Loading...
Minutes Historic Preservation 11 29 07THE CITY OF Dubuque DUB E '~ ~ ~~ i i Maste iece on the Mississi i I I rP PP zoos MINUTES ! ih 1 ~~V ff ~ 1 l~lrl VLJ~~I~"'ll~~~~Irl REGULAR SESSION Thursday, November 29, 2007 5:30 p.m. Auditorium, Carnegie Stout Library 360 W. 11th Street, Dubuque, Iowa PRESENT: Chairperson Christine Olson; Commission Members John Whalen, Keisha Wainwright, Chris Wand, Matthew Lundh and Bob McDonell; Staff Members Laura Carstens and David Johnson. ABSENT: Commission Members Michael Coty and Mary Loney Bichell. 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 5:32 p.m. MINUTES: Commission Member McDonell noted that the minutes of September 20, 2007 incorrectly spelled his name. He requested the minutes be changed to reflect the proper spelling. Motion by Whalen, seconded by Wand, to approve the minutes of the September 20, 2007 meeting as corrected. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Olson, Whalen, Wainwright, Wand, Lundh and McDonell; Nay -None. DESIGN REVIEW: Application of Robert & Rose Shipp for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a 14' by 4.5' screened enclosure underneath the existing metal awning for the property located at 109 St. Mary's Street in the Cathedral Historic District. Mr. Shipp explained the request and noted that the screened enclosure would help keep leaves and snow out of the doorway of his home. He stated he and his wife enjoy sitting outside and the screened enclosure would keep the bugs away. Staff Member Johnson reviewed the staff report, noting that Mr. Shipp is requesting to construct a 14' by 4.5' screened enclosure underneath the existing metal awning. He stated the enclosure will be connected to the awning and 2" x 4"s painted to match the house will separate the window screens. He stated the applicant wishes to paint the screens to match the house. He noted lattice will be installed on the east side, which faces the street. A screen door will be installed on the west side of the enclosure facing the bluff. He noted the site plan provided with the staff report, and pointed out the Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission November 29, 2007 Page 2 of 6 location of the existing wood deck and metal awning and where the proposed screen enclosure will be located in relation to that. He explained the staff photos are the view towards the Shipps' home. He noted St. Mary's Street terminates to the south and the lot to the south of the Shipp's is currently vacant and owned by the Shipps. The Commission discussed the request, noting that although technically the screened enclosure is visible from a public right-of-way, because where the screened enclosure would be located in relation to the vacant lot where St. Mary's Street terminates, and the view from Emmett Street, the screened enclosure would not be visible to anyone traveling Emmett or St. Mary's Street. Mr. Shipp explained he wanted to paint the awning to match the house color. Commissioner Lundh questioned whether the awning is water tight. Mr. Shipp stated that the awning does shed water. He added that he plans to paint the screening. The Commission discussed with Mr. Shipp how the awning will be constructed. The Commission discussed using brass metal screening instead of aluminum screening to blend with the house color rather than attempting to paint the screens. The Commission explained that the brass screening would last longer although it is more expensive. Mr. Shipp noted he wants to install lattice on the east side of the screen enclosure facing St. Mary's Street. Commissioner Wand suggested screening be added behind the lattice to also keep out the bugs. The Commission noted that the lattice should be vertical and horizontal, rather than diagonal. Staff questioned if brass screening is not available, should the screen be standard aluminum. The Commission stated that aluminum screens left unpainted would be an acceptable alternative. The Commission suggested apre-finished screen as another option if the brass screen is not available. Motion by Whalen, seconded by Wainwright, to approve the request as presented, with brass screening if available, lattice to be vertical and horizontal, rather than diagonal, and all exposed wood be painted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Olson, Whalen, Wainwright, Wand, Lundh and McDonell; Nay -None. ITEMS FROM PUBLIC: Proposed Revisions to Historic Preservation Ordinance: Staff Member Carstens explained the City's has hired JEO Consulting Group to assist with updating the Zoning and Subdivision ordinances, and then combining them with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and City Sign Regulations to create the Unified Development Code. She stated Larry Sommer is present from JEO Consulting Group to answer any questions and assist with the process. She stated the Historic Preservation Ordinance has been reviewed by Planning Services staff and the JEO Consulting Group. She explained the major changes include additional definitions, reorganization of the Ordinance, streamlining the nomination review process, and moving conservation district regulations from Chapter 11 (Buildings Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission November 29, 2007 Page 3 of 6 and Building Regulations) to Chapter 25 (Historic Preservation). She stated the recommended additions and changes are shown in red italics, and the recommendation deletions are shown in red strike-through. She explained that the Commission also has the opportunity to make any additional suggested changes to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Commission reviewed the proposed changes to the Ordinance and noted the following: 1) The Commission explained they were pleased to see a definition of "character- defining features" being proposed in the Ordinance. 2) The Commission expressed concern over the definition of a "non-contributing building." Commissioner Whalen specifically noted the definition of a non- contributing building does not acknowledge the opportunity for an inappropriately modified historic building to be restored and regain its historic significance. The Commission discussed alternative definitions for anon-contributing building. Larry Sommer noted the definition of a "non-contributing building" is based on the architectural surveys prepared by Jim Jacobsen, the City's historic preservation consultant. He stated those surveys were prepared in the context of National Register nominations and can be very narrow in scope. Mr. Sommer recommended the Commission consider a broader, more planning-based approach to identifying contributing or significant buildings in Dubuque, more like what was used in the 1979 Kriviskey Survey. The Commission requested that staff and JEO prepare options for a broader, more planning-based approach to classifying the architectural significance of buildings in historic districts. The Commission requested examples of non-contributing definitions and planning-based approach criteria for classifying the significance of buildings from other cities be provided as well. 3) The Commission recommended the proposed language, "To conduct design review on City-finance projects related to historic preservation in accordance with established program guidelines and policies" be removed from Section 25-5 ass it was ambiguous. 4) The Commission discussed clarifying and better defining in Chapter 11 what requires a building permit. Commissioner Lundh stated the Historic Preservation Design Review Process is initiated by a building permit, and clarification needs to be made for what exactly requires a permit. The Commission discussed examples where significant architectural features of homes can be removed without requiring a building permit because the alteration is under a certain square footage. The Commission recommended Chapter 11 be amended to better define what work or what degree of alterations requires a building permit, using the existing definition of alteration from Chapter 25 for alterations within historic districts, landmarks and landmark sites and alterations that are visible from the public right-of-way. The Commission noted an educational componentforthe Building Services Department, Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission November 29, 2007 Page 4 of 6 property owners, realtors, contractors and architects would be beneficial for the ordinance amendment. 5) The Commission discussed the proposed changes to Section 25-7(b). The Commission recommended that "enforcement officer" be kept in the last sentence rather than the proposed "building official". In that same section, the Commission discussed the proposed language which strengthens the City's ability to enforce demolition by neglect. They noted the added language, which requires the interior portions of buildings be maintained adequately to prevent deterioration and decay of exterior portions of buildings, is a significant improvement. Larry Sommer stated that this language is widely used and accepted. 6) The Commission discussed the proposed Section 25-7(c). The Commission expressed concern that consultation with an appropriate and qualified professional should be required to determine whether a building can be reasonably repaired or restored. The Commission recommended proposed Section 25-7(c) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance as well as Chapter 11 of the City Code be changed to require consultation with an appropriate professional in determining whether a building can be reasonably repaired or restored. The recommended language reads, "Emergency/hazard removal: In the event that a building or structure in a historic district becomes damaged by fire or other calamity or disaster to such an extent that the City Building Official determines it cannot reasonably be repaired or restored, or it poses an immediate risk to public safety and well-being, after consultation with appropriate professionals any portion thereof may be removed in conformance with applicable laws". 7) The Commission discussed Section 25-8(c)(b). The Commission recommended the proposed language, "City Manager or City Manager's designee shall be authorized to a make a determination of No Material Effect for accessory structures or buildings that do not have architectural or historical interest" be removed. 8) The Commission next discussed the proposed Section 25-8 (C)(1)(3). Commission recommended the language changed to read, "The Certificate of Appropriateness shall become invalid unless the required permits are secured within sixty days from the date of approval." The Commission discussed the following Section 4, noting the improved ability to enforce on stalled projects. 9) The Commission discussed the proposed Section 25-10(D). The Commission felt it was important to include language in the proposed new section which acknowledged that the Commission also considers restoration of features of buildings and structures. The Commission also felt it was important to not limit the restoration, preservation or enhancement to distinguishing characteristics and features of buildings or structures. The Commission recommended the proposed Section 25-10(D) be amended to read, "The Commission shall consider the factors or architectural style, mass, arrangement, texture, materials and any other pertinent factors. The proposed work shall be appropriate for and shall restore, preserve, or Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission November 29, 2007 Page 5 of 6 enhance features of buildings or structures. The proposed work shall not adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the building or structure, nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the character or special historical, architectural, or aesthetic value of the property and its setting. The proposed work also shall conform to such further standards as may be embodied in the ordinance." 10)The Commission next discussed the proposed Section 25-12, which brings demolition permits in conservation districts from Chapter 11 into Chapter 25. The Commission discussed the need to strengthen standards in conservation districts. The Commission discussed methods for requiring greater preservation efforts of architecturally significant buildings in conservation districts, especially in instances where a property owner utilizes City funding for a project. The Commission also discussed strengthening conservation districts to prevent people from threatening to remove features of their buildings which are the cause of a City violation. The Commission requested examples of conservation district ordinances for the next meeting to review options for strengthening the language to address those issues. ITEMS FROM PUBLIC: Preserve America Grant Letter of Support: Chairperson Olson stated the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office is requesting a letter of support from the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council for the State Historic Preservation Office's Preserve America Grant application to the National Park Service. She explained the project is essentially a state-wide survey of 200 historic movie theaters and an interactive website. The state is asking for funds to undertake the survey in preparation of the multi-property document which will develop the historical context for development of the movie theater in the state. The Commission discussed the request. Motion by Wand, seconded by Whalen, to approve the letter of support as submitted and have Chairperson Olson sign the letter. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Olson, Whalen, Wainwright, Wand, Lundh and McDonell; Nay -None. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION: HPC Design Review: Staff Member Johnson explained issues have recently arisen where there was a question as to whether a project required a building permit and consequently Historic Preservation Commission design review. Staff Member Johnson noted Vice Chairperson Lundh requested details and clarification on what requires a building permit. Staff Member Johnson referenced the memorandum to the Commission, noting excerpts from the Historic Preservation Ordinance which outlines staffs abilities and limitations when it comes to signing off on building permits. He explained staff can only sign off on projects in historic districts when they result in a no material effect. Staff also noted that work not visible from a public right-of-way or that does not require a building permit is not subject to HPC design review. Staff added that work to interior of structures does not require HPC design review either. Vice Chairperson Lundh noted past inconsistencies when determining what requires a building permit and HPC design review. The Commission consensus was that the proposed amendment to the Building Code (Chapter Minutes -Historic Preservation Commission November 29, 2007 Page 6 of 6 11) for review of all alterations as defined in Chapter 25 in historic districts, landmarks, landmark sites adequately addresses the issue. Non-Completion of Projects: Chairperson Olson discussed her concerns with non- completion of projects which have received a Certificate of Appropriateness. Staff Member Johnson reviewed the staff memo to the Commission, noting Chapter 25 currently enables the Building Department to enforce on properties that are not compliant with approved COAs or a Planning Services staff sign-off for No Material Effect, due to non-completion. He added Chapter 25 also requires a property owner to re-apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness when work is not initiated within one year. Chapter 25 also authorizes the building official to take appropriate action to enforce compliance with approved plans. Staff Member Johnson noted Chapter 25 does not set forth time frames, measurements of progress, or penalties for work initiated and not completed. The Commission discussed the matter and reviewed the applicable sections of Chapter 11 from the City Code provided in the staff memo. The Commission consensus was for staff to provide examples of enforcement provisions and policies from other cities with regard to work that was initiated but not completed. ITEMS FROM STAFF: Building Services Dept -Status Report on Historic Preservation Enforcement: Staff Member Johnson reviewed the status report on historic preservation enforcement. He noted a number of the items on the enforcement report are now compliant and will be removed. He reviewed other updated items from the enforcement report. Representative for the Green City Task Force: Staff Member Carstens explained the City Manager's Office is requesting a representative from the Historic Preservation Commission to serve on a Green City Citizen Task Force. The Commission discussed the responsibilities and involvement of the Task Force, and noted that absent Commission Member Bichell expressed interest on serving on the task force. Motion by Wainwright, seconded by McDonell, to nominate Commissioner Bichell as the Historic Preservation Commission representative to serve on the Green City Citizen Task Force and nominate Commissioner Wand as an alternate representative in the event that Commissioner Bichell cannot serve on the Task Force. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye -Olson, Whalen, Wainwright, Wand, Lundh and McDonell; Nay -None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Carstens, City Planner Adopted