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