Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Packet 01-16-2024HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Agenda for Meeting of January 16, 2024 Regular business at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall in the Volunteer Room I. Call to Order and Quorum II. Elect Chair and Vice Chairs III. Minutes: A. December 19, 2023 IV. Certificate of Approval Review A. 221 Sibley Street – Signboard and florescent light removal B. 319 2nd Street W – New garage amendment C. 101 2nd Street E – New residential entry D. Review existing city codes and preservation practices related to solar panels V. OHDS – Original Hastings Design Standards Review VI. Business and Information VII. Adjourn The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on February 20, 2024 at Hastings City Hall HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting of December 19, 2023 Held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, Volunteer Room I. Call to Order and Quorum Youngren, McCoy, Bremer, Simacek, Borchardt, Toppin, and Alitz Edell. Absent: Smith and Peterson Staff: Fortney II. Oath of Office A. Commissioners Toppin, McCoy, and Borchardt took the oath of office for new three year terms. III. Consider Adding Item B to the Agenda A. 320 7th Street E – New storm doors, porch roof, screened porch, and front gutters. Motion by Commissioner Borchardt to add the item (V.B.) to the agenda, seconded by Commissioner Bremer. Approved 7-0 IV. Minutes: A. November 21, 2023 Approved by Chair Toppin V. Certificate of Approval Review A. 319 2nd Street W – Shed demolition and new garage Fortney presented the demolition request. He said the shed is likely an original and historic structure. He said there is evidence from construction and its depiction on all the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. He added that it has had major alterations including siding and a concrete floor poured around all the posts. He said the floor is severely in need of replacement, which may require removal of the building. He added that the location of the shed preludes the location of a new garage on the site without plan modifications or removal of mature Oak trees and blocking the view of the house. Commissioner Borchardt said the shed doesn’t contribute to the integrity of the house. Forney said they entire parcel is designated within the West 2nd Street Historic District and there is strong evidence that it could be an early structure which would contribute to the property, even if not a principal structure. Motion by Commissioner Borchardt, second by Commissioner McCoy to approve the demolition of the shed based on the following findings of fact. Approved 7-0 - The structure has major issues with the floor being cracked and heaved. The structures posts are imbedded in or through the concrete making repairs very difficult. - The structure has little usefulness due to its size and shape, which is very small and narrow. - The structure location would not allow for placement of a functional garage. Fortney presented the proposed new garage proposal. Commissioners Simacek and Bremer questioned the reason for the two foot exposure of cement block at the lower walls. Trevor Johnson, applicant, said the site is flat and water drainage has been an issue, in addition to snowbanks being pushed up to the area from alley plowing. Commissioner Alitz Edell commented that she would prefer wood siding and double hung windows similar to the house. Fortney explained that the Design Guidelines allow alternat materials where historic materials must be removed due to damage and for new construction. The Guidelines specify that the alternate materials must replicate the original or historic appearance in texture, size and dimension. Chair Toppin questioned the proposed high awning windows on the north side and suggested double hung windows to match the garden shed. Johnson said he liked that idea for the north side but wanted to utilize high awning windows for the alley side. Motion by Commissioner Borchardt to approve the garage as proposed with the following conditions, seconded by Commissioner Youngren. Approved 6-1 nay (Alitz Edell) - The north windows to be double hung with a grid pattern to match the garden shed. B. 320 7th Street E – New storm doors, porch roof, screened porch, and front gutters. Fortney presented the staff report. Commissioner Borchardt said it is good that the proposed screen door doesn’t conceal the door. Commissioner Bremer commented that the metal roof was appropriate if it were a similar color to the main roof. Commissioner Simacek stated it was also appropriate if the standing seem were a lower of the available styles. Commissioner Alitz Edell commented that porch screens block the traditional openness of the porch. Fortney said some screen material can maintain the visibility better than others. Chair Toppin said there is photographical evidence of screening on poches going back very far. Commissioner Youngren said screens were used on the LeDuc Mansion. Motion by Simacek to approve the storm door, seconded by Commissioner Youngren. Approved 7-0. Motion by Commissioner Bremer to approve the porch screens, seconded by Commissioner Youngren. Approved 6-1 nay (Alitz Edell) Motion by Commissioner Simacek to approve the standing seam metal porch roof with a standing seem as low as possible, seconded by Commissioner Alitz Edell. Approved 7-0. Motion by Commissioner Bremer to approve the gutters, seconded by Commissioner Alitz Edell. Approved 7-0. C. 221 Sibley Street – Tabled - New window. Fortney presented the staff report and explained the Design Guidelines state windows should be repaired rather than replaced if possible. He added that these windows have a lot of rot but have also been incredibly altered, making repair very difficult. Approved 7-0 Motion by Commissioner Alitz Edell to approve the replacement window with a custom built two over two wood window as proposed, seconded by Commissioner Borchardt. Approved 7-0. D. 215 Sibley Street – Rear stairway removal. Fortney presented the staff report. Commissioners discussed the need for the stairway. Fortney explained the applicant does not intend to use the apartment and may rebuild the lower stairs. He explained the Building Safety Department will review for code compliance and any rebuilding would need to be reviewed by the HPC. Fortney added that staff has been informing the applicant to discuss the necessity of the stars with the Building Official. Commissioner Youngren asked if damage to the buildings from the demolition would need to be conditioned on approval. Fortney said it could be a condition but is already required with the demolition permit. Motion by Commissioner Youngren to approve the limited stair and ramp demolition with the following conditions, seconded by Commissioner Borchardt. Approved 7-0. - A demolition permit must be obtained from the City of Hastings Building Safety Department. - Any future construction of stairs, ramps, or window and door replacement or infill must be approved by the HPC. VI. OHDS – Original Hastings Design Standards Review VII. Business and Information VIII. Adjourn 8:27 pm Adjourned 7-0 Respectfully Submitted - Justin Fortney CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 1-2024 221 Sibley Street. Luke Hafstad, Hafstad Real Estate LLC– Signboard and light Removal Ca. 1881, East 2nd Street Historic District, National Register Request: The applicant is proposing to remove the unused and slightly dilapidated signboard and florescent lighting from the front of the building. Ordinance, Guidelines Design Guidelines (Page 37) Commercial 4. Removal of Non-historic Features Consider the removal of past inappropriate alterations. Siding, signs, canopies, filler panels of plank or shingles, stucco, concrete or glass block, and fiberglass are among inappropriate materials that may removed. Staff Findings The large steel framed signboard and fluorescent lighting appear to have been on the building for many years. It has not been used for a signage for at least 15 years. It is welded to a steel beam imbedded in the façade. The signboard has no historical value and hides architectural features. 1936 CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 1-2024 319 2nd Street W. Trevor & Christi Johnson –Approved garage door height change Ca. 1888, Old Hastings Historic District- Contributing and National Register District Requests: The applicants are proposing to increase the garage door height from seven to eight feet tall. Staff findings Both seven and eight feet tall garage doors are standard heights. This will likely not change the appearance of the structure. The proposed garage sidewall height (9’) and overall height (16’) will not change. Approved CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 1-2024 101 2nd Street E Mark Simacek, Stotko Speedling Construction. Melecio Properties Llc New east entry to residential stairwell. Ca. 1928, East 2nd Street Historic District- Contributing Request: The applicant is asking for approval to remove the existing entry to the residential stairwell, including the wood door, transom window, and frame. They propose installation of an all new aluminum frame storefront door and transom similar to the commercial restaurant storefront installed in 2014. From the applicant: We are proposing the replacement of the Apartment entry for multiple reasons. 1. The existing door, transom and door frame have considerable rotting and the frame no longer has any structural properties to provide any anchoring points for new strike and hinges for a secure entry. 2. The existing door is not weather proof or have any insulating properties 3. The joints of the door rails and stiles are all separating 4. All of the paint is in very poor condition, likely positive for lead paint, and the wood underneath it is deteriorated and wouldn’t allow for paint removal and replacement. 5. All of the glass is single pane non insulated and there is no indication that it is tempered glass. 6. The door currently has a cover plate over the door lockset from multiple changes in machining and hardware on the door over the years. 7. The existing door does not allow for the installation of a keyless entry system for security of the apartments that this door will access. 8. To match the door and storefront of the Lock and Dam restaurant (installed in 2014) which are all part of the same building. Design Guidelines Page 37, 38 5: Historic Commercial Buildings: General Guidelines 6. Windows Conserve the original appearance of historic windows Sash: 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. Crank out units are not appropriate replacements for double-hung sash. Whenever possible, choose new units of wood, rather than metal. If metal is selected, it must have a baked enamel or other appropriate factory finish. Trim: Retain all decorative trim around the windows, including lintels, pediments, and hood. If replacement is necessary the original profile should be replicated. (similar guideline also listed under doors) 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. c. Entrances Historic doors (and hardware) should be repaired rather than replaced. If replacement of original or historic doors is necessary, the replacement should be compatible with the material, design, and hardware of the older door. If there are no historic models available, the new door should be of simple design with a single-light design Residencial Guideline 4: Windows 3. 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. Staff findings: the original storefront was demolished and constructed into a storefront resembling paddlewheel-style boat. In 2014 that nostalgic but inappropriate storefront was proposed for demolition and a modern storefront was proposed. The HPC approved the request because there was no historic material to conserve or to replicate. Other modern aluminum storefronts were approved for similar reasons. Older aluminum storefronts were installed prior to designation and review requirements. The existing entry appears original and contains historical integrity. Every HPC review is based on its own merits to assure consistency and compliance with the Design Guidelines. It is appropriate and consistent to approve non-historic storefronts where there are already non-historic storefronts. It is similarly appropriate and consistent to maintain, repair, and replicate historic storefronts. Replacement of a non-historic storefront does not create precedence for replacement of one that is historic. The Design Guideline #7 above states that “All historic entry and storefront components should be retained” The entry and transom appear to need general maintenance including window glazing and painting. There are some areas of wood rot on the frame and the door joints have loosened. Additionally, the door handle and strike plate areas have been diminished by use and multiple hardware changes. Stopping air infiltration with weatherstripping and the addition of a storm window over the transom will tighten the gap for efficiency, especially considering it is a small entrance in a stairwell. There could be lead based paint on the entry because it is historic. This would not be unique or justification to demolish it or any of the other historic material in the city. The transom window likely is not made of tempered glass. Tempered glass is not required for existing situations and possibly not in the subject location. If tempered glass were preferred, it could be glazed in the existing or similar setting. Staff is aware of many electronic locks used in wooden and historic wooden doors. There is no shortage of electronic lock variants on the market. The work required for maintenance and repair seems feasible. If the HPC were presented evidence that repair was not feasible in comparison to replacement, consideration up to full replacement could be justified. Since there is a historic entry present, staff cannot identify an avenue to replace it with a modern design within the guidelines. Replacement, if justified, must follow the Design Guidelines, which state, “If replacement of original or historic doors is necessary, the replacement should be compatible with the material, design, and hardware of the older door.” Similar guidelines apply to windows and entry trim. The proposed aluminum frame entry does include Some existing design elements but lacks compatible material and hardware of the door, trim, and transom. The internal grids of the proposed transom would not be a sufficient replication. The HPC has never approved internal grids as a replication of replaced historic design. Several years ago, the HPC and City Council amended the Design Guidelines specifically to state that “artificial muntins or grids should at the least be located on the exterior of the window and match the original window design.” Staff believes the entry is original and should be rehabilitated. While there may be a case for some replacement of components, entire demolition and replacement with a modern system is not justifiable. The 2014 modern commercial storefront was approved because the original storefront was previously demolished and there was no way to revert to an original design without documentation. ca 2014 ca 1950 Subject entry 1945 Pioneer Room Photo shows the same entry Subject door Entry Existing storefront approved in 2014 Proposed Entry Pictures of downtown entries provided by the applicant: Same building City Council Memorandum To: Heritage Preservation Commission From: Justin Fortney, City Planner Date: January 16, 2024 Item: City of Hastings Regulations and Preservation Practices for Solar Panels HPC Action Requested: Review information presented. Background Information: From an HPC review standpoint, installing solar panels on a designated property is no different than installing any other item on the property that was not part of the properties original design. Although solar panels are not called out in the Design Guidelines, review of their impact is not different than any other modern change or addition. The historic character of the property and streetscape should not be adversely impacted, and historic materials and architecture should not be removed or damaged. The Planning Department recently adopted zoning regulations pertaining to the placement of solar panels as accessory uses and as community solar gardens. Because of the regulations and properties under HPC jurisdiction, the HPC would likely only review accessory installations. These would typically be solar panels mounted to a roof or wall. Regulations pertaining to situations likely to be encountered by HPC review: 3.General Standards. Solar energy systems in accordance with the standards in this Section are allowed as permitted accessory use in all zoning districts. 1. Applicability. Solar collectors and solar energy systems with a cumulative area of six (6) square feet or less per lot are permitted in all zoning districts and are exempt from the provisions of this Section. Examples of these systems include outdoor accent lighting systems, power supply for traffic control systems, backup power systems during power outages, and similar solar energy systems. Cumulative area is defined as including solar collectors or solar energy systems that are connected to a singular photovoltaic system. 2. Wall Mounted Solar Energy Systems. Wall mounted solar energy systems must be flush with the wall, integrated into the building design, and shall be placed to limit visibility from the public right-of-way or to blend into the wall design, provided that minimizing visibility still allows the property owner to reasonably capture solar energy. Wall mounted solar energy systems shall comply with the minimum setback requirements for the zoning district in which they are located and may not extend into any easements. 3. Roof-Mounted Solar Energy Systems. 1. Roof mounting devices and roof mounted solar energy systems shall be flush mounted to the roof. They may be mounted at an angle to the roof only when flush mounting prevents the reasonable capture of solar energy. 2. Roof-mounted solar energy systems shall not extend beyond the exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted or built as required by Building Code. 3. Roof-mounted solar energy systems shall comply with the maximum height requirements for the zoning district in which they are located. 4. Roof-mounted solar energy systems shall be placed to limit visibility from the public right-of-way or to blend into the roof design, provided that minimizing visibility still allows the property owner to reasonably capture solar energy. 5. Reflection angles from collector surfaces shall be oriented away from neighboring windows. Where necessary, screening may be required to address glare. 4.e. Historic Structures. Solar energy systems on buildings within designated historic districts or locally designated historic buildings must receive approval by the Hastings Heritage Preservation Commission and shall be consistent with the standards for solar energy systems on historically designed buildings published by the U.S. Department of Interior. The NPS (National Park Service) under the U.S. Department of Interior regulates historic preservation on the national level, which invariably trickles down to the local level. They have Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The City of Hastings Design Guidelines are based on these standards. The Standards include many general principles that relate to any work on a historic structure. While they were written prior to the use of some newer materials, techniques, and technology, they remain very applicable. The Standards are not specifically written to apply to any single building item but may apply to a multitude. The NPS Solar Interpretation Bulletin 52, the U.S. Department of Energy/ multiple not for profit preservation organizations paper, and others have identified Standards for Preservation numbers two and nine as being applicable to incorporating solar panels into a historic property. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The NPS has made a technical preservation services explanation of how to best apply the Standards to solar panels when the location is not obviously inappropriate or inconspicuous.