The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHPC Packet 06-27-2021HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Agenda for the Meeting of July 27, 2021 Regular business at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall in the Volunteer Room I. Call to Order and Quorum II. Minutes: A. May 18, 2021 III. Certificate of Approval Review A. 106 & 108 2nd Street East – New Sign B. 315 Pine Street – Partial demolition and Rehabilitation C. 215 Sibley Street – New Storm Windows (Staff Approved) IV. Business and Information A. Discuss Preservation Awards V. Adjourn The next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on August 17, 2021 HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 18, 2021 Held at 7:00 p.m. and conducted solely by telephone or other electronic means as provided in Minnesota Statutes § 13D.021 and no in-person meeting was conducted at City Hall. I. Quorum:, Toppin, Sovik-Siemens, Smith, Youngren, Ragan-Scully and Borchardt Absent: Simacek Staff Present: Justin Fortney, City Planner Chair Toppin called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. II. Minutes: April 20, 2021 Motion by Smith for approval, seconded by Borchardt - motion approved 6-0 by rollcall. III. Certificate of Approval Review A. 321 6th Street E – Replacement Windows Fortney presented the staff report and explained that the property is listed as a noncontributing building in the Old Hastings Historic District. He added that noncontributing properties are reviewed to determine if a proposal would have a detrimental affect to the district rather than to the property itself. Mike Bauer, applicant, explained some details of the existing windows that had been replaced with casement windows in the front of the building. Commissioner Smith asked for clarification on what the HPC has approved for windows with divisions. Fortney said when windows are replaced, they must match the appearance of the historic windows. He added this included the number of window pane divisions. The Design Guidelines require that simulated divided window pane grids must be at least on the outside of the glass. Fortney said this is because the only way to simulate a true divided window pane is to have a grid on the outside. He said grids in side or between the glass as proposed, do not appear to match the appearance of historic windows. Fortney said it is a detail that is visible from the street, but not likely to affect the streetscape to the degree that it detracts from the district. Motion by Youngren for approval as proposed, seconded by Smith - motion approved 6-0 by rollcall. IV. Business V. Adjourn Motion by Smith to adjourn the meeting at 7:33 pm, seconded by Borchardt; motion approved 6-0 by rollcall. Respectfully Submitted - Justin Fortney CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 7-2021 106 and 108 2nd Street E – Kim Zeigler, owner/ Fireside Social House, Operator New sign Ca. 1875/1860 , East 2nd Street Historic District- Contributing Request: The applicant is seeking approval of a new sign on the front of the eastern building (108). It is made from a Dibond sign board, which is a common material in the signs downtown. Dibond is an outdoor quality material with a metal face and plastic core for rigidity. The sign has a black background and will be mounted to the existing wood of the storefront that will be painted black. Ordinance, Guidelines 1. Sign Design Guidelines (Page 39) 5: Historic Commercial Buildings: General Guidelines 8. Signs, Awnings, and Lighting • a. Signs and awnings should follow regulations subject to provisions of the • city’s zoning ordinance. • Wherever possible, signs should be placed in traditional sign locations… • Signs should be appropriately sized… traditional materials such as wood and metal. • Signs should not conceal architectural details or features and materials should be compatible with the materials of the building to which they are attached. • No part of the historic facade should be irreversibly damaged or altered in the installation of signs and awnings. Limit drilling new holes into masonry. Sign hardware should be attached to the building with holes drilled into mortar joints, if possible. Staff findings: The proposed sign is appropriately sized and located on the building. The Zoning ordinance allows 2 Sf of signage per linier feet of street frontage which allows for 44 Sf on this building. The proposed sign is 32 Sf. CERTIFICATE APPLICATION 7-2021 315 Pine Street. Pavel Zakharov –Third floor demolition, second floor partial reconstruction, general fire repair, and general concept proposal for future third floor reconstruction. Ca. 1878, Individually Designated/ National Register Request: The applicant is proposing to rehabilitate the structure in four stages as shown below. 1. Demolish the third floor, which has been severely damaged by fire. 2. Reconstruct some severely damaged second floor walls and cap the second floor with new third level floor trusses with a rubber membrane flat roof on top to protect the building up to the second floor. This will allow the remaining structure to be fully rehabilitated prior to adding the weight of a reconstructed third floor in the future. 3. Rehabilitate the entire structure from the basement to the second floor. 4. Build a new third floor in the spirit of the original. No designs have been determined. This stage may not occur for a couple years and likely after the rest of the building is fully rehabilitated and occupied. Ordinance, Guidelines Design Guidelines In general, the Design Guidelines aim to retain and preserve historic materials first and design and appearance if materials are lost. Ordinance The following section from the HPC City Code relates to demolitions: (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 current structure appears to have historical integrity. While the third floor is certainly lost due to severe fire damage, the majority of the remaining exterior is in good condition. The inside of the building is severely damaged from fire and water damage, but salvageable. While plaster and woodwork are lost, much of the wood framing is in good condition. There appears to be ample evidence that the destruction of the third floor is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property, or that there are no reasonable alternatives to the destruction. Staff inspected the property and found the third floor to be virtually nonexistent. Reconstruction of the damaged second floor walls is necessary and with a similar appearance, would meet the Design Guidelines. The proposed third level floor trusses would be slightly taller than the existing, which will not be terribly noticeable. The flat roof over the caped second floor will not be visible from the ground. The third level of the structure also had a flat roof so the architectural style of the building won’t be affected too severely. A third floor constructed in the future may be based on photographical evidence and any interim measurements that can be taken. Plans for the third-floor construction would need to be reviewed at that phase. Evidence for demolition of the third floor: (Rear yard) (Third floor from stairs) (Third floor towards Pine) Second floor walls to be rebuilt: Capped second floor (Viewed from Pine Street) (Viewed from 4th street)