Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Packet 12-19-2023HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Agenda for Meeting of December 19, 2023 Regular business at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall in the Volunteer Room I. Call to Order and Quorum II. Minutes: A. November 21, 2023 III. Certificate of Approval Review A. 221 Sibley Street – Tabled - New windows B. 215 Sibley Street – Rear stairway removal C. 319 2nd Street W – Shed demolition and new garage IV. OHDS – Original Hastings Design Standards Review V. Business and Information VI. Adjourn The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on January 16, 2024 at Hastings City Hall HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting of November 21, 2023 Held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, Volunteer Room I. Quorum: Commissioners: Youngren, McCoy, Peterson, Bremer, Simacek, Smith, Toppin, and Borchardt (7:09) Absent: Alitz Edell Staff: Fortney II. Add the following item to the agenda. A. 1629 Vermillion Street – New fence Motion by Simacek to add the proposed item to the agenda, seconded by Smith; motion approved 7-0. III. Minutes: September 19, 2023 Chair Toppin approved the minutes. IV. Certificate of Approval Review A. 1007 Sibley Street – New egress windows Fortney presented the proposal to replace two basement egress windows that cannot be seen from the road. Motion by Commissioner Smith to approve the request as proposed, seconded by Youngren; motion approved 7-0. Commissioner Borchardt arrived at 7:09 B. 400 221 Sibley Street – New windows Fortney presented the proposal to replace two third floor windows with similar sash replacements, two rear basement egress windows with similar replacements, and four rear first floor windows that are possibly original windows and in very poor condition. Bronze aluminum combination storm-windows to be installed over all double-hung replacement windows. Commissioner Bremer commented that there may be technical reasons for the configuration change to the second floor windows. She added that the window dimensions would be helpful. Fortney said the third floor windows go from the living area into the loft area where the bedrooms are located. He added that the applicant said this is important to maintain airflow with double hung windows. Commissioner Bremer said she is hesitant to approve replacements or even repair without knowing exactly what they intend to do. Motion by Commissioner Smith to approve the request to replace the two rear basement egress windows and the three identified third floor windows with similar, seconded by Youngren; motion approved 8-0. Motion by Commissioner McCoy table consideration of the historic white windows for further information, seconded by Bremer; motion approved 8-0. C. 1629 Vermillion Street – New fence Fortney explained that the existing wire fence is in disrepair and not effectively separating the properties. He added that a vinyl fence is proposed to eliminate issues with maintenance due to the location and difficulties accessing the other side. Commissioner Borchardt said the location of the privacy fence meets the Design Guidelines for an opaque fence and it is not near the historic portion of the property and has been treated as a nonhistorical. V. Motion by Commissioner Peterson to approve the request as proposed, seconded by Smith; motion approved 8-0. VI. OHDS – Original Hastings Design Standards Review VII. Business VIII. Adjourn Motion by Borchardt to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 pm, seconded by Smith; motion approved 8-0. Respectfully Submitted - Justin Fortney CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 12-2023 221 Sibley Street. Levi Hafstad, Hafstad Real Estate LLC– Replace windows Ca. 1881, East 2nd Street Historic District, National Register Request: The applicant received approval from the HPC in November for the replacement of three third story windows with storm windows and two basement egress windows. The HPC reviewed and tabled the man level rear historic windows for more specific information. The applicant has decided to only replace one of the historic windows currently due to time and financing. The subject window on the first level far right (and a matching window on the far left) is very wide compared to the rest of the windows. It appears to have originally been a single large two over two double hung window. The lower sash was removed or fixed into the upper frame and two modern casement (crank out) windows were installed in its place. The proposal is to remove everything and repair or rebuild the brickmold and sill as is. install one large double hung replacement window. Install a bronze flush mounted storm window. Ordinance, Guidelines Design Guidelines (Page 21) 4: Windows 1. Maintain and Conserve Wherever feasible, historic windows and sash should be repaired rather than replaced, especially on principal elevations. 3. New Sash: Glazing The size and number of panes of glass in each sash should not be altered. New sash, if installed, should duplicate the existing or other appropriate historic models. Artificial muntins or grids should at the least be located on the exterior of the window and match the original window design. Crank-out units should not replace double-hung sash. 5. Storm Windows Repair or replicate historic wood storms wherever possible. Storm windows should not have vertical or horizontal divisions that conflict with the divisions of the historic sash and should be flush with existing trim. If combination metal storms must be installed, they should have a baked enamel factory finish. Staff Findings The existing single pane window is very old and could be original. It is interesting that all the other windows besides the few white ones were replaced at least twice. Perhaps because they are in the rear and some are in a hallway. Repairing the window per the Design Guidelines is preferable. However, the window is in very poor condition in addition to having been altered significantly. Replacement with a historically fitting replacement would be appropriate. The HPC approved the third floor windows as one over one windows because they appeared that way as early as 1936 and no proof was found they were two over two. This window clearly has been a two over two double hung window. The Guidelines require a replacement to resemble the historic units muntin or grid pattern. This shouldn’t look out of place since it is nearly double wide compared to most other windows and the other rear first level windows are two over two. There is a photoshopped comparison below showing the different grid pattern. A combination one over one storm window would be placed over the entire window and frame with a screen on the bottom. The lower sash of the storm window could go up and down. The storm would have a bronze colored aluminum frame. Existing With and without center muntin/ grid CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 12-2023 215 Sibley Street. Remove rear stairways and ramp – Stacy Lofgren Ca. 1884, East Second Street Historic District NR Request: The applicant would like to remove the existing rear stairways and ramp. The applicant recently acquired the building and believe there are unauthorized users of the stairway to access the adjacent building’s roof along with loitering down below. The upper stairway accesses a rental unit that will no longer be used. The lower stairway serves as an alternate exit. The applicant intends to request HPC approval of the second floor doorway removal and new minimal stairs to the lower rear entry in the spring. Design Guidelines (Page 21) Windows None. Generally no damage should occur to the building and any modification made to the building for the stairway should be repaired once removed. Staff findings: The stairways and ramp are not historic and not in great shape. The second floor doorway is likely a window opening turned into a fire escape. The Building Department may require one or both of these to remain until reconstructed. CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 12-2023 319 2nd Street W. Trevor & Christi Johnson –Shed demolition and new garage proposal Ca. 1888, Old Hastings Historic District- Contributing and National Register District Requests: The applicants are proposing to demolish the existing shed and build a new garage. They have provided the attached reasoning for shed demolition and plans for a new garage. Preservation Ordinance The Preservation ordinance in Chapter 30.10 requires the HPC to make findings that the destruction is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property, or that there are no reasonable alternatives to the destruction. In determining whether reasonable alternatives exist, the Commission shall consider the integrity of the property and the economic value or usefulness of the existing structure, including its current use, costs of renovation and feasible alternative uses. Design Guidelines Residential Guideline 10: Garages and Accessory Structures Pg. 30 1. Retain and preserve garages and other accessory structures that contribute to the historic character of the site and surrounding area. 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. 3. Select prefabricated accessory buildings with appearance, material and scale compatible to the main structure of the site and surrounding area. 4. Replace deteriorated garages with new building designs of compatible form, scale, size, and materials (see New Construction Guidelines) Residential Guideline 9: New Construction pg. 28 Some provisions may apply more to new houses. 1. General Character. Design new construction to reinforce the historic architectural and visual character of the site, streetscape, or district. However, in most cases, new buildings should be discernible from the old. 2. Siting and Setback. Design new construction be compatible with the setback, orientation, and spacing of older buildings along the street. Design new construction to conserve site features such as topography, trees, and significant vistas and views. 3. Building Elements. Massing, Height, and Scale. Design new construction to conform to the massing, volume, height, facade proportions, spacing and scale of buildings within view of the site, and also comply with existing zoning regulations. The gross volume of any new structure should be visually compatible with the buildings and elements within the surrounding area. Materials and Details Select materials and details that are compatible with those on adjacent historic buildings. Wood and masonry are preferable to vinyl, metal, or hardboard siding. Imitative materials such as artificial stone or brick veneer should not be used. New siding should be of appropriate texture and width and should be detailed with cornerboards and eave and window trim. Roofs In new construction, the roof profile should relate to the predominant roof shapes of the surrounding area. Roofing materials used on new buildings should be appropriate to the design of the building and the visibility of the roof. Roof hardware such as skylights, vents, and metal pipe chimneys should not be placed on the front roof plane. Demolition Staff findings: The shed is very old. It appears on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps as far back as 1884. While it seems somewhat unlikely, the placement and size are consistent. Even if it weren’t the original shed, it is very old and likely contributes to the historical integrity of the property. There are structural deficiencies that are mildly unsafe or dangerous. While there are alternatives for repair besides destruction, they would likely cost more than the economic value or usefulness of the existing structure, given its low value and use as a long narrow shed. Additionally, its current location and existence hinders the construction of a useful garage structure that has become a standard single-family home amenity. New Garage The proposed garage 35 x 26 (910 SF) will be in a similar location as the existing shed. It will have two single overhead doors and wood attic door facing west (Ashland St) with a service door and two high (6’ from bottom to ground) awning windows facing north, three high awing windows facing south (alley), and a double hung window in the attic facing east. The garage sidewalls are 9’ high with an overall roof height of 16’. The proposed siding is a 6-inch reveal LP SmartSide with a rough texture (the smooth version has had availability issues, which may be clearing up in the future). The rough texture alternate siding materials have not been approved for use on historic homes. It has been approved for use on a historic shed. The application material mentions the siding was chosen to match the existing garden shed. There is a photo included showing the rough texture of the cedar siding used on the garden shed. The rough cedar siding used would likely not have been used on a house. Staff is not sure if it was used on a carriage barn or similar. The divided grid windows on the proposed service and garage doors appear to be on the outside of the glass. They are not replications of any similar existing patterns on any know accessory structure or house glass. Since the structure is new construction, matching exact details is not required or encouraged. Usually when grids are not required for matching a historic replacement, they should be plain glass without grids to avoid providing false history. The proposed service and garage doors are very identifiable as commercially available modern doors. Similar doors were used on a garage constructed at 205 7th Street West, which was used as a good example of new construction in the Design Guidelines. A simple and appropriate gooseneck light fixture is proposed above each overhead door. The proposal meets zoning requirements. Applicant materials attached Trevor and Christi Johnson 319 2nd St. W HPC Request for Demolition of Old Shed and Concept Approval for Future Garage Construction Revision Date: 12/13/23 Reason for Application: Our property remains an owner-occupied single-family residence but does not yet have a garage. We would like to construct a garage on our property and the shed is located in the most logical location for one as there is adequate space, it is in the back corner of the lot, and it will not obscure the street view of the home from either 2nd St. (front of home) or Ashland (side street west of property). We believe the SE corner of the lot, where the shed is located, would have minimal impact to the appearance or historical integrity of the property. We are requesting approval to remove the existing shed and construct a garage in its place. Existing Shed Information: Location: SE Corner of lot, directly on the south property line and adjacent to the alley. Dimensions: 31ft long x 12 ½ ft wide 319 2nd St W – Subject Shed Circled in Red This Location Would be Ideal for Construction of Residential Garage Property and Subject Shed – Viewed From Northeast (2nd St.) Age: Age of the shed is not certain, but a structure of the same approximate shape and location is shown on old Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps dating back to 1884, so it is possible this is the same building. (See below.) March 1884 Sanborn Fire Map – Subject Shed Circled in Red Other Considerations: From an appearance standpoint, the shed does not contribute much to the historical integrity of the property. It is relatively non-descript and does not have any architecturally significant features or evidence of historically unique use. It appears to just be a basic wood frame storage shed with more recently installed siding. Subject Shed – Viewed From Southwest Corner Subject Shed – Viewed From Southeast (Alley) Subject Shed – Viewed From Northwest From a purely economic or usefulness perspective, the shed has limited value. It is too small for use as a garage and lacks an overhead door, and the existing floor is a thin concrete slab that would not hold up to the weight of a vehicle. It is really just suitable as a general storage space for lawn and garden type items or miscellaneous building materials. We have given consideration to renovating and expanding the shed to convert it into a garage, but the cost of that would be impractical. It would require lifting the existing structure to set it on suitable footings (it is currently just untreated timbers set at grade) and potentially increasing the sidewall height to achieve the necessary height for a vehicle, as well as significant modification to the structure to expand it (it would need to be approximately doubled in width to serve as a two-car garage) and accommodate overhead doors. Additionally, the cracking slab would have to be removed from inside the building and replaced with a thicker one to support the load of parked vehicles (see photos below). All of this would require far more labor, complexity, and money than demolition and replacement of the existing shed with a new garage. Interior of Shed – Existing Concrete Slab Needs to Be Replaced Interior of Shed – Existing Concrete Slab is Not Sufficient to Support Vehicles Although preservation and repurposing of the existing shed in its current form does not seem to be a practical solution, we do intend to repurpose any older wood members that are salvageable for use on the interior of the new garage to preserve a sense of the original structure. Proposed Concept for Garage The proposed structure is a 2+ car garage located in the Southeast corner of the lot with minimum required 5 ft setback from the south (alley) and a 7ft setback from the east lot line. Dimensions are proposed as 35 ft long (east to west) and 26ft wide (north to south). Sidewalls would be 9ft high and total roof height would be 16 ft, utilizing attic trusses for some storage space up above. The garage doors would be on the west side (2 single car overhead doors) with a service door on the north side. A wooden door would be located in the attic to allow longer items (such as canoes or kayaks) to be taken in and out for seasonal storage. A site plan for the new garage is below, also showing the driveway located west of the garage. Driveway will be gravel with a concrete apron immediately in front (west) of the garage. Also note that the existing fence around the southeast portion of the yard (shown in yellow dashed line) would need to be reconfigured to accommodate the new layout. The proposed new fence location is shown in red. There would be no change to the fence materials, it would simply be a new configuration as shown. Additionally, there would be a new cement sidewalk (shown in gray) from the back door of the house to the service door of the garage on the west end of the north wall. Dimensioned sketches of the building are below. Siding is proposed as LP SmartSide or similar lap siding, which looks like cedar but is a manufactured wood composite product. Installation would be with a 6 inch reveal to match adjacent garden shed (pictured below). Exterior trim would be 1”x4” (actual width 3 ½”) LP SmartSide boards. This includes trim around windows and doors as well as the vertical trim at the corners of the building (similar in style to the adjacent garden shed shown above) and the freeze board that butts up against the soffits at the top of each wall. Product information on the siding and trim is below. Roof is proposed as architectural asphalt shingles to match house. First story windows are awning style, proposed as Andersen 100 series. Color is Sandtone to match the exterior window color of the house. Image of windows is shown below. These are very similar in style and appearance to the windows in the existing shed. Attic window on east wall is proposed as an Andersen 100 series single-hung, also with Sandtone color exterior. Image is below. Garage door style is proposed below. Doors would be as shown or very similar. There would be two doors located on the west wall of the garage. Service door proposed style is shown below. Door will be located on west side of North Wall of Garage. Door will be model shown below or very similar. Proposed exterior lighting style is shown below. Fixtures will be this model or very similar. Additional question for the commission if this proposal is approved – are solar panels permitted on auxiliary structures? Applicants are interested in looking into the costs and pay-back of installing solar panels on the south side of a future garage. This would be facing the alley and not visible from either the front or side streets and would help offset the high utility usage of the historic home. This has not yet been evaluated in depth but would be of interest to us. If demolition of the shed and the proposed concept for a garage is approved, we will move forward with formal drawings and permitting.