Loading...
Minutes Historic Preservation 12 21 06~I~`~ORI~ MINUTES p~G~ER.V~9`~OI~ ~OI~I,1~I~~IOI~ REGULAR SESSION Thursday, December 21, 2006 5:00 p.m. Auditorium, Carnegie Stout Library 360 W. 11th Street, Dubuque, Iowa D AFT PRESENT: Chairperson Christine Olson; Commission Members John Whalen, Keisha Wainwright, Mike Coty, Mary Loney Bichell, Chris Wand, Matthew Lundh and Dave Stuart; Staff Members Laura Carstens and David Johnson. Public: None. ABSENT: Commission Member Robert McCoy. 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 Olson at 5:30 p.m. MINUTES: Motion by Wand, seconded by Coty, to approve the minutes of the November 16, 2006 meeting as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye - Whalen, Olson, Wainwright, Coty, Bichell, Wand, Lundh, and Stuart; Nay -None. DESIGN REVIEW: Application of Donald & Janice Hamill for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reside the house with horizontal and fishscale lap vinyl siding for property located at 491 N. Alpine Street in the Langworthy District. The applicants, Donald and Janice Hamill, introduced themselves and explained the project. Mr. Hamill explained they wished to reside their house with horizontal and fishscale vinyl siding. He explained he wished to add vinyl siding to the residence because they are seeking a siding alternative which requires less maintenance. He explained that he and his wife no longer have the time or ability to paint the residence. He explained portions of the residence do not hold paint and began peeling approximately one year after application, which indicated to him some of the siding would need to be replaced anyway. David MacNamara, Branch Manager for K-Designers, described how the company could keep the aesthetics of the home with vinyl siding and eliminate the need to repaint the siding. He explained they can wrap the wood elements of the house and still maintain the architectural detail of the house. Mr. MacNamara circulated material samples for the Commission's consideration. Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission December 21, 2006 Page 2 Staff Member Johnson presented the staff report, noting the original blueprints for the home depict afour-inch lap clapboard siding on the outside of the home and a decorative fiber cement with a horizontal four-inch width clapboard siding mix on the gable ends of the house. Chairperson Olson noted the proposed vinyl siding is not appropriate for several reasons. She explained the material example has a wood grain, which historically is not accurate. She stated wrapping features causes accelerated deterioration to the underlying wood materials. She explained the proposed shingles are unnecessarily being introduced to try to make the building look more historic. She stated the residence is very well intact and she could not see any signs of unusual paint peeling or deterioration. Commissioner Stuart explained to the applicants that the Commission is required to follow the design guidelines which are based on the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings. He explained those standards require the preservation, retention and use of original materials. He explained that the wood siding needs to be property scraped, sanded, spot primed and then repainted for the paint to last. He explained that studies have indicated that prolonged exposure to the sun and ultraviolet rays deteriorate the top cells of the wood siding and consequently the siding cannot hold paint. He explained that sanding the wood siding as part of the paint preparation will remove the deteriorated cells and the siding will once again hold paint. He explained the siding should be scrapped, sanded, spot primed and painted. He explained that if done properly, there are some paints that have 20-25 year guarantees. Mr. Hamill explained that he hired a professional painter in 1980 and had the painter come back the following year because the paint had peeled. Commissioner Stuart explained that many of the paint failures in the 1980s were the impetus for the paint studies conducted, which indicated the importance of sanding the wood siding prior to painting. Commissioner Lundh suggested using a moisture meter. He explained that if moisture is over 8-14%, the wood is too wet and paint should not be applied. David MacNamara described the differences in new vinyl siding, which allows air to circulate. Commissioner Stuart explained historic homes were not designed for vinyl siding. He stated that drain planes, designed to drain moisture caught between the walls in new homes designed for vinyl siding are absent in historic homes, and consequently deterioration occurs. Janice Hamill explained that when they purchased the property in 1975, it was not in a historic district. She stated that they were not informed of the establishment of the district, and did not approve of being incorporated into the district. Chairperson Olson explained that historic districts were created through a public process, where property Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission December 21, 2006 Page 3 owners were given notice and had an opportunity to comment on proposed historic districts. The Commission discussed the benefits of being in a historic district, specifically referring to the Historic Preservation Housing grants and the Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Fund. Commissioner Coty explained the stewardship of property in historic districts and the consistent application of the rules throughout the district. He noted the consistent rules help maintain the integrity of historic districts, as well as keeping property values intact. David MacNamara asked whether there were any options for getting a variance from the rules. Commissioner Olson explained that they can try to make a case for vinyl siding; however, due to the age and significance of the structure, it would be difficult to do so. Commissioner Stuart explained if the applicants wish to appeal the decision of the Commission, they would need to apply for a Certificate of Economic Hardship, which must be based on cost. He again referred to the architectural guidelines regarding siding and encouraged the applicants to pursue Historic Preservation funding options. Mr. Hamill stated he is not interested in the historic preservation loan program and does not qualify for the grant program. The Commission discussed the condition of the existing clapboard siding. They stated they felt the siding was in good condition and just needed a proper paint job. They explained to the applicant the benefits of painting the residence and recommended the applicants speak with staff for examples of recent projects in Dubuque. The Commission further stated often times good painters will cost a fraction of what a contractor may charge for vinyl or aluminum siding. Motion by Wand, seconded by Olson, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness to reside the house with vinyl siding. Motion failed by the following vote: Aye -None; Nay -Whalen, Olson, Wainwright, Coty, Bichell, Wand, Lundh, and Stuart. DESIGN REVIEW: Application of Michael Coty for a Certificate of Appropriateness to rebuild the front porch located at 418-420 Emmett Street in the Cathedral District. Michael Coty removed himself from the Commission to present his application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to rebuild the front porch for his property at 418-420 Emmett Street. Mr. Coty explained that he would like to install an iron staircase that mimics the outline of the prior concrete block porch. He explained the area below the stairs will now be open and allow light into the front of the structure. Mr. Coty directed the Commission's attention to the stair examples from Galena, which was provided in the application packet. He explained the new front porch will consist of two black wrought iron staircases with diamond-steel treads. He explained the landings at the top of each staircase will be covered by a porch roof. Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission December 21, 2006 Page 4 Staff Member Johnson reviewed the staff report, and noted that the previous inappropriate concrete block porch had failed and had been removed by the applicant. He noted that the Kriviskey survey states, "The porch modifications detract from an otherwise good example of a Dubuque vernacular duplex style." The Commission discussed the details of the iroh stair and porch roof. The consensus of the Commission was that the porch roof should be slightly larger in area than the stair landings by 2-4 inches, while maintaining generally the same slope and profile of the porch roof depicted in the example provided in the Commissioners' packets. The Commission discussed other porch roof design options and ultimately felt it would be best if the applicant were to return with a more detailed porch roof proposal. Motion by Stuart, seconded by Bichell, to approve the design as submitted for the iron staircase, noting that no design was submitted for the porch roof and therefore the porch roof will require Historic Preservation Commission design review and approval at a later date. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Whalen, Olson, Wainwright, Bichell, Wand, Lundh, Stuart; Nay -None; Abstain - Coty. DESIGN REVIEW: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness and an additional $3,000 in Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Funds to paint the exterior of the residence at 1283 Walnut. The applicants are further requesting to utilize the previously approved Historic Preservation Revolving Loan fund money allocated for the front doors and allow Planning Services staff to sign off on the doors at a later date providing they meet the Architectural Guidelines. Staff Member Johnson presented the staff report, reviewing the December 14, 2006 memo to the Historic Preservation Commission. He explained that on September 21, 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct the front porch and replace the front doors at 1283 Walnut Street, with the following conditions: 1) a porch deck up to 8 feet wide was allowed; 2) a membrane on the porch roof was allowed; 3) the porch roof is to have a wood soffit with wood molding; 4) paint all wood or pseudo wood surfaces with the exception of the deck, which can be covered with paint or opaque stain; 5) synthetic decking was allowed; 6) synthetic columns to match existing columns was allowed; 7) doors were excluded from approval at that time; and 8) new or replacement spindles and railings on porch and street steps were allowed provided they are of similar size and profile to the existing spindles and handrail on porch. He continued that on October 19, 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission approved a request for $17,675.00 in Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Fund (HPRLF) money to reconstruct the front porch, install synthetic columns, extend handrail down the steps, and complete exterior repairs to the residence at 1283 Walnut, with the following conditions: (1) approval included repair of the front doors and new storm doors, with design of the doors to be reviewed and approved by the Historic Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission December 21, 2006 Page 5 Preservation Commission at a later date; and (2) siding replacement should be in-kind, with same height and same type of material, with any changes to be brought back to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and approval. Staff Member Johnson explained that the September 21, 2006 COA was limited to the front porch and omitted approval of the design of the doors, and the October 19, 2006 HPRLF approval did include the cost of the front doors, but did not include the cost of painting the residence. He noted the applicants are requesting an additional $3,000.00 in HPRLF money to paint the exterior of the residence at 1283 Walnut. Staff Member Johnson stated the applicants are also requesting to utilize the previously approved HPRLF money allocated for the front doors and allow Planning Services Staff to sign off on the doors at a later date provided they meet the Architectural Guidelines. The Commission discussed the application, noting the difficulty with finding appropriate doors for the existing opening. Staff Member Johnson explained that the applicants contacted a contractor who specializes in wood restoration to repair the front doors. He stated the applicant explained the bid received to repair the existing doors was $8,000, and not feasible for the applicants. Chairperson Olson encouraged the applicants to again contact Jay Potter at Four Mounds with regard to repairing the front doors, as their cost would be lower. Commissioner Stuart explained he was uncomfortable with allowing staff to sign off on the design of future doors without any sort of design review by the Commission; however, he would recommend allowing staff to sign off on doors, provided the Historic Preservation Commission can craft a definition specifying the appropriate size, shape and material of the doors. Chairperson Olson stated that she would still like to see a sketch of the doors, via email. The Commission again discussed that the doors are nine feet tall and custom and would therefore most likely be original. Commissioner Wand stated he felt the Commission should provide staff with specific guidelines which would allow staff to sign off on the future doors. The Commission discussed some of the obstacles in repairing the doors, noting that repair cannot occur until the lead paint is stripped off the doors. Commissioner Wand stated it is important to offer the applicant more options. Commissioner Whalen stated that he may have doors that the applicants can have as well as contacts for paint removal. Commissioner Whalen encouraged the applicants to contact him for additional information. Commissioner Stuart again reiterated he would not be in favor of allowing the applicant to reconfigure the door opening and stressed the Commission should focus on helping the applicant either repair the doors or find doors which match the size, shape and material of the existing doors. Motion by Wand, seconded by Bichell, to approve the additional $3,000 in Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Fund money to paint the exterior of the residence at 1283 Walnut, and also authorize staff to sign off on the front door design provided the configuration, function, and size all remain consistent with the existing doors and the Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission December 21, 2006 Page 6 new doors are wood. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Whalen, Olson, Coty, Wainwright, Bichell, Wand, Lundh, Stuart; Nay -None. DESIGN REVIEW: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness and request to utilize the remaining $4,700 in Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Fund money to replace damaged wood siding in-kind and paint the exterior of the building, and to replace the front doors and to allow Planning Services staff to sign off on the doors design at a later date provided they meet the Architectural Guidelines for 352-354 Bluff. Chairperson Olson again explained that the Commission should provide staff with a definition of acceptable styles, shape, size and material for the front doors in order to allow staff to sign off on the doors at a later date. Staff Member Johnson clarified that the applicants are requesting the additional funding for both doors on the front fagade of the building. He reviewed the remainder of the staff report explaining that on October 19, 2006 the Historic Preservation Commission approved $11,000.00 in Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Fund (HPRLF) money and a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows, repair the roof and substructure on the back of the building, replace gutters and install rubber and sloped concrete at the base of the building with the following conditions: (1) windows with wood, snap-on or integral exterior muntins are allowed, and (2) any siding replaced be replaced with wood and painted. He noted that Mrs. Cross had explained they received new bids on October 17~h that were considerably less than $11,000.00. Staff Member Johnson said Mrs. Cross had stated to him that she would still like to request the original $11,000.00 in HPRLF money as there is additional exterior work she would like to do to the building in the future. He noted that Mrs. Cross recognized design review approval from the HPC would be required for future work under the HPRLF program. The Commission discussed the request and confirmed the applicant would need design approval for future work. Staff Member Johnson stated the applicant has $4,700.00 remaining from the previously approved $11,000.00 for additional work to the building, and is requesting to utilize the remaining $4,700.00 in HPRLF money to replace damaged wood siding in kind, paint the exterior of the building, and to replace the front doors, and to allow Planning Services Staff to sign off the door at a later date, provided they meet the Architectural Guidelines. The Commission discussed the age of the doors and noted that the doors, though differing, look appropriate for the style and age of the building. They discussed the design of the doors, and noted one of the doors has most likely been modified. Commissioner Stuart stated he would like to see the doors repaired, if possible. Commissioner Wand explained either maintaining the existing doors with glass glazing Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission December 21, 2006 Page 7 or a solid wood door would be acceptable. Chairperson Olson noted the transoms above the doors are old, if not original, and should be retained. Motion by Wand, seconded by Whalen, to approve the additional $4,700 in Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Fund money to replace the damaged wood siding in-kind, and paint the exterior of the building, and to either repair or replace the front doors, as long as the configuration, function and size remain consistent and the doors are wood. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Whalen, Olson, Wainwright, Coty, Bichell, Wand, Lundh and Stuart; Nay -None. ITEMS FROM PUBLIC: None. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION: Commissioner Wainwright had questions for staff regarding the City Council budget meeting. The Commission and staff discussed applicable budget proceedings. Staff Member Carstens stated that the Commission is welcome to attend the budget hearings. Chairperson Olson discussed the Preserve America grant opportunity. She stated a match is required. She asked staff whether the Mines of Spain is going ahead with their project. She questioned whether the City would want to pursue the grant to prepare plans for the Warehouse District. Staff Member Carstens explained that the City already has students from the University of Iowa working on preparing a master plan for the warehouse district. The Commission agreed not to pursue the grant at this time given the existing projects undertaken by the City. The Commission discussed other future grant opportunities. ITEMS FROM STAFF: Building Services Department -Status Report on Historic Preservation Enforcement: Staff Member Johnson reviewed the Enforcement Report with the Commission and the following properties were discussed: 1163 Highland: The Commission discussed the length of time that 1163 Highland has been on the enforcement report. Commissioner Whalen suggested that if Building Services pursues enforcement for the fascia boards on the north end of the porch, they should also enforce on the soffit, roof and other problem areas until the house is stabilized. The Commission felt that since Building Services has an infraction issued for the property, they now have a better opportunity to inspect other problems with the house. 1015-1017 Bluff: Staff Member Johnson reviewed the properties at 1015 and 1017 Bluff, noting that the property owners at 1015 Bluff have completed their repairs and will be taken off the enforcement report. He explained the property owners at 1017 Bluff made temporary safety repairs to the steps; however, the repairs are not appropriate and consequently, 1017 Bluff will not be taken off the enforcement report. Staff Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission December 21, 2006 Page 8 Member Carstens added that a municipal infraction was issued for 1017 Bluff. Commissioner Stuart recommended that the Dubuque Brewing and Malting Company building located at 30`" and Jackson be cited for demolition by neglect. The Commission elaborated that both the north and south buildings should be cited in an effort to prevent continued deterioration due to water entering the building. The Commission specifically mentioned making the necessary roof repairs and making the building water tight. The Commission discussed the condition of the buildings and agreed they have noticed additional deterioration. Commissioner Stuart specifically noted the front of the building facing Jackson Street with the intricate detailing appears to be suffering ongoing damage from water intrusion from a failed roof. Commissioner Bichell requested that Building Services staff enforce on the Henderson House located on Main Street because the south corner of the porch is being supported only by a two by four. FY08 CDBG Funding for Historic Preservation Housino Grant: Commissioner Stuart explained that the assumption that money is not being spent because it is being carried over is incorrect. He explained that the money has been allocated; however, due to varying development obstacles such as lead paint, the money has not been spent yet. Staff Member Carstens explained the Community Development Advisory Commission has proposed funding the Historic Preservation Housing Grant Program with $10,000 in Community Development Block Grant Funds for FY08. She added that the City Manager has recommended that only $5,000 in CDBG money be funded for the Historic Preservation Housing Grant Program for FY08. The Commission discussed the proposed funding, recognizing the budget constraints for many departments. The Commission agreed, however, that the Historic Preservation Housing Grant Program is crucial to the success of historic preservation in the city of Dubuque since historic preservation is not optional and many low and moderate income people as well as non- profitgroups need that funding in order to make necessary improvements to their properties. The Commission discussed writing a letter to City Council respectfully requesting that $30,000 in Historic Preservation Housing Grant Program funding be restored, but expressing a willingness to accept $20,000 due to the budget constraints. The Commission discussed their appreciation for City Council's past efforts in supporting Historic Preservation programs, but again reiterated the importance of the program to low and moderate income homeowners in historic districts as well as to non- profit organizations which the program was recently expanded to. Motion by Wand, seconded by Stuart, to direct staff to write a letter to City Council highlighting and thanking them for their past support of the Historic Preservation Revolving Loan Fund Program, and Historic Preservation Housing Grant Program, and respectfully requesting that $30,000 in CDBG funds be reinstated for Fiscal Year 2008, but willing to accept to $20,000 due to recognized budget constraints. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Whalen, Olson, Wainwright, Cory, Bichell, Wand, Lundh and Stuart; Nay -None. Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission December 21, 2006 Page 9 Historic District Public Improvement Program: Staff Member Carstens referred to her memo of December 13, 2006, and explained she is seeking direction on expenditure delays with the HDPIP Program. She explained that per the Commission's request, she has attached a spreadsheet which outlines the HDPIP funds approved, expended, and balance remaining as well as the status of HDPIP projects. She noted that in the past two years, only two projects have been completed, with a carryover balance of $374,000. She noted some delays were due to the City Council budget freeze and to coordinate with City street projects. She explained the average time to complete the projects was 16 months, and stated that staff recommends the Commission establish a 24-month completion requirement for current and future HDPIP projects. The Commission discussed the status of HDPIP projects, and expressed concern with the carryover of funds. Commissioner Wand suggested that a deadline for project initiation also be incorporated into the application approval. Staff Member Carstens suggested some neighborhood groups experienced difficulty in obtaining the necessary matching funds to initiate a project. Commission Wand felt that people and organizations should take more care in planning their projects and securing matching funds prior to application for HDPIP money. Commissioner Stuart disagreed with changing the program, noting that in past years, a budget crisis left the City with three years of funding, which needed to be expended. He explained money is being spent and projects are being initiated; however, the nature of these projects takes time. Staff Member Carstens suggested that if the Commission was uncomfortable with changing the program to incorporate deadlines, perhaps the Commission may want to consider requesting a status report from those groups with in progress HDPIP projects. By consensus, the Commission agreed to have staff contact all HDPIP recipients for a status report. 2007 Meeting Schedule: Staff Member Carstens noted the updated schedule being provided for their review and record. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Johnson, Assistant Planner Adopted