Minutes_Historic Preservation Commission 4 18 19 Copyrighted
May 6, 2019
City of Dubuque Consent Items # 1.
ITEM TITLE: Minutes and Reports Submitted
SUM MARY: Arts and Cultural Affairs Advisory Commission of 4/23;
Cable N Commission of 5/1; City Council Proceedings of
4/15, 4/29; Civil Service Commission Minutes of 3/7, 4/18;
Historic Preservation Commission of 4/18; Historic
Preservation Fair Committee of 4/18; Housing
Commission of 3/26; Human Rights Commission of 3/11;
Investment OversightAdvisory Commission of 4/24;
Library Board of Trustees Council Update #182 of 4/25;
Long Range Planning Advisory Commission of 4/17; Proof
of publication for City Council Proceedings of 4/1; Proof of
publication for List of Claims and Summary of Revenues
for Month Ending 3/31.
SUGGESTED DISPOSITION: Suggested Disposition: Receive and File
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Arts and Cultural Affairs Commission Minutes of Supporting Documentation
4/23/19
City Council Proceedings of 4/15/19 Supporting Documentation
City Council Proceedings of 4/29/19 Supporting Documentation
Civil Service Commission Minutes of 3/7/19 Supporting Documentation
Civil Service Commission Minutes of 4/18/19 Supporting Documentation
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes of 4/18/19 Supporting Documentation
Historic Preservation Commisson Preservation Fair Supporting Documentation
Committee Minutes of 4/18/19
Housing Commission Minutes of 3/26/19 Supporting Documentation
Human Rights Commission Minutes of 3/11/19 Supporting Documentation
Investment OversightAdvisory Commission Minutes of Supporting Documentation
4/24/19
Library Board ot Trustees Council Update#182 of Supporting Documentation
4/25/19
Long Range Planning Advisory Commission Minutes of Supporting Documentation
4/17/19
Proof of Publication for City Council Proceedings of Supporting Documentation
4/1/19
Proof of Publication for List of Claims and Summary of Supporting Documentation
Revenuesfor ME 3/31/19
THE CITY OF Dubuque
DUB E 'I�I' D����
II �
��, ,o��
MasYerpiece on the Mississippi ,�,,.,o,>
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION
5:30 p.m.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Room 25Q Historic Federal Building
Commissioners Present Chairperson Emily Hilgendort, Commissioners Brandi Clark,
Melissa Daykin Cassill, Christina Monk, AI Kopcyzk, David Klavitter, John McMdrews,
Joseph Rapp, Rick Stuter, and Emily Hilgendort.
Commissioners Excused: None.
Commissioners Unexcused: None.
Staff Members Present Laure Carstens and Chris Happ Olson.
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Hilgendort at 5:34
p.m.
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE: Staff presented an Affidavit of Compliance verifying
the meeting was being held in compliance with the lowa Open Meetings Law.
MINUTES: Motion by Klavitter, seconded by Monk, to approve the minutes ofthe
March 21 , 2019 meeting as submitted. Motion carried 9-0 by the following vote: Aye —
Klavitter, Kopczyk, Daykin Cassill, Clark, Monk, McMdrews, Stuter, Rapp and
Hilgendort; Nay— None.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: Application of Ryan Davis, 264 Alpine St.,
to connect the perpendicular porches along the north L-plan side of the house by
building an interim porch. Includes typing in roof, porch, and columns (deck is existing)
in the Langworthy Historic District.
Ryan Davis, Contrector and Flpplicant at 17001 Rooster Ln., Dubuque, represents the
owner Jeremy Wainwright. He reviewed the work to be done on the porch to conned
two existing porches and one deck between them. He stated that because of the porch
floor being tongue and groove, and the runoff from the porch roofs, there is pooling on
the deck and rotting wood. His proposal is to connect two porches as described, and to
re-shingle the porch roof.
Staff Member Olson reviewed the staff report, nothing that this is the Solon Langworthy
Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission
April 18, 2019
Page 2
House, stating iYs significance to the State on the 2004 and 2005 evaluation by
Jacobsen and the subsequent listing as a local district. She noted this is one of the
houses for which the district is named, after the Langworthy siblings that developed the
area. Ms. Olson reviewed the architectural style and siting, noting the back of the house
now faces Alpine Street, where the said project is most visible. Ms. Olson reviewed the
staff analysis starting with:
Prolect Description from Application:
Existing deck pools water due to porch placement and roof overhead. Use existing
pitch to connect two perpendicular porches and their roofs. If pitches differ,
reconstruct lower pitched roof to meet the higher pitch, with a valley between.
Eliminate decorative fretwork to match west facing porch to provide continuity
between porches. Replicate columns to provide continuity across entire connected
porch. Install gutters and downspouts for drainage.
Construction Materials from Application:
Framing to be 2x8 construction, 1/2" plywood, asphalt shingles to match existing
roof, using proper underlayment; exterior finish will be painted poplar, turned colonial
style columns; install new painted wood fascia board with 5" aluminum seamless
gutters and 4" downspouts.
Ms. Olson reviewed the relationship of the request to the Architectural Guidelines, from
the staff report.
In regard to the Historic Porch Components (referring to page 55 of the Architectural
Guidelines), Ms. Olson referenced the staff report:
This project largely follows the tips from above, unifying hvo non-original porches. It
introduces familiar details, rooflines, columns, and materials.
In regard to Additions (referring to page 60 of the Architectural Guidelines), Ms. Olson
read from the Staff Report:
1 .92 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to
minimize the visual impacts.
• This will allow the original proportions and character to remain
prominent.
• A roof top addition should be set back at least ten feet from a
primary facade.
This project largely meets this guideline, as it is not on the historical front of the
structure and the addition is in an inward corner of the structure.
1 .93 An addition should be compatible in scale, materials and character with the
main building.
Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission
April 18, 2019
Page 3
This project meets this guideline, unifying the two porches that are in historic
locations.
Ms. Olson reviewed the Role of the Commission from the Staff Report.
Commissioners discussed the project. Staff clarified that the porches cannot be
accurately dated, because Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps in this area of the City only
date back to 1950. There was a discussion of the architectural style of Greek Revival
vs. Victorian Style in regard to the fretwork on one of the porches. Staff clarified that the
owner plans to remove the fretwork to make the porches more consistent with the rest
of the house, noting that it was a late 20�h Century interpretation of Victorian era styling.
Discussion continued with questions about the large east-facing porch on the opposite
side of the house, to which Mr. Davis described that the owner wasn't ready to take on
the restoration, but that Mr. Davis had been instructed to repair due to squirrel damage.
Mr. Davis also clarified this is still a bed and breakfast, and that the decking is in place
already and will be easier to maintain for snow and ice removal with a porch roof over it.
Mr. Davis clarified that there will be more porch columns added, in the style of the
existing columns, while the fretwork will be removed and replaced with solid fascia to
mimic the other porches.
Motion by Klavitter, seconded by Stuter, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness
as submitted. Motion carried 9-0 by the following vote: Aye — Klavitter, Kopczyk,
Cassill-Daykin, Clark, Monk, McAndrews, Stuter, Rapp and Hilgendorf; Nay — None.
Abstain — None.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: Application of Eric Esser Construction for
property located at 1243 Walnut St. to replace most windows with vinyl pocket window
to size and replace three sides of the rear (west) addition with vinyl 4" reveal siding in
the West 11�h Street Historic District.
Rozanne Gardner, 520 Elm Ridge, Peosta, IA said that she is a Realtor representing
the applicant Eric Esser who is the property owner. Ms. Gardner stated that the owner
would like to replace all but three large windows with vinyl windows. Responding to a
question from the Commission about why work was started without a permit, Ms.
Gardner stated Mr. Esser had ordered the windows and siding already with a
misunderstanding about replacement. Discussion followed regarding the Stop Order
that was applied by Building Services staff after Mr. Esser had met with Assistant
Planner Chris Olson. Ms. Olson verified that work did stop temporarily and that the
owner then proceeded later with painting and repairs, including parging of the stucco.
Ms. Olson clarified that the siding replacement was for all three sides of the west
kitchen addition, per the applicanYs submittal.
Ms. Olson reviewed the staff report and noted that she assisted Mr. Esser with the
Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission
April 18, 2019
Page 4
application to provide clarity for the Commission. Ms. Olson described the significance
of the subject property, with its architectural details, additions and alterations. She
referred to the photo documentation from two site visits on March 20 and April 11 , 2019.
Ms. Olson read the Past Alterations section of the Staff Reports as follows:
A west rear kitchen addition (along Chestnut) and an enclosed south porch (along
Walnut) and addition are all present in the earliest Sanborn Fire Insurance maps of
1909 and unchanged in 1950, representing what is built today. The rear kitchen
addition was sided on the west and north sides with an original lath substrate stucco,
matching the house. The 1872 Panorama shows additions at both the south and
west locations of current additions. Three elongated floor to ceiling windows on the
first floor as well as matching smaller windows throughout the structure remain on
the structure. Various windows throughout the additions have been replaced over
time. A stuccoed Dubuque limestone foundation remains.
City of Dubuque historic permit cards show exterior changes from 1933-2000,
revealing re-roofings in 1937, 1964 (frame dwelling) and 1996. The City's current
permit system shows no recent exterior activity since.
Ms. Olson read the Recent Alterations of the Staff Report as follows:
This project started prior to a design review or building permit application. Mr. Esser
visited with Assistant Planner Chris Olson at Planning Services on March 20, 2019
after visiting Building Services. Mr. Esser told Ms. Olson he had purchased
replacement vinyl pocket windows and vinyl siding for the structure, but was not
clear about what existing materials would be replaced. Mr. Esser stated that before
he purchased the building in the fall, his Realtor had spoken to the Planning
Services Department and discussed the potential for window and siding replacement
on the structure. [A followup email from Assistant Planner Wernimont is attached.]
Ms. Olson conducted a site inspection on March 20, 2019 and found the following
conditions. (referencing page 4 of the Staff Report photographs)
After making the inspection, Ms. Olson instructed Mr. Esser to stop work and file an
Historic Preservation Commission Design Review application, and followed up with
the enclosed email to Mr. Esser. Ms. Olson notified Building Services on March 20,
2019 and a Stop Work Order was posted that day. Mr. Esser temporarily complied
with the Stop Work Order request, and filed a Design Review Application. Ms. Olson
subsequently worked with Mr. Esser to prepare the attached Window Replacement
Schedule and Siding Replacement Plan. (see attached Design Review Application)
On April 11 , 2019 Ms. Olson made a site visit and discovered the previously
unpainted historic stucco was patched at multiple locations, the entire structure was
painted and that windows have been covered up in the process, as evident in the
Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission
April 18, 2019
Page 5
existing conditions photos from April 11 , 2019. A report to Building Services was
made at the time of finalizing this report. Ms. Olson followed up with an email to Mr.
Esser on April 11 , 2019. (referencing page 5 & 6 of the Staff Report photographs.)
Ms. Olson indicated that she worked with Mr. Esser to help him develop a window
schedule to show existing conditions and what was proposed. She noted that the
photos show more than a square (a 10'x10' area) of stucco was replaced, which
requires a permit. She noted the historic structure's significance and the details of the
scored stucco being character-defining.
Ms. Olson read the Staff Analysist of the Staff Report, noting that the applicant is
requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the following features:
Prolect Description from Application:
Seeking permission to make material changes on this stone with stucco
structure, and framed stucco addition to the rear. Changes include
replacement of all but the 3 floor-to-ceiling first floor windows (at north & east
facades) with vinyl 6 over 6 divided light replacement windows. Changes at
frame addition also include removal of stucco siding on north and west
facades and replacement of hardboard siding- all with grey vinyl 4" reveal
siding. Repairs and replacement of failing wood fascia at addition with
material in-kind, painted wood replacement fascia.
Construction Materials from Application:
Windows: a variety of original wood and replacement (vinyl and aluminum
clad windows to be replaced with vinyl pocket windows in same size, type,
style and shape when possible. Please see attached window replacement
schedule for detail.
Siding: north & west sides of addition in 20th Century stucco, with hardboard
siding on south facade to be replaced with grey CertainTeed MainStreet
double 4 vinyl siding. Fascia replacement with same size wood replacement,
painted on addition.
Relationship to Architectural Guidelines:
(page numbers are referenced as appropriate)
Which Areas are the Most Sensitive to Preserve? (page 11)
For most historic resources, the front wall is the most important to preserve
intact. Alterations are rarely appropriate. Many side walls are also important to
preserve where they are highly visible from the street. By contrast, portions of a
side wall not as visible may be less sensitive to change. The rear wall is usually
the least important (excepting free-standing, individual landmarks or certain civic
Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission
April 18, 2019
Page 6
and industrial buildings), and alterations can occur more easily without causing
negative effects to the historic significance of the property.
Ms. Olson referenced the Guidelines for treatments from page 11 , with relationship to
1243 Locust below, and read the following information into the record:
Because of the placement of this structure on a cornerlot, the east fa�ade is
primary along Walnut (Location A), the north fa�ade along Chestnut is secondary
(Location 8), and the portions of the south and west facades are visible from
Walnut and Chestnut Streets (Location C). Remaining sections qualify as
Location D.
Windows (pages 31-36)
Policv: A variety of window sizes, shapes and details exist among the historic
resources of Dubuque. The character-defining features of a historic window and
its distinct materials and placement should be preserved. In addition, a new
window should be in character with the historic building. Also, repairing, weather-
stripping and/or insulating (perimeter window cavity) a window is more energy
efficient, and less expensive than replacement.
Guidelines:
1 .36 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash,
muntins, mullions, glazing, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, hoods, operation
and groupings of windows. Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing
them, whenever conditions permit.
The proposed project did not consider repair as an alternative, so the project
does not meet this guideline.
1 .37 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a
building wall.
Enclosing a historic window opening is inappropriate, as is adding a new
window opening. This is especially important because the historic ratio of
solid-to-void is a character defining feature.
Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls.
The proposed project meets this guideline without changing the fenestration
openings or patterns, but introduces vinyl replacement in the place of historic
wood windows.
1 .38 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission
April 18, 2019
Page 7
Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or
increasing it to receive a larger window is inappropriate. Preserve a distinctive
window opening shape, such as an arched top.
The proposed project typically reduces the window by 1-2"in width or depth,
because of the nature of a pocket replacement vinyl window installation.
1 .39 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a primary
facade.
Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a primary, character-defining
wall will negatively affect the integrity of the structure.
The proposed project largely meets this guideline.
1 .40 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
The proposed project is an attempt to meet the original design of the window,
with changed functionality (pocket replacement vs. operable wood sash).
1 .41 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original.
Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on character-
defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered if the
appearance of the window components will match those of the original in
dimension, profile and finish.
New glazing should convey the visual appearance of historic glazing. It
should be clear. Metallic and reflective finishes are inappropriate. In some
instances, colored or tinted glass may be appropriate in commercial
storefront transoms or residential windows.
Vinyl and unfinished metals are inappropriate window materials.
The proposed project does not meet this guideline, with vinyl
replacements proposed.
Ms. Olson referenced the City Window Policy, included in the Staff Report, noting:
This policy provides additional guidelines that shows that replacement
windows must match in type, size, shape, and style, but on buildings with
neighborhood significance, there is flexibility to change the material.
The proposed project would meet this policy, as the structure is of
neighborhood significance. Otherguidelines still apply, when determining
what are the most sensitive areas to preserve.
Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission
April 18, 2019
Page 8
Siding: (pages 18 - 21)
Original building materials are key features of historic buildings and should be
preserved in place whenever feasible. If the material is damaged, limited
replacement to match the original should be considered. Preserving original
building materials and limiting replacement to only pieces which are
deteriorated beyond repair reduces the demand for, and environmental
impacts for the production of new materials.
Ms. Olson referenced the section "Using Alternative Materials on a Historic Structure"
from page 20 of the Architectural Guidelines, and continued with the Guidelines:
Guidelines (page 21)
1 .13 Repair deteriorated primary building materials by patching, piecing-in,
consolidating or otherwise reinforcing the material.
Avoid the removal of damaged materials that can be repaired.
Isolated areas of damage may be stabilized or fixed, using consolidants.
Epoxies and resins may be considered for wood repair and special masonry
repair components also may be used.
The proposed project does not meet this guideline on the visible stuccoed
sides, removing stucco with vinyl siding replacement. The south side, not
easily visible from Walnut Street, is less of a concern due to visibility and
existing hard-plank siding.
1 .15 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing
materials on primary surfaces.
If the original material is wood clapboard, for example, then the replacement
material should be wood as well. It should match the original in size, the
amount of exposed lap and in finish.
Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond
repair, then only they should be replaced, not the entire wall.
The proposed project does not meet this guideline along Chestnut Street.
1 .16 Do not use synthetic materials, such as aluminum or vinyl siding or
panelized brick, as replacements for primary building materials.
Primary building materials, such as original wood siding and masonry,
should not be replaced with synthetic materials on key, character-defining
walls.
In some instances, substitute materials may be used for replacing
architectural details, but doing so is not encouraged. If it is necessary to use
a new material, such as a fiberglass molding, the style and detail should
match the historic model.
Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission
April 18, 2019
Page 9
The Commission may consider alternative materials located on a residential
accessory building, or on an addition or rear wall of a primary structure.
The proposed project does not meet this guideline, replacing historic stucco
with vinyl siding.
Ms. Olson finished the Staff Report and discussion went back to the Commission. In
response to questions, Ms. Olson informed the Commission that the replacement of
stucco/parging and the covering of windows at the basement level was discovered after
the application and not included in the application, and should not be reviewed or
considered by the Commission. The Commissioners asked whether the fact that the
owner had purchased materials and already started work should be considered. Ms.
Olson responded that the Commission should consider the application as submitted and
not be concerned with the owner's purchase.
Staff Member Carstens distributed an April 17, 2019 email from Trish McDonald, 489
Arlington Street, with a response from Ms. Olson about the status of the review process,
which was received and filed by the Chairperson.
Discussion followed of the enforcement process and staff clarified that they are working
with Building Services. Further discussion followed of the request and potential
alternatives for moving forward using the Architectural Guidelines.
Ms. Gardner indicated that Mr. Esser wanted to repair and rehabilitate the building for
use as a rental property. Commissioners discussed a rental property is eligible for both
state and federal preservation tax credits. Discussion followed of the window policy and
options, as well as preservation alternatives and the process for a certificate of non-
viability.
Ms. Gardner reviewed that the contact with the Zoning Office (Planning Services
Department) was a misunderstanding, and that she understood that the windows can be
replaced if they are the same. She stated the house was purchased for $17,000 and Mr.
Esser was excited about renovating this dilapidated house. His intent was not to do the
work incorrectly.
Commission discussed that the case appears to be a matter of education for the owner,
contractors and Realtor. Ms. Olson noted that on October 5, 2018 Assistant Planner
Wally Wernimont responded to Ms. Gardner's questions in an email informing the real
estate agent on incentives, design review and the architectural guidelines, before the
property was purchased. She noted the email was enclosed.
Ms. Gardner asked for references as to technical assistance and the Commission
referred to Planning Services Staff and non-profits like Heritage Works.
Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission
April 18, 2019
Page 10
Commissioners discussed the Window Replacement Schedule, requesting which ones
were original windows, as opposed to replacements and Ms. Olson referred that the
owner did not make a distinction in the schedule. Ms. Olson referred to the plans and
photographs in the applications, showing the ones that are crossed out are not planned
for replacement.
Commissioners reviewed the level of significance, material section of the window policy,
the difference in sizing, and whether alternatives should be suggested to the applicant.
Chairperson Hilgendorf explained that the windows do not meet the policy or guidelines
and would like the applicant to look into other options, and Commissioners added that
staff can work with Mr. Esser to find options using incentives available while meeting the
Guidelines.
Motion by Klavitter, seconded by Stuter, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness
for the window replacement with vinyl pocket windows as submitted. Motion failed 9-0
by the following vote: Aye — None; Nay — Klavitter, Kopczyk, Daykin Cassill, Clark,
Monk, McAndrews, Stuter, Rapp and Hilgendorf.
The Commission moved on to discuss the second part of the Application, total
replacement of the stucco cladding on the north (street facing) and west sides of the
west addition, and replacement of the hard plank siding on the south side of the same
addition. Discussion followed regarding an alternative use of stucco instead, and retain
existing stucco where possible. Discussion followed of the acceptable use of wood or
cementious siding on the south side of the addition, where there is existing hard plank
siding.
Motion by Klavitter, seconded by Stuter, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness
for the siding replacement with vinyl siding as submitted. Motion failed 9-0 by the
following vote: Aye — None; Nay — Klavitter, Kopczyk, Daykin Cassill, Clark, Monk,
McAndrews, Stuter, Rapp and Hilgendorf.
Motion by Klavitter, seconded by Stuter, to approve the retainage of original stucco
material and replacement matching stucco material on the north and west sides of the
west kitchen addition, while allowing the replacement of hard plank siding on the south
side of the kitchen addition with cementitious or wood clapboard siding, using the same
style and size. Motion carried 8-1 by the following vote: Aye — Klavitter, Daykin Cassill,
Clark, Monk, McAndrews, Stuter, Rapp and Hilgendorf; Nay — Kopczyk.
CITY LANDMARK SITE NOMINATION REVIEW: Application of the City of Dubuque to
nomination Eagle Point Park National Register Historic District as a City Landmark Site.
Staff Member Carstens presented the nomination based on the National Register listing,
noting it was supported by City Manager Mike Van Milligen and Leisure Services
Manager Marie Ware. She said it is being nominated as a Landmark Site because of
Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission
April 18, 2019
Page 11
the size and number of structures, and lack of non-contiguous ownership of multiple
structures as found in a historic district. She said a landmark site is defined in the
Unified Development Code, in Section 16-10-2. She noted the only other Landmark Site
in Dubuque is the Four Mounds Estate.
Ms. Carstens described the process required of a nomination, including the notice to the
public, review before the Historic Preservation Commission, consultation with the State
Historic Preservation Office, and to the City Council for final review and approval.
She noted the impact of the listing would mean that projects at Eagle Point Park would
be treated like other City-owned landmarks, with a consultation process, with the
Historic Preservation Commission in an advisory role. She noted we maintain
recognition for the park and this listing helps with layering protections and providing
access to grants.
Chairperson Hilgendorf asked whether it protects the buildings as a site, and Staff
Member Olson responded that the entire site, including buildings, features, and lands
are included in a review. Ms. Hilgendorf asked if it protects archaeological resources
and Ms. Carstens responded yes, citing the process for the removal of the water tower
at Eagle Point Park. She added that our Environmental Restoration Management Plan
is another layer of protection, where we've developed sustainable practices to restore
vegetation, prevent runoff, and protect resources like site features and archaeological
resources.
Motion by Monk, seconded by Rapp, to approve the City Landmark Site Nomination as
submitted. Motion carried 9-0 by the following vote: Aye — Klavitter, Kopczyk, Cassill-
Daykin, Clark, Monk, McAndrews, Stuter, Rapp and Hilgendort; Nay — None.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC:
Trish McDonald, 489 Arlington Street, spoke regarding the application for 1243 Walnut
and that she was disappointed to see the purchase and the work being done without
permits. She thanked the Commission for their work on the project and how it was
handled. She gifted the City (given to Ms. Carstens) a photography slide of the Log
Cabin at the Ham House, but the image was from before it was moved to the site. Ms.
McDonald was thanked for the gift.
Ryan Newhard, 1129 Center Place, spoke regarding the application for 1243 Walnut.
He expressed his concern for the amount of decline in properties in the neighborhood,
owners purchasing properties to flip them, with people not taking the time to do the job
right, of the conversion of single family homes to rentals, and parking with conversions.
He thanked the Commission for their work.
Both Ms. McDonald and Mr. Newhard further commented on historic homes and the
Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission
April 18, 2019
Page 12
work of the Commission, as well as funding from the Bee Branch being a great resource
to help with restoration and rehabilitation.
Bill Doyle, 1591 White Street and employee at Heritage Works, spoke to inform the
Commission about the services of Heritage Works and thanked the Commission for
their support in historic districts.
Commissioner Dave Klavitter, disclosing he is on the Heritage Works Board of
Directors, discussed the work of the organization and cited the assistance on the
property on Central Avenue owned by Chris Richards, and how Heritage Works helped
him take on that structure. Mr. Doyle mentioned that Mr. Richards will make a profit from
the project and that iYs nice to point to projects that are profitable and good for the
community. Ms. Carstens stated she will check with the City Legal Department to
determine if we can refer customers to Heritage Works, being a non-profit providing a
service to the community. Mr. Doyle referred to Historic Denver that had a partnership
with the City of Denver, which issued referrals for service. Mr. Klavitter asked of staff
and the Commission if it would be appropriate to provide case studies to inspire people
and projects, which was considered.
ITEMS FROM COMMISSION
Preservation at Its Best Nominations from Preservation lowa: Staff Member Carstens
recommended the three Ken Kringle 2019 awards be nominated for Preservation at its
Best: 210 Jones Street, 720 Central Avenue, and 1268 Locust Street. There was
consensus among Commissioners to direct staff to nominate for these properties.
Preservation Month: Staff Member Carstens presented Preservation Month includes:
Proclamation by City Council, Fact-a-day (on City website), and Free Admission for the
first 200 visitors on opening day to Eagle Point Park. Discussion followed that items not
taking place include: a report that Old House Enthusiasts is not having a tour this year,
and the Photo shoot for the Mayor or City Council will be postponed to next year.
Chairperson Hilgendorf encouraged the Commission to share the #ThisPlaceMatters
hashtag, and that City Council could be encouraged at the Proclamation to do this as
well. Staff Member Carstens mentioned that a press release could be sent out to
encourage the community to use the hashtag. Ms. Hilgendorf agreed to attend the City
Council meeting to accept the Proclamation on Monday, May 6�h, 2019. She mentioned
the new video by the City's Communications Specialist Kristin Hill promoting the City's
Boards and Commissions included her speaking on the historic preservation program.
ITEMS FROM STAFF:
Reservations for Preserve lowa Summit 2019 — Newton, IA: Staff Member Carstens
announced that registration is open for the 2019 Preserve lowa Summit, with support for
Commissioners in the form of registration, per diem, hotel and travel reimbursement.
She stated iYs a Commission-focused Summit, with mostly lowans and Commissioners
Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission
April 18, 2019
Page 13
should contact the Planning Services Department Secretary directly by May 1 S�, so
Planning Services staff can coordinate registration and lodging.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Monk, seconded by Stuter to adjourn the April 18, 2019
Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Klavitter, Kopczyk,
Daykin Cassill, Clark, Monk, McAndrews, Rapp and Hilgendorf; Nay — None. Abstain —
Stuter (who left the room). The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager Adopted