Minutes Historic Preservation Commission Regular SessionDubuque
THE CITY OE
DuB ~"j
Masterpiece on the Mississijrpi (I I
2007
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION
5:30 p.m.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
City Council Chamber, Historic Federal Building
350 W. 6t" St., Dubuque IA 52001
D~~af~
Commissioners Present: Chairperson Matthew Lundh; Commissioners Chris Olson,
Eli Licht, Michael Knight, Mary Loney Bichell, Joseph Rapp, Chris Wand and Bob
McDonell.
Commissioners Excused: Commissioner John Whalen.
Staff Members Present: Laura Carstens and David Johnson.
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 Chairperson Lundh at 5:30 p.m.
MINUTES: Commissioner Rapp noted changes to the draft minutes of February 19, 2009.
He explained on Page 3, last paragraph, the date 1853 should be changed to 1833. He
noted 29 Locust Street should be added after John S. Murphy's name in paragraph 1,
Page 4. He noted 36 Bluff Street should be changed to 35 Locust Street on line 7,
paragraph 4, page 4.
Motion by Wand, seconded by Olson, to approve the minutes of February 19, 2009
meeting with the recommended changes. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -
Lundh, Olson, Licht, Knight, Loney Bichell, Rapp, Wand and McDonell; Nay -None.
DESIGN REVIEW: Application of Advanta Sign Co. for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
change sign on the rooftop of Hotel Julien located at 200 Main Street in the Old Main
Historic Preservation District.
Staff Member Johnson introduced the project applicant, Keith Grimstad, of Advanta Sign.
Staff Member Johnson reviewed the staff report. He explained the applicant is seeking a
Certificate of Appropriateness to change the roof sign on top of the Hotel Julien. He
explained the new sign will have little material effect on the exterior architectural
appearance or features of the sign. He stated the existing vinyl sign letters will be removed
and new letters will be painted on. The original neon tubing bordered the vinyl letter was
broken, removed and will be replaced with new clear red neon tubing. He stated that
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 2
tubing will border the new painted lettering. He stated the sign size and steel support
structure will not change.
Mr. Grimstad clarified that the sign will be approximately the same size. The Plexiglas
substructure will be placed with alumilite, which will have similar appearance. He noted an
additional aluminum frame will be added. He stated the sign has had neon on it since
approximately the 1920s. In response to a question from Commissioner Wand, Mr.
Grimstad explained the gray areas located in the bottom corners of the sign are designed
to allow for radio transmitters, and therefore, the sign is not all white.
Commissioner Wand asked about the red neon color bordering the letters. Mr. Grimstad
explained the color was selected by Tony Pfohl, property owner.
Staff Member Carstens clarified that the sign is in compliance with the Zoning regulations.
In response to a request from Commissioner Olson, Staff Member Johnson reviewed the
architectural design guidelines for signs. He noted an exact date of the sign's installation
cannot be determined.
The Commission discussed the font, colors and use of neon for the sign. They discussed
the use of exterior lighting instead of neon, which Commissioners Wand and Olson felt was
most appropriate for the restored hotel. Mr. Grimstad said the owner would like the sign to
be approved as proposed. He felt the sign would be a great addition to the building. Mr.
Grimstad explained that the neon was removed in the fall as part of the building
restoration. He clarified the neon will be on the exterior and used to outline the letters. He
said the neon is built and ready to be installed.
Staff Member Carstens clarified the sign permit process and zoning regulations for roof
signs when replacement of panels occur.
The Commission again discussed the reintroduction of the neon. Commissioner Olson
noted a potential conflict because the HEART Program will receive a donation from the
Hotel Julien and therefore she will abstain from any further discussion and voting on the
project.
The Commission discussed whether the applicant would like to table the request until a
time when Mr. Pfohl can be present. The Commission also discussed voting on the
material of the sign only and deferring the lighting of the sign to a later meeting.
The Commission discussed using neon lighting versus uplighting for the Hotel Julien sign.
Commissioner Rapp felt the new sign and font was appropriate, but had concerns how the
neon would look. Commissioner McDonell explained he did not like the neon and would
rather see external illumination. Commissioner Licht stated he would prefer exterior
illumination over neon because that would be most appropriate for the restored hotel.
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 3
Commissioner Knight felt the sign design does not fit with the hotel restoration.
Commissioner Bichell felt the design of the sign was appropriate but would prefer external
illumination. Chairperson Lundh felt the uplighting is the most historically appropriate
alternative.
Mr. Grimstad suggested the Commission table the request until Mr. Pfohl can be present.
Motion by Wand, seconded by Bichell, to table the application at the request of the
applicant. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Lundh, Licht, Knight, Loney Bichell,
Rapp, Wand and McDonell; Nay -None; Abstain -Olson.
The consensus of the Commission was to notify the applicant that the sign cannot be
installed because the item was tabled.
Commissioner Lundh discussed allowing the applicant to install the sign as proposed, with
the exception of the sign's illumination.
Motion by Lundh to remove the item from the table. Motion failed for lack of a second.
The Commissioner discussed whether a special meeting should be held. By consensus,
the Commission agreed to consider a special meeting if requested by the applicant.
DESIGN REVIEW: Application of Four Mounds Foundation for Historic District
Preservation Improvement Program funding for a visitor station forthe Four Mounds Estate
Landmark Site located at 4900 Peru Road.
Commissioner Olson removed herself from the table to represent the Four Mounds
Foundation in the request.
Staff Member Johnson reviewed the staff report. He explained the applicant is applying for
funding from the Historic District Public Improvement Program to fund a portion of the
architectural fees to design and site a visitor station at the Four Mounds Estate. He stated
the application explained the visitor's station will compliment the estate, and will be sited in
an unobtrusive location behind a tree line close to the ropes course, parking area, and
summer day camp. He explained the visitor's station will accommodate a men's and
women's restrooms, water fountain, shed roof overhang, information kiosk, storage closets
and a bicycle rack. He stated the design of the visitor's station will be presented to the
Commission at a later date. He stated the visitor's station will eliminate the need to have a
porta-potty on site and create a more visitor-friendly permanent solution. Staff Member
Johnson stated there is currently $4,800 in HDPIP funds available through FY2009. He
stated the total architectural costs are estimated at $6,500. He explained Jeff Morton will
be contributing $1,700 of in-kind match and the applicant is requesting $4,800 from HDPIP.
He stated the role of the Historic Preservation Commission in reviewing the project is to
serve as an advisory design review body to the City Council for review of public works
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 4
projects which have historic preservation implications at landmark sites. The Commission is
responsible for providing a recommendation to the City Council regarding funding projects
from the HDPIP Program.
Chris Olson, Executive Director of Four Mounds Foundation, reviewed the construction of
the visitor's station, which is not currently budgeted. She reviewed the planned design of
the visitor's station and referred to photographs of the proposed site location. She stated
the visitor's station will use muted natural colors and a design which mimics the Grey
House at the estate.. She reviewed the sequential development of homes and other
structures at Four Mounds. She described the variety of uses at the site and how the
numbers of people visiting the site are managed. She explained there is a great need for
the public restrooms and visitor's station at the estate.
Ms. Olson thanked the Commission for past HDPIP support and reviewed the current
progress on other projects.
Commissioner Rapp questioned when the restrooms would be open. Ms. Olson stated the
restrooms would be seasonal, as determined by the Leisure Services Department. Ms.
Olson reiterated the need for the visitor's station for the visiting public and accessibility.
Commissioner Rapp asked about Four Mounds connection to the. Heritage Trail. Staff
Member Carstens explained that Four Mounds is not located on the Heritage Trail.
Commissioner Wand asked about the architectural services. Ms. Olson explained that
Jeffrey Morton of Morton Design will be contributing $1,700 worth of his time and talent.
The Commission reviewed the HDPIP policy and noted project design is an eligible
expense for HDPIP funding and in-kind contributions are allowed. Commissioner Licht
asked if the HEART Program would be involved in the visitor's station. Ms. Olson was
unaware of who would be participating in the project.
Motion by Knight, seconded by Wand, to approve the request as submitted. Motion carried
by the following vote: Aye - Lundh, Licht, Knight, Loney Bichell, Rapp, Wand and
McDonell; Nay -None; Abstain -Olson.
Commissioner Wand suggested a report that shows funds leveraged for HDPIP be
prepared for City Council consideration. By consensus, the Commission directed staff to
prepare the report for the Commission to review prior to submission to City Council.
ITEMS FROM PUBLIC:
510 W. 11 Street: Rodney Carroll, 510 W. 11th Street, spoke regarding the action taken
at the Historic Preservation Commission's February 19, 2009 meeting, which referred his
property to the Building Services Department for rotten wood detailing. Mr. Carroll
referenced the March 11, 2009 Notice of Repairs letter issued by the Building Services
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 5
Department, which stated the property was suffering from Demolition by Neglect. He
stated the enforcement referral was generated at the February 19, 2009 meeting. Mr.
Carroll requested to know what about his home qualifies for Demolition by Neglect and
which Commissioner made the enforcement referral. Mr. Carroll explained he is in the
process of selling the property. He stated he has owned the property for approximately
eight years, and invested a significant amount of time and money into the property. He
explained much of the investment has been made to the inside of the property. He
explained that when he purchased the property eight years ago, the property was falling
down from the inside. Mr. Carroll acknowledged that the exterior of his home is not perfect,
but it does not rise the level of demolition by neglect.
Mr. Carroll stated that the Notice of Demolition by Neglect has directly and adversely
affected his ability to sell the property at the recommended price. He explained that Iowa
Law requires him to disclose in his Property Disclosure Statement the enforcement action
by the Commission and pending activity. He explained he has discussed the enforcement
action with a number of real estate professionals who have advised him that the
enforcement action adversely and immediately impacts his ability to perform on his contract
with his real estate agent or any prospective business advantage he may have with a
prospective buyer. Mr. Carroll requested the Commission clarify why the enforcement
referral was made and the Commission formally revisit the matter.
Mr. Carroll questioned how members of the Commission who live in close proximity to his
property ignore homes that are in obviously poorer condition than his for enforcement. He
explained that he is not only passionate about his home but also the neighborhood. He
stated he succeeded Commissioner Olson as President of the Historic Bluffs
Neighborhood Association. He stated during his tenure as president of the neighborhood
association, he spearheaded an effort to City Council to initiate rezoning of the
neighborhood from a high density residential classification to a lower density zoning
classification to encourage the introduction of new people into the neighborhood. He
stated the effort was made to also encourage the preservation of historic properties and
regeneration of the neighborhood. He explained the Commission's actions contradict
those efforts. He explained that since receiving the letter, he has toured the neighborhood
and if his home is the standard by which the City evaluates demolition by neglect, one-third
to 40% of the West 11th Street Neighborhood should also be considered demolition by
neglect.
Mr. Carroll referenced a property owned by an absentee landlord located directly across
the street from Commissioner Bichell. He explained the porch on the blue four-square is
falling down and actual separation from the building has occurred on the front railing. He
explained the porch is not level. He explained that are no such defects on his front porch
and yet it is noted as an issue in the demolition by neglect. He stated if his neighbors have
concerns about the way his home looked, he wished they would have brought those
concerns to him personally so the situation could be discussed.
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 6
Chairperson Lundh suggested the Commission would try to identify who generated the
complaint; however, that would be unlikely due to the enforcement referral process. Mr.
Carroll again reiterated that his conversations with Assistant City Attorney Crenna
Brumwell indicated that the genesis of the complaint was with Historic Preservation
Commission at the February 19th meeting.
Chairperson Lundh deferred to staff and asked what is the Commission requiring Mr.
Carroll to do that he is not doing. Staff Member Carstens explained that the Commission
asked Planning Staff to refer a complaint to the Building Services Staff to look into
enforcement due to rotting wood detailing. She explained that referral is reflected in the
February 19, 2009 minutes. She explained like any other referral made by the Commission
at meetings, the enforcement issue was referred to the Building Services Department to
determine whether a violation exists. She explained the determination of demolition by
neglect is not made by the Commission or the Planning Services staff; rather it is made by
the Building Services Department and that is where the enforcement process begins, if the
Building Services Department finds a violation. Chairperson Lundh summarized that the
Commission had a concern about the exterior of the house, referred to the Building
Services Department, and explained that someone from that department went out to
inspect the property and identified an issue. He explained there are probably eight to 10
other buildings in the City of Dubuque that are under similar duress that are also probably
in litigation.
Chairperson Lundh asked Planning Staffwhat Mr. Carroll needs to meet the requirements
of the Ordinance. Staff Member Carstens explained those requirements are stated in the
March 11, 2009 notice prepared by the Building Services Department. Chairperson Lundh
requested to know exactly what the Building Services Department found wrong with the
house. Staff Member Carstens again noted a copy of the letter was given to Commission
members and was in front of them. Mr. Carroll noted he has a copy of the same letter
which states the items include, but are not limited to, deteriorated soffit, fascia and
windows and lack of whether protection on the porch and steps. Staff Member Carstens
stated that the letter requests a plan of action to comply with Section 25-7 by March 27,
2009.
Mr. Carroll reiterated that the problem is that the enforcement action has required the letter
be attached to the property. Chairperson Lundh explained that is something they can
clarify. Chairperson Lundh stated the City needs to find out whether the letter should be
attached to the property because Mr. Carroll has not had a chance to respond. Mr. Carroll
again explained he has an obligation to disclose the enforcement action under Iowa law
under the property disclosure requirements. Chairperson Lundh explained that the Historic
Preservation Commission needs to correspond with the Legal Services Department to
determine how and when enforcement actions are attached to a property, and get that
fixed because the property owner needs a chance to respond.
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 7
Commissioner Olson explained when buying or selling a home, it's common for issues to
be disclosed. Chairperson Lundh again explained that the property owner should have a
chance to respond and the City shouldn't file official papers. Staff Member Johnson
explained that the letter sent by Building Inspector Zasada is a Notice of Repairs. He
explained it is not yet a Notice of Violation or a Citation, rather, the initial stages of the
compliance process. Mr. Carroll stated regardless of the stage of the process, he is
required to tell any prospective buyer of the property that the City is considering taking civil
sanctions as a result of the issues.
Chairperson Lundh suggested the Commission can consider a motion on how to justify or
rectify the situation. He explained there is a lot of middle ground that is a waste of time
until the exact improvements needed are identified. Chairperson Lundh suggested perhaps
the Commission communicate with the Building Services Department that added
clarification is provided to a property owner.
Staff Member Carstens reminded the Commission that historic preservation enforcement is
in the Building Services Department because City Code gives the Building Services
Department authority to do that. She explained thatthe CityAttorney's Office has informed
the Commission that they can take the matter under advisement; however, no formal
action can be taken at the meeting. She explained the Commission can direct staff to
place the item on a future agenda where Legal, Building Services, and Planning staff can
be in attendance and the Commission would have an opportunity to take action.
Chairperson Lundh suggested having the Legal Department or Building Services
Department write a clarification letter explaining what exactly needs to be fixed.
Commissioner Knight noted that the problems are outlined in the March 11th letter. Mr.
Carroll asked the Commission what specific criteria under Section 25-7 of the Ordinance
does his property fall under. Chairperson Lundh explained he believes the Commission
needs to arrive at a solution so there is direction and the Commission is not imposing
anything negative on Mr. Carroll's property. Chairperson Lundh again suggested the
Commission could consider a motion which would request clarification on the Demolition by
Neglect to the Legal Department or City Manager's Office. Chairperson Lundh explained
the letter would indicate what improvements Mr. Carroll would need to make by a specific
date so that if it has to be included in a disclosure statement, it can easily be dismissed by
a potential purchaser of the property.
Commissioner Knight suggested Mr. Carroll needs to speak with the appropriate
department and determine exactly what the expectations are for repair. Mr. Carroll
explained his frustration is that someone on the Commission already made that
determination when referring the enforcement to the Building Services Department. Staff
Member Carstens reiterated the minutes do not specify demolition by neglect; rather
merely refer the matter to the Building Services Department to make a determination. She
explained it is then up to the Building Services Department to make a determination
whether the condition violates the Ordinance based on the inspection. She suggested that
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 8
Mr. Carroll needs to speak with the Building Services Department for clarification on the
enforcement.
Mr. Carroll noted the February minutes stated that the property at 510 W. 11th Street be
added to the enforcement report. Staff Member Carstens reiterated that the Historic
Preservation Commission does not make a determination whether a property meets the
definition of Demolition by Neglect. A determination is made by an inspector in the Building
Services Department. A referral by the Commission does not constitute a violation.
Mr. Carroll requested the Commission vote on a recommendation that its conclusion at the
February 19, 2009 meeting was erroneous and was not founded in fact. Chairperson
Lundh stated he could not do that. He stated he could personally call the Building Services
Department and clarify what needs to be improved. He suggested Mr. Carroll contact
Building Services Department Manager Rich Russell for help. He explained to Mr. Carroll
that Staff Member Carstens and the City say one thing, but he, as a citizen and
Commissioner will try and help out. He explained he will spend his own time to try to come
to a conclusion.
Chairperson Lundh recognized that the enforcement action has already begun, and
therefore, the issue is how to come to a conclusion as fast as possible. He explained that
if the situation is fixed, then it doesn't need to be disclosed.
Commissioner Knight noted the underlying issue is that Mr. Carroll does not believe there
are repairs that need to be made. He explained as a real estate professional, not
disclosing the enforcement would put Mr. Carroll in a bad position. Mr. Carroll began to
explain the recourse. Chairperson Lundh stated what they did was covert, but if they work
it out, there can be a solution. Commissioners Knight and Olson explained it was not a
covert action; rather, the matter was referred to the appropriate department as part of the
process. Commissioner Knight stated the Commission does not have the authority to
reverse any enforcement action. Mr. Carroll explained that the process was initiated with
the Commission. Staff Member Carstens explained that any citizen of the city of Dubuque
can refer potential enforcement to the City.
Mr. Carroll asked Commissioner Bichell, based on her recent visit to the property, whether
she believes it qualifies for demolition by neglect. Commissioner Bichell explained thatthe
property does need some work. She explained Mr. Carroll admitted to the fact that the
property needs work; however, she is not aware of the specific stages of enforcement for
demolition by neglect since she does not work in the Building Services Department.
Mr. Carroll questioned how a Commission not aware of the process of demolition by
neglect can make a referral to a Building Official to make a determination of demolition by
neglect. Commissioner Knight reiterated that the complaint was referred to the appropriate
department to make the determination.
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 9
Mr. Carroll apologized for the direction the matter has taken but because he needs a
resolution in a timely fashion, he will pursue a declaratory judgment. He explained it is a
bad situation for him and historic preservation in Dubuque.
Commissioner Olson explained the Commission does not respond to threats. Mr. Carroll
stated he is not threatening anyone; rather he explained what his options are. Mr. Carroll
explained if anyone has been threatened in this situation, it has been him. Chairperson
Lundh stated he believed Mr. Carroll was correct in that assertion; that the way the system
works the process does not have the give that it needs to have. He stated this is why it is
important that perhaps unofficial correspondence be made priorto any letters being sent to
property owners about violations. He feels there should be a step prior to any
correspondence being sent to a property owner.
Staff Member Carstens explained that is exactly the intent of the letter dated March 11th,
which was sent to Mr. Carroll. She explained it was not a Notice of Violation; rather merely
a request to submit a plan of action. She reiterated that the process is being followed
appropriately. She explained it is the same process that the City has used for years, which
virtually every inspector follows. She explained that an inspector receives a complaint,
they complete an inspection, and then they do or do not issue a notice, depending on
whether they find a violation.
Mr. Carroll stated he does not believe that the inspector identified the specific subsection of
Section 25-7 of the City Code of which he is in violation. Staff Member Carstens
encouraged Mr. Carroll to speak with the Building Services Department for an answer to
this question.
Chairperson Lundh stated he understands Mr. Carroll's dissatisfaction and the Commission
will do their best to make sure that similar situations do not happen again. Chairperson
Lundh apologized. The Commission thanked Mr. Carroll for his time and Mr. Carroll
explained that he would take it up with the appropriate courts.
Staff Member Carstens asked whether the Commission would like the item placed on a
future agenda. Commissioner Knight stated that the Commission will wait for the
requested action plan by March 27th and consider setting something up after that. The
Commission deferred any action until such time that the election of officers is finalized.
ITEMS FROM COMMISSION:
Election of Officers: Chairperson Lundh explained after the previous meeting,
Commissioner Knight had expressed interest in being the Chairperson for the Commission.
Chairperson Lundh stated he wanted the matter brought back before the Commission so
the entire Commission could decide. Chairperson Lundh stated he has no objection to
Commissioner Knight being the new. Chairperson; he just wanted the Commission to
decide as a group.
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 10
Commissioner Knight explained the reason why he did not express more interest at the last
meeting was because he believed his role as an interim or temporary commissioner would
not allow him to serve as Chairperson. He explained since that meeting, staff conducted
some research and determined there is nothing in the Ordinance which would prohibit an
interim member from serving in an office.
Commissioner Wand noted at the last meeting, no Commissioner expressed an interest in
serving as Chairperson. Chairperson Lundh explained that he has a laid back approach to
being Chairperson and he feels every person should have an opportunity to speak, and his
goal is to make property values in the historic districts go up. Chairperson Lundh stated
that Commissioner Knight has explained there is an opportunity for the Commission to be
better represented at City Council meetings.
Commissioner Knight referenced the building in the 1600 block of Central thatwas allowed
to be demolished, even though the applicant's presentation was full of contradictions. He
reiterated his interest in being the Chairperson. Chairperson Lundh stated he is still
interested; however, would leave the decision up to the Commission to decide.
Commissioner Olson explained her experience on the Commission indicates that in past
elections of officers, there's been a general lack of interest in serving in these roles. She
stated that she is excited that Commissioner Knight is interested in the position.
Commissioner Knight explained as a developer, broker, and real estate agent, he deals
with these preservation issues on a day-to-day basis and feels as though he could serve
confidently in the position. Chairperson Lundh requested regardless of who is the new
Chairperson, everyone's voice is heard and the Commission is not one voice; but rather a
group of people. With that said, he stated he had no objection to Chairperson Knight
becoming Chairperson.
The Commission discussed the procedure for the new election of officers. Commissioners
Olson and Wand again reviewed past difficulty in Commission members wanting to hold an
office position. Commissioner Wand stated he would want Chairperson Lundh to be
Chairperson at a time when he really wants to do it, not when he feels obligated to do it.
Staff Member Carstens explained the proper procedure for making a motion to reconsider
the election of officers. She explained that anyone on the prevailing side of last month's
motion can move forward with the motion to reconsider.
Motion by Wand, seconded by Olson, to reconsider the motion of February 19, 2009 for
the election of officers. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Olson, Lundh, Licht,
Knight, Loney Bichell, Rapp, Wand and McDonell; Nay -None; Abstain -None.
Staff Member Carstens explained the motion of February 19t" to elect Matt Lundh as
Chairperson, Mary Loney Bichell as 1St Vice Chairperson and Chris Wand as 2"d Vice
Chairperson is back on the table.
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19; 2009
Page 11
Staff Member Carstens explained amendments could be proposed if agreed to by
Commissioners Wand and McDonell.
Motion by Wand to amend the original motion to nominate Michael Kn~ght as Chairperson,
Mary Loney Bichell as 1St Vice Chairperson and Chris Wand and 2" Vice Chairperson.
Motion to amend the previously motion failed due to a lack of a second by Commissioner
McDonell to the amendment.
Staff Member Carstens explained the Commission must now vote on the motion as stated
originally with Commissioner Lundh as Chairperson. She reviewed the original motion,
which was to elect Commissioner Matt Lundh as Chairperson, Mary Loney Bichell as 1St
Vice Chairperson, and Chris Wand and 2"d Vice Chairperson. Motion failed by the
following vote: Aye -McDonell; Nay -Olson, Licht, Knight, Bichell, Rapp, Wand and
Lundh; Abstain -None.
Motion by Wand, seconded by Licht, to elect Michael Knight as Chairperson, Mary Loney
Bichell as 1St Vice Chairperson, and Chris Wand as second Vice Chairperson. Motion
carried by the following vote: Aye -Lundh, Licht, Knight, Loney Bichell, Olson, Wand and
McDonell; Nay -None; Abstain -Rapp.
Boarded-Up Windows and Doors Ordinance: Staff Member Carstens explained staff is
seeking direction from the Commission on how to proceed with the draft boarded up
windows and doors ordinance. She explained this is a process that started some time ago
as an amendment to Chapter 11 of City Code. She asked the Commission whether they
would like the proposed ordinance to be incorporated in Chapter 25 or Chapter 11 of the
City Code or as part of the Unified Development Code process. She reviewed the
comments of the Dubuque Main Street Board. She stated Planning Services Staff also
met with the City Manager, Building Services Department, Legal staff, and Housing and
Community Development staff to discuss the comments of Dubuque Main Street. She
explained the Building Services Manager Rich Russell suggested amendments which have
not been incorporated into the original draft ordinance. She asked the Commission to
consider the comments of the Dubuque Main Street Board as well as the comments from
City Staff and make a determination of which comments to incorporate into the draft
ordinance. She explained Commissioner Olson requested the Commission discuss the
issue and deferred to her for any additional information.
Commissioner Olson explained she has noticed a number of boarded-up and open
windows in the city. She also stated that former Commissioner Terry Mozena contacted
her about his concerns regarding boarded-up and broken windows in the city and asked
about the current City policy regarding them. She explained that since the process for
establishing an ordinance for boarded-up windows and doors began, the downtown has
seen a lot of investment and noted a number of the downtown boarded-up windows and
doors have been restored. She explained that downtown is also seeing more upper level
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 12
housing. She explained that since Mr. Mozena brought the issue up, she realized the issue
impacts are much broader than simply establishing an ordinance to prevent boarded-up
windows and doors in the downtown, and she believed the matter warrants further
discussion by the Commission. She questioned whether now is the appropriate time to
follow-up on the ordinance and revisit the issue with Dubuque Main Street. She referenced
photographs taken by Mr. Mozena and emailed to her. She noted some of the buildings
are examples of long-term boarded-up windows and doors, and others are more recent
examples that. have been affected by fire. She also referenced the comments emailed by
Mr. Mozena to the City Manager, Planning Services staff, and the Housing and Community
Development Department regarding the draft ordinance.
She asked Commissioner Wand his opinion of how the proposed boarded-up windows and
doors ordinance with the suggested comments would be received by Dubuque Main Street.
Commissioner Wand explained his recollection of the Planning Services Staff initial
presentation of the ordinance to Dubuque Main Street included a survey of buildings that
would be affected by the proposed ordinance. He said his recollection of the meeting was
that Dubuque Main Street initially had hesitation due to the number of properties and
property owners that would be affected. He explained the Board's initial concern was that
the City would impose an undue burden on those property owners if they were required to
go back and put new windows in those buildings. He stated what the Historic Preservation
Commission has discovered is that a number of these boarded-up windows and doors
already have a window, if not the original window, behind them. He explained he was not
at the Dubuque Main Street Board meeting in January 2008 forthe Planning Services Staff
follow-up. He said in reading the memo to the Commission; he was encouraged by how
well it was received by the Dubuque Main Street Board. He stated he believed the Board's
suggested changes and requested timeframe for compliance is positive.
The Commission discussed examples of buildings that have boarded-up windows. The
Commission discussed that in many of those cases, simply removing the boarded-up
windows would create an immediate impact and transform the appearance of the building
from the street.
Commissioner Wand suggested the Commission needs to work on the process and
timeframe for the Ordinance. He questioned whether enforcement of the ordinance would
be done on a complaint basis or whether enforcement would occur in phases where larger
areas would be surveyed and identified.
Staff Member Carstens clarified for the Commission that the language in the draft
ordinance is specific to vacant and abandoned buildings only located in historic and
conservation districts. She explained that some buildings with a first floor retail use and
boarded-up upper story windows may not qualify, since the building is occupied on the first
floor by a business. Enforcement of the ordinance would be specific to those buildings that
qualify as being vacant and abandoned. She explained buildings outside of the
conservation districts would not be subject to enforcement as the ordinance is proposed.
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 13
She explained the intent of the ordinance was to mitigate the impact vacant and
abandoned buildings have on slum and blight in conservation and historic districts. She
explained the draft ordinance was proposed to go beyond the Housing and Community
Development policy on boarded-up windows and doors to include commercial properties.
Chairperson Lundh referenced the Millworking District and South Main, and suggested the
draft ordinance could be very problematic. Staff Member Carstens noted that the
Millworking District and most of South Main is not located in a local historic or conservation
district. Chairperson Lundh suggested a process that would deal with every property
owner fairly and a uniform approach, so that buildings in the Millworking District and South
Main are taken into account.
Chairperson Lundh questioned how the boundaries for enforcement would be established.
Commissioner Wand explained those boundaries have already been defined through the
process of establishing conservation and historic districts. He explained conservation and
historic districts are areas that have already been defined as having buildings with
sufficient historical fabric and architectural significance to warrant establishment of the
district, and therefore, justify boundaries for the boarded-up windows and doors draft
ordinance. He stated expansion of the' ordinance to the Millworking District would mean
that the district would have to become an established local conservation or historic district.
Commissioner Wand noted enforcement of the Ordinance could become difficult for
situations where the first floor of a building is being used and upper stories are vacant. He
stated situations could arise where previously vacant upper floors could easily be used for
storage. Chairperson Lundh reiterated the importance of establishing clearly defined
boundaries, and a fair process which allows property owners to respond to a complaint
prior to being labeled.
Commissioner Olson questioned what the next step would be, and what public input would
be needed. Staff Member Carstens explained the next step would be for Planning
Services Staff to take the Historic Preservation Commission's comments to City Staff and
the Dubuque Main Street Board and affected parties. She suggested bringing in
stakeholder groups and neighborhood associations to comment as well. Staff Member
Carstens explained the draft ordinance would require at least one public hearing before the
City Council. Commissioner Wand again explained the importance of testing the draft
ordinance with those people most affected so as to not place an undue burden on property
owners.
Commissioner Wand requested clarification from City Staff on what defines a vacant and
abandoned building. He noted that as a result of inspection efforts associated with the
ordinance, quite possibly other enforcement issues could be discovered with a building.
He stated there is a positive aspect of code compliance, especially pertaining to health and
safety issues; however, he does not want the boarded-up windows and doors ordinance to
be the impetus for those code violation issues.
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 14
Commissioner Rapp suggested a generous two-year time frame for compliance.
Commissioner Wand stated for something as significant as missing windows, he would
support a fairly long time frame for compliance.
The Commission questioned who would enforce the ordinance. Staff Member Carstens
explained that the Housing and Community Department currently has a policy for boarded-
up windows for residential properties only. She explained the Building Services
Department does not have anything to enforce boarded-up windows for commercial
buildings. She explained the Housing and Community Development Department handles
housing-related violations and the Building Services Department enforces on commercial
buildings. Commissioner Olson questioned who would enforce on buildings that have a
commercial use on the first floor and residential uses above. Staff Member Carstens
explained the Building Services Department and Housing and Community Development
Department would do separate enforcement on these mixed-use buildings. She explained
that since the process for establishing the ordinance was started, the Housing and
Community Development Department now maintains a list of licensed vacant and
abandoned buildings in the city. She suggested obtaining a copy of that list to help
quantify the number of buildings that would be affected by the ordinance.
Chairperson Lundh suggested a careful approach to enforcement. Staff Member Carstens
referred to past discussions of the Commission which suggested enforcement referrals no
longer be made at the meeting; rather they be made directly to the appropriate department,
just like any other citizen would. Complaints would then be made as a citizen and not as a
Commission or member of the Commission. She explained complaints can be made by
phone or the new City website has a process which allows a person to anonymously file a
complaint on line to the appropriate department. Commissioner Wand supported the new
process for referring property concerns. Commissioner Wand suggested continuing to
have an enforcement report provided to the Commission; however, referrals and
discussion would be limited to direct correspondence to the appropriate department as
citizens, not as Commissioners.
Chairperson Lundh stated it is the commission's job to help improve property values. The
Commission disagreed, noting that this is one by-product of their efforts, but they have a
number of duties.
Commissioner Olson questioned what the next steps of the boarded-up window and door
ordinance will be. Staff Member Carstens suggested reviewing a definition of what a
vacant and abandoned building is, and obtain from the Building, Housing and Legal
Services staff the process for determining a vacant and abandoned building, and obtaining
a list of licensed vacant and abandoned buildings. Commissioner Wand suggested a work
session this spring or summer to discuss the issue with numerous departments. The
Commission discussed having a work session prior to their regularly scheduled meeting on
April 16th. The Commission suggested a meeting with staff at 3:30 p.m., dinner~at 5:00
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 15
p.m. and holding the regular meeting at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Rapp indicated he would
not be able to attend. Commissioner Olson questioned whether a quorum was needed.
Staff Member Carstens explained a quorum is needed, but no official actions are taken at
work sessions.
Motion by Wand, seconded by Olson, to direct staff to coordinate a work session on April
16th, at 3:30 p.m. with the Planning Services Department, Housing and Community
Development Department, Building Services Department, and Legal Department to discuss
the implementation and direction of the draft boarded-up windows and doors ordinance.
Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Olson, Lundh, Licht, Knight, Loney Bichell,
Rapp, Wand and McDonell; Nay -None.
ITEMS FROM STAFF:
National Historic Preservation Month: Staff Member Carstens explained that May is
National Preservation Month.. She stated typically the Commission, in recognition of
National Preservation Month, holds their monthly meeting at a historic site, and the Mayor
reads a proclamation. The Commission discussed the National Trust for Historic
Preservation's suggested activities to celebrate National Preservation Month.
Commissioner Wand stated he supports the annual proclamation in recognition of
Preservation Month. Commissioner Wand reviewed activities that the Historic Preservation
Commission and City already undertake in recognition of it. He reviewed the Ken Kringle
Awards which are handed out at the May Historic Preservation Commission meeting. He
stated an oral history interview is already underway as part of a grant from the 175th
Anniversary Committee. The Commission discussed opportunities to showcase the oral
history interviews.
Commissioner Olson asked, on behalf of the Old House Enthusiasts, the status of
Architecture Days. Commissioner Wand confirmed that Architecture Days is happening in
April and anyone interested should contact Main Street Program Director Paula Neuhaus
for additional information.
Commissioner Bichell suggested collecting "then" and "now" community photos and
exhibiting them in a public space. Commissioner Wand suggested having City Council
members pose with a "This Place Matters" sign in front of their favorite building. He stated
he has a "This Place Matters" sign they could use. Commissioner Wand explained it would
an excellent opportunity to highlight threatened and/or historic buildings. Commissioner
Olson suggested having the photos printed in the Telegraph Herald each day of the week
for each City Council Member. Commissioner Bichell suggested preparing a walking tour
of past Ken Kringle Award recipients. Staff Member Carstens explained Planning Services
staff will be able to prepare the proclamation for Historic Preservation Month, sending a
letter on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission to the City Council requesting City
Council members pose in front of their favorite historic building with a "This Place Matters"
sign, but all other activities will need to be done as ,individuals, as a Commission or by
other organizations or groups. She explained unfortunately, Planning staff does not have
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 16
the time to undertake all of the suggested activities in recognition of Historic Preservation
Month; however, the list was provided to the Commission as suggestions for them to
consider.
Commissioner Rapp explained he would contact the Restoration Warehouse about
potentially displaying "then" and "now" community photos in their gallery. Staff Member
Carstens suggested the Commission consider forming subcommittees that can undertake
some of these activities. Commissioner Wand suggested holding the May Commission
meeting at the Hotel Julien. The Commission discussed the progress and status of the
Hotel Julien project, noting what a great project it has become and the importance of the
cornice to the building.
By consensus, the Commission directed Planning Services Staff to prepare a proclamation
for Historic Preservation Month, pursue an opportunity to hold the 'May Historic
Preservation Commission meeting at the Hotel Julien, prepare awards to be distributed at
the May meeting, and write a letter to City Council requesting that they pose for a
photograph in front of their favorite historic building with a "This Place Matters" sign.
Building Services Dept. -Status Report on Historic Preservation Enforcement
Staff Member Johnson reported on behalf of the Building Services Department that since
the last meeting, there has been no progress on 950 Spruce Street.
He explained that Planning Services staff spoke with the new owners at 1163 Highland.
He stated the new owners indicated that they will have the repairs to the porch and soffit
made this spring. Commissioner Bichell noted that there was a typo in the date the
property was purchased for the enforcement at 1163 Highland. She stated the date should
be November 13, 2008.
Staff Member Johnson explained that the Housing and Community Development
Department will be helping Ms. Rako in obtaining the necessary bids for the porch work at
1017 Bluff Street.
Staff Member Johnson stated the Building Services and Housing and Community
Development Departments are continuing their inspection and enforcement at 1921
Madison Street.
He stated there is no new progress to report at 3000 Jackson. He stated the attorney for
the property owner at 3040 Elm Street has requested a meeting that has yet to be set.
Staff Member Johnson stated a joint inspection will be completed concurrent with the
annual Fire Department inspection at 1492 Locust Street.
For 1439 Bluff, Staff Member Johnson explained liens and priorities are still being sorted
out in the courts. He explained once a title holder is identified, the Housing Department is
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 17
prepared to intervene and replace the porch and assess the new property owner. He
explained Legal Services has made contact with one of the banks involved in the
ownership of the building. The bank has explained that should they obtain ownership, they
will repair the porch as soon as possible.
Staff Member Johnson reviewed that the property owner at 1175 Bluff made good progress
in the fall, and Building Services Staff will continue to monitor progress to resume in the
spring.
Staff Member Johnson explained the Housing and Community Development Department
will continue enforcement at 1589-1591 Bluff Street.
Staff Member Johnson stated he had a recent conversation with Mr. Frederick at 515
Arlington Street, and Mr. Frederick stated he would have the required work to the transoms
completed shortly.
Staff Member Johnson reported that the unfinished work to the front porch has placed
1689 Main Street back on the enforcement report list.
He explained the issues at 510 W. 11th Street were discussed as an item from the public at
the meeting.
He explained that the property at 1392 Main Street was found in demolition by neglect for
rotting wood on the soffit and fascia, broken window and peeling paint. He stated unless
the peeling paint were to have lead in it, that most likely it will not bean enforcement issue
for the Commission.
Staff Member Johnson explained that Robert Johnson and Bethany Golembeski have been
added to the enforcement report for the incomplete exterior at 550 Arlington Street. He
reported the property has gone without any form of siding or exterior protection for a long
time.
Staff Member Johnson stated that the property at 1374 Main Street was found to be in
demolition by neglect for having rotting wood on the soffit and fascia as well.
Commissioner Bichell questioned the status of the new windows scheduled to be installed
at 637 Arlington since the windows have been missing for a while allowing water and the
elements to enter the building. Staff Member Johnson confirmed an inspection of the
building indicated that a number of windows on all faces of the building were missing and
he would call Ms. Lott to find out when those windows would be installed. Commissioner
Olson requested that if the windows are ordered, she place plastic coverings over the
windows to keep the elements out of the building until such time as the windows can be
installed. The Commission recognized that it is a temporary situation and the building is
under construction. Commissioner Knight noted that the building has gone without
Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission
March 19, 2009
Page 18
adequate protection for many years, and at least Ms. Lott has a plan in place for fixing the
property.
Staff Member Carstens noted that because the building is residential, issues should be
referred to the Housing and Community Development Department. She reiterated that the
Historic Preservation Enforcement Report will continue to be provided to the Commission;
however, compliance and enforcement referrals will be made as citizens directly to the
Building Services Department or other appropriate department either in person, by phone
or through the City's website. By consensus, the Commission agreed.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager
Adopted
F:\USERS1Kmunson\WP\Boards-Commissions\HPC\MinuteslHPC Minutes 2009\HPC Mar 19 2009 min.doc