Minutes_Historic Preservation Commission 10 21 10
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION
5:30 p.m.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
City Council Chamber, Historic Federal Building
Commissioners Present:
Chairperson Michael Knight; Commissioners David Klavitter,
Christine Olson, John Whalen, Mary Loney-Bichell, Joseph Rapp, Chris Wand, Peggy
Stover and Bob McDonnell.
Commissioners Excused:
None.
Staff Members Present:
Laura Carstens and David Johnson
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Knight at 5:32 p.m.
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE
: Staff presented an Affidavit of Compliance verifying the
meeting was being held in compliance with the Iowa Open Meetings Law.
MINUTES:
Motion by Wand, seconded by Stover, to approve the minutes of the
September 16, 2010 meeting, as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye –
Klavitter, Olson, Whalen, Knight, Rapp, Wand, Stover and McDonnell; Nay - None.
DESIGN REVIEW:
Application of Jeanelle Westerfield for a Certificate of Appropriateness
and up to $5,000 in Historic Preservation Housing Grant funds to replace the roof, repair
the porch steps and repair the garage at 1344 Locust Street in the Jackson Park Historic
Preservation District.
Staff Member Johnson noted the application is for both a Certificate of Appropriateness
and Historic Preservation Housing Grant funds. He reviewed the application and staff
report. He explained the deteriorated conditions of the property, as noted in the application
as well as the proposed rehabilitation of the roof, front steps, garage, sink hole and
sidewalk.
Staff Member Johnson reviewed the Historic Preservation Housing grant program
requirements, the applicant’s bids and the Historic Preservation Housing Grant
Committee’s recommendations for funding. He explained the Historic Preservation
Housing Grant Committee has met and recommends that the Historic Preservation
Commission not fund the berm and privacy fence. He explained a berm and privacy fence
and sidewalk typically are not funded because they do not contribute to a historic part of
the property and are not character-defining features. He explained all costs associated
with fixing the roof, steps and repairing the garage are eligible. He noted the applicant is
Minutes – Historic Preservation Commission
October 21, 2010
Page 2
requesting the Commission make special consideration toward funding the sidewalk that
needs to be replaced because it needs to be replaced as part of the repairs to the steps.
He explained the Historic Preservation Housing Grant Committee is deferring the decision
to fund the sidewalk to the Historic Preservation Commission.
Staff noted the repairs total $3,560 without the sidewalk repair. He stated bids from the
sidewalk repair range from $475 to $890. He stated the Historic Preservation Housing
Grant Committee recommends funding up to $4,000 for the project without the sidewalk,
and up to $4,500 if the Commission determines the sidewalk is an eligible expense.
NOTE: Commissioner Loney-Bichell arrived at 5:38 p.m.
Jeanelle Westerfield was present. In response to a question, she clarified that contractors
will be paid in accordance with the City Housing and Community Development Department
requirements. In response to another question, Ms. Westerfield explained the issues with
the sink hole. She stated the sink hole has been created from runoff from where her
property and the neighbor’s property meet. She explained that the material underneath the
walkway and in close proximity to the carriage house foundation is being undermined.
The Commission asked whether the repairs to the sink hole will take place on any of the
neighbor’s property. Staff explained that it is the property owner and applicant’s
responsibility to locate property lines and coordinate any repairs that may affect the
neighbor’s property. He explained that the City is granting the applicant funding to assist
with repairs; however, it is not a City project.
Motion by Wand, seconded by Whalen, to approve the application as submitted, and up to
$4,000 in Historic Preservation Housing Grant Funds, as recommended by the Historic
Preservation Housing Grant Committee, with the allowance for the property owner to use
any remaining balance toward outstanding items not included in the Historic Preservation
Housing Grant Committee’s recommendation; such as the berm, privacy fence, and/or
sidewalk. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye – Klavitter, Whalen, Knight, Rapp,
Wand, Stover and McDonnell; Nay – Olson; Abstain – None.
DESIGN REVIEW:
Application of 73 CHS Forwards, LLC for a Certificate of
Appropriateness tobuild a stairway enclosure, deck and railings on the roof for the
property located at 299 Main Street in the Old Main Historic Preservation District.
Staff Member Johnson reviewed the application and the staff report. He explained the HPC
didn’t review the enclosure because the original approved set of plans showed a hatch
accessing the roof which is not visible from the public right-of-way. Upon learning the
hatch enclosure was not permitted, the applicant began work on the stairway enclosure
without updating the building permit.
Staff Member Johnson reviewed the details of the project and directed the Commission to
the drawings provided by the applicant and photographs provided by staff.
Minutes – Historic Preservation Commission
October 21, 2010
Page 3
NOTE: Commissioner Whalen left the meeting at 5:55 p.m.
Marty Knapp, Conlon Construction, explained the project components and options they
had considered for colors, location and height of the stair enclosure. The Commission
discussed the project details. Mr. Knapp confirmed that the stairway to the roof is required
by the International Building Code.
The Commission discussed the enclosure’s color and siding options.
NOTE: Commissioner Whalen returned to the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
The Commission discussed the color of similar stairway enclosures on other downtown
buildings. In response to a question from the Commission; Staff Member Johnson
confirmed the design guidelines review colors, so the Historic Preservation Commission
may discuss colors with this project.
The Commission discussed changing the shape of the enclosure to be level instead of
sloped. The Commission felt a rectangular appearance would be more in keeping with
other rooftop structures on downtown buildings.
Motion by Wand, seconded by Stover, to approve the application, as submitted, with the
following conditions: 1) The roofline of the stair tower should be level in form with a
rectangular appearance; 2) the color of the finish material be selected so as to minimize its
visual impact, using an earth tone, with a recommendation of color that is slightly darker
than the color of the split block enclosure on the Platinum Building; 3) the roof of the
enclosure should be the same color as the roof of the building or black, and material can
be EPDM.; 4) the deck and condenser unit railings are approved as submitted; and 5) the
door for the stair enclosure should be lowered to 6 feet 8 inches in height so the stair tower
can be lowered. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye – Klavitter, Olson, Whalen,
Knight, Bichell, Rapp, Wand, Stover and McDonnell; Nay – None.
DESIGN REVIEW:
Application of Mark and Deb McDonnell for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to install new windows, gutters and soffits located at 314 Jones Street in
the Cathedral Historic Preservation District.
Staff Member Johnson reviewed the staff report and explained the applicant wishes to
replace all of the windows with vinyl windows that will match in size and shape. He stated
the applicant also wishes to replace the metal half round gutters on the core of the building
with aluminum box-style gutters. He explained the applicant also would like to replace the
existing wood soffit and fascia with aluminum. He stated the aluminum treatment will also
most likely have an effect of the profile of the brackets.
Staff Member Johnson explained the request has been brought before the Historic
Preservation Commission because the requested vinyl windows are inconsistent with the
Minutes – Historic Preservation Commission
October 21, 2010
Page 4
window policy for historic districts because the building is considered City significant. Staff
explained the policy requires wood windows that are the same size, style and shape as the
original openings for City-significant properties.
Mark and Deb McDonnell were present. Mr. McDonnell noted they have been looking for
funding sources to assist with the cost of wood verses vinyl windows. They discussed that
they are not located in an urban renewal district. Mrs. McDonnell reviewed the difference
in cost between wood and vinyl windows. The McDonnells confirmed that the property is a
rental property. Mrs. McDonnell noted the poor condition of the windows. They noted they
would like to repair the roof and can’t afford both the roof and wood windows. The
McDonnells noted safety concerns with the condition of the windows.
Staff Member Johnson reviewed funding opportunities for the property owners. Staff
Member Johnson noted that because the property is located in a historic preservation
district, the applicants could be eligible for a Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Fund.
Staff Member Johnson explained all of the City historic districts also are located in an
urban revitalization district and, therefore, the property owners could be eligible for
property tax exemption for new improvements made to the property.
Staff and the Commission reviewed the lead paint program and encouraged the property
owners to contact the Housing and Community Development Department for more
information. Staff Member Johnson noted the program is very popular in replacing windows
that have lead paint. Window replacement is oftentimes a mitigation strategy. Staff noted
the lead paint program funds are allocated for this year; however, funding may become
available in the future.
The Commission discussed the configuration of the windows and the option to repair the
windows. The Commission discussed the age of the building and the various porch
additions. The applicants and Commission discussed the condition of the porch and
windows as well as the lack of maintenance by previous homeowners. The Commission
discussed the cost of repairing the windows and the longer lifespan of repairing the
original wood windows versus replacement vinyl windows. The Commission noted a small
investment in the existing wood windows will go much further than the life expectancy of
new vinyl windows. The Commission noted vinyl windows would be inconsistent with the
architectural guidelines.
NOTE: Commissioner Whalen left the meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Motion by Wand, seconded by Stover, to approve the gutters as submitted. Motion carried
by the following vote: Aye – Klavitter, Olson, Knight, Bichell, Rapp, Wand, Stover and
McDonnell; Nay – None; Abstain – Whalen.
Motion by Olson, seconded by Wand, to approve the windows and soffits as submitted.
Motion denied by the following vote: Aye – None; Nay – Klavitter, Olson, Knight, Bichell,
Minutes – Historic Preservation Commission
October 21, 2010
Page 5
Rapp, Wand, Stover and McDonnell; Abstain – Whalen.
Staff Member Johnson reiterated how the Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Fund
program works. Staff stated that replacing the roof, repairing the windows, or replacing the
windows with wood windows would be eligible expenses under the revolving loan fund
program. Staff explained the applicants would need approval from the HPC and the
Housing and Community Development Department for Historic Preservation Revolving
Loan Funds prior to any work beginning. He stated any work done prior to approval, will
not be eligible.
NOTE: Commissioner Whalen returned to the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
DESIGN REVIEW:
Application of Jeff Morton / John & Cheryl Whalen for a Certificate of
th
Appropriateness to construct a conservatory located at 1105 Highland Place in the W. 11
Street Historic Preservation District.
Dr. John Whalen removed himself from the table in order to present his application.
Staff Member Johnson reviewed the staff report. He noted the difference between the
conservatory design that was approved by the Historic Preservation Commission in 2008
and the newly submitted drawings. Staff reviewed the design elements of the conservatory
and noted the conservatory will be slightly set back from the garage to help distinguish
new from old.
Dr. Whalen noted some changes to the new drawings that were provided to the
Commission with the application. He explained the south side of the conservatory will be
all glass, with copper flashing and there will not be any clay tile on the roof. He noted the
north side of the conservatory will have a metal roof that will have the appearance of tile.
He explained the north elevation of the conservatory is not visible.
Dr. Whalen also noted the square transom window above the door on the south elevation
will be replace with a half-moon window similar to the half-moon windows on the remainder
of the south elevation of the conservatory.
Motion by Stover, seconded by Olson, to approve the application as presented. Motion
carried by the following vote: Aye – Klavitter, Olson, Knight, Bichell, Rapp, Wand, Stover
and McDonnell; Nay – None; Abstain – Whalen.
ITEMS FROM COMMISSION
:
Boarded-Up Windows and Doors: Staff Member Carstens updated the Commission on the
draft Boarded-Up Windows and Doors Ordinance. She explained the draft Boarded-Up
Windows and Doors Ordinance was an initiative of the Commission. She explained under
the direction of the City Manager, City staff researched and drafted an Ordinance which
addressed boarded-up windows and doors in historic and conservation districts.
Minutes – Historic Preservation Commission
October 21, 2010
Page 6
Staff explained the ordinance received some resistance from impacted property owners as
well as Dubuque Main Street. She stated Planning Services staff was directed by the
Commission to share their efforts with the Safe Community Task Force after learning of
their interest in this type of ordinance.
Staff reviewed the differences between the Historic Preservation Commission and Safe
Community Task Force recommendations. She noted the Safe Community Task Force
recommendation was to prohibit boarded up windows and doors facing streets city wide.
Staff Member Carstens explained the City Manager agreed with the recommendation of the
Safe Community Task Force, but wants existing boarded up windows and doors to be
grandfathered with no retroactive enforcement.
Staff explained an inventory of boarded up windows and doors will be done prior to the
adoption of the ordinance.
The Commission questioned whether similar language already exists in the Unified
Development Code. Staff Member Johnson explained that boarding up windows and doors
is only regulated in historic districts, but the Historic Preservation Ordinance does not
address boarded-up windows and doors that were introduced prior to the establishment of
the ordinance. Staff explained that the Housing and Community Development Department
has a Boarded-Up Windows and Doors Policy for residential properties.
The Commission discussed not doing retroactive enforcement. Staff noted that as of the
last boarded up windows and doors inventory in January 2010, only 3 properties and
approximately 11 windows had boarded-up windows or doors which faces a street in
historic districts.
Staff Member Carstens noted the challenges of retroactive enforcement on threatened
buildings as well as property owners that may be planning larger rehabilitation projects
down the road. She noted retroactive enforcement on buildings such as the H&W
Building, essentially would make the economic hardship case for them, should a demolition
permit ever be applied for.
The Commission discussed residential and commercial applications of the ordinance. The
Commission expressed the concern that, although the market has resolved a number of
the boarded up windows and doors in commercial areas, it has not had the same affect in
residential areas.
Staff Member Carstens noted the updated draft ordinance currently is in development.
The Commission discussed the potential for retroactive enforcement in historic districts.
The Commission noted historic districts can be treated differently because historic districts
have financial incentives as a resource to property owners. The Commission reviewed
properties in historic districts with board-up windows and doors and different
implementation strategies and issues. They noted their preference is for retroactive
Minutes – Historic Preservation Commission
October 21, 2010
Page 7
enforcement, but understand current conditions that do make it feasible at this time. The
Commission noted there will be opportunities in the future to evaluate and reassess the
ordinance and noted the current ordinance is a good step in the right direction.
Motion by Rapp, seconded by Whalen, to support the recommendation of the City
Manager and Safe Community Task Force to create a City-wide ordinance prohibiting the
boarding of windows and doors fronting a street. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye
– Klavitter, Olson, Whalen, Knight, Bichell, Rapp, Wand, Stover and McDonnell; Nay –
None.
Historic District Information Brochure: The Commission discussed ways to inform new
property owners of the responsibilities and benefits of being located in a Historic
Preservation District. The Commission suggested providing brochures to real estate
agents. The Commission suggested updating the existing brochure that was enclosed with
the HPC packets.
The Commission recommended the existing brochure enclosed with the packets be
updated to include current financial incentives for property owners in historic districts. The
Commission suggested approaching the Dubuque Board of Realtors with education
opportunities. The Commission suggested utilizing City Channel 8 and running a routine
informational presentation on historic districts. The Commission discussed forming an
education subcommittee to help with educational opportunities for the public as well as the
Commission.
Motion by Wand, seconded by Olson, to form an education task force of 2 to 3 members to
work on educational opportunities, with the first order of business to update the
informational brochure and return a mock-up at the next meeting. Motion carried by the
following vote: Aye – Klavitter, Olson, Whalen, Knight, Bichell, Rapp, Wand, Stover and
McDonnell; Nay – None.
By consensus, the Commission selected Chairperson Knight and Commissioners
McDonnell and Klavitter, to serve on the education task force.
Dubuque Community School District School Closures: Staff Member Carstens reviewed
the staff memo. She explained that the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson requested the
Commission have an opportunity to discuss the historic impacts of neighborhood school
closures that are being considered by the Dubuque Community School District.
The Commission discussed their concerns with closing historical buildings which are
important to their neighborhoods. The Commission noted the Dubuque Community School
District has no plans for the reuse or renovation of those existing schools. The
Commission noted the closure of the neighborhood schools contradicts the sustainability
measures of the community. The Commission noted the School District’s feasibility
approach that did not adequately address costs for renovation or additions. The
Commission also noted the lost taxpayer investment when these properties are sold. The
Minutes – Historic Preservation Commission
October 21, 2010
Page 8
Commission agreed that you cannot put a price on history. The Commission stated
investments should be made in teachers and students, not unnecessarily on new buildings.
The Commission reviewed the facility options and agreed the best investment would be to
invest in existing neighborhood schools. The Commission preferred Option 1 because it
preserves more neighborhood facilities and it is the most sustainable option.
Motion by Wand, seconded by Olson, to request the City Council request the Dubuque
Community School District to reconsider Option 1 and renovate existing schools because
these buildings have historical importance to the community and renovating the existing
facilities is consistent with the greater mission of the community to become a sustainable
community.
HPC Education: The Commission expressed an interest in discussing future education
opportunities for the Commission. By consensus, the Commission requested that Historic
Preservation Commission education opportunities be placed on the next Historic
Preservation Commission agenda for discussion.
Carnegie Stout Public Library Signs: Commissioner Olson requested an update on the
Carnegie Stout Public Library freestanding signs. Staff Member Carstens stated the issue
has been forwarded to the Legal Services Department and City Manager. Staff will place
the item on the November HPC agenda.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
:
HPC Design Review Application: Staff Member Johnson noted the Historic Preservation
Commission design review application was recently updated to incorporate changes to the
Historic Preservation Ordinance with the adoption of the Unified Development Code. He
noted staff prepared a design project worksheet to include as part of the application
packet. He noted the worksheet is modeled after the Section 106 review application
already in use in Planning Services and Housing and Community Development
Departments for lead paint projects. He noted that the worksheet is tied to the Architectural
Guidelines for Historic Districts. He noted the worksheet is not intended to replace
drawings or the existing project description for HPC applications; rather it is intended to
improve the quality of applications brought before staff and the Commission. Staff noted
the design project worksheet asks more specific questions than the application and forces
applicants to put more thought into their projects.
The Commission discussed having the form on-line with the ability to print the application
and fill out the application on-line. The Commission suggested making the existing material
and proposed material lists consistent throughout and referenced the Architectural
Guidelines for the applicable project component. The Commission also inquired about
creating links to certain resources such as specific design guidelines and/or tabbed
sections to resources.
By consensus, the Commission supported the updated application and design project
worksheet.
Minutes – Historic Preservation Commission
October 21, 2010
Page 9
Building Services Historic Preservation Enforcement Report Update: Commissioners
requested updates for 1589-91 Bluff Street and 1163 Highland Place.
Discussion of Items not on HPC Agenda: Staff reviewed the memorandum regarding
discussion of items not on HPC agendas. Staff noted the item will be placed on the
November HPC agenda for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________________ _________________________
David Johnson, Assistant Planner Adopted