Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Packet 05-17-2022HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Agenda for the May 17, 2022 Regular business at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall in the Community Room, Second Floor I. Call to Order and Quorum II. Minutes: A. April 19, 2022 III. Certificate of Approval Review A. 707 1st Street E – New garage B. 209 Sibley Street – Replacement storefront windows, rear downspout, masonry maintenance C. 219 Sibley Street – Masonry Maintenance IV. Business and Information A. 523 Ramsey Street – House fire update B. 315 Pine Street (Thorwood) – Rehabilitation update C. MNDOT Vermillion Street Study - Todd Field retaining wall update V. Adjourn The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on June 21, 2022 at Hastings City Hall HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting of April 19 2022 Held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall I. Quorum: Toppin, Simacek, Smith, Peterson, Youngren, and Borchardt. Absent: Sovik Siemens, Blasing, and Chouman. Staff Present: Justin Fortney, City Planner Chair Toppin called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. II. Minutes: February 15, 2022 Chair Toppin approved the minutes without any corrections. III. Certificate of Approval Review A. 119 2nd Street E – New awnings and wood trim Commissioner Borchardt asked if the materials were going to be wood, composite, or a vinyl material. Fortney said the applicant said their contractor was going to find a wood trim with the same profile as the existing. Toppin asked if the Commission can specify the material. Fortney said yes, if they believe a material would cause a change to the appearance some other issue. Fortney said the Commission routinely approves alternate materials with the same finished appearance as existed. Commissioner Simacek said they routinely approve composite materials, like windows. Toppin asked if there are any historic retractable awnings in the downtown. Fortney said he does not know the history of the existing awnings. He said it has been many years since one was installed due to cost, maintenance, and daily operation. He added that retractable awnings are not as necessary as they once were because their passive functionality to control light, heat, and temperature are largely controllable by electric lights and a thermostat. Toppin said the awnings look appropriate and asked if the material would be the same as the Spiral Brewery awning. Fortney said it is likely, but he is not certain. He added that the Design Guidelines require awning material to be of the non-shinny canvas appearing type. He said the proposed Sunbrella brand is the most common. He added that it and similar brands appear as traditional canvas, but are highly durable, waterproof, and resistant to fading. Motion by Smith to approve the proposal as presented, seconded by Youngren; motion approved 6-0. B. 209 Sibley Street – New Sign Forney presented the staff report. He added that the proposed projecting sign has a diameter of two feet, will have a required clearance of eight feet from the sidewalk, and will not project more than two and a half feet from the wall. Fortney said that projecting sign materials are required to be wood or metal. He said the proposed sign is a composite with an MDF core, which is a wood product. Commissioner Peterson said the sign looks very nice. Commissioner Simacek said the sign bracket looks appropriate. Motion by Simacek to approve the sign as proposed, seconded by Smith; motion approved 6-0. IV. Business A. Century Home Update Chair Toppin updated the commission on the upcoming Century Home contest. She said this would be a Facebook contest for the community’s favorite of three homes built 100-yers ago this year. V. Adjourn Motion by Smith to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 pm, seconded by Borchardt; motion approved 6-0. Respectfully Submitted - Justin Fortney CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 707 1st street E – Terry Heselton – New detached garage 1859 Individually Designated and NR – Hastings Foundry/Star Iron Works Request: The applicant is proposing to build a new detached garage to the side of the house as shown. Details: 1,000 SqFt 25’ wide by 46’ long (previous concept proposal was 30’ by 32’) Double carriage style garage door 5 double hung windows 4/12 pitch shingled roof 4” vinyl lap siding gable vents (not shown) The applicant will need to apply for a variance for an accessory structure number. Even though the historic stone building predates the home by over 70-years, it could be construed as the allowable accessory structure. Planning staff would be supportive of the variance, due to the circumstances. The stone building has two rear metal additions that appear to have been added around 1990. The applicant proposes to remove those with proposed garage construction. Ordinance, Guidelines Design Guidelines (Residential) (Page 30) 10: Garages and Accessory Structures 2. Locate new garages in locations compatible with the main structure of the site and existing traditional garages in the surrounding area. New garages should not be attached to the front or street sides of a historic house. (Page 37) Historic Commercial Buildings: General Guidelines 4. Removal of Non-historic Features Consider the removal of past inappropriate alterations. (Page 40) 9. Historic Commercial Buildings: New Construction and Additions Not very applicable to commercial buildings outside of downtown or to garages. Staff Findings The HPC reviewed this as a concept proposal in front of the house and with the possibility of it being next to the house. Commissioners commented that the proposed garage looked to tall due to its 10-foot side wall height and the three to four feet of fill required. Staff stated that the house is on the same parcel as the historic stone building, so the HPC would have review authority over it. However, staff was not sure if the two structures were on the same parcel when the stone building was locally designated. They are on separate lots that have been combined to one parcel id number for taxes. Dakota county property records would have the legal description of the local designation, but staff cannot locate any city files regarding the local designation of the subject property. Either way, the house is not contributing to the designation. The National register nomination form does not mention the existence of the house and neither do the city’s Historic Resource Surveys. The proposed garage must be reviewed for effects to the stone building as that is the contributing structure to the local designation. The designation is also individual rather than in a district, so there would not be consideration to the streetscape. The proposed garage design is fairly standard and generally wouldn’t detract from most historic sites if properly placed and sized. It includes a lower pitched roof, though not as extreme as the Iron Works building. The proposed garage is closer to the house than the stone building. The house and proposed garage are over 50-feet from the front property line. The stone building is built right up to the front property line. These details reduce any impact to the historical integrity of the stone building. The garage will be much more visible than the rear additions to the stone building. However, its location relative to the historic structure is much more appropriate. The garage would not appear to be related to it. The garage will also not cover up any of the building’s elevations like the additions in the rear. Online photos in full resolution Rear Building Additions This may not be to scale. The garage and house are proposed to have the same front setback, but this rendering shows the garage set back a little too far. The fill and retaining walls must be about one foot higher than the curb. The finished floor of the garage must be at least one foot higher than that. CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 5-2022 209 Sibley Street – Barb Hollenbeck Ca. 1890, East 2nd Street Historic District- Contributing and NR Request: The applicant is asking for approval of: 1. Replace storefront windows. a. Frames will be dark bronze colored aluminum b. Double pane clear glass 2. Replace the door and transom glass with clear double pane glass. 3. Lengthen the east rear gutter and replace the downspout with one straight piece colored cream with internal heat tape. 4. Rear and east brick repair. a. Repair previous construction damage b. 100Sf of tuckpointing c. 30Sf of brick work / 50 closely matching bricks, plus 10 at east roofline. Ordinance, Guidelines 1. Windows and Frames Design Guidelines (Page38, 40) 5: Historic Commercial Buildings: General Guidelines 7. Entries and Storefronts a. Size and Shape All historic entry and storefront components should be retained. Entry openings should not be enlarged or reduced to fit a new door. New entry openings should not be introduced into principal elevations. Any new entry openings and doors should be compatible with existing historic units. 9. New Construction and Additions e. Windows, entries, and storefronts should be compatible with surrounding historic buildings in their alignment, type and proportion. Features such as divided lights, transoms, signbands, and bulkheads are typical of many storefronts and should be included in new design where appropriate. Staff findings: Storefront glass It does not appear that the existing configuration of the storefront is original. A historic photo shows the storefront to be much taller that the current one. The heavily textured brick set on a poured concrete footing would not have been used ca 1890. With no historical material being lost, the replacement of the glass with new thermal pane glass and modern aluminum framing has been allowed in other storefronts downtown. Door and transom glass The replacement of the door and transom glass with new thermal pane glass is also appropriate for the same reasons as above. The glass in those are presently held by wooden stops and should be reused or replaced with similar as needed. Gutters The existing gutter design required the downspout to curve around the building corner, which had joints within a horizontal section that leak onto the masonry. This has caused damage from water infiltration into the brick and mortar. The gutter will be lengthened, likely past the rear of the building to allow a new downspout to go down without any horizontal seams. The proposed change is not very visible and similar to existing. Masonry The proposal meets the Design Guidelines and industry standards for masonry restoration. The proposed work will properly conduct appropriate maintenance and correct past damage caused by improper and unauthorized work. It is fortunate to know that the cause of the excessive damage has been identified and will be corrected. It appears the bricks were painted since August 2021. Painting of unpainted masonry requires HPC approval. Existing storefront glass framing Proposed framing. Similar approved at Spiral Brewery and Fireside SH, they also had non-historic storefronts. Changes to gutter and downspout configuration. Brick replacement near red line and within yellow outline. Tuckpointing to also include blue arrow areas that were previously calked. CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 5-2022 219 Sibley Street – Barb Hollenbeck Ca. 1882, East 2nd Street Historic District- Contributing and NR Request: The applicant is asking for approval of: 1. Rear brick repair. a. 100% tuckpointing top 3-feet and an additional 40Sf as needed on rear wall b. Up to 150 replacement bricks to match c. New sealant at adjoining building joint Ordinance, Guidelines 3. Masonry Design Guidelines (Page35) 5: Historic Commercial Buildings: General Guidelines Repointing Original mortar joint size and profile should be retained and/or reduplicated in repointing. Mortar mixtures should duplicate the original in lime, sand, and cement proportion and should duplicate the original mortar in color and texture. Painting and Paint Removal The original color and texture of masonry surfaces should be retained and unpainted stone and brick surfaces should not be painted. The removal of paint from painted masonry surfaces should only be attempted if unpainted surfaces are historically appropriate and if removal can be accomplished without damage to the masonry. Staff findings: The proposal meets the Design Guidelines and industry standards for masonry restoration. The new brick and mortar should not be painted. It is recommended to remove the existing paint on the entire wall, if it can be done as stated in the Design Guidelines as listed above. However, the majority of the wall is already painted and not required.