt.
3. R~taictittg t~ tills slutuld be compatible ~,=ith traditional tti:t.lls in Hastiag~,
which were primarily limestone brick, and poured confreti:. ti~'ltiie split-
#ace (rock-face) fonczc:te black is appropriate for the construcHUn of net+~
retaining; tvall~, block t~~itlt a round, striated, ctr polygonal profile should be
avoided.
(...Iron or stt~1. fencing should Have apprcapriately scatlcad and cietailc;d
ma:;onry or steel piers.
5. SurfacL parking lots .shoulci be sfrtrned tvitlt Ia.ndstaping, lot~° masrxtry
walls, or iron or steel feniting of appropriate de~;ign.
A uz;r. jcyrre cctgr-Y L4: $rrmt~; 5trc31, 2llt)2.
Hastings Heritai*e Prerxrvation Commission
~~
~~~
i-r
~ ~
z
W o
r~ 1--i
V ~
z~
.~
F
W '-'
5W ~
F--i ~
O .~
~ o
Z
O ~-'
pa o0
x~
N
U
a~
'o
o
>.°' 4.
3 ° ~~ ~ -~
~o'o~ 4-.
~ ~
~ ~
~
a a~ ~ ~.
°~~~° c > .~ °
~ ° ~ a~
c
~
~, - ~
~~,a~~~ °o
~ ° ° ~ ° a~ `~ a. a~ ° ~ 3 a~ ~ ~, ~ c
+~ ~ C{..;
~
~ ~ °
~ ° ~x
~ `°
`~~ ~
~ -a
~ ~ ° o = 3 '~O'~'a'~
a
i ~ . °
a
i i
a
O ~
U ~
~ ~-+ U ~ N
~
c ~
3
~ ~ ~ ~
o ~
o
o•~ 3 °-a.~ a
i 3 3
i
~ C
v~
7C
> -a
~ -v
~
i
°
~
° O ~ ..
s
.
at ~ C N
C
c~ ~ s., N
bA
O ~ C
~
° a-~ 3 ~
~ °-~ ~
~ c> ~ i i
.
~ ~ L .~ ° 0 3~ ~.~ ° ~ _ ~•~ i~ o
V °~ a~ = ° N ~ = ai ' ~. ~ ° 3 ~ ~ on ~ -v
~ ~'Y -~ 3 ~ N i i
~~ p' ~N ai
s.
~ ~ E_ ° 3
~ ~ O
O
~ 3 .~ ~ -a v
O
~ 3 .3 ~ o ~ ~- ~
°
> ~. ~
a> ''-' cn c a~ -a o ~ c Z ~ c ~ ca ~ >,
.~
s s a ~ ~ o ~ ~ c ~ a~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •>
.
~ ~ _ ~
^C
~ ~-
~ A
~
U
3
~
yy
t„" Rt v~ ~ ~' U ~
~
z '~ ° I~ ~ ~ O~j O~ V ~
~3 ~•~w '~3 ~3
• ~3
~o
~, ~6,
c
~~ 3 _. ..o a,
~~ U~ ~t LLN ~N ~~
z
W o
~.
O ~~
U
~ ~
~ ~
~ O
w~
W ~
A ~
~ ~
x°
az
o~
O
x~
~ O
U
•O
~,
a
~~~`~~~ ~ `~ 3 3 ~ s~~o~ ~~~
~ o -
-a
n. ~ ~, ~. L
a
5~ L
~ 3 a°i ~X ~ ° `~ ° ~ ~ ~ ° ~ E °'~ c ~ o o ~ ~
, ' 3
^~o ~a~~t-cs zJ>, UFO ..cam ~ ~L°~~
a3i ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ -° x ~ ~ a~i un i :a i 3 ~ o ° ~ ~ ~ s .D ~ ~ o
3 ~
° •~ ~ o
Q y
3 a
y s' _" ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
° o v i c ~
~ a
~
. .
, - a
i
s • ~
U •~ C C ~ ~ U N ~ ~ Q. (~ N ..
L Q. N Cf., i. ~ C ~ N Ri • ~ ~ .~ ai
~. 3 -a .
. ~ c O
~ a 3 ~ 3 V cn
n
~
U w 3 -
. ~....
~ L
.:.• .
.
~ v~ o ..~
a
° ~ 4.
Z ° ~
L ~ ~ ~ •O ~ T ~ ~F.+ ~
• ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~^ ° ~ L~
~„ •~ ~ o c 3 ~. o .~ ~ 3
~ ~ ~ .~ •c ~ ~
~ ~ U 4. ~ bo a., ~, ~ ~: ~ ~ ° ~o ~ 's~ ~ c .~ a~i ~ ~
Q 3 ~ ° °o °L' o °4. ~.a °•~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o U ~ s °
o ~
fl
~ 3 ~ '° ~ o c ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~- ~ -~ ~
~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
U N •~ v U N N •a N ~ 'cc3' .-C ~ ..C ~ ~ U 'C >' '''' ~ ~ 4-'
~
= N ~
~
~
• ~ N .~ ~ ~ N
> M ~ ~ .:L C N s.. `.1 ° N vii U ~ ~
•
3 ~ •Y a
i
~ a"'i
o
~- 3 ' '~ ..°c o •s
'.
o ~ ° aYni Rs
3 3 ~ ~ ~ o a~i °~.' Q °~„'
o
~ _
~~ a~ ~.~-~ z
~ 3 0 ~~. ~s ~ ~ Ups
~ L ~3
~~ ~~ one a~ scn 3 a°i
Z`O
v ~°°°.
3i o
~ °~ t
~~ O Y
wv~
~3 m3°~ ~3= ~w~ `a3 L
N ~ y ~ 00 _~ M [~ y [~ N v~
L -fl ~n
~~
~N~
UN~!'
V]~dM"
C7N _
CL~ N
z~
W o
~.
O `-'
V
~~
~ ~
E
W .-~
.~
N
O .~
O
az
~~
~ O
u,. O
~ N
W ,'_'
W
z ^"'
. O
^~-{
~ ° -o o >
~ O ~ O
~ ~'' ~ ~ U ..fl > ~ 3 -v ai cn
.
3 0,° ~ ° °' ~ °
~ o ~ o
~ 3 ~ ~ °' ° o >
L ~,~-a-vim o ,
~
~
Sys ~
~ ,
a ,
~ ;?~ >,= v,
~ ~
,.O ~ ~ `n O s0. ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ . '
O O ~ p 'B ~ t~
~ ~ L y ~ V! ~ 0 ° ~ ~~ ~ ..a ^~ ~ V ~ > L ~ O ~ O U
F" Q GO- •3 aS L C] C/] i a
~ L
~ C
G Cn CC fn Q
~
"Q 3 `1
O U Q N
. . . ~
-+
_
.
~'
~ -~ ~
C I ~ ~ i..
N
L
^
~ ^ N
C~ ~ y = Y
~ U ~ ~ N ~ ~ N "p ~ ~ .f] ,~ c~i~
O ~ c~ rL+ > O ~ ti ~ ~ - O ~ ~ ~ ~ p N
`~ ~ ~`~'
~ ~ c ~ °' as Q ~ ~ 3
v, , o ~ o
o °-' `o ~ `~ ~ ~ ~
° ~ '~ on o ~ .~? •~ ~ ~ o
~ ~ ~
~ N '.'' _
t C S ' ~ ~
0 ~ ~
~
L ;
"~ ~ ~ ~., - z- ~, U
O
+-' _ ~
N ~..~ s
..
a- .
~ ~ N
~ ;~ a~~~o-~a V
a--~
L ~ ~ ~ ~ 3~ -
_' ~ c ~ o
..x v 3 - o ~ >, ~ ~ ~ c
N E `r t/~
[/~
L >
~ ~ = V ~ ° ~ O O ~ ~ S ~ L
~ ~ ~ °?
~ ~' ~ X-~ °~° ~ one 0 L °~ 3
O L ,_, °'
~
o
3
° ~, ~ s o ~ o ~
~ 3
°
3 ° _ ~
-
-~ a~
o
Q
~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~
~ ~ -~_
~ ~ ~ _0
.L g 0
Vl
~ ~ ~ ~
U LL ~ c~ ~ ~ L/~ ~
~ ~
V 'B a
~ U ~
Z ~ ~ ~ L
.
i V . (
.
yJ
Q)
L
.y
W ~
°
~
~ c
•~
l /
N O U ~
~ ~ ~
V~
z
O
U
W
W
O
x
0
Ir~~.,
V
•~~~----II
~^^--1l1
AW
W
s.,
H
c~3
C
.o
...
O
z
0
N
U
.O
~,
~ ~
N
cct ~
N
N
~
s p a y N
~ ~ .= U
.
=4-. -~?~ ~.~
O ~ U ~ ~
o
c ~ ~ 4. o
~ Y ~ Q. ° ~
L
~o
~ •-~
3 ~,
~
o ~
C~
~ ~
y U
s"'
..,
C~
O i U ~
U ~ "''
~ OL
.
>' 4
~ ~ ~ ~L
~ ~
O L
U N ~ .'3
-~,_, ~
. ~ ~ o-a
3~0 30 ¢~
~ :~
~ U
-~ Y
'O
cp.. ~
~- o ~ s '=' ~ N
i 3
i U
~
-a - ~ N
3 a N~
~ N
n
a
v~ ~ 3
cn .°~ ~
o a: .
aXi
~.
~ a~
.c° 3
•~
~ ~ o
a.
o ~ °~°
~ ~ ~L
y.,., L ~
O ,~ ~
p
~ o
s
~ ~ o
• o Y
~ ~ ~
3 ~ •"
a~ d >
.6 L
N
~ ~
O L
~ ~ 3
~ A~
~ ~- c~
-~ ~,
w -o
c W
~ ~_
'CS U
~ N
~ ~ L
y L1
N
~ ~ L1.
o 'a=~,
'
C U
`~ y .~
on 3
o ° ~~ ~ ~
-= ~
° ~ ~ 3 3
c ~ ~ rn
° o
U '~ ~
~ ~,
~ v~ ~
~- °
3
~O ..O C 4- a Q.
O -L O ~
p
~ °' ~ ~w 3 -fl ~3
"~ ~, 'N p
~ ~ O .~
L O ~n
..+
~
.
° . °
3 ~
-
N x 3 a
N cd ,~
'r o
U
~ ~~ -3 ~ _ -
~ Q.. o O ~
3 .°-
~ ._
3
a~ U
U L
~ ~ ~
~ N U
.
~~ ~ Q ~ O
cn ~ 3 v~ .~ a~ ;? cn
~~~
~3=
~ oA . ~ v ~, U
t •_~ v,
L a> o s
U ~
O O -~ N ~
c 3
°~ `~ •`~~
~ ~ o ~ g 3
~ ~
i
N S2.Q ~ '
O
~ ^'
N ~ ~ ~
~ L
x~ :~
3
3 Q ~
x ~ ~ ~ ~
O fn .-fl Ci--~
c~ C~ ~
y-
~~, N
~ „
~
~
~ U a. ~
.~ L N
~ ~ U ~ '-
-~ ' ~ ~
`~
f1 ~ O 4-. ~-+ N
~ r.-+
•x., a~
~ L
3
c ~
s R'
Q N
N _
~ ~
3 ''
a~ ~
~.c o ~,
~ ~ ~ N
.~ ~ .°
~ o ~ __
~ U ~ ~
4-. N U 4-
N C .~ O
~ O Q ~
.~ U O
3 Y ~'
U y ~ N
•~ L
X'°~~
a~ ~? a ~
~• N y U ~
-o ~ ' 3 °;
~ 3 ~ o ~
~'Y ~ L
=a ~ ~ c ~
~ ~ .~~ U
~ 3 c o 0
a~ 0 0 0
v) U U a..,
_ ~ W
p r
1..'
~ o
~ _ v~
= C7 L
~ ~
~ q3 d'
U U rn
~ ~
~ O
O N yL ~.
-a s ~ ~ 3
N - C U
p U U
N
'
L 3 ~ ~ ~ o
~ n3
~
~ N ~ •+:+
U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ U O U ~ YO
~~ ~
n.
O L c ~ ~_
~ L ~ .,
ftS
~ ~ p ~ 3 3
~"' N U_
•
'~ L N L ~ L
Ri N p ~ O O
y ,_,
a. cd _
s
-_ o
O r:.
4'"'
~ ° L by ~
~ _
~ O
-a
bA
~ -
~ bA 'd
O ~ U ~1 O `n
Gl. ' ~ C tU. ~ tU.
~ ~
• ~ nio
•
~ ~
~ p
'
•
a
i `~ `~
E
:a
z' ~
.~
vUi ~ N
• o
~
3a UO
= ~
_
~ •
Q O
.~ Q)
~ ~ Y
~
L
o a o a.
bA Q N ~ C O
. ~ 4.-. ice. ~ bA ~n
~ p ~ L ~ Q
U •
• _
~
o c ~ L bn a-
~_ ~ ~ as c
~ ~ U ~ ~
c~ ~ N
ai pU ~ ~ NI
= cC ~
L .D bD
O
L a-~
N ~
~ ~
3 Y
.p
•~
~ °'
~ O
a o0
z
O
U
~7
W
W
O
x
~--~
N
O
a,
cat
0
._..
00
O
0
N
~--~
U
N
•O
~,
a
c c ~ ~ ~,
~.
'
a~i ~ ~_ ~ ~ _~ F' a~i ° ~ o
O U N N
LL U
3 s-. ,_, cC ~
U
Q
U
^p U
U ~ ~ ~ ~
~ rn
y
., O.
~
C U
~~ N~ ai O ~
U O N ~ C ~
s cn ~, ~ N
N rn
s c ~, ~ A 64
a. ~ .fl =, h
,~ ~•
~ ^ s ~
~ O N ~ '~ ~ N ~ ~ •,~, ~ O U
y~ U
4. .~ ~? a.
~' ,~ U ~ 3 O
N 'II ~ U ~
N y a. ~ ~+
,~,
a
~ ~ ~ c 3 L
° o o ~•N~
o
a~ -ts s o ~
• ~
~ ~ 4- ~ ~
~~ ~.~ ~
~ ~.~ ,, _ mss-
~ ° ~ ~ ~ Q
. a~i
n. ~ ~ ~ ~ 3
Y .~
~ ~`° ~ i ~ ~~ io ~ ~-aU
~
~ s .
-cs s
~ ~~ ~~ a~i ~' ~ ~ ~ s '-
a> >
as a~ 3 ~ s }' o ~ a~ ~ ~
3 :.. ~ c ~ ci •c ~
N s_ N +--• C~ C ~ ~ C O ~ ~ O ~ C ~ s_
~
` 3 •
' ~ ~ ~
~ i
- L ~ °- z •~ • ~ `~
~ ~ ~ i s ~ ~ ~ U ~ ° ~ ~
~
~ ~
' °~ " > ~ c
_
~ s ~
°
U ~
c
a N ~ ~ ~ a~ ~' a> v ~ ~ ~ ~ '_' ~
...~ ..O +~ cn - = U U cCS f~ cCi ~ U :- 'C3 O r--• .- ,~ bA cn v~ cn i. s .-,
~
~
L L
`~ ~
~- 3
p ~3
m
- ° ~.
~.
~ >
om ~ ~ N
~
.,co t
...
~
~ ~~n o0
~N ~
•
C~ ti~ L'LN
~r
z°
W ~
o~
V
~~
~ O
W
W .~
A~
O o
/O/ ~~
h'~"1 ~
x~
~ o
r~ N
U
_~_
O
c a~ ~ ~ ~
b4 U
t '
~ ~ a
'~ C
>
~ -~ -o O o ~ ~ ~ -a ~ ~.. o
-v ~ 3 -d o `~ ~ ~" 3 ~ •`~ ~ ~
cC fl.. ~ ~Q O
~
~ -
~
~ U
.
•
s .
~ O..
aU+ a. ~ U U ~ ~ F"
~ C c~
° . U 44-. vi ~
'ate 3~ i ~~~ ~:, ~~~ .~
.~ `~ L ~ ~ v~ U s ~ ~ ~ ° -d
oo ~
~~~co.
; 3~y
g .
. a.
i.. .s... ~ "C7 N ~ , s-. L 0 ~ N O
~ ~ '
O
Z O C O
'''' ~..
-~
U N
~s r, 3
cd aS
y ,..,
N bA
x ~ N
~ 3 L o ~
~• L == ~ ~ 3 cn~
~ 4
cn .
~ i N N cd +--.
~ ~ ~
O ~
+ T O
. . +-
~= ~ ° ~ ~s ai n n.:= 3 O ~+ v aXi w o
_ ~ ~ °~° ~~
~~~ -~
U N O
O 3 3 ~ a> ~ ~ ~ ~
~ s
°
~ o c ~ ° a. 3 a
i .
c~ .~ ~ ~
C~ U O O
t... s
U ~ ~' . i.
= "a -O
v~ ~ N C
~ M ~, N N
N~ +'~-~
~•0 3-a ~ ~ 3 ° ~ O
~ y
~ ~
°? ° Ito ~
~ . ..
~-~ ~ ~ ° ~~
S ~
~ ~ N
O
~ a> .~ >
w L 'p
_ U ~
c_n c~
U ~ ~ '"'
~ ~ +-' N
t N 4- C
o0
~
~ ~ -~, U
N 4
~ c
~ ~
•- _
~,
3 r
.. .~ N
N ~-' N N ~
U .~ O
~ bA ,~ ~ N
N j
~
-.
N
~ ~ 1 ~ „
s .
~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ c c ~ ~ c~ c a> ~ ~ ,Y
~ ~ a~
o v,
L ~ N Q U • ~ "Q 'a v~j T3 ~ Y "Q O 'O i. N
'O
3
a~ _
~ N ~ +~
a~
~
a.
fl..•
~
~ `n O O a~
4' t
~~ ..a
x
Q..
U U ~
W V] O.. vyi ..O i W
~ N
CL ~ N
O
~ 3 ~ N
CL ~' N
C~ N N }~
CG :u ~ N ="'
O
D O ~ t~
N
C ~
N
3
-~
N
~ ~~
.
w > cn
~3 ~ ~=
~ ~ ~~
- o
o ~, ~ o
z
O
U
L7
W
W
xt
0
a~
a~
O
~+
CC3
~,
.o
.--~
O
Z
..-,
00
O
O
N
U
•O
~ ~
~y a~
~ y
.
~
r
O U O ~ G O ~ ~ . ~ •
- ..
s.. i.. O cd U ~ > .-~ •
o~~~.~ 3~-.~a~ o ~ ''''c ~N•~U
~ O 0 ~ '
c °
'
~
a.U ~
ai
~
; ~ ~ cno 0
'
c c -
~ ~p
~ °
~
~ 3 -a -
~y
c
~ o
'gi
.
,
~ 3
o „ . . n
3 ~ ° ~ ~ ~ axi ° ~ ~ ~ c .~ o -o ~ v~ ~ 3 L ~ ° ,~
U
0 o r o °- ~ c ~ -c o~ ~s ~ ~, ~.
°
~
~
~
' ~~
~ ~~.
~ a
i .~ ~o ~ .N `
~' y y n. ~ ~ ~ ~
.~
U s s ~ ~ .~ n c
o° o -o ~ ~. ~ x -fl o~ o o ~: y
o
° ~
3
.. ~ ~
3 w ~, 3 .~ ~
+--~
o ,
c
~, o ~ ~
~
y a C
~ 3
.D ~
N 0 ~~ p U U
Ozrr~v~ a~ .
v~~w.~v~ v~ ~~ ~ ~ 5
a ~ on v~ ~z ~~°
.
~
- ~
~ c a>
~
~
3 •_
3
~
~
~ N ~ ~
C
N O U •-~~
O b
A .II ~
~Y
~p
~ O
~ ~ cn ~
V) _
.
~, U CL ~ =
a ._ C ,
~,
C p~ .
L~ 4- _ U
s N `n ', O "CS O y N~~ ~ ~ U O C ~~
~ '~' N ~ ~ ~' ~ 3
a ~ ~ ° U ~ ~ a. 3 s ~ ~- ~ ~ ~. o ~ 3 ~ ° o
~ ~ ~ -- _
~ ~ o ~ ' 3
°
o ~' ~ i ~s a~
~ ~
L -a ~ ~
~ ~
~. ,
o ~ a~ .~ -a
~ ~. o }, ~ o ~ -v N ~ ~
N C
-~ U Vj
'~ N c~ N
U L~
O
•~ N N
~ N _ N U ~-+
~ ~{'"' CCS ~ N
-'~
~ L Cyr., L ~ 1.. ~ -a ti-. 'Q N N
ci~3>, rY~ a~o>>~~° a°m`
L r~°~'v~ aro~o cG~-°a
.
i
~ y ~
~~~
t T~
~~
~
~
Y
v
U 00 --
_
Q ~ ~
z
~7
z
H
W
W
A
O
x
O
W
C7
O
~.
5~.,
cc3
~--1
i--1
. O
~I
.-~
. ,~
~-1
O
.--i
0
0
N
U
N
~O
s..,
a
~ ~ ~
x.. •- ,~
~ = U ~ .r ~
~
~ .^.
N N ° + C ~ ~°
°~ ~ Q ~ =
~ s
•V v~
~ C ~ -
U•~
N
C N c.
~t N ~ ~
•
_
~ O U 44-. ~ ~ = N ~
N
LL ~
s.
.~, ~ Q. ~ C f1. N
a~
U
~ ~ ~ ~ y ~-+ bA ~ L
~--~ N C~ ~ s.. ~
~ T y~ s o ~ o ~ ° o
~ a~ ~ 0 3 4-: .~ ~ a
~'
~ ~`~s
c sU on ;
i ~
~_ Q .
~ M ..a ..a
~+ T
'~' ~ ,
++ y
s~ Y~~33 ~'O >~ ~°
a~i '~
~'
~ bA ~ o ~ °~ ~ ~
~ ° y
n ~ ~ ~ _
~ N
.^ ~ _
~ O
~~ ~~•>' 3~ Y•~n 3~
> ° ~ o >, ~
r-.+
«3 ~ (~ L ~ ~ ~
L
L ~ ~ T
`
C
~
O ~
N ~ L ~
a..,
N N ~ L
~ y ~
U~ .F.i
~„ '~
A
v
i
~ iri T7 ~ T3 +-~-+ ~ N U O _V ~ c~
~ L N L ~~ ~ «S N ftS a" ~y ~ ~N
~ ~ a~ L 3 ~`- ~ °' ° ~ '~' .~ ~ `~ 0 3
~ ~ s
O ~
~ ~ ~ O O N ~
~ ~ cd c*.,
~ 't3
.
~ -a cn
~ •
~ ..
o ~ o ~ ~ 3
-v o 3 ~ ~ -a ~ ~ o a~i o ~ ~ c ~ ~ = . ~ ~
c a~ on °_° c ° c ~ >, ~ c ~ ° ~ c ~ 3 ~ ~
• a ~ ~ ~ 3 •~ ~ c ~
~
~ v ~
.~ ~ ~ ~ 3
~, ~
a~ •~, o i ~
a
a~ ~ ° ~ ~
~
3
~~
..~
~~
z~
~~
0
--
L
E- N
z
V
W
W
h~l
z
N
x.
t2,
a~
s.,
C
•~
.-~~
.~
s.,
s
0
z
.--~
0
N
r--~
U
N
•O
~.
a
~
on o ° ~ c
~
~ ~ _
~ ~
~
~ i..
..
..y N N ~ ° .~
~ ~ ~-- ~ U o ~ ~ ~ ° s.. ~' ~ c ~- ~ a~ ..c ~
~ ~ ~ c ~
3 °-~U~a. ~ ~
o ~ ~ o ~ N a.~ a~" ~cn ~ 3 3
_
bn °
~ U U~ D C
N O O rn •
Z ~ . ~
~
~ ~
~ ~-•
~
y ~'
~
~
O ~ ~
N i
N
N ~
~ U
~ ,.~
+~ ~ L
O +~
O ,
~ ~
cam,
+-~ N O
_
.~ U~ ~, N O ~ O_ '~ X
Q
~ '~ ~
Q ~ 3 n (Q Y a
c~ U F- F-
~
o v~
~ ~ cn
~ ~ ~ ~ w
. .
U . .
a> i
°
~ ai
-a
.a c~ _~
°~ °'
,~ bA
°
x ai
~ vi
_ N
on ~
~ ~ N
i +-~
~
° s
~-. ~
.~
° ~
~ O
a~ ~ z. O O
O ~ i~ ~ -p
3 L O N
3
.~ .~ x cd =
U ~ ~ ,~.., "Q ~ Y •B ~ ~ U O C
L
~ L
N
~ L ~ •~
U
c.
y
~
L
~
F
- o
3
~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L
~ •~ .
-~
~
~ = 3 s •c
N '~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~~, o
U U "Q O -O ~
•
L ~ i~-~ .-C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bA ~ • ^~ N .~
~ U _
~ ~ ~ L ~
~
a ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y
~~ O-C'~'''
-' p ~'~ ~ N~ +-+ ~ N cn.~
i~. a a w .~ a. 3 a ~ -°v ° Ems- os ~ ~ ~ °
U
N
~~3 +-+
N
w
> .~
~~~ ~~
~~
o ~ °O m °°
VJ ~ O a ~~
~ ~
z~
Wo
O '-'
rV•y'
V
~y
~ O
W •--~
•~_
f•-1
a~
A ~
~ ~
az
pQ o0
x~
~°
r1 N
W
z Ate'
.O
a
O
-O ''' z. ~
O O N ~ s..
O ~
~
>, N ~-+ _
~ ~'
~ -o
~
~ ~ ° ~-~ ~
~ cc 3 ~, ~
w
~
~ o
~
~ L
~
~ ~
c a~ ,...
~ x..
• c
Y ~ ~' s °? -a a ° -a s ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ °' o ~ a~
_ JJ
~ .-0 iJ °
' N ~ ~ .~
O Ci O a-+ ~ 'a • '
S ~ •C~ G) fl. ~ N O O O O ~
~ ~ ~1--.
cd
L ~
o >
~ o bA N O~~
c °' ~' -c 3 O i L
~ ~, ~ L ~
N
~
C N
c~ ~ ~ L O .- ~ N
c~ .s
~
p r... ate-. 'O .U i y f1 O .a ~ "a _
N +-. oo ~ ~
~ ° ~
Q~~-+ .L ~ (r.. Y
° L
L d--. S i-. ~
~ ~ (~ Q
c
a
~ o i-~ o > >
.~ ~~~ ~ 3
~~°
~ ~ 3 0 ~ os E•~~ ~~•a :v_ ~ ~~ o
~ 3 an ~
~ ~ ~ o
V - ~
~ L w ~ o ~ ~ ~ 3 n. -a
~ a C N J O N 0 0 0
• ~
Cd U C. L 'O ~ L ~+--. O
N O N .~ N~ ~+-- ~ N
-
~~ ~~
~
L
'~ J~~ ^~ ~• ^Q ~ Q~ ~ L ~ ~ ~
•~ ,~ y ~
~ ~ ~: 3 av~ ~ a.~ ~U ~-a ~ ~~ 3m
z
O
C7
z
W
W
O
x
O
1~
M~~i
z
~/]
~-+
a.>
a~
^O
ill
F-1
c~
.~
~ti
..--~
S~r
.~
7O
I~
O
N
U
a~
. O
S--i
~
. ~
-- ~
' ~ o `~ W
~ ~ ~ a~
-a o
3
~•' .
~ ~,
~ ~ ~ 'L ~ ~, ~,
~ C~
i. 4-.
'l O
U Vl
~ C~ ~„ C ~ " ~ 4" ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
3~ ~ N Q" N L N C O
Nom., N 3 ~ sU.
rn 'x ¢ ~ N v~ O tti L
4•.'~ s.. ;L7 O Q.
a
.
.Nd •
, C~ N F- • N L y
~
j
. ftj
o ~ a ,., c c a~ ~ s N „ ~ ~ 3 ~.• ~ ~ ~ ._
o o~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ 3
~ -
~ ~
' ~ ~~ .a o-o ~ ~:a~ 4- ~ ~ v
O 'CI
~ 3 v ;~
L
•
U
~ s. L" ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O
C
~ ~ F" aS C i.. s. c, bA N c~ N 'O ~ aS ~ N ~ •
L ~'
U ~ C ~ C s
'Q N O ~ ~ L O c~ N
`~ o '~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~° -tea o ~
' °? `~ a- ~ ~ •
c ~ ~ -a
~ Q. ~ '~ ~ °' ~ y -~ a~i c °.~ o ~ Z 3 o L ~ o -~
n. ~ c ._o • c ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O s ~ •~ ~ o ~ c
~, .
U
.~ O O
N ~
y 'B ^zS E y e s
~~
'" .~ ~
~ N a~
C s.. U
` •
U ~ ~
N U ~ ~ ~ L ~' O ~ N O '-' ~ ~ U 'a •O
~ .
p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y f/~ O • N ~ s ,-L
~ a> n ~ ~ ~ 4- ao .~ on
_-' •a ~ L O C~1 L •L O O O
N s. ~ U O
U
~ x ~ ~
a~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ c ~, ~
~ en -°_
~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ L Y ~ ~ . ~ o
~ =_ ~
•
~ ~ to .-`L ~ "'~ > ~ L ~ "'~~ ~ > ~ _ S
3 sa. U ~ o w~~ s s Y ~ o
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
, fl N z L .--. ~ y ~ O N
-
y
.,
. ~,
_
~ O °~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c~ ~ ~ c w v ~ c ~ t
~
•
~" O CC ca ~ G~: Y !=G ~ 00 +~.• V1 UO i. ~ s
~ 'O f_'K ~ .~
''^^
v1
z°
W o
~ ~
O
V
L7 Q
~,,, O
W ~~
•~
i
O
az
W o0
x~
~°
.o
z~
~,
a
° a~
Yw ~4
~
~ r' a~ ~'x ~ y
~v~
'v ° ~a~-
..
, . .
.
~ a~ ~,°
U O bq v
~ 0 • ~' Y V 3 `~ L~ O O .1 L S O
O
~ ~ ~ •~ ° N
~ bA1
y.-C. ~ L O •~ i.-. ,S-^ 0
>l ~ ~ ~ M yr
C~ t.1„ ~ C.F.. Y CCI Q. ~ CF.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c `~ ~ ~ .~ a. ~ a~i ~ L •~ ~ ~ 3 0 `. ~ ~ 0 3 0
'_' . ~
a L ~ ~ i-.
~- ~ ~.o ~ ~ --•
o N .X~
~ y • ~ Y ~.~
~.o ~
~
~^ ~~. > 3 ~ ~~ ¢ ~ o
3 ~
~~ ~
~v ~ ~ p ~ .
~U
. .
L
Y
o = >,
~ .~
s^
v J Y
~ ~ ~
~ ~ (~ ~ ~
¢
~ ~ y 3
,,,
„ ~
ti N C ..U
~ s.>'.1 cn ~.
p ~ ~ 'O N ~ N
y N
> ~ N
N
C ..C O N ~
~ ~ ~ N t Q ~ ~
O O ~-. C . rn ~ ~ O c~ O ~ >, O U i.-. s...
3
' ~
3
~ .
0 .'-' s
;~~.~~~ o~s~ .~~~~ ~~~~o ~~
~
~ ¢ '~ ~ •~ U O ~ N C ~ '~ h ~ fY/1
L •fY^ C ~ ~
r
fA
L
s
U =
_
~ ~ U
~ `.
~ ~ •O
.~
~ ~ ~
~
.,
~ C7.1
N LLB
~
W
•~ ~
~
U
N
U ~ -
~
O.. ~ N
~ ~
~ _
~
N O~ [~ ~ [~
~ Ci. ~ ¢ N tt ~O ¢ N ti N
z
V
W
W
x
O
W
Z
a~
0
~,
a~
.~
.--~
.--,
..,
.Zi
7O
/~
DD
0
0
N
U
a~
'o
a
x
~
~ a~
~
~
~
~ ~ ~ 3
.~,
-o
~
.~
=
~
3 °'
~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Zvi
0
.~
~ o ~, ~
o~ C~ • ~
c 3~ .~ ~ 0
~ Q L o'o
~, a.
~? ~
~ ~ -
~
.5 ~
~ c
~ -a o
c~ ~ i U cr.. O O c~
0
~ ti W •,~
~
~~ c
' c~ ~" 3 c
~
' ~ 3
N o o
y„
~
3a3i
°c
~~
°'
o
~> ~ .U
U
L4-
~ 3• ~
L ~. x CCS ~ ~ ~ ,.,~ ~ .~ L
Cd ~ S>-. L ~
~
'
~ ~ ~ _
ft$ ~ RS
O i ~ N c~ O N ~ CC v' ~'"'
~ . o
a~ ~
II-a ~
~- ~ °.~ ~ Y o 3
~ ; c
o ~ ~ o.~~
.
~
~ ~ " U ?~
~
~
_ 4- C~ U
bA ~ N cn
s. ~ s.
p
O ' ~ . ~ O i. ~
^_ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o c ~ 3 ~ ; ~ ~ -a ~ ~ ~
.
~ ~ ~ sue. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i 3
~ 3 i '~ ~ ~ O ~ f1 ~
a ~z '333 '33-~~ L ~ ~ ~ ° ~~-'3 3s3 L
°° ~ ~, ~ T
~,
N
~;
N ~ bA C ~, '~ ~~ N~ O T~ y
N ...0 ~'
~
cti N cn ~ N -p N > „~ ~
Cn
3
~ ue
` ~
~ ~ ~
~
• '---s
~ 4 ~ -
~i o
3 c~ o a '
~
~ a~i ,° .~ ~ c ~ ~
~ o
O bA U ,
~ C 4-.
~ _
•~ CC '1 O a+ r'`'..
~ a
i
N L
s - 4- ~ '~ ~ cC
O ,
+~ ~ `n ~
N
O- • ~ ~ '+-' L O c
~
~ j ~ ~ O N ~. -'
y U 4.
a- O W C
N cn ~ ~
y s.. U
N V
~ C
L
s.. U N
, O
_
.
i ~~ N~ ,,_
~ 'B y ~ C~ ~ ,fl ~ ..O N ~ ~ S N N i. rn a~ r.. O O
o x ~ ~- ~
~ 3 3 0 ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ cn a~ °-' ~ v~ ~
~o~ °
~~ ~~w3~.c~U3 x~ ~
~ o~~w ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ L -a ~ • U - N _ D` - cn
~x °
v 3 fl
~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ °
~' 3
o ~
w-
3 .
~
o o ~ ~
~a
L ¢'3
°v
°?s o
3 o
3 ~
g
L3 i ~ o a>
a
d
3
~ U a.. ,
-
~ s ~ ~ ~ 0
r
0
p
3 L
~3 3
3
~~ ~~
z~ ~'
~~
~~
-'
ti Z -- tY N E-- N
-+~-
To: Mayor Paul Hicks
John Grossman, Historical Pre4servation Administrator
Commissioner Bert Goderstad
Engineering Supervisor Dave Chalmers
City Engineer Tom Montgomery
Date: 8 February, 2008 PLEASE DISREGARD MY LETTER DATED 7 February 2008
From: Joe Balsanek ~?-
224 7th Street West ""~
Hastings, MN 55033
651-438-5998
I attended the open house on the 7th Street improvements and would like to pass along
what I discussed with the engineering staff:
1. My concerns revolve around the fact that the project is being done in a designated
historic district. But the project as explained to me does not reflect that.
2. Great care should be taken so that the project will preserve, restore and enhance the
area as a historic district.
3. Widening 7th Street takes away from the original character and proportion of the street
to the buildings and foliage.
4. The perspective of the distance from the street curb to structures would be affected
aesthetically. In other words, the overall harmony of the street size and the housing
would be out of tune with the district's historic look.
5. From a practical standpoint, the street does not need to be widened. Traffic volume
does not warrant it. The cost of the project can be reduced by not widening the street.
6. The width of the sidewalks should remain as it is (four feet} to maintain the historic
character of the neighborhood. This would also save on the cost. of zlae project.
7. As of now, there is no accommodation for a historic treatment to street lights in the
project. There should be. This fits in with the character of other historic areas of
Hastings, namely the historic downtown district, Levee Park and Wilson Park.
8. There should be a historic marker placed on Vermillion Street designating this area as a
historic district with information on the history of the neighborhood which was once
known as "Silk Stocking Row."
9. The new sidewalks should be designed and constructed with a historic look similar to
the sidewalk treatment in the downtown Hastings historic district.
10. The curbing on the project should have a design and construction that replicates the
original curb of the period when the neighborhood was developed.
11. All fire hydrants should have a historic design.
12. All utilities on Spring Street should be underground to reflect the historic look of the
area which had no electricity when it was developed.
13. Any retaining walls installed as part of the project should be made of material that
reflects the period in which the neighborhood was originally developed.
14. I observed the phases of the last two street projects immediately to the north of this
project, which were done over the last two years.
a. On the Eddy Street project, the sod was not installed until December.
b. On the Spring/Sth Street project the sod was not installed until the end of October.
This tune frame is unacceptable. The project's bid specificatio~zs should call for the .sod
to be installed immediately after the curbing has cured for safety and drair2age control.
15. I am raising a practical point relating to the city's ordinance on installed sprinkling
systems. My property has an underground sprinkler system. I am maintaining that
portion of the yard (known as the right-of-way) which belongs to the city. I water, seed,
fertilize and cut that portion. The city should be responsible for returning the favor. I
was told I would have to absorb the cost of removing and repairing the parts of the
system affected by the project. I find that unacceptable and would like to see the
ordinance changed so that homeowners are reimbursed for costs such as these.
In closing, the homeowners in this historic district have taken great care to maintain the
history and integrity and of their homes. In most cases the costs of rehabilitation, repair and
restoration have required expenditures that were ten to 25 percent more than the cost of
typical repairs on contemporary dwellings. These extra costs were due to requirements
designated by local historic preservation ordinances.
With all the above in mind, the city should adhere to its own strict standards. Therefore, I
strongly recommend that the nature, integrity and aesthetics of the project be decided with
the advice and consent of The Hastings Historic Preservation Commission due to the
tremendous impact the project will have on this historic district.
Sincerely,