Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Packet 07-16-2024HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Agenda for Meeting of July 16, 2024 Regular business at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall in the Volunteer Room I. Call to Order and Quorum H. Minutes: A. June 18, 2024 III. Certificate of Approval Review — Public Hearing A. 315 7th St W — Historic house demolition B. 413 2nd St W — Relocate adjacent house as a two -car garage IV. Certificate of Approval Review A. 215 7th St W — Porch modifications B. 618 Ramsey St — Fencing C. 221 Sibley St — Add 6 basement unit exhaust ports in exterior walls V. OHDS — Original Hastings Design Standards Review VI. Business and Information A. Mailing notification discussion VII. Adjourn The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on August 20, 2024 at Hastings City Hall HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting of June 18, 2024 Held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, Volunteer Room I. Call to Order and Quorum Youngren, Peterson, McCoy, Bremer, Simacek, and Toppin Absent, Borchardt, Alitz Edell, and Smith Staff: Fortney II. Minutes: A. May 21, 2024 Approved by Chair Toppin III. Certificate of Approval Review A. 413 2nd St W — Relocate a garage — Concept Review. Fortney presented the staff report. Fred Weiland, applicant, explained that he wanted to move a house that was formerly a barn from 415 2nd Street West to just west of his house at 413 2nd Street West. He said it just over 700 square feet and would be set on a floating concrete slab. Fortney said the move would require a public hearing for the next meeting in July. Commissioner Peterson asked if any trees would need to be removed. Weiland responded that he hopes to avoid the removal of any trees. Commissioners asked questions about orientation and location. Commissioners did not share any specific concerns with the general concept. The applicant is intending to apply for a Certificate of Approval for the July 16, 2024 HPC meeting. B. 312 2nd Street W — Siding trim Fortney presented the staff report. He added that the contractor led the homeowner to believe the subject work was necessary due to pending weather last year and this spring they would fix it correctly. Since then, the contractor said the insurance company reviewed the work and believes it was adequate as a permanent change. Commissioner Simacek said the added trim is not the original design but is sometimes done on modern homes to repair deteriorated cement board ends where they are near the roof. He added that the corner boards should not have been cut and is the main reason the work looks so poor. Motion by Commissioner Bremer to deny the request based on the following findings of fact, seconded by Commissioner Peterson. Approved 7-0 - The Design Guidelines require repair and maintenance of clapboard siding. - Replacement of damaged clapboards with new wood materials to match the old is allowed as necessary. - The Design Guidelines only allow additional trim details to be added if supported by historic photos or pattern book sources. Chair Toppin said in the future when a roofing permit is approved, it should come with a full notice that the property is designated as a Heritage Preservation Site and HPC approval is required for any related work that may come up during the project. She added that the roofers doing the work may not even be aware the home is designated. IV. OHDS — Original Hastings Design Standards Review V. Business and Information VI. Adjourn Motion by Commissioner McCoy to adjourn at 8:05 pm, seconded by Commissioner Simacek. Approved 5-0 Respectfully Submitted - Justin Fortney CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 315 7th Street West. Beth Majeski — Demolish house Ca. 1885 (1890's), Old Hastings Historic District Request: The applicant is proposing to demolish the house. The applicant originally stated she intended to rehabilitate the structure. After discussing the proposal with the City Building Official, he required plans from an architect directing the repairs. A designer with the Design Connection provided the attached June 6, 2024, letter, which was eventually accepted by the building official after a licensed architect added their signature. In response, the Building Official condemned the structure. Shortly after, the applicant applied for demolition, stating on the application, due to being condemned. A condemned building cannot be occupied or used until the conditions that caused the condemnation are corrected. Ordinance: 30.10 Heritage Preservation Commission F.5.c. Destruction, Demolition, Or Removal. Before approving a certificate that involves destruction or removal, in whole or in part, of any site or property within a district or nominated property, the Commission shall 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." Staff Findings The house is relatively small and retains many original features such as windows. It was owned for some time by an individual who was slowly rehabilitating it until he stopped, eventually the home changed hands. He had replaced the roof, gutted the interior, and temporarily shored up a rear wall. A 1997 Historic Resources Survey by Carole Zellie with Landscape Research states the 1896 map of Hastings shows the home here at that time. The survey states that the home may be an early twentieth century reworking of an earlier house. Their statement of significance was that it is a well conserved house, likely nineteenth century, in an area of houses dating from ca. 1860 to 1920. The HPC Ordinance describes the requirements necessary for the HPC approve the demolition of a structure that is listed as a local Heritage Preservation site. The HPC must make findings that destruction is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property or that there are no reasonable alternatives to the destruction. Staff has not seen, and the applicant has not presented any evidence that there are conditions so dangerous that they must be addressed by demolition. Every issue listed has a repair or replacement method that can be safely completed. Damage from storms or fire can often leave a structure in such a condition that repairs cannot safely be made, and demolition is the only way to correct the situation. Findings for demolition can also be made that there are no reasonable alternatives to the destruction. The ordinance explains that the following may be considered in that determination: 1. The structure has no historical integrity, and or; 2. There is no economic value of the structure, and or; 3. The structure is not useful, which may include current/ alternative uses or costs of renovation. This required information was explained to the applicant and designer and the response was another letter from the designer listing very general building system replacement recommendations and his opinion to demolish the structure. The HPC is very familiar with major repairs and rehabilitations, having recently overseen several major rehabilitation project including a very small, distressed home that was originally constructed as a jail, a home across the street from the subject property that was similarly neglected for over a decade and two others that were on fire and doused completely with water. All four of those required extensive work and there were individuals that strongly suggested they be demolished prior to involvement of individuals with practical experience rehabilitating distressed buildings. This does not necessarily mean that every structure can feasibly be rehabilitated, but it is clear that a list of structural problems alone doesn't obligate demolition. The missing information necessary to make the required findings is the reason this house and these repairs leaves no reasonable alternatives to the destruction. No information has been provided showing any cost analysis of repairs versus replacement or a description of the usefulness of the structure. Lastly, if specific facts were documented showing complete building systems were necessary to be replaced, what affect would that have on the buildings remaining historic integrity. This information is required to approve a historic demolition and would seem necessary for a property owner have to come to their own conclusion. the dvi esign connection RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND PLANNING July 11, 2024 Beth Majeski Steve Dolman RE: Property at 315 — 7th St W Ms. Majeski/Mr. Dolman: Upon review of the property located at: 315 - 7th Street in Hastings, MN my observation is that there is nothing that can be done to preserve or correct the structural issues of the home. The foundation is not able to be preserved and would need to be completely removed and replaced. Every part of this property must be reconstructed to be safely used. With the house sitting gutted for the last 16" +/- years and not certain how closed the structure has been we are very concerned with conditions and possible saturation of current exposed floor, under slab & footings. If the foundation were to be replaced, we may need to remove all current soil and re-engineer for new footings, foundation and floor slab. The current floor and exterior walls for the main level being exposed have dry rot and the floor, rim & walls will need to be completed demoed and replaced. The walls of the structure are built before codes we used, and no headers are above windows and minimal if any space to install required. The roof structure has been repaired and not completed per MN Building Codes. The rafter dry rot will also require compete replacement of the existing roof structure, so the current roofing is not able to be saved. We currently are not able as MN Building Code approved Design Professional, Architects or Engineers willing to allow our liability or insurance to be used on this project. In conclusion there is nothing salvageable about this property. The most effective path forward for the safety of all in the vicinity would be to condemn the property and start with new construction to provide the safest, most cost-effective solution. Sincerely, -4/ Aaron J. Thompson The Design Connection — We Design With you, 2Cor 5:20 1652 Greenview Drive SW, Rochester MN 55902, Ph: 507-286-7869, 8265 179th St Clearwater, MN 55320 Email: info@thedesignconnection.net "1e [lesign connection RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND PLANNING June 6, 2024 Beth Majeski Steve Dolman RE: Property at 315 — 7th St W Ms. Majeski/Mr. Dolman: Upon review of the property located at: 315 - 7th Street in Hastings, MN my observation is that there is nothing that can be done to preserve or correct the structural issues of the home. The foundation is not able to be preserved and would need to be completely removed and replaced. Every part of this property must be reconstructed to be safely used. In conclusion there is nothing salvageable about this property. The most effective path forward for the safety of all in the vicinity would be to condemn the property and start with new construction to provide the safest, most cost-effective solution. Sincerely, Aaron J. Thompson 746S°2) -hrlts Wnescyl , .Q>rcJ/l fr' 1- k/4- 40 1 The Design Connection — We Design With you, 2Cor 5:20 1652 Greenview Drive SW, Rochester MN 55902, Ph: 507-286-7869, 8265 179th St Clearwater, MN 55320 Email: info@thedesignconnection.net the design connection RESIDENTIAL DES GN AND PLANNING June 6, 2024 Beth Majeski Steve Dolman RE: Property at 315 — 7th St W Ms. Majeski/Mr. Dolman: Upon review of the property located at: 315 - 7th Street in Hastings, MN my observation is that there is nothing that can be done to preserve or correct the structural issues of the home. The foundation is not able to be preserved and would need to be completely removed and replaced. Every part of this property must be reconstructed to be safely used. In conclusion there is nothing salvageable about this property. The most effective path forward for the safety of all in the vicinity would be to condemn the property and start with new construction to provide the safest, most cost-effective solution. Sincerely, Aaron J. Thompson The Design Connection — We Design With you, 2Cor 5:20 1652 Greenview Drive SW, Rochester MN 55902, Ph: 507-286-7869, 8265 179th St Clearwater, MN 55320 Email: info@thedesignconnection.net CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL APPLICATION 7-2024 413 2nd Street West — Fred Weiland Ca. 1875, 2nd Street West Historic District, NR Request: Move a structure from 415 2nd Street West, which is behind the subject proprty and is not designated. The single story structur will be removed from its foundation and set on a proposed floating concerete slab just west of the large white Henry Hudson Pringle House at 413 2nd Street West. The small addition on the house will be removed along with the inner house walls and floor. The relocated house (32'6" x 24'4") will be convirted to a two car garage with the overhead door facing south. The applicant does not belive any trees would require removal. Design Guidelines - Residential Guideline 10: Garages and Accessory Structures — Pg. 30 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. Staff findings: The structure is old but has little integrity and is not designated as a local Heritage Preservation Site. No authorization is required by the HPC for it to be removed from the property. The Design Guidelines for a new garage should be applied to the proposal review. The Guidelines do not say that garages cannot be in a front, only that they should not be attached to the front, and they should be in locations compatible with the main structure. The structure size and appearance seem compatible with the main structure. There are several side street garages in the historic districts, which are on more typical lots that are long and narrow. Those garages are generally in the rear of the lot but facing the side street. The proposed garage would be on the side of the house but with rear facing garage doors. Locating the garage further back would be less obtrusive. The location is at a lower elevation than the house and it is separated by about 15 to 20 -feet. The subject lot is on a corner, although Forest Street does not extend past this property and extension is not possible due to grade. More information would be required to approve specific details like garage doors. Proposed digital rendering by staff CERTIFICATE APPLICATION April 2024 215 7th Street W. Brian and Dayna Nosan Owners — changes to front porch Ca. 1869, Old Hasting Historic District- contributing Request: The applicant is proposing to make the following changes to the porch: 1. Replace the existing wood porch flooring with AZEK Timbertech PVC tongue and groove boards. 2. Cover the base of the columns, skirting, and stone with composite trim, siding, and skirting (James Harde cement based products) 3. Remove the concrete stairs and build new wooden stairs in the original stairway location that lines up with the front door and stone foundation. The steps will match the flooring products and deck skirting materials. 4. The surrounding grade will be brought up slightly to avoid the necessity of railings. Ordinance, Guidelines Residential Guideline 7: Porches and Steps 1. Maintain and Conserve - Porches, steps, and handrails that are appropriate to the building and its architectural development should be conserved and retained. 2. Repair and Replacement - Historic porches, steps, or handrails that require complete rebuilding or partial replacement should be reconstructed using historical research to determine an appropriate design. Reconstructions should be compatible with the period and style of the building in material, design, and detail. Concrete should not be used to replace wooden porch floors or steps. 3. Railings - The original spacing, section, and profile of railings and balusters should be maintained in replacement or repair. Unless historical evidence indicates, reconstruction should include a bottom rail and balusters should not be nailed directly to the step or deck. Metal railings should not be used to replace wooden railings. 4. Posts and Columns - If replacement is necessary, porch posts and columns should be replaced with units that replicate the original materials, size, and scale. Elaborate details such as carving, turning, gouging, or stamping may be simplified if necessary. Wooden posts should not be replaced with metal posts or supports. Staff Findings 1. The existing tongue and groove flooring boards are in fair shape without any obvious rot. Many boards are loose and buckled. The Guidelines generally allow alternate materials when it does not affect the appearance. The proposed flooring would likely have a similar appearance of wood flooring if it were painted. The proposed product is probably not meant to be painted. In general, staff has heard from homeowners they have not been satisfied with modern wood tongue and groove floorboards. They have commented that they are expensive, have issues with splitting, rotting, and warping, even with pressure treated varieties. While the proposed product is likely to not be painted, the floor of a porch is not highly visible from a distance. The material would likely look more authentic than standard wood deck boards that have been put on some old porches. 2. At some point the home's foundation was probably replaced with concrete block including under the porch. Bricks were also added on the front of the porch and as a base for the wood columns. These hollow rock faced blocks were commonly made with a block making machine sold by Sears from 1910 to the 1920's. The machines could have been used longer but cheaper and lighter commercial blocks were available by then. This is not a traditional design for a home from 1869 but may have acquired historic significance in its own right. Covering it up with skirting and molding may look more original but would be hiding 100 years of history. Architecturally speaking, heavy materials should be located on the bottom and transition to lighter as you go up. Like stone, bricks, then wood or thick lumber, medium, to thin. There should not be columns sitting over skirting of latus or vertical boards. The concrete should be left visible under the columns or pier covers should be incorporated. (pictures on last page) 3. The existing concrete steps are not an appropriate material or location. The proposed steps are likely in the original location and their appearance would match the porch. 4. The ground should be subtly graded so it doesn't appear that a berm was created just to avoid railing requirements. It does not appear to be well ventilated under the porch. Ventilation will help the framing last longer. 2. crown molding wrapping and covering existing brick column base, using James Hardier' trim roposed Ski ing ttr mhiAoard (using 1 If skirting is approved, conditions to consider: Option to not cover block under the posts. This also allows the later historic blocks to remain partly visible. Option to add pier covers under each post CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 618 Ramsey Street. Add two fence panels. Ca. 1875, Old Hasting Historic District - Request: The applicant is proposing to add two dog eared fence panels to match existing. May 2024 Ordinance, Guidelines Residential Guideline 11: Fences and Walls 2. New Fences New fences should be compatible with the architectural character, materials, and scale of the principal building and surrounding streetscape. Fences enclosing the front yard should be semi -transparent. Appropriate materials include wrought iron and painted wooden pickets. In general, complete enclosure by opaque fences is not appropriate. 3. Fences that allow some visual penetration of front yard space are preferable to complete enclosure. Chain link fences should not be used to enclose front yards or the front half of side yards. Residential Guideline 6: Decorative Trim 3. Repair and Replacement New material used to repair or replace deteriorated trim or other features should match the original as closely as possible. Deteriorated trim that is unsalvageable should be replaced with trim identical or similar to the original design. Staff Findings The fence panels are at the rear of the house and match existing. Proposed new tence segment placement r°posed new Pence segment placement Segment of neighbor's existing fence - fence boards are 611 tall, 53/8 inches wide North_House to Existing FenceJPG 7/3/2024 • • CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 7-2024 221 Sibley Street. Luke Hafstad, Hafstad Real Estate LLC— basement unit exhaust venting Ca. 1881, East 2nd Street Historic District, National Register Request: The applicant is proposing to refinish the basement with three apartment units. The building code requires them to each have two 6 -inch exhaust duct vents (six total). They are for bathroom and stove hood venting. The location options are limited based on length of the duct run and having finished floors above that make routing to the roof unfeasible. There are three possible locations for the vents. The applicant has chosen the first one as his preference. 1. In the front of the building in the wooden bulkhead between the sidewalk and windows. Four on the right side and two on the left side. The groups of vents would be covered by a metal hood painted to partially conceal them. The existing vent grates are located here and will be removed. Building code requires the new proposed vent style. 2. The two basement windows facing 3rd Street East. would be removed and filled in with wood or similar. Two vents would be installed in each space. They could also be covered by a painted for aesthetics. Two vents would still be necessary on the front left bulkhead. 3. All six vents located in a group in the back of the building, about four feet above the porch roof, just below the fire escape. This would require an internal routing of the venting to the main level, which would eliminate a tenant's pantry. A large square would be removed, or six tightly spaced holes would be cut/ drilled through the thick brick wall. 4. An air intake grate is proposed on the ceiling of a rear basement entryway. 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 be removed. 6. Windows Conserve the original appearance of historic windows. Windows should not be filled in with wood, brick, or any other material. Staff Findings There are no specific guidelines for mechanical equipment other than if placed on a roof, it should be kept back to not be visible from the ground. There are guidelines opposing the filling in a window. General principals of preservation are to maintain and repair, limit removal of historic material, don't add or remove architectural features, and changes should be discreet. 1. The front of the building is the most important elevation and adding equipment should be avoided if possible. The positive aspect of this location is the wooden bulkhead has certainly been replaced over the years and can be repaired easily. The installation of the exhaust vents will include removal of the existing two vent grates, flower boxes, and some electrical equipment. The proposed flashing hood over the vents should tie them into the bulkhead and not be as noticeable. Staff asked the applicant to provide something more descriptive by the meeting for this custom hood. 2. The Design Guidelines clearly oppose filling in windows, especially on a street elevation. This option would still require two vents on the left side of the front. Two locations would be negatively affected, and the apartment units would lose two of the few basement windows. 3. The rear of the building has a lot of equipment and is visible from 3rd Street East. The routing of the vents through the building will impact the space. Six holes or possibly a large rectangle will remove a lot of material from the building in a specific location. Any penetration can compromise adjacent materials and allow moisture to infiltrate the masonry. There are currently several randomly placed vents in the rear. Brick and mortar deterioration is visible around some of these, possibly from the original installation, weather infiltration, and or moisture from the vents themselves. The brick walls are also structural and that much material removal will certainly not be helpful. 4. An air intake grate would not be visible. I'll only a Proposed exhaust vent - Broan Model 641 6" round duct, Spring-loaded backdraft damper, and bird screen, For 6" round duct, Spring-loaded backdraft damper, and bird screen 1936 Option #1 two vents on this left side And four vents on the right side Removal of Items marked with "X" , �.. E.u• YCiL, 9R,=VFk Option 2, remove both basement windows, fill them with wood and install two exhaust vents in each. The front would still require two vents on the left side of the building Install all six on in the brick above the porch roof, below the stairwell. ince 1857 Hastings MINNESOTA To: Heritage Preservation Commission From: Justin Fortney, City Planner Date: July 16, 2024 Item: Designated Property Notice Heritage Preservation Commission Memorandum HPC Action Requested: Review the past HPC informational letters and post cards sent to the owners of designated properties and provide direction for the next communication. Background Information: Staff sends out a friendly reminder to designated property owners every so often as a reminder of the review process, provided notice to new property owners, and provide any applicable resources. Staff is looking for input for a new mailing. Below are examples of past letters and postcards. Postcards have usually been done due to cost, assurance the most vital information will be read, and possibly kept for reference. Historic Preservation Conunission 101 4th Street East Hastings Minnesota 55033 Dear Historic Property Owner, Permits for alterations. demolitions, or moving of residential and commercial historic properties require a Certificate of Approval issued by the Hastings Historic Preservation Commission or staff. Before making any exterior improvements to your historic property --including roofing, siding, windows, doors, tuck pointing, additions, fences, retaining walls, porches, pergolas, decks, and accessory buildings --visit the HPC website at www.hastingsrnn.gov or call Justin Fortney, City Planner at (651) 480-2350 for information and assistance, Thank you for your preservation efforts! ince 1857 Haslm Owner's name Owner's address Hastings MN 55033 Historic Preservation Commission 101 4th Street East Hastings M,1iimesota 55033 Dear Historic Property Owner, Thank you for preserving your historic property for your community. As you may know, a Certificate of Approval issued by the Hastings Heritage Preservation Commission or staff is necessary prior to making any alterations affecting the exterior appearance of designated properties_ The city offers low interest loans for historic property owners and can always provide project guidance. For more information, «AddressElock>) please call Justin Fortney, City Planner at (6 1) 4S0-2381 or visit u_hastingsmn.gov Thank you for your preservation efforts! Before making exterior improvements to your historic property --including roofing, cupolas, dormers, siding, windows, doors, masonry cleaning, additions, new construction, fences, gates, hedges, retaining walls, porches, pergolas, decks, garages, carriage houses and outbuildings --visit the HPC website at www.ci.hastings.mn_us or call Justin Fortney (Heritage Preservations Specialist) at (651) 480-2381 for information and assistance. Residential and commercial perrnits for alterations, demolitions, or moving of historic properties require a Certificate of Approval issued by the Historic Preservation Commission_ Historic Preservation Commission 104 East lth Street Hastings, Minnesota 55033 Postage Here Properly Address Here Postcard side 2 Letter Example THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING TO MAINTAIN YOUR HISTORIC PROPERTY This letter is an annual reminder that your property is designated as a Heritage Preservation Site because it is regarded as an irreplaceable asset to the City of Hastings. The current owner of the property is the addressee of this letter. The enclosed map, application for Certificate of Approval, and following frequently asked questions have been included to re -familiarize you with historic properties and the process for making changes to them. Why are properties and districts designated as historic? The City designates properties and districts to preserve and maintain the historic character of the building or neighborhood. Hastings is proud of its historic areas and buildings and is committed to their continued preservation. What changes to my historic property must be approved by the City? Generally, any change in appearance of an individual historic property or district including: Exterior alteration Structure relocation Structure removal Signage New construction Structure addition Structure demolition Fencing In the Downtown Historic District tin ceiling changes and the painting of masonry also need approval. What is the process for making changes to my historic property? It is beneficial to property owners to begin any project by consulting a Heritage Preservation Staff person (651-480-2381) to discus any changes to a historic property. When an applicant applies for a building permit for any of the previously mentioned changes, an application for a Certificate of Approval must also be submitted. Building permits cannot be issued before a "Certificate of Approval" from the HPC is completed. How do I apply for a Certificate of Approval? An Application for Certificate of Approval is enclosed. The application outlines what type of work requires examples, photographs, and drawings of the current appearance and the proposed change. Bring or mail it to, attention HPC, City Hall, 101 E. 4th Street, Hastings MN 55033 by the second Tuesday of the month to be considered at the next meeting. Please call with questions, or would like to discuss the application prior to submittal. (651-480- 2381)