HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Packet 09-16-2025HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Agenda for Meeting of September 16, 2025
Regular business at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall in the Volunteer Room
I.Call to Order and Quorum
II.Minutes:
A.August 19, 2025
III.Certificate of Approval Review
A.315 7th St W –New home Construction
IV.OHDS –Original Hastings Design Standards Review
A.516 & 520 7th Street E –New twin home
V.Business and Information
A.Recap of State Preservation Conference
VI.Adjourn
The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on October 21, 2025 at Hastings City Hall
HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Minutes of the Meeting of August 19,2025
Held at 7:00 p.m.at City Hall,Volunteer Room
I.Call to Order and Quorum
Commissioners present:Bremer,Schilts-Johnson,Simacek,Toppin,Smith,and McCoy
Absent:,Alitz Edell,Peterson,and Borchardt
Staff:Fortney
Chair Bremer called the meeting to order.
II.Minutes:
A.July 15,2025 Approved by Chair Bremer
III.Certificate of Approval Review
A.114 6th Street E –New windows –Tabled
Motion by Commissioner Simacek to remove the item from the table,seconded by
Commissioner Smith.Approved 6-0
Fortney presented the staff report.Eric Perkins,applicant via Zoom Meeting stated they received
a quote for window rehabilitation,which was significantly cheaper than new windows.He added
that the preferred storm windows required are expensive,but retain the historic appearance they
want,have longevity,and are very convenient.He said in total,rehabilitation with new storm
windows would be 12,000 dollars cheaper than replacement but will not account for all the work
necessary and will not repair the front modern windows that have failed,as they are not
repairable.
Commission Chair Bremer asked what would be done with the modern front windows on the
second floor if the windows are rehabilitated.Perkins said they would be left as-is.Commissioner
Schilts-Johnson said since the windows of the principal elevation that are held to a higher
standard are no longer historic,there is more leeway in the Design Guidelines for replacement.
Fortney said the front porch windows are usually good candidates for rehabilitation because they
are protected from the elements.He added in this case,they are within an enclosed porch,which
may technically take them out of the purview of the HPC.
Motion by Commissioner Schilts-Johnson to approve the request for the replacement of 15
windows as presented,seconded by Commissioner McCoy.Approved 6-0
B.120 2nd St E –New window
Fortney presented the staff report.Ben Ubl,applicant said he spent a long time researching the
building in the Pioneer Room and could not locate historic photos of the first-floor windows along
Sibley Street.Fortney said he could not locate any either.Ubl said they want to build a steel
framed window with 8 glass panels.Commissioner Toppin asked if the window would open.Ubl
said the window opening is eight feet tall,and they will modify the dropped ceiling to use the
entire window height.He said they would be concerned with security and window strength of a
wood or an operable window of that size.He said they would like to install windows in all the
enclosed openings someday,but the others may not look through to the store as it is configured
with merchandise shelving.
Fortney said we don’t know what the original windows looked like,but the one existing
replacement window in that row is a double hung wood window,as are most of the downtown
side street windows.Commissioners commented that as a bank,it might have had security needs
for fixed windows.Ubl said the original store was not a bank.
Fortney said the only steel windows he could find downtown were some upper windows in the
armory and in the 1940’s addition to the former HD Hudson Manufacturing building.Fortney said
operational windows were historically important for airflow.
Commissioner Toppin stated concern with so many window opening treatments on that side of
the building.Ubl said they plan to make the other shuttered openings match,and the upper
windows are in very poor condition.He said they will eventually replace those in a way that will
better match.
Motion by Commissioner Smith to approve the request to replace the north shuttered
window along Sibley Street with a custom eight panel steel framed window,seconded by
Commissioner Schilts-Johnson.Approved 6-0
C.623 Tyler St –New fence
Fortney presented the staff report.Commissioner Toppin asked for clarification that the
guidelines require the side fence to be ornamental for the first 15 to 20 feet of the front fence
before transitioning to chain-link.Fortney said that is a technical interpretation,but the intention
was likely to avoid chain-link fences in the front yards.He said the guidelines would allow the
front ornamental fence as proposed or a chain-link fence but,only if held further back to the
midpoint of the home.The commission commented that the proposed layout from the applicant is
preferable to a visible chain-link fence facing the street,even if moved back further.
Motion by Commissioner Toppin to install a fence as proposed,seconded by Commissioner
Simacek.Approved 6-0
D.221 Sibley St –New vents
Fortney presented the staff report.He added that the proposed vent is an exhaust and intake in
one.He added that it is required for a proposed nail station in the new salon.He said it will be in
nonhistorical wood,replaceable,and paintable.
Motion by Commissioner Toppin to install the proposed vent with the condition that it be
painted to match the other vents,seconded by Commissioner Smith.Approved 6-0
IV.OHDS –Original Hastings Design Standards Review
V.Business and Information
A.701 11th St –Century Home plaque request
Fortney presented the staff report.He said the house meets the requirements of the program and
the documentation proves it is over 100 years old.He added that the home appears to be in great
condition.Commissioners were amazed at all the mid-19th century lawsuits concerning the
property that were listed in the property abstract.
Motion by Commissioner Smith to approve the sale of a century plaque to the applicants for
meeting the program guidelines,seconded by Commissioner McCoy.Approved 6-0
VI.Adjourn
Motion by Commissioner Schilts-Johnson to adjourn at 8:14 pm, seconded by
Commissioner Smith. Approved 6-0
Respectfully Submitted -Justin Fortney
CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 9/2026
314 7th St E.Beth Majeski –New house construction
Old Hastings Historic District, contributing, but pending approved demolition
Requests:
The existing home was approved for demolition by the HPC on July 16, 2024.The new
home includes the following:
1.Currently required 7’ side setbacks are proposed. (The existing home was close to
the east property line.)
2.The proposed home is similar in style and scale to the existing home. It includes a
little more size to the rear and with a finished basement.
3.It has a front porch.
a.Concrete porch with dry stacked limestone veneer.
b.White aluminum railings
c.Concrete steps
4.James Hardie Plank smooth lap siding with substantial trim,cornice, and corner
boards.
5.Anderson 100 series 6 over one windows. (the grids might be in the glass.)
Ordinance, Guidelines
Design Guidelines (Page 28) 9: New Construction
1. General Character
Design new construction to reinforce the historic architectural and visual character of the site,
treetscape, or district. However, in most cases, new buildings should be discernible from the old.
2. Siting and Setback
Design new construction [to] be compatible with the setback, orientation, and spacing of older
buildings along the street.
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.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.
Porches and Decks
The front entry of new construction in residential areas should be articulated with a design
element such as a porch, portico, or landing which provides a transitional zone between the semi-
public and public exterior zones and the private interior zone. This feature should be
appropriately detailed and compatible with the size and scale of the building.
Staff Findings
1.Currently required 7’ side setbacks are proposed. (The existing home was close to
the east property line.)
The proposed home is compatible with the setback, orientation, and spacing of older
buildings along the street. The setbacks meet the zoning requirements.
2.The proposed home is similar in style and scale to the existing home. It includes a
little more size to the rear and with a finished basement.
The proposed home conforms to the massing, volume, height, facade proportions,
spacing and scale of the existing home. This is smaller than other buildings within
view of the site, which is appropriate because of the smaller lot.Additional finished
floor area was added to the back and basement without increasing the visible massing.
Basement egress windows are proposed. They are not visible as they are below grade.
3.It has a front porch like area homes and the original home design.
a.Concrete porch with dry stacked limestone veneer.
b.White aluminum railings
c.Concrete steps
The porch is a very appropriate feature on the home. Porches are common features of
homes in the area and the existing home originally had a full front porch. The
proposed porch wraps the corner to meet with the screened side porch.The porch has
historic design elements but is made of concrete like modern porches.A stacked
limestone veneer is proposed on the outside of the porch. This would give an
appearance of a limestone foundation. The Design Guidelines state that “imitative
materials such as artificial stone or brick veneer should not be used”. Staff believes
imitative materials that are not genuine, like vinyl and plaster to mimic masonry
products should not be used because of appearance. Stone and brick veneer is
appropriate on new noncontributing construction where the full-depth materials
would be appropriate because the end look is the same. The guidelines are correct that
masonry veneer may not be appropriate in new construction that is part of a
contributing site, such as the addition to a building.
The aluminum railings are a new proposal for the front porch in the district. They
have been approved on rear decks, which are not visible,and the guidelines do not
discuss decks in any detail. The new construction guidelines state, “select materials
and details that are compatible with those on adjacent historic buildings. Wood and
masonry are preferable to vinyl, metal, or hardboard siding.” This is at least partially
in reference to siding. New construction should be discernable from the historic and
this infill will be considered noncontributing. However, the appearance of metal
railings and their effect on the streetscape should be considered. Aluminum railings
do not approximate the look of painted wood railings.Aluminum railings may not be
“compatible with those on adjacent historic buildings”.
4.James Hardie Plank smooth lap siding with substantial trim, cornice, and corner
boards.
This is an appropriate siding and trim choice. The lap reveal should be 5” or less.
5.Anderson 100 series 6 over one windows. (the grids might be in the glass.)
The window sizing and placement is very appropriate. The existing home has 6 over
1 windows. If those windows were replaced in a historic home, the replacements
should have the same exterior grid pattern to maintain the intended appearance of the
home. The new construction guidelines don’t discuss window grids. Since the home
is new, there is not historic windows to be replicated.
Site Location / Proposed overlay
Existing
Front
Porch not shown
East side –Front porch not shown
Rear and west side
Rear and east side –Front porch not shown
North
Front
PROJECT #:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PRELIM DATE:
PRICING SET DATE:
FINAL SET DATE:
REVISION:
Sep 09, 2025PRINTED:
NOVEMBER 08, 2024
SEPTEMBER 01, 2025
SEPTEMBER 09, 2025
.
CCH
CCH/PGB
PRICING REVIEW
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
ALL DESIGNS, SPECIFICATIONS
AND PLANS ARE THE PROPERTY
OF THE DESIGN CONNECTION
THESE PLANS AND DESIGNS WERE
CREATED AND DEVELOPED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SPECIFIC
PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE
REPRODUCED FOR ANY PURPOSE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE
EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF
THE DESIGN CONNECTION AND
BUILDER
www.thedesignconnection.net
PHONE (507) 286-7869
Residential and Commercial
Design * Planning
Serving Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
North & South Dakota
1652 Greenview DR SW
Rochester MN 55902
aaron@thedesignconnection.net
MA
J
E
S
K
I
R
A
M
B
L
E
R
24230
JO
H
N
&
B
E
T
H
M
A
J
E
S
K
I
31
5
7
T
H
S
T
W
HA
S
T
I
N
G
S
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
DO
H
M
E
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
C
T
I
O
N
L
L
C
A1.1
FRONT & REAR
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
PROJECT #:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PRELIM DATE:
PRICING SET DATE:
FINAL SET DATE:
REVISION:
Sep 09, 2025PRINTED:
NOVEMBER 08, 2024
SEPTEMBER 01, 2025
SEPTEMBER 09, 2025
.
CCH
CCH/PGB
PRICING REVIEW
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
ALL DESIGNS, SPECIFICATIONS
AND PLANS ARE THE PROPERTY
OF THE DESIGN CONNECTION
THESE PLANS AND DESIGNS WERE
CREATED AND DEVELOPED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SPECIFIC
PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE
REPRODUCED FOR ANY PURPOSE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE
EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF
THE DESIGN CONNECTION AND
BUILDER
www.thedesignconnection.net
PHONE (507) 286-7869
Residential and Commercial
Design * Planning
Serving Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
North & South Dakota
1652 Greenview DR SW
Rochester MN 55902
aaron@thedesignconnection.net
MA
J
E
S
K
I
R
A
M
B
L
E
R
24230
JO
H
N
&
B
E
T
H
M
A
J
E
S
K
I
31
5
7
T
H
S
T
W
HA
S
T
I
N
G
S
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
DO
H
M
E
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
C
T
I
O
N
L
L
C
A1.2
RIGHT & LEFT
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
PROJECT #:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PRELIM DATE:
PRICING SET DATE:
FINAL SET DATE:
REVISION:
Sep 09, 2025PRINTED:
NOVEMBER 08, 2024
SEPTEMBER 01, 2025
SEPTEMBER 09, 2025
.
CCH
CCH/PGB
PRICING REVIEW
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
ALL DESIGNS, SPECIFICATIONS
AND PLANS ARE THE PROPERTY
OF THE DESIGN CONNECTION
THESE PLANS AND DESIGNS WERE
CREATED AND DEVELOPED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SPECIFIC
PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE
REPRODUCED FOR ANY PURPOSE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE
EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF
THE DESIGN CONNECTION AND
BUILDER
www.thedesignconnection.net
PHONE (507) 286-7869
Residential and Commercial
Design * Planning
Serving Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
North & South Dakota
1652 Greenview DR SW
Rochester MN 55902
aaron@thedesignconnection.net
MA
J
E
S
K
I
R
A
M
B
L
E
R
24230
JO
H
N
&
B
E
T
H
M
A
J
E
S
K
I
31
5
7
T
H
S
T
W
HA
S
T
I
N
G
S
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
DO
H
M
E
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
C
T
I
O
N
L
L
C
A2.0
LOWER LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN
PROJECT #:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
PRELIM DATE:
PRICING SET DATE:
FINAL SET DATE:
REVISION:
Sep 09, 2025PRINTED:
NOVEMBER 08, 2024
SEPTEMBER 01, 2025
SEPTEMBER 09, 2025
.
CCH
CCH/PGB
PRICING REVIEW
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
ALL DESIGNS, SPECIFICATIONS
AND PLANS ARE THE PROPERTY
OF THE DESIGN CONNECTION
THESE PLANS AND DESIGNS WERE
CREATED AND DEVELOPED IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SPECIFIC
PROJECT AND SHALL NOT BE
REPRODUCED FOR ANY PURPOSE
WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE
EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF
THE DESIGN CONNECTION AND
BUILDER
www.thedesignconnection.net
PHONE (507) 286-7869
Residential and Commercial
Design * Planning
Serving Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
North & South Dakota
1652 Greenview DR SW
Rochester MN 55902
aaron@thedesignconnection.net
MA
J
E
S
K
I
R
A
M
B
L
E
R
24230
JO
H
N
&
B
E
T
H
M
A
J
E
S
K
I
31
5
7
T
H
S
T
W
HA
S
T
I
N
G
S
MI
N
N
E
S
O
T
A
DO
H
M
E
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
C
T
I
O
N
L
L
C
∅∅∅∅∅
A3.0
MAIN LEVEL
FLOOR PLAN
To: Heritage Preservation Commission
From:Justin Fortney, City Planner
Date:September 16, 2025
Item:OHDS Review for New Twin Home –516 & 520 7th St East –Jeffrey Kuhn
HPC ACTION REQUESTED:
Review the proposed house plans and provide recommendation to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
Existing Condition
The applicant demolished the home and garage in 2022 in anticipation of building a two -
unit home. A twin home is proposed on the two parcels.
OHDS Intent
The purpose of the OHDS area is to preserve and enhance
traditional neighborhood design by reflecting the general
characteristics of buildings dating from 1845 to 1940,
which is the predominate era for building construction
within the OHDS District. OHDS regulations ensure
traditional neighborhood design by incorporating design
features such as alleys, carriage houses, front porches,
period sensitive housing design, sidewalks, and traditional street lighting. Design standards
create and enhance the character of older neighborhoods by establishing regulation s to
guide property development and rehabilitation consistent with the unique historic
character of the neighborhood. The intent is to preserve that streetscape’s character rather
than the actual historical fabric that historical designation is intended to protect. These
guidelines are being rewritten along with the zoning code.
OHDS Guidelines start at section D.
HPC Memorandum
Site Layout
Building Setbacks (R-2)and some building component averaging.
Minimum Proposed Area
average
North (Front)20’(or inline
with neighbors,
but no less than
10’
40’11.2’
East 7’35.5
West 7’35.5’
South (Rear)20’44’
Height 25’ or greater 22’Similar
Floor area 1,660 SF each side 1,438 SF
Garage area 630 SF each side 855 SF
Building width 47’ each side (94’ total)45.8
The average second story window openings for the area are low, since only two homes have
even a half of a second story. 30% to 50% transparent window and door openings are
suggested on the first floor. Including the garage doors, the amount of ground level
openings is 44%.However, that may not be the intent. Without the inclusion of the garage
doors, there are not enough openings.Larger or more windows were discussed with the
applicant. He said the front window size was limited by the kitchen counter, header, and
cabinets. He said he will include windows in the sides of the garages for additional openings.
Although they are not in the front, they are in visible locations.
Design Review
The current OHDS Guidelines include many requirements based on the immediate
neighborhood average. This includes the way that the number and size of window openings
should be determined, architectural detailing, roofing technique, entry materials and
technique, upper wall style, among others. Designing a house by averaging the type and
number of neighboring features is near an impossible task and may not guarantee a good
design. There are only five homes in this area,and they vary greatly.
The Guidelines also consider the height, width, and length of the proposed structure
separately based on those of the surrounding area rather than total scale. Staff has heard
from residents in the OHDS area over the years that their primary concern related to infill is
the scale, rather than the details included in the home.
The guidelines require that garages access alleys when they are present. Other than that,
there are no guidelines for placement or size.
Roof pitch is recommended to be a steep 8:12 slope for gable styles. The proposed twin
homes have a 6:12 slope. This is the same as the house at 505 7 th St E built in 2000, steeper
than the 4:12 slope roof of the duplex to the east at 600/604 7 th St E. The other area homes
vary from 4:12 to 8:12
The porches are 22’ by 8’ deep. They are near grade with raised porches being encouraged.
This has significant impact on the home as it would need to be raised. The applicant is trying
to design the home at grade without steps.
Multiple materials are allowed for siding up to 5-inches in lap reveal. A heavy-duty vinyl 4-
inch lap siding is proposed with a vinyl board and batten siding on the gables.
Scale
Nearly all the homes in the area are a single or 1 ½ story. The proposed structure is twice as
large as the other homes, but it is two homes, and on two separate large lots. Its setbacks
are much greater than the other homes. The proposed height seems similar to the area
average. The floor area of each unit is slightly higher than the average. The garage area of
each twin home is just below the average of the three homes that have garages.
Recommendation
The structure is large compared to the other neighborhood homes. However, this is in fact,
two homes and they are on their own lots. The compared averages should be considered
based on each of the twin homes, which is within reason. The garage centric design of the
home does not reflect the general characteristics of buildings dating from 1845 to 1940,for
which the OHDS was created. This unique secluded street includes a variety of housing
designs.The guidelines don’t regulate garage location when an alley is not present. Staff
looked at twin home plans on the internet and found few options for front facing garages
that did not stick way out in front. Where garages were recessed from the building front,
they were attached between the units or on the outside of the units without any living
space behind them. This created a much wider structure overall. The
Attachments
-Location Map
-Certified Survey
-Plans
-Area Photos
LOCATION MAP
-Board and batten on gables
Address map for photo reference
600/ 604 East of proposal
512 West of proposal
521 Across from proposal
517 Across from proposal
505 across from proposal