Loading...
Historic Pres Comm 1 17 02 MINUTES REGULAR SESSION Thursday, ~anuary 17, 2002 5:00 p~m. Auditorium, Gamegie stout Library 360 W. 11th Street, Dubuque, iowa DRAFT PRESENT: ABSENT: Chairperson Terry Mozena; Commission Members Suzanne Guinn, Jim Gibbs, Chris Wand and Audrey Henson; Staff Members Laura Carstans and Wally Wemimont. Commission Members Pam Bradford and Ken Kdngle. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Mozena called the meeting to order at 5:03 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. PU~_ La~_. WORKSHOP/STR--m~'St?~d~E _nl=-__q!GN REVIEW GUIDELINES FOR HL.eTORlC DISTRICTS: Chairperson Mozena introduced the streetscape design reviewguidelines fo~ historic districts. He stated that they am intended to be a user-friendly reference for properties and streetscapes located in historic districts. He emphasized that they are only guidelines and they are not ordinance changes or requirements. ~ Member Carstens explained that the streetscape design review guidelines are only a draft at this point. She emphasized that the guidelines are only to be used as a how-to manual, and that they are specifically tailored to Dubuque historic districts. Kevin Eippefie, Bajrrant Architects, presented the streetscape design guidelines to the attendees through a PowerPoint presentation. He explained that the guidelines are based on the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. He explained that the t-Pastoric Preservation Conm~ission is required to use these standards when doing design reviews. Mr. Eipperie reviewed the intent and p~, the vision and long-range goals of the Dubuque H~tofic Preservation Districts. He then proceeded to explain the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. He described the methodology for defining bhe districts and noted that the guidelines have a list of alt the properties located in the historic districts. Mr. Eipperle described the format for the layout of the design review guidelines, and noted that the format is very similar to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. He explained the sections of the guidelines are setup with a portion that describes the topic and a section where there are recommended, acceptable and not recommended MinUtes- Historic Preservation Commission January 17, 2002 Page 2 Mr. Eipperte then proceeded to desc~be each topic. The topics he described were setting and site, driveways, parking, paving for residential, driveways, parking and paving for commercial, sidewalks, waikways and curbs, grade changes and retaining walls, fer~ces and gates, amenities - residential, amenities - commercial, signs and graphics, way- finding-features, street r~ghting, yard and park features, landscaping and utilities. Mr. Eipperle noted that there are several photos in the document that show historically correct and incorrect ways for treatment of these topics. Mr. Eipperie then explained there is a resource section located at the back of the book, which includes a glossary of histodc presentation terms, resource handouts that are available Eom the Carnegie Stout Library, and a list of City of Dubuque contacts. The Historic Preset, ration Commission and cor, sultants from Durrant and City staff then fielded questions from the citizens altending the public workshop. A citizen had a question about whether or not fences would be regulated by the Historic Presentation Corr~nissi(m. Chairperson Mozena stated that the Historic Preservation Commission currently has no review authority over fences unless they excccd the height ref~ui~ He explained that the section about fences and guidelines would hopefully be used es a resource for property owners. He ex~plained that the guidelines are only guidelines, and that they are not ordinance changes or requirements. The citizen hoped that in the future, the Histodc Chairperson Mozena asked if the guide is in a format that is user-friendly. The citizens responded that they would like to see mere pictures in the document. Another citizen had questions regarding the deterioration of a limestone retaining wall, and whether or not the Historic Preservation Commission would require replacement with a limestone retaining wall. The HPC, Durrant and City staff explained that these are only guidelines and not requirements, and that the guidelines would recommend that the limesfl:me retaining wall be replaced with limestone, or the use of an acceptable alternative, like colored concrete, before plain concrete. A citizen made the suggestion that these manuals be given to new buyers of properties located in historic dist~cts. Several citizens discussed the possibility of expanding the resource section to include contractors and manufacturers of historic building materials. Commissioner Wand explained that the City couldn't endorse contrac~m and manufacturers of historic building materials because of the potential of a lawsuit if a contractor or building material st,,pplier City direct people to organizations that may be able to help. Mina"las - Historic Preservation Commission Janua~ 17, 2C~32 Page 3 Cir.~la Wetu, member of the Old House Enthusiasts, explained that they are currently looking at making a list of contractors and manufacturers of histodc building materials that could be used by owr~ers of historic properties. The Historic Preservation Commission thanked all of the attendees of the public workshop for their input, and explained that there will be another public workshop held for guidelines that deal with historic structures at a later date. I~iINUTES: Motion by Gibbs, seconded by Wand, to approve the minutes ofthe December 20, 2001 meeting as subrnil~. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye-Gibbs, Wand, Guinn, Henson and Mozena; Nay - None. ~ FRO~ STAFF: Staff Member Carstens gave an updal~ on Phase II of the Architectural Survey/Evaluation. She explained that the Planning Services Department received a majority of the required information that needs to be submitted to the State. The P~anning Services Department requested an exbsnsion until March 1,2002 to submit the required information. She also explained that the City has received an $18,000 gm~ for Phase !11 of the Architectural/Historical Survey/Evaluation, which will cover ~e downtown and w~rehouse sections of the city. Staff Member Wemimont reported on the Iowa's Most Endangered Properties 2002 nominations. He explained that staff has prepared a nomination for an old stone barn located behind 503 Southern Avenue after consulting with the property owner. The Commission and staff discussed other properties that were nominated to the iowa's Most Endangered Properties list last year. Staffexpla~nedtheta#thosep~h~n~ebeen purchased and are no longer endangered. Staff Member Carstens reported on an archeological survey that will be conducted for the Brewery and Shot Tower area. The Commission discussed whether o~ not Peavey was going to move out of the building located next to the Shot Tower. Staff Member Carstens _reported that the City has come to an agreement with Peavey about relocating the outside grain storage pad south of the railroad to a new location on the 12~ Street Peninsula~ Staff Member Carstens reported on a letter of support to the National Trust for Historic Preservation for the Grand Opera House's application for the Johenna Favrot Funcl for interior restoration. The ~n commented on the project staff reports that have been inctuded in their packet. Staff Mercd~er Carstens explained that it is a list of projects that the Planning Se~'~ces Depa~b(~rtt is currently working on, and that the list will be supplied to the Commission each month. ~ Guinn wanted to address signage for residential properties, and the possibility of h~ving a standard plaque that listed the house address, name of the house Minutes - H~dc Preservation January 17, 2002 Page 4 and the year i~ was built_ The C~ion decided that this topic should be discussed at the meeting of the Steering Committee for design review gutael~nes Staff Member Carstens addressed some issues that the City Manager had regarding the streetscape guidelines. She explained that the C~ Manager wouid like to have the g~ exp~[c-fl~ s~a~ that they are not regulatory and they are only guide~Lqea~ She also explained that some of the guidelines Mi! need to be reworded because they are cma§ng expectations that are not economically f~asible. She also requested that underneath the driveway, parking and paving sections for residential and commercial, under the 'acceptable" catego~, the addition of standard plain concrete. She no{~l under the sidewalks, watkways and curbs section, that the guidelines setup an unreasonable expectation that the City cannot financially meet. She referred to the fact that the City currently has 350 milas of roadways, but that only two miles are reconstructed each year and 10 miles am resuffaced each year. She also explained that million from the State for street improvements. NOTE: Co~.u-~issioner Wand left the meeting at 6:50 p.m. She then asked the Commission whether or not they want to continue with the City Cour~Jt work session and send the guidelines to the Council as ~s, or reword them and send them to the Council or send them bac~ to the project steering committee to reword. The Commission agreed to reword the streetscape guJdeJines and send them to City CounciJ for the upcoming wor~ session. k~on by Guinn, seconded by Mozena, to reword the streetscape guidelines and send them to the CounciJ work session on January 21, 2002. Motion carried by the foJJowing vot~: Aye - Guinn, Henson, Gibbs and Mozena; Nay - None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Gibbs, seconded by Guinn to adjourn the meeting. ~o~ carded by the fo'ii'wing vote: Aye - Guinn, Henson, Gibbs and Mozena; Nay- No~. The meeting adjourned at 7:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Wally Wemimont, Assistant Planner Adopted