Loading...
Minutes Historic Preservation Comm 6 19 08THE CITY OF Dubuque DUB E Maste iece on the Mississi i I ~ I I` rP PP zoos MINUTES III S`i'~~f~~ p'R(~~~ R~~'~OI~ ~}~i~iI~~SIO~ REGULAR SESSION Thursday, June 19, 2008 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, Historic Federal Building 350 W. 6th Street, Dubuque, Iowa PRESENT: Chairperson Christine Olson; Commission Members John Whalen, Mary Loney Bichell, Joseph Rapp, Chris Wand, Matthew Lundh and Bob McDonell; Staff Members Laura Carstens and David Johnson. ABSENT: None. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE: Staff presented an Affidavit of Compliance verifying the meeting was being held in compliance with the Iowa Open Meetings Law. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson Lundh at 5:35 p.m. MINUTES: Commissioner Rapp noted Jeffrey Klopfenstein was incorrectly spelled in locations in the draft minutes. The Commission noted the correct spelling for Mr. Klopfenstein and requested those changes be made. Motion by Wand, seconded by Whalen, to approve the minutes of the May 15, 2008 meeting as corrected. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Whalen, Wand, Bichell, Rapp, Lundh and McDonell; Nay -None. DESIGN REVIEW: Application of Michael Loebach, President of the Downtown Neighborhood Council/ City of Dubuque for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a custom made bicycle rack in Jackson Park. Michael Loebach, President, Downtown Neighborhood Council, presented the request. Staff Member Johnson reviewed the staff report. He stated the Downtown Neighborhood Council has received a Large Neighborhood Grant to install acustom- made bicycle rack in Jackson Park. The bicycle rack is estimated to cost $2,500. The Leisure Services Department will install and maintain the bicycle rack, and will also select the location in Jackson Park. He stated the bicycle rack will be located near the play equipment. He explained that the rack win be metal and designed to look like books. He stated the bicycle rack will be made by Jim Avery of Avery Railing located in the Warehouse District. The rack will be approximately 3.5' high by 3' wide. He Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 2 explained the Historic Preservation Commission is advisory to the City Council when reviewing public works projects that have a historic preservation implication in historic districts. Commissioner Wand requested the applicant clarify the size of the books in the bicycle rack. Michael Loebach explained the dimension will be will be approximately 3.5' tall, 3' long and 1.5' wide. The structures will be individual units and will be approximately 30" apart. Commissioner Wand questioned the color of the bicycle rack. Mr. Loebach responded the racks will be black and constructed of steel. Motion by Wand, seconded by Bichell, to recommend to City Council that the custom-made bicycle rack in Jackson Park be approved as submitted, noting the additional information presented by the applicant at the meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye - Whalen, Wand, Bichell, Rapp, Lundh and McDonell; Nay -None. DESIGN REVIEW: Application of Joe Mulgrew/Peter & Cynthia Alt for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove and rebuild the carriage house, construct a new front porch, construct a new side porch, and convert a rear entrance to a window for the property located at 658 Chestnut Street in the W. 11 t" Street District. Joe Mulgrew, 16543 Herrod, was present on behalf of the owners. Staff Member Johnson reviewed the staff report. He explained that according to the Iowa Site Inventory Report prepared by Jim Jacobsen, the building isn't a convincing early design when it is linked by association with the properties to the east. He explained that the residence and barn/carriage house does not appear on either the 1889 or 1872 Sanborn Maps. He explained it did not appear until the 1909 Sanborn Map. He explained the current assessor information indicates the carriage house measures 20 feet by 14 feet. The new carriage house is proposed to be larger and measures 24 feet by 24 feet. The new carriage house will have a center dormer similar to the existing carriage house. He stated the new carriage house will be wood frame with 6" Dutch lap wood siding. It will have a poured concrete foundation which will replace the existing stone foundation. It will have new landmark asphalt shingles which will replace the existing asphalt shingles. The new carriage house will have two 9-foot carriage house style overhead garage doors and one six-panel divided light steel service door which will be largely screened from view. The proposed windows are 4 feet by 3 feet, one over one, double hung, aluminum clad windows. The soffit and fascia will be wood and all the wood will be painted. Staff Member Johnson next reviewed the front porch stating the porch is proposed to have a hip roof with asphalt shingles and a 12:8 pitch to match the house. He stated the porch will project out from the house 5 feet and no railing is proposed. He explained the porch will have a 1" x 6" pine fascia and 6" x 6" chamfered columns. The concrete stoop and steps will remain and all wood will be painted. He explained an Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 3 acorn pediment and surround is currently in place on the front entrance. Staff Member Johnson next reviewed the side porch, explaining that this porch will have a hip roof with asphalt shingles and a 12:8 pitch to match the house. He stated the porch will project out 3 feet from the house and it will have 1" x 6" pine fascia and an 8" x 6" box beam. He stated the porch will be supported by two 6" x 6" chamfered columns and no railing is proposed. He stated the proposed porch will span along the existing door and window. Staff Member Johnson next reviewed the conversion of the boarded up rear entrance to a window. He stated the property owners are requesting to convert a door opening that is currently boarded up on the rear of the house to the window. He explained the applicant is proposing to brick in the lower 34" of the opening and install a 4' x 3', one- over-one, double hung, aluminum clad window. The windows will be shorter than the elongated narrow windows found on the core of the building and the existing door hood molding is lower than the height of the adjacent window hood molding on the rear wing. Commissioner Wand questioned how close the carriage house would be to the rear of the house. Mr. Mulgrew estimated the distance to be about 15 feet. Commissioner Wand questioned if the foundation could be faced with limestone, salvaged from the existing garage. Mr. Mulgrew explained the proposal is to cover the exposed concrete foundation with the same siding as on the carriage house. Commissioner Bichell asked if the owners would be willing to use limestone facing on the exposed foundation, since the request is to remove a historic structure. The Commission discussed alternatives to limestone, but felt that limestone is best, since the existing foundation is limestone and all exposed areas should be covered with a limestone veneer. Motion by Wand, seconded by McDonell, to approve the carriage house as submitted with the provision that any exposed foundation be faced with a limestone veneer. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Whalen, Wand, Bichell, Lundh, Rapp and McDonell; Nay -None. The Commission next reviewed the front porch. Commissioner Wand asked if there were any good photos of the front porch. Staff Member Johnson confirmed that there were none. Commissioner Wand explained he would prefer a gable porch roof instead of a hip porch roof. The Commission discussed the railing design and noted a specific design has not been presented to the Commission for approval. Staff conferred with Mr. Mulgrew, and stated the applicant is willing to use the standard hand rail design appropriate for historic buildings, which is located in the Planning Services Department. Staff Member Johnson Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 4 explained the rail dimensions and materials and referred to the application of 517 Loras Boulevard as an example. Motion by Wand, seconded by Whalen, to approve the front porch as presented with the porch roof changed from a hip roof to a gable porch roof without vertical siding, with some replication of eave trim, and use of the standard historic hand rail design. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Whalen, Wand, Lundh, Bichell, Rapp and McDonell; Nay - None. The Commission next reviewed the side porch. Commissioner Wand asked if the porch floor was elevated above grade. Mr. Mulgrew said there is no step or railing needed. Commissioner Wand discussed having a shed roof instead of the proposed hip roof for the porch. Commissioner Whalen suggested that a hip roof might look better from the side. Motion by Bichell, seconded by Wand, to approve the side porch as presented. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Whalen, Wand, Lundh, Bichell, Rapp and McDonell; Nay -None. , The Commission next reviewed the rear entrance. Commissioner Wand asked if the interior is affecting the design. Mr. Mulgrew stated there is a need for counter space in the kitchen, and that is what is driving the design for a window. Commissioner Wand asked about the existing windows. Mr. Mulgrew said they are wooden sash replacement windows. He explained the storms will be replaced and the windows will be replaced. The Commission discussed what the rear door is covered with. Mr. Mulgrew explained the interior has drywall and the exterior is covered with V plywood. Commissioner Rapp questioned drainage along the porch. Mr. Mulgew explained how the lot drains and drainage will not affect the porch. Commissioner,Rapp questioned which corner collapsed over the mine shaft. Mr. Mulgrew responded that he was not exactly sure at this time, but estimated the location was the corner of the house closest to the corner of Prairie and West 11th Streets. Motion by Whalen, seconded by Wand, to window. Motion carried by the following vote: and McDonell; Nay -None. approve converting the rear entrance to a Aye -Whalen, Wand, Lundh, Bichell, Rapp The Commissioners discussed the proposed front door design with the applicant. Mr. Mulgrew explained that the property owner is currently searching for historic or wooden French-style doors with large panes to fit the existing opening. Mr. Mulgew said he would like to do a steel, simulated divided light, painted door for the side porch. Staff Member Johnson explained this is very similar design to the service door approved for the carriage house. The Commissioners and applicant agreed to review the side porch door design at a subsequent meeting. Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 5 DESIGN REVIEW: Application of Jeffrey Klopfenstein for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove and reconstruct the front porch for property located at 1134 Langworthy Street in the Langworthy Historic Preservation District. Jeff Schmitt, 1701 Rhomberg, was presented on behalf of the property owners. Staff Member Johnson explained the enclosed porch has asbestos-slate siding and the foundation for the porch is failing according to the applicant. He stated the applicant would like to remove the Craftsman-era front porch and rebuild with a more appropriate open style porch. The porch will span the length of the front of the house and measure 28'-1" x 7'-9.5". The porch will have a composite decking and railing system. The railing will have a top and bottom rail with 1 3/" square balusters. He stated .the foot rail is shown with a trim design identical to the top rail; however, a rounded edge 2" x 4" can be installed in its place. He stated the porch will be supported by four 8" tapered fiberglass reinforced polymer columns. The columns will have aTuscan-style base and cap. The porch will have a hip roof with asphalt shingles to match the house. He stated that at the May 15, 2008 HPC meeting, the applicant was granted a COA to install Azec fascia, bead board soffits, crown molding and Cemplank siding and Lincoln windows as presented, with the following conditions. 1. Smooth side exposed for applications of Cemplank and Azec. 2. 3.5" or less exposure on the siding. 3. The crown molding needs to mimic the original in size and profile. 4. Maintain the diamond pattern in the attic windows. Staff Member Johnson also noted the applicant would like to review the previously approved exposure on the siding. Commissioner Whalen questioned whether the applicant could do a half-post, where the porch rail meets the exterior wall of the house. Mr. Schmitt agreed. Commissioner Lundh asked about the fascia material. Mr. Schmitt explained the porch fascia will be similar to the fascia approved on the house. Commissioner Wand asked about the number and spacing of the proposed columns. He explained his preference to have either three or four columns equally spaced. Mr. Schmitt agreed to equally space the columns. Commissioner Wand confirmed that the proposed roof is a hip roof instead of a shed roof. Mr. Schmitt stated it is a hip roof and also noted the composite rail allows a maximum six-foot space for the columns, and therefore four columns would most likely be needed. Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 6 Staff Member Johnson asked about the color of the columns and proposed railing. Mr. Schmitt responded that the columns will be white and the composite railing will not be painted and remain the cedar composite color. Motion by Wand, seconded by Whalen, to approve the request as submitted with the stipulation that three or four columns be evenly spaced, and half-columns be added where the porch rail meets the exterior of the house. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye - Whalen, Wand, Lundh, Bichell, Rapp and McDonell; Nay -None. Commissioner Whalen excused himself from the meeting at 6:20 p.m. Staff Member Johnson noted the applicant would also like the Commission to reconsider the required lap width from the May 15th meeting. He noted that the Certificate of Appropriateness issued from the May 15th meeting requires a 3.5" exposure and Mr. Schmitt has explained he cannot obtain the Cemplank siding with that exposure. Mr. Schmitt explained that the narrowest exposure they can get is a 4" lap width. Motion by Wand, seconded by Bichell, to reconsider the required 3.5" lap width as previously approved at the May 15, 2008 meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Wand, Lundh, Bichell, Rapp and McDonell; Nay -None; Abstain -Whalen. Sue Klopfenstein, property owner, stated 4" is the smallest dimension they can get with Cemplank. She explained they initially requested a 5" lap width and the Commission required a 3.5" lap width. She stated she hoped the Commission could compromise with the 4" exposure. Motion by Wand, seconded by McDonell, to approve a 4" exposure for the Cemplank siding. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Lundh, Wand, Bichell, Rapp and McDonell; Nay -None; Abstain -Whalen. Commissioner Whalen returned to the meeting at 6:26 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW: Application of Paul Kramer/Michael & Susan Fereday for a Certificate of Appropriateness to rebuild the front porch for property located at 517 Loras Boulevard in the W. 11th Street Historic Preservation District, Paul Kramer, 7652 Prairie View, was present on behalf of the property owners. Staff Member Johnson reviewed the staff report. He explained the proposed porch will be constructed of wolmanized decking, rails, spindles, stringers and treads. The application explains the front porch is constructed of wood and is deteriorating. He explained the application states that the deck of the structure is pulling away from the house and slopes 8" from the front to the back of the porch. He explained the application states that the porch must be removed and rebuilt. He reviewed the Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 7 elements of the project. He explained the porch columns will be 9-foot Turncraft New Orleans wood porch columns. He stated the columns would be painted. He explained the handrail will be 36" high and have a 2" x 6" beveled top rail and a 2" x 3" plowed bottom rail. He stated the 2" x 2" square balusters will be framed in with 1" x 4" wolmanized lumber on the top side of the rail. He stated the balusters would be placed 6" on center and the railing will be painted. He stated the existing hip roof will remain and the bottom of the porch will have framed lattice vertically and horizontally oriented. Commissioner Wand questioned whether the framed lattice will be set back or even with the porch posts. Mr. Kramer confirmed that the framed lattice will be set back and attached to the side of the post rather than on the front of the post. Mr. Kramer also confirmed the lattice will be painted. Mr. Kramer questioned the color of the deck boards. He requested that the decking remain wolmanized and not painted or stained. The Commission explained that they did not have any issues with leaving the decking wolmanized. The Commission noted maintaining a painted deck surface is difficult to do. Motion by Wand, seconded by Bichell, to approve the request as presented. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Whalen, Wand, Bichell, Lundh, Rapp and McDonell; Nay -None. DESIGN REVIEW: Application of Jeffrey Morton, Architect/Tony Pfohl, The Fischer Companies for a Certificate of Appropriateness to rehabilitate the Julien Inn facade and construct a screening wall for property located at 200 Main Street in the Old Main Historic Preservation District. Jeffrey Morton, 206 Bluff Street, was present on behalf of the Fischer Companies to present the request. He explained that nearly all the work has been completed and apologized for forgetting to request approval from the Commission prior to initiation of the project. Mr. Morton noted that all of the work completed to date has been approved by the State Historic Preservation Office and the National Park Service, since the project is a historic preservation tax credit project. Mr. Morton reviewed the research done for the project. He described the inappropriate materials that were removed as well as the damage to the historic materials. Mr. Morton described the rehabilitation work to the west, south and east facades of the building. He explained the sheet metal was removed and a metal cornice will be installed to replicate the 1915 cornice. He explained the storefronts have been restored to their original appearance. He explained the masonry has been cleaned, repaired and replaced where needed to replicate the original appearance. Mr. Morton described the process to rehabilitate the masonry and repair the historic materials and missing features of the Julien Inn. He explained the rehabilitation work that is scheduled to be done includes historic custom fabricated iron and sheet metal Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 8 canopies. He noted that all windows are wood, except for the three arched windows. He explained the window configurations. He stated that the rehabilitation of the Julien Inn is based on historic documentation and the rehabilitation is essentially a 1915 restoration. Chairperson Olson arrived at 6:38 p.m. Commissioner Lundh questioned whether the property is located in a historic district, and if this work should have been reviewed prior to its initiation. Staff Member Carstens confirmed the building is located in the Old Main Historic District and the work should have been approved by the Commission prior to beginning the work. Mr. Morton again apologized for the lapse in process. Commissioner Lundh questioned what materials have been ordered and whether they could be returned in the event that the Commission did not approve of an aspect of the project. Mr. Morton stated most of the materials for the hotel have been ordered and put in place. Mr. Morton reviewed the proposed screening. The Commission discussed the proposal with the applicant. Mr. Morton explained they are requesting to construct a screening wall for an in-ground swimming pool area to be located on the north side of the building on the vacant lot between the Julien Inn and the Fischer Company offices at 290 Main Street. The screening wall along the west elevation, or Main Street, is a painted iron strapped lattice fence with painted iron posts and rails. He stated immediately behind the lattice fence will be painted, opaque metal panels. He explained on the east elevation exterior wall, a brick veneer will be applied to the existing concrete and plaster wall. He explained asub-grade aluminum storefront window and door system will be cut into the wall to access the pool enclosure. The Commission asked how the Indiana limestone on the facade was repaired with all the holes in it from the metal skin that was removed. Mr. Morton explained that the holes were filled and that the limestone was treated to match the grain and texture. Motion by Wand, seconded by Whalen, to approve the request as presented. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Olson, Whalen, Wand, Bichell, Lundh, Rapp and McDonell; Nay -None. The Commission requested Mr. Morton pass along a message to the Pfohls to thank them for their investment in rehabilitating the Julien Inn Hotel. DESIGN REVIEW: Application of Jeffrey Morton, Architect/Michael Lange & Suzanne Guinn for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a carriage house and porch for property located at 563 W. 11 t" Street in the W. 11 t" Street Historic Preservation District. Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 9 Michael Lange, 2752 Clay Hill Road, Cuba City, Wisconsin, was present as was Jeff Morton as project architect to present the request. Staff Member Johnson reviewed the staff report. He explained in detail the work to be done to each of the elevations. He explained the carriage house will be attached to the north side of the building, and will measure 29'-2" by 24'-2". He stated the carriage house will function as a garage and have two wood and glass garage doors. He explained on the west elevation the service door will be wood, have six divided lites above two panels and have a transom above. There will be a trivet .low lock brick arch above the garage doors and service door. The carriage house will have rock faced native limestone veneer at the base and brick veneer above that. The walkout roof porch will have a double wood rail with square balusters. He stated the wood frame appears covered with a limestone or brick veneer and will support an asphalt shingled hip roof. He stated on the east elevation, the carriage will have rock faced native limestone veneer at the base and brick veneer above. He stated a triple set of wood, double-hung windows with brick arches and limestone sills will be used. The walkout roof porch will have a double wood rail with square balusters. The wood frame pier will be covered with a limestone or brick veneer and will support the asphalt shingled hip roof. He stated the east elevation will also have a new walk-up porch that will be added to the core of the building. The porch will be wood and measures 13' 8" by 10' 6". He stated the porch will have a double wood rail with square balusters and the bottom will be enclosed with framed lattice screened panels. He stated the north elevation will have a rock faced native limestone veneer at the base and brick veneer above it. A single wood, double-hung window with a brick arch and limestone sill will be used. A wood door with six divided lites and two panels underneath and a transom with a brick arch above will be installed. The walk-out roof porch will have a double wood rail with square balusters. Wood framed piers covered with a limestone or brick veneer will support the asphalt shingled hip roof. The Commission reviewed the project. Chairperson Olson suggested narrowing the addition slightly to differentiate the new addition from the original home. Mr. Morton suggested widening may be a more practical way to differentiate, since if the garage were to be reduced in size, it would impede the property owners' ability to reasonably use it. Commissioner Whalen noted the roof also differentiates the addition. Mr. Lange explained that the intent was to have the garage match with similar materials but not appear to be a part of the core building. Mr. Morton explained the garage is simpler in design. Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 10 The Commission discussed the wood framed piers that are proposed to be covered with a limestone or brick veneer. Commissioner Wand explained his opinion would be that leaving the piers wood instead of applying a brick or limestone veneer would look better. The Commission discussed with the applicant and architect reducing the height of the garage roof, noting the balance of maintaining door heights and roof pitch at the north elevation. The Commission also discussed the curve of the rail design on the carriage house. The Commission stated the rail would look better if the curved element were to be removed and a squared off rail were to be installed in its place. Motion by Wand, seconded by Whalen, to approve the request as presented, with the provision that: 1) The curved aspect of the railing frame be eliminated and replaced with a squared off rail on all elevations; and 2) The wood framed piers supporting the hip roof be left as wood and the wood can be of a pattern and finish that the architect believes is in keeping with the style of the building. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Olson, Whalen, Wand, Lundh, Bichell, Rapp and McDonell; Nay -None. DESIGN REVIEW: Application of Jeffrey Morton, Architect/John Whalen for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the building located at 1349 Prairie Street in the W. 11 t" Street Historic Preservation District. Commissioner Whalen removed himself from the table to present the request. Jeff Morton, project architect, was also present. Staff Member Johnson reviewed the staff report. He stated Mr. Morton has prepared a detailed report, drawings and photographs documenting the existing condition of the building to justify its demolition. He stated the report concludes that because of the significant damage and deterioration of the foundation and structure, the building needs to be removed and replaced with a new building to be constructed as closely as possible to the original. John Whalen, 1105 Highland Place, presented the property's historic use. He explained the building has been a rental and neglected for many years. He reviewed the poor condition of the home and explained the challenges of the home's construction. He explained demolition is always a last resort for him; however, this building cannot be safely rehabilitated. He stated he felt the outside shell would collapse at some point. Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 11 Commissioner Olson noted that the structure is identified as contributing in the Iowa Site Inventory Form, and supporting in the Kriviskey Survey. She noted all the missing architectural features and felt the designation of the building is tenuous at best. She noted the building has been severely compromised and is in poor condition. Mr. Whalen explained that the Iowa Site Inventory Form was prepared with a survey from the street, and Jim Jacobsen did not have an opportunity to examine the interior of the building. He explained he has exhausted all efforts in attempting to rehabilitate the building. Chairperson Olson stated that she felt that Mr. Whalen has exercised due diligence in trying to rehabilitate the structure. Commissioner Rapp questioned whether there were any historic photos available to assist in future construction. Mr. Whalen stated he did not have any historic photographs of the building. He explained the footprint of the building has been enlarged over time and holes were put in the brick, which is also covered with stucco. Commissioner Bichell asked whether the brick can be saved. Mr. Whalen noted the brick walls are only two bricks thick; however, some bricks may be able to be salvaged. The Commission discussed the architectural report prepared by Jeff Morton. The Commission noted how the structural elements of the home had been significantly compromised and the shell of the building is being bowed out. Mr. Whalen explained the front wall of the house is being pulled away from the home by the weight of the inappropriate front porch which is why it was requested the porch be demolished at a previous meeting. Commissioner Lundh stated he feels safety is more important than preservation in this case. Commissioner Wand asked about the drainage and the building plans. Mr. Whalen explained they are looking at a stucco or brick exterior. Motion by Wand, seconded by Bichell, to approve the request as presented. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Olson, Wand, Bichell, Rapp, Lundh and McDonell; Nay - None; Abstain -Whalen. ITEMS FROM PUBLIC: None. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION: Revisions to Historic Preservation Ordinance: Staff Member Carstens reviewed the suggested changes to the Historic Preservation Ordinance to date. She noted the Commission has suggested in Section 25-7(c), the Commission. felt that a licensed architect or engineer should be consulted in determining whether a building or structure can be reasonably repaired or restored. The Commission also requested the word "stabilized" be inserted after the word "repaired" in this section. Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 12 Staff Member.Carstens stated the Commission requested the Ordinance use the National Park Service definition for anon-contributing building and also add one more bullet point that states, "..or has been identified as contributing in a historical, architectural, or archeological survey investigation." She stated the Commission has also requested that Section 25-8(c )(2)(a.3) and Section 25-8(c)(2)(a.4} be changed so that work physically commences within 60 days from the date of the Certificate of Appropriateness and be completed in such ..." She stated the Commission's suggestion that the Ordinance be revised to streamline the review process for demolition permits in conservation districts be limited to review by the Historic Preservation Commission as reflected in the suggested changes. She explained the City Council would then not need to review each of these cases; however, Historic Preservation Commission decisions can be appealed to the City Council. She explained the revised Ordinance also includes language to prohibit the removal or alteration of character defining features for buildings located in conservation districts without HPC review and approval. Staff Member Carstens stated that based on the November 29, 2007 meeting and information provided by Larry Sommer with JEO Consulting, language regarding preservation planning and the conservation area concepts have been incorporated into the Ordinance. She explained a section on conservation planning areas has been specifically added and definitions of conservation districts and conservation planning areas are suggested. Staff Member Carstens recommended that the conservation planning areas be limited to those areas in which a historical survey has been completed. The Commission discussed the conservation planning areas. Staff Member Carstens clarified that the conservation planning areas do not impose any additional regulations; however, they bring an increased awareness that there are historically significant properties in an area. She noted this can be beneficial because the increased awareness can assure that historic preservation and historic buildings are made a consideration for land use planning initiatives or project planning in an area. The Commission discussed the changed language for conservation districts in the revised ordinance. The Commission addressed proposed Section 25-11(c) review of new construction in conservation districts. Staff Member Carstens explained the suggested language was added to allow the HPC to review new construction projects in historic districts. She explained because the Commission is responsible for determining the appropriateness of demolishing a building in a conservation district, it is logical to make the- Commission responsible for review and approval of new construction projects Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 13 in conservation districts as well. The Commission supported the proposed change, noting that conservation districts may not have the historic fabric to support establishing a historic district; however, to allow inappropriate new construction in conservation districts would only diminish the value of those historic properties and areas in conservation districts. Chairperson Olson noted that the proposed language would require design review for new construction in areas where design guidelines are not in place. The Commission felt that photographs of the surrounding area, survey information, and the existing design guidelines for historic structures in historic districts would be adequate to make a reasonable determination as to what would be appropriate or not. Staff Member Carstens noted that once finished, the downtown design guideline will address new construction as well. The Commission next discussed the proposed Section 25-11(d) Review of Removal or Obscurements of Character-Defining Features in Conservation Districts. The Commission did not support the proposed revision and requested it be removed from the revised Ordinance. The Commission noted acharacter-defining feature is defined as a prominent or distinctive aspect of quality or characteristic of a cultural landscape or historic structures that contributes significantly to its physical character. The Commission explained that the proposed revision would essentially require HPC design review and approval for any alteration to a building located in a conservation district. The Commission noted the suggested change would essentially make conservation districts the same as historic preservation districts. The Commission noted there are approximately 700 buildings in historic preservation districts currently subject to regulation by the Commission. Expanding design review to character-defining features in conservation districts would require design review for an additional approximate 850 buildings. The Commission stated that the proposed language goes beyond their wish to simply to prevent the removal of significant features of historic buildings. The Commission noted the difficulty in defining exactly what would be significant and what would require review and what would not. Staff Member Carstens noted that the proposed language was suggested as a response to problem properties in conservation districts. She explained some property owners in the past have threatened to remove important features of historic homes because of City enforcement efforts. As a consequence, staff was directed to look into ways of preventing this. She stated the proposed language is largely based off of Iowa City's regulations. Commissioner Wand stated they would have to be a well defined list of what type of work would require HPC review and approval in conservation districts. Chairperson Olson suggested looking into applying design review regulations to buildings in conservation districts based on their level of significance. Commissioner Wand reiterated that he is opposed to reviewing alterations to character-defining features in conservation districts. He explained the intent of the conservation district is Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 14 to preserve the historic fabric and prevent "missing teeth" from happening in these neighborhoods. He stated if the historic fabric of these areas was significant enough, they would have been made historic preservation districts. The Commission noted it would be difficult to selectively apply these regulations to buildings based on their significance. Commissioner Whalen requested to find out how much Iowa City's caseload increased once they implemented design review in conservation districts. The Commission discussed possibly looking into conducting sign review on features of a building that have been demolished either in whole or in part. The Commission discussed the proposed Section 25-11(c) Review of New Construction in Conservation Districts again. Staff Member Carstens suggested the Commission consider holding off incorporating this section into the Ordinance until the Downtown Design Guidelines are finished and the Commission has an opportunity to evaluate how they can best develop design guidelines to be applied to conservation districts. The Commission agreed and requested proposed Sections 25-11(c) and (d) be removed from the revised ordinance. Commissioner Wand noted some of the grammatical issues with the proposed ordinance. He stated the ordinance needs to be consistent where the City of Dubuque Historic Preservation Commission and State of Iowa is capitalized. He also noted the word "and" at the end of No. 2 under the conservation district definition needs to be moved to No. 3. He noted this is evident in a couple other locations in the ordinance as well. He requested the language "areas within a community that" be removed from No. 4 under the definition of a conservation district. He noted No. 3 under the definition of a conservation planning area should be changed so that the word "have" is replaced with "has." The Commission requested that the last bullet under the definition of a non- contributing building be changed to read, "It has not been identified as contributing in a historical, architectural or archeological survey." Commissioner Wand also noted that some of the numbering is off throughout the proposed ordinance. The Commission requested staff look into what triggers a demolition permit as it applies to the demolition of buildings in whole or in part. The Commission noted expanding additional regulations to conservation districts would create a burden for Planning and Building Services staff, and might require additional staffing. The Commission noted the difficulty in enforcement on the 700 properties currently in Historic Preservation Districts, let alone a potential additional 850 properties in conservation districts. Commissioner Bichell suggested the City look into additional staff to improve enforcement and follow-up on Certificates of Appropriateness. Commissioner Lundh suggested a system similar to the tax credit process where the applicant is required to document what exists, what they plan to do, and document what was done. By consensus the Commission approved of the proposed revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance with the changes as discussed, and requested that when the proposal was presented to the City Council the options for additional reviews in Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 15 conservation districts be noted as being discussed but not recommended by the Commission at this time. NAPC CAMP: The Commission reviewed some of the discussion from the June 14, 2008 NAPC CAMP. The Commission discussed the idea of requiring people to post notice of work to be done to historic properties. The Commission suggested that the notice be 8'/Z x 11, distinguishable, clear to read, and be sent with the Certificate of Appropriateness. The Commission wanted to the notice to be clearly posted in a window facing the street. The Commission explained past examples where this has been implemented for increased awareness of historic preservation projects as well as neighborhood policing. Recruitment for Langworthy and Cathedral District Representatives: Chairperson Olson noted that staff has sent out notice residences in the Langworthy and Cathedral Historic Districts for the vacant commission positions at he rdirection. Staff noted they have received interest from three individuals about the vacant positions. Photo Documentation for Historic Buildings: Commissioner Bichell presented for discussion the idea of photo documentation of historic buildings in historic districts. The Commission explained that images from 1970 are already documented for buildings located in historic districts. Commissioner Bichell suggested having historical photographic documentation more readily available for properties located in historic districts. Staff explained that the Center for Dubuque History at Loras College has the most comprehensive historical photographic documentation for Dubuque structures. Staff Member Johnson stated that the majority of our historical documentation came from the Centerfor Dubuque History. He explained that historical photographs are not available for all buildings located in the district because they just weren't taken. Staff Member Carstens suggested anyone interested in historical photographs contact Staff Member Johnson. Design Review for 5 Points Walgreen's: Commissioner Bichell questioned whether the Historic Preservation Commission can be involved in design review of the new Walgreen's to be located where the 5 Points building on Elm and 20th Streets is currently located. Staff Member Carstens explained that design review of the Walgreen's is outside of the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission. She noted the Commission could request City Council to allow them to conduct design review on the new building. Commissioner Bichell explained that Walgreen's does have the ability to, and they have in the past, deviate from their franchise architecture to build .buildings that fit in with the character of the area or neighborhood. The Commission discussed the request, noting the importance of preserving the character and rhythm of that neighborhood. The Commission noted that the Five Points building is a significant building that's going to be removed from the site. The replacement building will be located in a neighborhood where the City has focused many of its resources and revitalization efforts, which in part has to do with the sense of place and maintaining a walkable neighborhood. The new building will be located in an area that is Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 16 focus of the HEART Program. The neighborhood is a place where the City is trying to maintain, preserve and relocate historic structures. Motion by Bichell, seconded by Wand, to request the City Council allow the Historic Preservation Commission to serve as an advisory design review body for the 5 Points Walgreen's project, noting that there is a historic structure. that will be removed, it is a neighborhood where the City has focused its revitalization efforts, which includes strategic planning efforts to help create a sense of place, maintain walkable neighborhoods, increase the vitality of the neighborhood, and preserving the character of the neighborhood and the HEART Program is focused on preserving and maintaining historic structures. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Whalen, Olson, Wand, Bichell, Rapp, Lundh and McDonell; Nay -None. ITEMS FROM STAFF: Building Services Dept -Status Report on Historic Preservation Enforcement: Staff Member Johnson reviewed the updates to the historic preservation enforcement report. He explained the difficulties that Ms. Rako is having in designing and applying for a Certificate of Appropriateness to fix the stairs and porch at 1017 Bluff. He explained the drawings in the initial application were not enough in order for the Commission to conduct a design review. The Commission discussed alternatives to remedy the enforcement on the property, get the porch fixed, and end up with an appropriate porch design. Staff Member Johnson noted that the current porch had been partially removed some time ago, and the second empire porch was inappropriate to the Italianate style building. He explained an appropriate porch design would reflect those porches found in the 300 block of Bluff Street, where the porch has a simple design, hip roof, and spans the entryway. He explained the difficulties that Ms. Rako is facing is that she has to use the Historic Preservation Housing Grant to complete the repairs, however, her neighbor is not eligible for funding and cannot or will not invest money to assist with the entryway porch. Consequently, half an entry way porch could be built but it would look strange. The Commission and staff discussed conducting a special design workshop to assist Ms. Rako on an appropriately designed porch within the $5,000 budget. The Commission directed staff to set up the design workshop with the property owner. The Commission discussed ways to put historic property owners in contact with people who have the knowledge and ability to prepare detailed drawings for applicants who do not have the resources or skills to do so. The Commission suggested looking into Platteville or local design/architecture firms to recruit interns who need to fulfill requirements. Chairperson Olson noted that since the Historic Preservation Housing Grant has been cut and the HDPIP program has been significantly decreased, perhaps a small $500 design grant could be made available to eligible property owners. The Commission requested that a request be put into next year's budget. Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission June 19, 2008 Page 17 The Commission next discussed the property at 3000 Jackson. The Commission requested staff verify that if the property owner will be receiving TIF funding from the City, they will not have the ability to demolish the building in part or in whole for at least a period of 20 years. The Commission requested Building Services staff provide the date that 3000 Jackson and 3040 Elm Street were listed on the enforcement report. The Commission requested that Building Services staff provide the May 8, 2008 letter that was sent to the property owner at 3040 Elm Street. The Commission requested Building Services staff look into enforcement at 1175 Bluff. The Commission noted the poor condition of the curved porch, and indicated that the vegetation and vines may be contributing to its poor condition. The Commission requested City staff research the Certificate of Appropriateness issued to the property owner at 515 Arlington Street. They expressed concerns that the door and transom were not appropriately installed. The Commission discussed recording Certificates of Appropriateness with deeds to properties on a monthly basis. Motion by Wand, seconded by Lundh, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Whalen, Olson, Wand, Bichell, Rapp, Lundh and McDonell; Nay - None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager Adopted F:\USERS\Kmunson\WP\Boards-Commissions\HPC\Minutes\HPC Minutes 2008UiPC min 06 19 08.doc