Loading...
Minutes_Historic Preservation Commission 04.17.25 Copyrighted June 2, 2025 City of Dubuque CONSENT ITEMS # 1. City Council ITEM TITLE: Minutes and Reports Submitted SUMMARY: City Council Proceedings of May 19, 2025; Airport Commission of March 25, 2025; Equity and Human Rights Commission of April 8, 2025; Historic Preservation Commission of April 17, 2025; Housing Commission of January 28, 2025; Long Range Planning Advisory Commission of March 19, 2025; Mayor and City Council Compensation Task Force Minutes of May 21, 2025; Park and Recreation Commission of April 7, 2025; Zoning Board of Adjustment of April 24, 2025; Proof of Publication for City Council Proceedings of April 24, April 28, and May 5, 2025. SUGGUESTED Receive and File DISPOSITION: ATTAC H M ENTS: 1. 5 19 25 City Council Minutes 2. Airport Commission Minutes 3. Equity and Human Rights Commission Minutes 4. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 5. Housing Commission Meeting Minutes 6. Long Range Planning Advisory Commission Minutes 7. Park and Recreation Commission Minutes 8. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 9. Proof_4.24.25 10. Proof 4.28.25 11. Proof 5.5.25 12. 5.21.25 Compensation Task Force Minutes Page 78 of 2490 �ubuque /� n THE CITY OF /�\ O O �On r7�� DUB � � �ruaa ;�, o � II r 2007•2012�20I3 MasterpieceontheMississippi zoi��zoi9 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION 5:30 p.m. Thursday, April 17, 2025 City Council Chambers, Historic Federal Building Commissioners Present: Chairperson Janice Esser; Commissioners, Bill Doyle, Christina Monk, Heidi Pettitt, Rick Stuter, Chad Witthoeft, Adam Schwendinger. Commissioners Excused: Tim Gau. Commissioners Unexcused: None. Staff Members Present: Chris Happ Olson and Travis Schrobilgen. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Janice Esser 5:31 p.m. MINUTES: Motion by Pettitt seconded by Stuter, to approve the minutes of February 20, 2025, meeting as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Janice Esser, Bill Doyle, Christina Monk, Heidi Pettitt, Rick Stuter; Nay— none; Abstain - Chad Witthoeft, Adam Schwendinger. ACTION ITEMS: DEMOLITION PERMIT Applicant: Jeffrey Streinz Owner: same Address: 2098 Central Avenue Project: Building and portico demolition District: Washington Neighborhood Historic District Staff Member Happ Olson presented the staff report noting the history of the structure, showing historic and contemporary imagery and information regarding the development of this structure. She stated that the building was identified in multiple surveys as non- supportive, and not in a potential district, however, 23 years after the last survey, the structure is past the arbitrary 50 year threshold which the National Park Services uses for waiting to determine whether a structure is National Register Eligible. She said structure will be 55 years old this year, and that it is relatively intact and a good example of the time period in which it was built, as a modern service garage. She said that it is reasonable if someone wanted to try to get historic tax credits, that it might be considered National Register eligible on its own, or that an argument could also be made that it is not historic. Page 92 of 2490 Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission April 17, 2025 Page 2 Jeff Streinz, 2894 Thornwood Court, spoke in favor of the request. He noted they intend to tear down the building and tear out the asphalt and concrete and in the short term replace with grass. He said they have no development plans at this point. He said they have received offers which have not been great in his opinion: mostly payday loans, bars and used car lots. He said that in his opinion the site would be better off to tear down for a better use. He noted that there is some worry from investors because it used to be a gas station, but he said he received a letter of no further action required from the lowa Department of Natural Resources and so there is no environmental issue remaining. He said the building has been empty for seven years and that he does not want a bar in there. He said it is prime real estate with access from three sides and the size of the lot makes it desirable. He concluded that he originally did not want to pay for the demolition and was hoping whoever purchased it would take care of that. Commissioners discussed the proposal. Commissioner Stuter prompted the applicant to speak about future plans for the site. The applicant noted no future plans. Commissioner poyle discussed the site as it relates to the historic context of the neighborhood. He said for the older neighborhood, that he would rather not have a parking lot business in the neighborhood, noting that something with an urban form would be better there. He said the site may be listable, but infill would likely be better use of the lot. Commissioner Esser said that as a realtor she could see the concern of investors due to the former gas station use. Schwendinger asked how long the applicant owned it and how long it was on the market. The applicant noted he owned it for 18 years and it was on the market for 6-7 years. Schwendinger noted that it was an interesting structure and agreed with most of Commissioner poyle's comments. He said the structure felt somewhat out of place in the older neighborhood but that it was not an eyesore. He expressed concern about missing teeth if it is removed and nothing else happens. He clarified to the Commission that he judges significance based on how easy it is to replicate. He said that if asked he would say it is not an architectural loss. Commissioner Monk stated she admired the structure but has no compelling reason to keep it as it appears non-contributing. Staff member Happ Olson clarified that the demolition part of the Code is challenging, especially in a situation like there where there are probably valid arguments for significance and for not being significant. She noted the code has the Commission determine if it is significant or not, but in some cases, the significance is not very clear. The surveys we look to see it as non significant, but those are outdated and now the Commission has to evaluate it. Commissioner Monk asked if the applicant would consider native plantings. Pettitt noted that Mowing to Monarchs would be a great contact and may even have money to help plant it. Commissioner poyle noted that anything is better than a parking lot. Staff Member Schrobilgen noted that there are nuisance laws regarding long grass or wooded areas and it would be smart to investigate that first. Page 93 of 2490 Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission April 17, 2025 Page 3 Motion by Doyle, seconded by Monk, to approve the application as submitted due to its lack of significance. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Janice Esser, Bill Doyle, Christina Monk, Heidi Pettitt, Rick Stuter, Adam Schwendinger; Nay — none; Abstain — Witthoeft DEMOLITION PERMIT Applicant: John Freund, FFFIC LLC Owner: same Address: 1005 Main Street Project: Modification of cornice and chimneys District: Jackson Park Conservation District Staff member Happ Olson presented the staff report noting the physical condition of the building and cornice, stating that the applicant came to modify the cornice and she was considering it not to be a demolition, but when the applicant stated they wanted to remove the chimneys, she changed gears and asked the applicant to bring the project before the Commission, as this was typical practice with highly visible chimneys. Commissioner poyle asked for clarification on what the specific request is. Doyle's initial reaction was that the removal of a portion of the cornice and replacement with a metal cornice would constitute a demolition, contrary to Happ Olson's previous finding. John Freund, 8885 Bellevue Heights, and Kelly Jackson with Fred Jackson Tuckpointing, 475 E 28th Street in Dubuque spoke as the owner and contractor. They noted that there are moisture problems including spalling of brick at the parapet and cornice. The contractor found a significant moisture problem at the parapet. He originally repaired the parapet, but it continues to spall and is now seeking to fix the issue permanently. The applicant noted that the chimneys are not well used and that they did not want them any longer as they add potential water issues. He said ultimately, they are looking to remove the 10t" street chimneys and remove 10 courses of brick (about 24"), place a moisture barrier, add a concrete cap on which a new framed structure and metal cornice would be replaced. He noted that nothing can be affixed to the brick, which is why they need a concrete cap. The Commission asked what is planned below the cornice and whether the chimneys needed to be removed due to leaking or some other issue? Freund said that lower and mid section of the cornice will be repaired and tuckpointed and that the chimney is in good condition but remains largely unutilized (with gas fireplaces at the second floor) and would introduce potential issues with being able to create a coherent in-line cornice. The chimneys are not in a state of disrepair. Commissioner poyle noted that the Sanborn maps indicate that a metal cornice may have been original but is a little unclear. Commissioner Monk noted that the building is of great significance, the chimneys appear solid and is well built and said she felt there would be loss of character if the chimneys were removed. Page 94 of 2490 Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission April 17, 2025 Page 4 Happ Olson noted that historically something would have been over the cornice to protect it (like an overhang or cap), but couldn't find clear enough documentation to demonstrate that. The issue with the existing stepped back upper cornice is that it isn't protected from the elements, and therefore there is water infiltration, efflorescence and spalling. Commissioner Schwendinger said the owner is doing great work so far and that they seem to be looking to do the right thing. He agreed that something needs to be done to protect the integrity of the entire building and that this could be just another stage in the history of the property. He concluded that demolition of the top section of cornice would be solving a problem when replacing it with a new metal cornice. Commissioner Pettitt found a historic image and shared it with the room. The 1891 drawing showed the building as it is now but with a metal, formed undulating cap that covers that 24" upper inches of cornice. The applicant reiterated that the 10t'' street side suffers from the elements the most (south side) and is most vulnerable to the elements. He said there was an accident where a vehicle hit front of the building, and they think they probably broke the vacuum on the envelope. He noted that part of the storefront has been repaired a couple times on the 10t" street side, as sunlight and elements are severe on that side. Commissioner Pettitt noted that the chimney is a decorative and character-defining feature and that she is against demolition of them. The contractor noted that they intend to have the metal cap go straight across and through where the chimneys are and that is why they would prefer to remove them. He noted the overall height of the parapet would not change. Commissioner Monk noted that on the list of priorities, the building is staying, which is great, that the cornice has changed over time and that the chimneys would feel less important if the cornice runs straight through, obliterating the top 3-4 feet of those chimneys. Commissioner poyle reminded Commissioners that this review was for demolition and not a design review. He said he would vote to keep chimneys but would approve of demo of the upper cornice. Cornice: Motion by Monk, seconded by Doyle, to approve the cornice demolition and rebuilding referring to the application as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Janice Esser, Bill Doyle, Christina Monk, Heidi Pettitt, Rick Stuter, Adam Schwendinger; Nay— none; Abstain —Witthoeft. Chimney: Motion by Doyle, seconded by Pettitt, to approve the demolition of the Chimneys as submitted. Motion denied by the following vote: Aye — None; Nay— Janice Esser, Bill Doyle, Christina Monk, Heidi Pettitt, Rick Stuter, Adam Schwendinger; Abstain — Witthoeft. Page 95 of 2490 Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission April 17, 2025 Page 5 ITEMS FROM PUBLIC: None. ITEMS FROM THE COMMISSION: None. ITEMS FROM STAFF: Historic Preservation Awards - Esser, Monk, Doyle, Pettitt stated they would be available to attend and assist at the awards. Training Opportunities: • lowa State University: Esser and Witthoeft stated they would like to attend. • Preserve lowa Summit: Pettitt and Witthoeft would like to attend; Doyle and Happ Olson attending and presenting. Schwendinger expressed interest and would get back. • Prairie School Legacy in lowa: Doyle described the federal funding cut requiring a scaling back of the symposium. Monk, Schwendinger, Doyle, and Esser want to attend. • Past Forward in Milwaukee: Heidi, Doyle, and likely Esser hope to attend. (As well, it was noted that it conflicts with our September 18 HPC meeting.) Eagle Point Park Historic Structures Report Staff member Happ Olson reported that the Jeffris Family Foundation-funded Historic Structures Report for the Alfred Caldwell-designed buildings at Eagle Point Park is complete. She described the value of the document as a record of the state and condition of the buildings, a fascinating investigation of the history of the park, and possessing as-built drawings for these structures. She also noted it is a great read. Although the park only was listed for the National Register under local significance, the investigation led to the State agreeing it has state significance, and the experts agreeing it likely has national significance. The document has a schedule of probable costs that allows us to estimate and prioritize work that needs to be done. There was further discussion about next steps for the using the document to undertake restoration. Olson asked that the commission vote to adopt and approve the document. Motion by Monk, seconded by Schwendinger, to approve the report as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Janice Esser, Bill Doyle, Christina Monk, Heidi Pettitt, Rick Stuter, Chad Witthoeft, Adam Schwendinger; Nay — none. Programmatic Agreement (PA) with State Historic Preservation Commission Staff detailed the process of Section 106 at the city and the benefit of adopting a programmatic agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to expedite review of projects where historic and cultural resources are not being harmed. She Page 96 of 2490 Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission April 17, 2025 Page 6 stated the SHPO appreciates the quality of Dubuque's Section 106 work. Allowing for this PA demonstrates their trust in us to document and report back once a year to them for those special instances where historic and cultural resources are not being negatively affected. The agreement allows the city to avoid the 30-day wait period which allows us to work in a more efficient matter with those federal funds. Happ Olson noted that the City has opened a 30 day public comment period as part of the agreement drafting terms. There is a link on the City website that allows the public to review this document and comment. Schwendinger noted the completeness of the document and agreement that it was great that Dubuque is offered this opportunity. Motion by Doyle, seconded by Pettitt, to approve the Programmatic Agreement Draft as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Janice Esser, Bill Doyle, Christina Monk, Heidi Pettitt, Rick Stuter, Chad Witthoeft, Adam Schwendinger; Nay — none. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Monk, seconded by Doyle to adjourn the April 17, 2025, Historic Preservation Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Janice Esser, Bill Doyle, Tim Gau, Christina Monk, Heidi Pettitt, Chad Witthoeft and Adam Schwendinger; Nay — none. The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, May 15, 2025 ris Happ Olson, Assistant Planner Adopted Page 97 of 2490