June 28, 2006 - Special Meeting
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 28, 2006, 8:00 a.m.
City Commission Room
Present: David Shultz, Doug Scraper, Paul Gleye, Peter Moynihan, Christine Kloubec, Claire Strom, Daryl Bachmeier
Absent: None
Staff Present: Jessica Thomasson, Dawn Mayo
Mr. Gleye called the meeting to order.
Certificate of Appropriateness – 720 5th St S
Ms. Thomasson introduced a home remodeling project proposed in the Island Park Addition Historic Overlay District. The proposed work is classified as new construction and required a certificate of appropriateness. The homeowners, Chuck and Naomi Marchand, 720 5th Street S, are requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a double stall garage.
Ms. Mayo explained that the homeowners would like to build a 24x24 foot garage to replace the existing single stall garage that is currently present on their property. They had planned on using two single garage doors for the new garage in keeping with the design standards but, there is an access issue that has caused them to request a waiver which would allow for a double garage door. The turning radius from the driveway to the garage is such that they would be unable to pull a car into the south side of the garage with the beam being in the middle for the single doors. The builder showed the commissioners that they will be able to make the large garage door look like 2 separate doors with hardware and paint. He passed around a picture from a magazine showing an example of how it would look.
Mr. Shultz asked if they considered matching the pitch of the garage to the pitch of the house. The builder replied that it would be possible but it would add additional cost to the project. Mr. Shultz hoped they would take another look at that possibility and they said they would.
Ms. Thomasson said that a two-thirds vote is required for this item since it is to allow an exception to the standard.
Ms. Strom made a motion to approve the certificate of appropriation as submitted. Second by Mr. Moynihan. All present voted aye and the motion was declared carried.
Other Business
Ms. Thomasson noted that this project brought to light a few internal technological issues that need to be resolved. Identifying whether or not a parcel is in a Historic Overlay needs to be apparent at every level of the inquiry process. City staff will work to make sure that overlays are noted in the same general area as a property’s zoning is noted.
Mr. Gleye suggested that the Historic Preservation Commission establish certain standards for the drawings that are submitted for review and approval under the Historic Overlay process.
Mr. Shultz agreed that the original diagram that was submitted was missing a number of important details needed to effectively review the project. The updated diagram that was brought to the meeting was more appropriate because it included details such as dimensions and a drawing that included the existing home.
Ms. Thomasson asked for specifics of what the commission would like to see in the future. The Commission discussed including the following items: a context drawing of the proposed change to give the commissioners an idea of what the final project will look like in relation to the site and perhaps neighboring properties, drawings and/or materials descriptions for door openings and windows, elevation drawing that shows the pitch of the roof.
Ms. Strom said that we should be careful about adding requirements that will add cost for the homeowners.
Ms. Thomasson said that she wants to be careful about any additional requirements that apply to properties in historic overlay districts.
Ms. Strom asked if the commission has a checklist of things we need to ask of the homeowner/builder during a review. By using a checklist, we could give the homeowner the opportunity to answer the questions we have without adding the additional cost of a more detailed drawing.
Mr. Gleye said it is important that the final project be done in the way that was presented to the commission. We need to find a way to address this without burdening the homeowner. We may ask them to make a more detailed drawing to submit to the inspector to ensure things are done properly or perhaps note additional design characteristics in the inspection records.
Mr. Gleye said the roof pitch needs to match the pitch of the house and we didn’t require that in this project.
Mr. Shultz said the homeowner needs to look at the house and try to match details as closely as possible.
Ms. Kloubec suggested requiring a meeting where the homeowner is given an overview of what is required and how they need to address each item.
Ms. Thomasson said staff does meet with the homeowners to ensure the proper criteria are understood and met. The goal is that the issues are all addressed by the time the project gets to the Commission.
Ms. Mayo informed the commission that she will compile a list with the criteria and questions we want the homeowner to address.
Ms. Thomasson said they would be getting a proposal to NDSU to have students work with them to do the survey work for the Hawthorne neighborhood.
Meeting ended at 8:40 AM
