Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission Action - 100 Main Street
Copyright 2014 City of Dubuque Action Items # 1. ITEM TITLE: Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission Action - 100 Main Street SUMMARY: Joe Zwack filing an appeal of a Historic Preservation Commission action denying the addition of balconies at his business, Lot 1 , 100 Main Street. SUGGESTED DISPOSITION: Suggested Disposition: Receive and File; Council ATTACHMENTS: Description Type ❑ HPC Letter Appeal of 100 Main COA Staff Memo ❑ Notice of Appeal Supporting Documentation ❑ Record of Action-Meeting Minutes Supporting Documentation ❑ Notice of Decision Staff Memo ❑ Applicant Materials 1 Supporting Documentation ❑ Applicant Materials 2 Supporting Documentation ❑ Staff Materials Supporting Documentation Dubuque Planning Services Department THE CITY OF City Hall-50 West 13th Street YAINft" Dubuque,IA 52001-4805 (563)559-4210 phone UB E (563)559-4221 fax (563)690.6675 TDD Masterpiece on the Mississippi • su• ylanning@cityofdubugue.ore September 1 , 2015 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Dubuque City Hall - 50 W. 13th Street Dubuque, IA 52001 RE: Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission Action — 100 Main Street Applicant: Adam Johnson Location: 100 Main Street District: Old Main Historic District Description: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install an exterior stair, balconies, roof addition and enclose window openings Dear Mayor and City Council Members: This letter transmits the record of action before the City of Dubuque Historic Preservation Commission concerning an appeal of the Commission's action filed by Attorney Susan M. Hess on behalf of the property owner, Joe Zwack, with regard to the above-cited application for a Certificate of Appropriateness filed by project architect Adam Johnson. City Code sets forth an aggrieved party may appeal the Commission's action to the City Council. On appeal, the City Council is to consider only the record of the action before the Commission and no new matter may be considered. City Code states the role of the City Council is to consider whether the Commission appropriately exercised its powers, followed the Architectural Guidelines adopted by the City Council, and whether the Commission's actions were patently arbitrary or capricious. Background One of powers and duties of the Historic Preservation Commission is to review in progress or completed work to determine compliance with specific certificates of appropriateness or certificates of economic nonviability. City Council has adopted the Architectural Guidelines to serve as the standard by which the Commission conducts the design review for a certificate of appropriateness. The City's Architectural Guidelines were approved by the State Historic Preservation Office for consistency with federal requirements of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation, which are also part of the Standards for Design Review established by City Code. Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork The guidelines were developed with the input of the community, downtown stakeholders, downtown developers, local design professionals, Historic Preservation Commissioners and City Staff. Citizens and property owners recognize that the character of development in downtown and the historic districts have environmental, economic and quality of life benefits and are of community interest. The Architectural Guidelines assist coordinated development so the character of the traditional built environment is maintained. The Architectural Guidelines promote high quality construction, support economic development, and maintain an active pedestrian-oriented environment. They also seeks to promote preservation of the historic, cultural and architectural heritage of Dubuque. An essential idea is to protect historic resources in the community from alteration or demolition that might damage the unique fabric created by buildings and sites that make up core areas of the community. A significant purpose of the Architectural Guidelines is to provide a basis for making consistent decisions about the treatment of historic resources. Essentially, by following the guidelines, the Commission refrains from making arbitrary or capricious decisions. The Architectural Guidelines are compatible with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, while expanding on the basic rehabilitation principles as they apply in Dubuque. These federal standards provide the framework and guidance for decision-making about alterations to a historic property. The Architectural Guidelines have also been reviewed and accepted by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as part of our local preservation program. Local historic preservation programs are established by official action on the part of local government. Through passage of local legislation, city councils commit to a policy of supporting historic preservation and the local historic preservation program. The City of Dubuque is a Certified Local Government (CLG) and has one of the best local preservation programs in Iowa. Certification carries benefits and responsibilities. Benefits for Dubuque include: training and technical assistance, ability to streamline review of housing rehab projects with in-house staff sign-off, and eligibility for grants. Four of the more relevant Standards for Certification include: 1) The city operates under a historic preservation ordinance. 2) There is a historic preservation commission to oversee the program. 3) There is a commitment to preserve the full range of properties from archaeological sites to historic districts. 4) The city will enforce all appropriate state and local ordinances for designating and protecting historic properties. To participate in the CLG program, a local government must have a local historic preservation program that complies with CLG program requirements. In order to maintain our certification, it is imperative the Historic Preservation Commission and City of Dubuque comply with CLG requirements. Following the powers and duties outlined in City Code as well as the Architectural Guidelines is a measure in ensuring compliance with State and Federal preservation standards and maintaining certification. 2 Discussion The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install an exterior stair, balconies, roof addition and enclose window openings for the property at 100 Main Street (Lot One) located in the Old Main Historic District was considered at the Commission's July 16, 2015 meeting. The Commission approved all but the balconies. The property owner requested to install new balconies on the Main Street (primary facade) of the building. The balconies would have projected out from the building 8'-0" on the 2nd floor and 4'-0" on the 3rd, 41h and 51h floors. The balcony railings would have been designed similar to the railings already in place at the front entrance accessibility ramp and the rear stoop and steps. The windows on the primary fagade would have been replaced with aluminum clad doors designed similarly to the existing windows to allow access to the balconies. The following Architectural Guidelines apply to the request for balconies (emphasis added): 1 . Which Areas are the Most Sensitive to Preserve? Page 11 of the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines provides guidance on preservation priorities for alterations and improvements to primary, secondary and rear facades of buildings. The guidelines state "the front wall is the most important to preserve intact. Alterations are rarely appropriate. Many side walls are also important to preserve where they are highly visible from the street." 2. Balcony Additions: The Architectural Guidelines state "Although in most cases one should avoid adding elements or details that were not part of the original building, a balcony addition may be considered. This can enhance the adaptive reuse options for the building type. The balconies should be located to the rear and/or at a minimum two bays back on the sides of the building. They should have as little impact on the structure as possible and be a simple design." 3. Windows — General: The Architectural Guidelines state "the character defining features of a historic window and its distinct materials and placement should be preserved." Architectural Guideline 1 .37: Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. 4. Doors — General: Architectural Guideline 1 .54: Avoid installing a new door opening on a key, character defining wall. Commissioners noted the building did not originally have balconies. The prevailing membership of the Commission found the proposed balconies on the primary fagade (Main Street) side of the building to be inconsistent with the Architectural Guidelines. 3 The Commission unanimously approved the roof addition, enclosing the existing windows in the freight elevator shaft to accommodate a new elevator, and the exterior stairs as submitted. By a vote of 3 to 2, the Commission denied the balconies on the primary (front) fagade of the building. Minutes of the July 16th meeting are enclosed. Conclusion City Code sets forth an aggrieved party may appeal the Commission's action to the City Council. On appeal, the City Council is to consider only the record of the action before the Commission and no new matter may be considered. City Code states the role of the City Council is to consider whether the Commission appropriately exercised its powers, followed the architectural guidelines adopted by City Council, and whether the Commission's actions were patently arbitrary or capricious. The notice of appeal states the Commission's actions were arbitrary and capricious because "certain" Commission members voted to deny the balconies and therefore they acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The notice of appeal also states the Commission did not sufficiently take into consideration the circumstances and information presented by the property owner, Joe Zwack, at the meeting and the proposed balconies would not defeat the objectives of the Architectural Guidelines. The appeal specifically references "presentation of similar design features of cable and balcony type structure on other Main Street Primary facades in the same district that were not original to those buildings." The basis of the appeal is without merit for the following reasons: 1) A unanimous vote is not required. Nothing in City Code or the Historic Preservation Commission By-Laws states that unanimous votes are required to pass a motion. Dissenting opinions are common among voting bodies and do not constitute arbitrary or capricious actions or grounds for granting an appeal. 2) Consideration was given to the merits of the individual case. The Standards for Review in the City Code require that the Commission "considers each design review on the merits of the individual case, with due deliberation given to each proposed change and its sympathetic relationship to the specific historic setting, architectural or historic significance, extent of previous alteration, use of original materials and quality of design of the existing structure or site. Commission approval of a particular type of alteration or activity does not establish a binding precedent for future commission action." As evidenced in the record of action, the Commission undertook such considerations with a thorough review of the information presented in the application and provided by the property owner at the meeting. 3) Consideration was given to the context of the individual property. The Standards for Review in the City Code require that the Commission "considers the factors of architectural style, scale, mass, arrangement, texture, materials, and any other 4 pertinent factors. The proposed work must be appropriate for and must restore, preserve, or 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." As evidenced in the record of action, the Commission undertook such considerations, and there was not one image provided by the property owner at the meeting of a balcony on the front of a building. The images provided depicted decks and fire escapes on the rear and sides of buildings. The closest comparison was of an aged fire escape on the front of 245 W. 1s Street, which is not located in a historic district or on Main Street and is not a balcony. In fact, there are no buildings in the Old Main Street Historic District that have balconies on the front (Main Street) side. There are actually no commercial buildings along all of Main Street which have a balcony on the front. 4) The Commission appropriately exercised its powers and followed the adopted architectural guidelines. As noted above, the Architectural Guidelines state: 'The balconies should be located to the rear and/or at a minimum two bays back on the sides of the building." As evidenced in the record of action, the prevailing membership of the Commission found the proposed balconies on the primary fapade (Main Street) to be inconsistent with the Architectural Guidelines. The Commission adhered to the Standards for Review and the Architectural Guidelines as a basis for making consistent decisions about the treatment of historic resources and avoided making arbitrary or capricious decisions. The Historic Preservation Commission believes that we acted within our authority and purview, followed the Architectural Guidelines adopted by City Council and in doing so did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. A simple majority vote is needed for the City Council to concur with or deny the appeal. The Commission respectfully requests the opportunity to speak to the City Council on this agenda item to review our decision and to answer questions. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, �dw— Christina Monk, Chairperson Historic Preservation Commission Enclosures cc Joe Zwack, 100 Main Street, Dubuque, Iowa 52001 Historic Preservation Commission 5 AUG 2 5 2015 D PLANNING SERVICES DQPARTMENT Philip F.Jensen** Y71111TY12r, �lmori JeriSeri P.C. 775 Sinsinawa Avenue Paul T.Jensen** East Dubuque, Illinois 61025 Susan M. Hess** Tel 815-747-6999 + Attorneys at Law Est. 1988 Fax 815-747-2952 Collsta K. Anglese y Terry M. Kurt** www.HSJlegalxom Sandra P. Trevino* David L. Hammer (Retired) August 24, 2015 Angela C. Simon (1949-2010) City of Dubuque Planning Services Department Attn: David Johnson 50 S. 13° St. Dubuque, IA 52001 RE: Lot I —100 Manu St., Dubuque, L4 Dear Mr, Johnson: Please let this letter serve as a notice of appeal of the decision of the Dubuque County Historic Commission decision from the meeting held on July 16, 2015 concerning the request for addition of balconies at the above referenced property. On July 17, 2015 Adam Johnson, on behalf of Owner Joe Zwack, submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install an exterior stair, balconies, roof addition and enclose window openings. This project sought approval to move forward with planned renovations to repurpose and expand the building use from a single floor restaurant into additional restaurant space and adaptive reuse of the upper floors of the building for residential purposes. The basis for this appeal is as follows: Certain commission members voted to deny portions of the application. In doing so,the commission members acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The board's decision was made without regard to the underlying facts and circumstances presented in the application and by the applicant in person during the meeting. This includes, but is not limited to, the applicants presentation of similar design features of cable and balcony type structure on other Main Street primary facades in the same district that were not original to those buildings. There is no evidence that granting the application would defeat the objectives in the commission guidelines. The owner requests that the Council review the entire record made at the hearing and all documents submitted by Owner in support of the Certificate. Joe Zwack, Owner, respectfully requests the Council reverse the decision of the commission. **Licensed in Illinois&Iowa/+Licensed in Illinois,Iowa&Wisconsin/*Licensed in Iowa . Very truly yours, HAMMER, SIMON &JENSEN,P.C. By: azaa dii Susan M. Hess SMH/mmh Cc: Joe Zwack THECRYOP Uu�buq�ue DUB E qu Approved Masterpiece on tireMissiseippi MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION Thursday, July 16, 2015 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, Historic Federal Building Commissioners Present: Chairperson Bob McDonell; Commissioners Christina Monk, Joseph Rapp, John McAndrews and Lisa Lawson. Commissioners Excused: Commissioners David Klavitter and John Whalen. Staff Members Present: Dave Johnson and Wally Wernimont. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson McDonell at 5:30 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 Monk, seconded by Rapp, to approve the minutes of the May 21, 2015 meeting as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Monk, Rapp, McDonell, Lawson, and McAndrews; Nay — None; Abstain — None. WELCOME NEW MEMBERS: Chairperson McDonell welcomed new Commissioners Lisa Lawson and John McAndrews to the Commission. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: Application of Adam Johnson, Adam Johnson Architecture, for property located at 100 Main Street to construct exterior stair, balconies, roof addition and enclose window openings in the Old Main Historic District. Staff Member Johnson reviewed the staff report. He reviewed the property's characteristics and noted the building was remodeled in 1999. He explained the Old Main Historic District comprises the best preserved and most substantial grouping of Dubuque's earliest surviving commercial buildings. The district also includes a number of noteworthy buildings that played a central role in the historical development of the city of Dubuque. He stated 100 Main Street is a contributing property to the Old Main Street city and National Register of Historic Places districts. He explained the building housed a wholesale drug firm from 1911 through 1962. He reviewed the property owner is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness to install an exterior stair, balconies, roof addition, and enclosed window openings. He reviewed Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission July 16, 2015 Page 2 each of the project components and their compliance with the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines. He noted the proposed balconies and new doors on the primary fagade or Main Street side of the building could be considered inconsistent with the Architectural Guidelines, which recommend preserving the primary fagade, locating balconies to the rear and/or at a minimum two bays back on the sides of the building, preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows and the building wall, and avoid installing new door openings and key character-defining walls. He noted the proposed stairs and new doors on the rear of the building are necessary for emergency egress in order to develop the upper stories of the building. He stated the stairs and new doors appear to be appropriately designed and located, and consistent with the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines. Staff Member Johnson stated the elevator is a necessary component to the adaptive re- use of the upper stories of the building. Installing the elevator in the existing freight elevator shaft in the rear corner of the building is the most logical location and will have the least impact on the architectural significance of the building. He stated the new elevator will require enclosing existing windows. He explained enclosing the windows with recessed salvage brick appears to be a logical and appropriate design accommodation for the elevator. He stated there is not an established historic ratio of windows on the rear of the building and the recessed enclosure would distinguish the original openings and not create a false sense of history. He stated the bricked-in windows would be reversible and will have less of an impact on the architectural significance on the rear of the building than if the elevator were located elsewhere. He stated it appears to be a reasonable accommodation to adaptively re-use the upper stories of the building and could be considered consistent with the Architectural Guidelines. Staff Member Johnson reviewed the roof addition is really a simple stair enclosure that provides roof access for tenants. He explained the enclosure is set back from the primary fagade, modest in size and character, and will be distinguishable as new. He stated the proposed roof addition appears to be consistent with the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines. Staff Member Johnson reviewed the role of the Historic Preservation Commission in reviewing the Certificate of Appropriateness is to discuss and determine whether the proposed alterations are compliant with the design standards in the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines, or whether changing the exterior architectural features of the structure will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical, or architectural significance and value of either the property itself or of the neighboring properties in the district. He noted that if the Commission finds that the proposed alterations are consistent with the standards in the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines, or the alterations will not adversely affect the aesthetic, historic or architectural significance and value of the property or district, the Commission should approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. He stated that if the Commission feels the Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission July 16, 2015 Page 3 project does not comply with the Architectural Guidelines or will adversely affect the aesthetic or architectural significance of the building and district, the Commission should deny the Certificate of Appropriateness. Susan Hess introduced herself and the project. She explained she is an attorney with Hammer, Simon, and Jensen. She stated her office is at 775 Sinsinawa Avenue, East Dubuque, IL and she is licensed to practice law in Iowa and Illinois. She stated she is representing Lot One in the application and they are requesting the Commission approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness as outlined in the application and staff report. Ms. Hess stated the applicant does believe the proposed alterations are consistent with the Architectural Guidelines established by the city of Dubuque given the unique nature of the property, its location in the district, its past use of the building, the change in use of the building, and other similar properties on Main Street and historic districts, including the Millwork District. Ms. Hess introduced Joe Zwack, 9499 Turkey Ridge Road, Dubuque, IA 52003, and stated he is the property owner of Lot One located at 100 Main Street. Mr. Zwack distributed folders containing drawings of the proposed alterations and pictures of fire escapes and balconies in downtown Dubuque to the Commission. He reviewed the plans and the need for the elevator and fire escape in the back of the building. He referenced the structural engineering plans for attaching the balconies to the building, noting they will meet or exceed all commercial requirements. He noted his business at Lot One has been an anchor for the Old Main District. He stated they were one of the first places to open. He noted all renovations made to the building were at their own cost. He noted the building was originally an industrial building, and then a retail business. Mr. Zwack reviewed that the restaurant uses the first and second floors of the building and they would like to develop the third, fourth, and fifth floors for residential use. He reviewed the business hours and number of employees. Mr. Zwack stated the property was never designed to be a stand-alone building and the building directly to the north burned down in the late 1990s. Mr. Zwack stated the reason for installing the balconies is to provide outdoor dining opportunities for customers on Main Street. He stated the grade of the sidewalk and accessibility ramp prohibit outdoor dining along Main Street currently. He explained they attempted outdoor dining on the side of the building; however, it is noisier and less enticing to dine outside. He noted the balconies will be attached by cables similar to the awnings located at the Hotel Julien Dubuque. He noted the improvements will be metal, high beam construction similar to high beams seen throughout other buildings in the Old Main Historic District. He noted some buildings in the downtown have added fire escapes to the front of buildings so it is not unusual to have things on the fronts of buildings. Mr. Zwack also noted new construction in downtown Dubuque has allowed balconies on the front of buildings and referenced the Oky Doky at 15t and Locust Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission July 16, 2015 Page 4 Street. He stated the balconies will be installed so they are reversible should someone in the future want to take the building back to its original appearance. Mr. Zwack noted the Busted Lift has a wooden deck off the back of their building. He stated adding balconies to the front of Lot One would be an enhancement and welcomed questions from the Commission. Commissioner Lawson stated balconies on the front of the building would be consistent with traditional French architecture. Chairperson McDonell clarified the style of the building is not in the French design, and is a traditional commercial building that never originally had balconies on the front of it. He referenced the Architectural Guidelines, noting the primary facades of buildings are most important to preserve in their original appearance, while flexibility is granted on the rear and sides of the building. Mr. Zwack stated that since the building now stands alone, and is a narrow width building, that lends itself to installing balconies on the front. The Commission asked whether enclosing the windows on the rear of the building was a Code requirement for the new elevator. Staff Member Johnson stated he believed it was a Code requirement, noting other buildings in downtown that have undertaken a similar process. Mr. Zwack clarified the windows must be enclosed in order to meet Fire Code within the elevator shaft. Commissioner Lawson noted Lot One's contributions to downtown and stated they serve as a venue for the film festival. Mr. Zwack reiterated the building originally was used for industrial purposes and they propose to use it for commercial purposes. Staff Member Johnson clarified the purview of the Commission is specific to design, and they are not to take into consideration matters such as land use. He stated the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines are the standards adopted by City Council by which the Commission should conduct the design review. The Commission noted the examples depicting balconies and decks provided by the property owner are of balconies and decks that are located on the rear and sides of buildings in downtown Dubuque, whereas, the property owner is requesting to install balconies on the primary or Main Street fagade. Chairperson McDonell noted the ordinance and guidelines recommend preserving the primary fagade. Mr. Zwack stated installing balconies on the rear of the building is not Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission July 16, 2015 Page 5 an option due to the fire escape. Chairperson McDonell stated he would be in support of the proposed alterations to the rear of the building since they are required for safety and comply with the guidelines. He noted his concerns are with the proposed balconies on the primary fagade. He explained the building never originally had balconies and was never designed to have balconies. He clarified the commercial style building is not a building you would find in the French Quarter, where those buildings are designed with that purpose. Commissioner Lawson stated she felt the proposed balconies would be an enhancement to the building, noting the building now stands alone, whereas historically, it did not. She reviewed the images provided by the property owner depicting fire escapes and decks adjacent to a street. Staff Member Johnson clarified all those examples are of fire escapes and stairways that are located either on the rear or side of the building with the exception of the Hotel Julien. He stated the awnings seen on the Hotel Julien Dubuque are original in design to the hotel. Commissioner Lawson questioned the image depicting a balcony on the Iron Works building in the Historic Millwork District. Commissioner Rapp clarified at one time, the Caradco building and Iron Works building was connected by a bridge. He stated the balcony is reflective of the original bridge opening. Chairperson McDonell stated the discussed examples did not involve replacing historic windows with new doors and balconies on the primary fagade. Commissioner Rapp asked how the roof access will be finished. Mr. Zwack clarified the roof access will be covered with brick. In response to a question from the Commission, Staff Member Johnson explained the roof access will be visible from the street; however, it is modest in scale and will complement the existing elevator enclosure on the roof. The Commission asked if the different components of the application can be voted on independently. Staff Member Johnson stated the Commission does have the ability to make separate motions on each of the components of the application. Commissioner Lawson stated she believed the improvements the property owner is proposing is in harmony with the appearance and uses of historic buildings in the downtown area. Chairperson McDonell reiterated the Historic Preservation Commission is governed by the Architectural Guidelines. Commissioner Lawson questioned in what way the guidelines govern the Commission. Staff Member Johnson explained the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines were developed based on the input of residents, stakeholders, Dubuque Main Street, and Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission July 16, 2015 Page 6 Commissioners in the city of Dubuque. He explained the guidelines are adopted by City Council to give the Commission the tools necessary to consistently and fairly review proposed improvements within the City's historic districts. He noted benefits of the Architectural Guidelines are to provide design direction and prevent the Commission from making arbitrary design decisions. He noted the guidelines take the principles outlined in the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and tailored them specific to Dubuque. He explained the guidelines themselves are not Code or law. He stated guidelines are recommendations that allow for design considerations on a case-by-case basis. He explained the guidelines were not written or intended to freeze a building or neighborhood in time. He stated the guidelines are intended to allow improvements to buildings that are sensitive to the historic character of the building and neighborhood. He stated it is important to the preservation program that buildings be allowed to be adapted for modern uses; however, that must be done in a manner which maintains or enhances the important historic and architectural features of buildings. Commissioner McAndrews asked the property owner if he has considered locating the balconies on the side of the building. Mr. Zwack responded it would take considerably more structural work to locate the balconies on the side of the building. Commissioner McAndrews asked the property owner if balconies could be added to the rear of the building. Mr. Zwack responded the fire escape will be located on the rear of the building and the view would be of the Ice Harbor. Commissioner McAndrews stated he was not in favor of the proposed railing design for the balconies. He stated the design must enhance the building. Mr. Zwack explained the railing design is intentional and designed to be identical to the railing at the rear entrance of the building and accessibility ramp at the front of the building. He noted the design can also be seen at the Chamber of Commerce building and along the V Street overpass. He stated the design provides continuity throughout the district. Commissioner Rapp asked the property owner whether they've given any consideration to an awning similar to that found on the Hotel Julien Dubuque to be located above the doors on the rear of the building. Mr. Zwack stated they had not considered that option. Mr. Zwack clarified the doors on the rear of the property are intended to serve as a fire exit. Commissioner Lawson stated she felt the proposed changes were very pleasing and understated in design. She stated the proposed improvements are tasteful. Chairperson McDonell stated his objection is to locating balconies on the primary fagade of the building. Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission July 16, 2015 Page 7 Commissioner Lawson noted it's important to allow things to be updated. Chairperson McDonell stated many buildings along Main Street have been updated while still preserving the historic character and features of those buildings. Commissioner Lawson questioned the difference between the proposed balconies and the awnings on the Hotel Julien Dubuque. Commissioner Monk noted the awnings on the front of the Hotel Julien have historical precedence. She explained the hotel had those awnings originally and they were restored to its original appearance. She noted in the case of the proposed balconies on 100 Main Street, the property owner is requesting to add something that never existed. She noted the proposed balconies are an addition to the primary street fagade and need to be addressed in the context of the Architectural Guidelines. She noted it is not a question of whether the balconies are aesthetically pleasing; rather, are the balconies consistent with the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines, and whether they meet with the character of the building. Chairperson McDonell noted the building was evaluated as a contributing structure to the Old Main Historic District. He noted there is an added importance to maintain the historic character of a building that contributes to a historic district. Commissioner Lawson stated she feels the balconies do contribute to the building and are an improvement to the downtown. She noted the balconies do not contradict the historic nature of the building. Mr. Zwack noted the balconies are reversible. Commissioner Lawson stated she feels the Lot One contributes to the community and the Commission has an obligation to take into account all of the contributions of the property owner, which must be weighed in the balance before voting. She noted if the Commission does not allow the balconies that substantially impacts the property owner's ability to transform those apartments. Chairperson McDonell disagreed, noting the balconies will not impede their ability to create apartments, as many apartments do not have balconies. Commissioner Lawson reiterated that by preventing the balconies she felt the Commission will substantially be affecting the property owners business and asked if that is in their purview. Staff Member Johnson clarified that is not their purview. He stated the Commission's purview with regard to design review is strictly design. He stated the Commission is not to consider how successful a business is or its contributions. He reiterated the role of the Commission is design. Commissioner Lawson stated she still believes the design of the balconies are in Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission July 16, 2015 Page 8 keeping with the building. She noted the photographs provided by the property owner clearly show similar balconies. Chairperson McDonell reiterated none of the examples provided by the property owner are of balconies on the primary fagade of a building. Commissioner Rapp suggested making motions on individual parts of the application. Motion by Rapp, seconded by Monk, to approve the roof addition as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Monk, Rapp, McDonell, Lawson, and McAndrews; Nay — None. Motion by Monk, seconded by Lawson, to enclose the exterior windows at the existing freight elevator shaft as outlined in the application. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Monk, Rapp, McDonell, Lawson, and McAndrews; Nay — None. Motion by Monk, seconded by McAndrews, to approve the exterior stairs acting as a fire escape as outlined in the application. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Monk, Rapp, McDonell, Lawson, and McAndrews; Nay — None. Motion by Monk, seconded by Lawson, to approve the balcony design on the primary fagade of the building. Motion failed by the following vote: Aye — Lawson and McAndrews; Nay— Monk, McDonell, and Rapp. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Chairperson McDonell noted the Commission needs to elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. He noted he has served two consecutive terms as chairperson, and therefore is not eligible to serve as Chairperson again. Chairperson McDonell welcomed nominations for Chairperson. The Commission discussed their ability to serve. Staff Member Johnson clarified interim or temporary members can serve in an officer capacity. He stated Planning Services staff would assist the officers in their duties. Motion by Lawson, seconded by Rapp, to nominate Commissioner Monk as Chairperson of the Historic Preservation Commission. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Rapp, McDonell, Lawson, and McAndrews; Nay— None; Abstain - Monk. Chairperson McDonell welcomed nominations for Vice Chairperson. Staff Member Johnson noted all members of the Commission are eligible to serve as Vice Chairperson. He noted Commissioner Monk had been serving the unexpired term of former Vice Chairperson Julie Schlarman. The term is one year. The Commission asked staff to clarify the role of the officers. Staff Member Johnson reviewed the role of the Chairperson, and noted the Vice Chairperson serves in their Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission July 16, 2015 Page 9 capacity when the Chairperson is unable to do so. He stated most aspects of the preservation program are handled by Planning staff; however, occasionally a Commissioner may be asked to attend a City Council meeting to accept a proclamation or represent a case. Staff Member Johnson stated the primary responsibility of the Chairperson is to run the regular Commission meetings. He noted Planning Services staff helps with that process. The Vice Chairperson may occasionally need to run the meeting in the absence of the Chairperson. Motion by Lawson, seconded by Rapp, to nominate Commissioner McAndrews as Vice Chairperson of the Commission. Motion by Monk, seconded by Lawson, to nominate Commissioner Rapp as Vice Chairperson of the Commission. The Commission discussed the nominations. Chairperson McDonell called for a vote on the nomination to appoint Commission McAndrews as Vice Chairperson of the Historic Preservation Commission. Motion failed by the following vote: Aye — Lawson and Rapp; Nay— Monk and McDonell, Abstain - McAndrews. Chairperson McDonell called for a vote on the nomination to appoint Commissioner Rapp as Vice Chairperson. Motion failed by the vote: Aye — Monk and McDonell; Nay — None; Abstain — Lawson, McAndrews, and Rapp. The Commission noted neither motion for Vice Chairperson passed, and requested staff place election of the Vice Chairperson on the next Historic Preservation Commission agenda. ITEMS FROM PUBLIC: None. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION: Work Plan Update: Chairperson McDonell reviewed the history and background of the Historic Preservation Commission work plan, noting it reflects the highest priority goals of the Commission. Staff Member Johnson reviewed the progress on the work plan items, noting the survey and registration projects, ordinance adoption, and enforcement goals are complete. He stated the comparative analysis of historic districts was discussed at the previous Commission meeting and the consensus of the Commission was that the action steps in that goal are best addressed in an economic impact study, which is part of Commissioner Klavitter's goal. Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission July 16, 2015 Page 10 Staff Member Johnson reviewed the education plan goal. He noted Planning Services staff conducted research to find data relevant to Dubuque with regard to preservation's impact on Dubuque. He explained local data did not exist and therefore Commissioner Klavitter recommended an economic impact study be prepared. Staff Member Johnson noted the Commission has discussed the general content of such a study and has forwarded the request as well as supporting information to the City Manager for his consideration. He noted there has been no response to the forwarding information as of yet. Phase VI Survey: Assistant Planner Wally Wernimont presented an overview of the Phase VI Historic and Architectural Survey of Dubuque. Staff Member Johnson noted the survey is part of the Historic Preservation Commission's work plan. Staff Member Wernimont reviewed what a Historic and Architectural Survey is, and why surveys are important to the city of Dubuque. Staff noted the survey information helps facilitate projects that are federally funded and provides the preservation program with the necessary information in order to identify potential National Register properties and districts. Staff Member Johnson noted the surveys serve as the foundation for Dubuque's Preservation Program. Staff Member Wernimont reviewed the Phase VI Survey area, noting the acreage, number of properties and structures, and boundaries. He reviewed properties that were identified as individually eligible for listing on the National Register, including the Great Western Brunswick Hotel, Dubuque Malting & Brewing Company building, as well as potential National Register eligible districts identified in the survey, such as the Upper Couler Avenue/Holy Ghost Historic District, Jackson Street gable-front framed houses, and Washington Street Cottages and Bungalows Historic District. The Commission discussed the survey results, noting the Jackson Street gable-front framed houses and Washington Street cottages and bungalows Historic District is affectionately locally known as "frog town", which would make a much better district name. The Commission and staff discussed the importance of maintaining the fabric, rhythm, and alignment of residential buildings in the neighborhood districts, noting the sum of the district's parts is what makes it special. Staff Member Wernimont reviewed architectural themes and historic context for the districts. The Commission commended the survey effort, noting the often overlooked historic and architectural significance of these neighborhoods. The Commission discussed how important these neighborhoods are to the historic fabric of the city. The Commission reviewed how residents of Dubuque identify with their neighborhood and how the design and people contribute to a neighborhood's sense of place. Staff Member Wernimont noted that the high percentage of homes in the survey area that are owner-occupied and generational, reflecting peoples' sense of pride. Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission July 16, 2015 Page 11 Chairperson McDonell noted it is amazing how well maintained the buildings are and recommended Commissioners take time walking these neighborhoods within the city, noting every neighborhood is amazing. Staff Member Wernimont reviewed potential future survey areas and priorities for doing so. He reviewed how such Section 106 review requests helps City staff identify older housing stock within the community worthy of surveying. The Commission asked if any consideration has been given to the North and South Grandview areas. He did note that those areas are on the City's radar and there has been increased federal funds invested in those neighborhoods. He noted the eclectic housing styles along Grandview Avenue making it an interesting corridor to survey. Staff and Commissioners discussed surveying areas around Third Street and Rush Street. Staff Member Wernimont reviewed the history of survey efforts in the city of Dubuque. He explained Bruce Kriviskey was the first person to survey neighborhoods in the city of Dubuque in the late 1970s. He explained information from that survey served to provide the framework for the City's preservation program and defined the city's first five historic districts. He noted all of the Dubuque surveys are available in the Planning office or on-line on the Historic Preservation webpage. The Commission asked whether Sacred Heart Church was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Staff Member Wernimont clarified it is not currently listed on the National Register; however, it is National Register-eligible and would likely be listed as a district. The Commission asked whether any progress has been made on the Holy Ghost campus. Staff Member Johnson stated he is not aware of any recent interest in rehabilitating the property. Chairperson McDonell commended Planning Services staff on their work. ITEMS FROM STAFF: Staff Approvals: Staff Member Johnson noted staff approvals for the month of June. Building Services Historic Preservation Enforcement Report: Staff Member Johnson reviewed the updates to the Historic Preservation Enforcement report. The Commission noted progress is being made at most of the properties, which is very promising. Chairperson McDonell entertained a motion to adjourn. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION: Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission July 16, 2015 Page 12 Commissioner Lawson requested an opportunity to make a prepared statement on the decision regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness application for 100 Main Street. Commissioner Lawson expressed her concern to the Commission regarding the design decision for 100 Main Street. She stated it was an unjust decision regarding the balcony proposal for Lot One. She explained her concerns are in light of the extensive documentation provided by the property owner. She suggested the Commission re- examine its parameters for flexibility afforded through the guidelines in order to exercise judicious, open-minded flexibility rather than instinctive resistance to renovations which are aesthetically modest and pleasing, historic and architecturally harmonious, and clearly contributory to the key concern of revised uses of historic buildings in all of the city's historic districts. The Commission disagreed, noting their decision was based on the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines. Staff reviewed the importance and purpose of the Architectural Guidelines noting they were developed with the input of the community and adopted by City Council to provide the Historic Preservation Commission with the guidance to make non-arbitrary design decisions. Commissioner reiterated her position that the Commission needs to exercise judicious, open-minded flexibility. The Commission explained every Commissioner is entitled to their own opinion with respect to a project and the Architectural Guidelines, which why the Commission votes. Commissioner Lawson stated the property owner provided sufficient documentation and feels the property owner met every reasonable expectation for the balconies. The Commission stated all the documentation provided by the property owner to support locating balconies on the front of the building were of decks and fire escapes on the rear and sides of buildings. The Commission noted the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines do support decks and balconies on the rear and sides of buildings, which was suggested during the design review. Commissioner Lawson stated there are balconies all over downtown and there was no justification for denying their proposal. Chairperson McDonell stated there are not balconies on the front or primary facade of buildings in the downtown. Staff Member Johnson clarified one role of the Commission, as asked by City Council, is to conduct design review in historic districts. Commission Lawson requested the Commission reconsider the parameters of flexibility in design review. The Commission noted they did apply flexibility in approving all other aspects of the application. Staff reviewed the importance of following the Secretary of Interior Standards as well as the Architectural Guidelines. Staff Member Johnson clarified that a property owner requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness is rarely surprised by the decision of the Commission. He explained Planning Services staff works closely with property owners Minutes — Historic Preservation Commission July 16, 2015 Page 13 and design professionals in developing applications and they are often aware of potential inconsistencies with the guidelines. He noted the property owner of Lot One was aware the front balconies were inconsistent with the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines. Commissioner Lawson stated she understands the views of the Commission; however, the Commission needs to be judicious. Staff Member Wernimont explained all Boards and Commissions have criteria that need to be followed when making decisions. He stated when Commissions do not follow the established criteria, they are acting arbitrarily. Commissioner Lawson stated that is not the case and the property owner complied with all the criteria. Commissioner Lawson stated it is a unique property; it has been removed from its context; its adjoining buildings have disappeared, and the entire premise of the argument to reject the balconies is not applicable. Staff Member Johnson clarified the historic context of the building is the Old Main Historic District. He explained the building is a contributing building to the City and National Register of Historic Places Old Main Historic District. He stated because adjoining buildings may have been removed it does not mean a building is no longer significant. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Rapp suggested the meeting be adjourned. Chairperson McDonell agreed. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager Adopted Planning Services Department Dubuque ty THTE CITY OF 50 West 1301 Street �� � /T p E Dubuque,IA 52001-4805 1111 I I b LLJ v a� (563)5894210 phone Zoll Masterpiece on the Mississippi (563)589-4221 fax (563)690-6678 TDD planning_®citvofdubuc�ue org HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS NOTICE OF DECISION APPLICANT: Adam Johnson LOCATION: 100 Main Street DISTRICT: Old Main Historic District DATE OF PUBLIC MEETINGIDECISION: Thursday, July 16, 2015 The Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Dubuque, Iowa hereby renders and gives notice of its decision on the above-cited application in conformance with Article 10 of the Unified Development Code. APPLICATION: The applicant seeks to install an exterior stair, balconies, roof addition and enclose window openings for the property at 100 Main Street, in the Old Main Historic District. PUBLIC MEETING: After notice, as required by law, a Public Meeting was held on Thursday, July 16, 2015. Minutes of the meeting and copies of materials submitted in evidence and this notifice of decision are on file in the Office of Planning Services, City Hall, Dubuque, Iowa. FINDINGS: Based on the specific information presented at the Public Meeting and contained in the application, the Commission finds the following: DECISION: By a vote of 5 to 0, as indicated in the minutes, the Historic Preservation Commission approve the roof addition as submitted. Expiration date is one year from the date of issuance. DECISION: By a vote of 5 to 0, as indicated in the minutes, the Historic Preservation Commission approve enclosing exterior windows at the existing freight elevator shaft as submitted. Expiration date is one year from the date of issuance. DECISION: By a vote of 5 to 0, as indicated in the minutes, the Historic Preservation Commission approve the exterior stairs acting as a fire escape as submitted. Expiration date is one year from the date of issuance. DECISION: By a vote of 3 to 2, as indicated in the minutes, the Historic Preservation Commission deny the balconies design on the primary fagade of the building. Expiration date is one year from the date of issuance. Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork Certificate of Appropriateness— Notice of Decision Page 2 THEREFORE: Pursuant to Article 10 of the Unified Development Code of the City of Dubuque, Iowa, the Commission hereby grants permission to the City of Dubuque and its designated representative(s) to issue the regulated permit(s) required to complete the approved projects. Filed in the Office of Planning Services Department on August 5, 2015. QtA Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork Dubuque THE CITYOE DTT� Planning Services Department v I I II I City Hall ❑50 W. 13"'Street Dubuque, IA 52001-4864 Masterpiece on the Mississippi a . :.b, Phone: 563-589-4210 Fax: 563-589-4221 nlannincioOcihyofdubuque ora PLAN NI NG APPLI CAT[ON FORM ❑Variance ❑Preliminary Plat ❑Simple Subdivision ®CertifcateofAppropriateness ❑Conditional Use Permit ❑Major Final Plat ❑Text Amendment ❑Advisory Design Review (Public Projects) ❑Appeal ❑Minor Final Plat ❑Temporary Use Permit ❑Certificate of Economic Non-Viability ❑Special Exceplion ❑Simple Site Plan ❑Annexation ❑Historic Designation: ❑Limited Setback Waiver ❑Minor Site Plan ❑Historic Revolving Loan ❑Demolition In Conservation District ❑Rezoning/PUD/ID []Major Site Plan []Historic Housing Grant ❑Review of Preservation Alternatives Please tyn -or orint 1 .nihly in ink Property owner(s): Joe Zwack Phone: 563/587-0200 Address: 100 Main Street city: Dubuque state: lA Zip: 52001 Fax#: 563/587-0300 Cell #: NA E-mail: lotonedbq@yahoo,com Applicant/Agent: Adam Johnson Phone: 815/777-8343 Address: 211 Fourth Street City; Galena state: IL Zip: 61036 815/777-8343 (call 1st) 815/281-1577 adamizso333@gmail.com Fax#: Cell#: E-mail: I Site location/address: 100 Main Street Neighborhood Association NA Existing zoning: C 'y Proposed zoning: N A District: Main Street Landmark: ❑Yes ®No Legal Description: Sidwell parcel ID#) or lot number/black number/subdivision: Lot 1 /D Zt'zQ2009 Total property(lot)area(square feet or acres): 2,800 s,f. Describe proposal and reason necessary(attach a letter of explanation,if needed): to allow the addition of steel baclonies to the side of building A✓&gyy'm ermbe /lpAt I/�A/f141✓ d' CNL/Alr L✓/�1/DOA/ dNLAH.f4S•S CERTIFICATION: I/we,the undersigned, do hereby certify/acknowledge that: 1. It is the property ownerKiresponsibility to locate property lines and to review the abstract for easements and restrictive covenants. 2. The information submitted herein is true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge and upon submittal becomes public record; 3. Fees are not refundable and payment does not guarantee approval; and 4. All additional required written and graphic materials are attached. Property Owner(s): Date: Applicant/Agent(s); Adam Johnson Date: 6/24/15 FOR OFFI CE USE ONLY Fee:�_Received r— Date; S fir'ocket; DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (use additional pages as needed) 1) Please describe your project, indicating the existing materials and their condition and the reason for the proposed work: The upper floors of the building are being developed into 6 apartments. This requires the addition of a new exterior fire stair on the East Elevation and the installation of a new residential elevator, which will be installed within the existing freight elevator shaft. New exit doors will nee to be installed on the East for egress and the elevator shaft will need to be isolated from the new fire stair, so new masonry openmgs will be created for the doors and the existing windows into the elevator shaft will be modified and bricked in, with the brick inset to indicate the original openings as possible. A new Addition on the Roof, in the middle on the north side will allow roof access for building maintanence and resident use. The parapets are tall enough that a guardrailwill not be needed. New Balconies are proposed for the new Apartments and the 2nd Floor Banquet Space on the West Elevation above Main Street.The new Fine Stair and Balconies would be similar to the existing railings on the East Stoop. 2) Please indicate the type of construction materials to be used in this project: Steel balconies would be styled after the existing railings on stoop on East. New doors and windows would match the existing. Brick addition on roof would match existing brick and details of existing, 3) What alternative remedies have you considered to solve your problem or meet your needs? Concrete structure of the origonal building does not allow for new interior fire stair. 4) What is your timeline for completion of the proposed project? Owner is ready to begin work. 5) What is the estimated project cost? $750,000 6) Will you do the work yourself, or use a contractor? Please provide name of contractor. Chris Lloyd, Lloyd Construction, 563/580-1837 7) Any other information or comments? Adam Johnson 6/24/15 Signature Date o � 0 U m m a L � a C Q O$$P O m°$ % 0 mg —Mdielon fon�ew roof access C � E w w= Om M J 7 tm$ Y wg Q "pff new balwnies O mmove ex zting window. madly ex sling opening n❑ nnv mesal fire -❑❑ newdoorssmgai � to allow new door,bHck ^ —e cape era /to ezlscing mndows � In remaLlder of opening I l ❑ remove ex sting windmv; f nodiy exist n9 openhig � _ � � E to allow ne,v door,br ck in remalnderof open ng ` 0 0 L� � -i rem WE Ex 92ng 1'andnW El molly edsGng openng -,,,,,,, - -taallwv new dool bock In remainder—-—- emainder---- ---— --—- --—- -—-— — newdooizslmilnr e - Id'5teel channels to existing windows caihllever new - sGinget5� me.1 Fm _.•(�"' beams,typical b b Icmwc ex sting window, scairLl above bdckln sinal lder . aF opmling + new black motel ra I'n ,s — —_—_ ----- ---- ----- � use exls2 ng az trample o—;Zs 3 +' o m= — newv 4xh s[eel column NO on &fW000ng.tyL P.for pier O [ng. fora modHy existing black metal railing i I Revlslonv. et nzweUalr az naoded li i 7[845 existing stoop&steps _j. I, 5haEt e PrD�oSed Ea5tElevation nevconcrea dfaotin E ro �5� Iva i� on PrOnnSad W 5 Elevation New Fire Escape Stair not shown ,,4� _p-�n ee x va I-a N p n$ n� m �fl Oona AdAttion for new roof acceas, _ t' 1O w� -- _ match dotallson elevator Equipment5hed r .o m� — 0' ' 9 _ r m' envmetal file L _ r scapesralr O y r�i� I new Walconlea, .. -' _ � •. � -..-- \ � r as' - - -' - _ 5th Fir - h new black meeal ralllag, g use exlatin as e.am le cxfstin atop &area p 4th Fir g p p I new coc,retepier&footing—}:=] I i - edsting water Maln.verify location f ono5ed South Elevation ' va„ new balmntea� —/WASIon Por ne�v�nof access 5 r6 FIr 73 % naw metal firs + § aeapa ztalr i \�ncw Aoore at llew Delconles _- - _ _ s milarta eating vnndowa - +' o -nmv balconies m.. § r L —1 0 RnI 5s: /�j I � nwa'v1 e ReowmRa sheet �/, _ nnnewconarttepicr 6foodng,typ.for J new cacnrete pier&f.Wrg o-isung lVarcr Maln,ve.ny loaseisn P ofmard North Elevation �y,_� of7 3 n m s U m m s Q7 a nx x 11 C mug NW _4 nmv metal fire ezcape stair —r 5'a^ ril"rIL""c 3'&' k"re t ° w� ONw� / New FJeratof � Q N�°o New Balcony N � _ Existing tobt -�-- -- � . nen woifiead door alntllar �� _ Landing Ia rvi L to existln9 windows —� / Bar/12eetaurant inewh%h steel column / II I I i � canGlcver new metal fire escape /, etatrabova B � � stoop Vdlorv1 pad 2nd Floor Plan va"= -o" new metal fire @-A - xapestair 9'b' r "1O" }new aw4 stccl column �.�. g•g p pM S-6' 9 IIlnf 3�_B. air on new concYLte pier � - — �&footing.Lyp.Pori Nmv m now dum cer ennlozwn v pp FJeVator � T tp be dAxrmined q� 1 \ VJ II I ® Existing ' h i Bar/Rcotaurant — -- — — cant➢ever new I � , u ( amnwl ftre escape o"� 3 N'. Balconyo nra" N s Ir abwc t 1 Y o above p () m w I; newdnnr6 Airlock dawn i rVJ Lip 9 masony opening— I � � p II / exizting s}oop a steps _ � � e' j II f modify exiedng black metal railing 1P-3. r at newstairas needed 1 \ ¢ p existing black metal railing, Y Norc use as example to match for new railing r f1 SII U 1 cxistlug ampposo _ 6/23/15 BLI � exLvhrg wager maby to baveriPed � Revisions. �lB/15 Q I I Sheex y We, s t Fir 5 t Street Prono�d_Firet Floor Plan va F never pio access star ' s�-a" .7�— 5~B" �•" F � \New Balcony Pint . a blr. t �� yCorr i e� i ee ai°r r 1 L/ Unit 54A r ' / °� w Landing W o 2 J Ay �y m _ : /86 oq Ili pamaY Im�a 1 ding down C m rni One Bedroom rcfnv/ U a nev doors similar / /� co LL E c —to exI5Gn9 Mndows � y� � o � ( y I pl W �/ I Unit 5B Laat5V W (\,p/p '7D11�—�-1I77 range '. I '• sh � v /Y Ilnen R ,Uaink hood I I,_ I "a 2 - 12D ,'. hVL" 0 9—. I _I lo• 5_n� Wo i/_Pid r�Qm. new metal fire I I / c5cape Stair fa 1 ' u.n vz '. I e rz" 6• Iz 4 t -- / / ✓ % / /// / / ! rh dile of Unite Fronoeed 5th Floor Flan unit3n 26 droom/16arn 9235f. unit 36 iBedroom/16aG1 786/ .f. —� Ulit 45 2Odn,o 118ath &,930. Unit 45 2Bedroo Bath 793 s.f. 80 UMM5I Bedroom/1 Bath 5,f. nit U 585 23edroom/16aG, 893 s.f. I1• qn nex metal fre escape stair-- -- + I / tty / i New Balcony parc� dm Z rrl 'I i oeam / I Ica ✓ A � V � i I I Ixm - _ - L/ Unit 4A w A: 786 5 ft pa m M °P 9 Aown 1 I I � � `Landing One Bedroom j - new doors similar 14B mp Xd_ to eRisdng windows I � - � - I Unit (Y� � �� Pq � i '� r/�W a � � Ilnen A: 89316-I1A '� new4d45tael column I fi I "Sh.Scr ii, �elnk hod I:- II 4" � Frono ed 4th Floor Flan IT-1012" � p'q^ new metafire e5[-pe stair —_r 3'-8" 11.�y-11"� 9'09"�1•-Iffy- V � gentry LV/D hlc IA New 531cony i�i el4zamr / n ice, ( Unit 3AL Cod 'or �I ; . g a' �o / � °p L A: 923 6G�ft O N pa luY � I II A - I ti�w I �mawnry ope.(fig � dome £` s= Two Bedroom \ °r, Landing o new doors similar —nit 3B— — -- -- ❑• m' OO /'t existing wlndrnv5 i _ -- 11 U carrel errew 657 oq ft; met 1st trabwe rahge —I /\ 1 1 623/15 vel W �f 't ^ �I I nave4Wi Steel column Kevins: efo Bedroom g/15 sheet Fi FI"ob05 d 3tJ Floor Flan R O nz Y rp N y U � L '_ g Q— 2 C `m °u@ P.aal[Ian for nerre¢e55 -` N �'m a" -`l nc,alundnum rAndow simllarto exlsting 3l4 licInsulated steel door m mg t _ / _AddlGmr Por neiv r°ofawers nmv Rwftap deck wee e ,tl,roof © ._ 05�a h ew Rooftop neck over eat ng roof 7 C is n o LL m m m e -' - {g tal fire m wTj0 Y two- Q 5th Pr �I o 0000 0 N 1 V .... _ � � 5th Flr �B I� 0 00 ti 00 N .000 00 oo F o000 ❑o . 4th Flr 2 4th o 9�@9 00 00 0000 00 o N fool o 00 000 00 _. e m new balc°°les, ' o00o OD p000 0000 j 3rd Flr 130 3rd FI aaao �o s lsoned Fl ncvis tN w8 Iconles 5econci Floor " keno work or simildoto ar sung vAndows m 4 no work First Floor __ f� First Floor o0 00 no work 2 no work _ 00 00 00 00 s . _ ° Basement p v modify exing black metal raping_ % E no work BaSeYYleYlt no work tller/stai as l¢ded 4 healSPng afoop'�6tep5 :I � ' use az wmpk to match for new rai0ng "' Pronoeed Section Proposed ction facing West �o i t N repa rlean In ap wall6 re�e _ r'th ex et n9 oley the cap i down T � t � +' � � Elev. am new roortop access stat addition— � � / - _ _� i � O Equip. t la I o0 RoofFRI % R Q J o LI7/e/K 3 She AC condensors E Pronotied Roof Floor Plan � v4^� oF� Ytb f� eVr nVT O NS Yip in Roof Lee l`�u'p' Net 5quare Footage m A: 2,052 oq ft P Q 0 Op remove rooftop access Stair o W H N & C m urn=' Existing Roof Floor la71E�ci g 5th Floor Plan r N LLH Q 9£ ------------ __ P 8 8 I I I I I ? I II I �- — — —_—__ 11 II II L— n II II Ni I I I I I InV I I I I NeI ;Sc�uare Fooage IL---_-__- 2,049 5 � flJ I I I l I I �i L JL L ---- � L— L-- - - L ------- ' ' Existing 4th Floor Plan va•=r-o.. - ---.o--- srn ^; "L up rm ra0zgng pplummu, sec.pdn9� I I I �— — - � 1 6�s�rinkler plpin9 I I I I � II II I I II I Not Footage — --- I I II I II II A: ;x,049 sq ft -- -- - -- -- - ------- -- J L.- --- --- xi ting3n� Floor Plan Existing Bar/Restaurant II Existing 2nd Floor Plan 6�0 Y 3 N 0 o Y 6' Existing o Bar/Restaurant �, o II Airlock dorm i L I I s '11•_311 8 LL Rcislune: a = Existing lot Floor Plan First S t r e e t va„= ax� r , y� o �€ O N a y W a Ly C Q - B O C i m Existing 5outh Elevation ExiEWncl West Elevation ExiElirio East Elevation s / - � _ 5th Flr 5th Flr 4th Fir 4th Fir 3rd Fir `m 3rd Fir I §;¢ 2nd FIr00 N nd FI let FIr t 15t Fir � i 6/23/15 71W15 53 BSYYIt 5 DI5 0 Bemt 511e� Exiotin North Elevation � g Exi5Vmq5CCt4OM facing East Existing tlOn facing West 7 ffi 1I8"=i'-d' Ilb"=11 0' aFP Information provided by the Property Owner and presented at the July 16, 2015 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting • Lot One at 100 Main Street has been an anchor business to the Lower Main Street District. We did the building renovation and have owned the business and building since before opening in 2004. All of our renovations have been at our own cost and we have never asked for, or used, any City/State/Federal money for this project. We developed this building when downtown was basically an abandoned and empty area. Our goal is to continue to develop our property and the area as a destination for local citizens and visitors from outside the area. We do not want to see anything happen that would be a detraction to the downtown district that we have invested time and money to develop at our own risk. • The history of this building is a story of a building that was designed for industrial use in 1914. It has served the bulk of its life fulfilling that use until Lot One repurposed it starting in the late 1990's. The building was never designed to be a quaint or dainty storefront. Its poured concrete framework and flooring, with the absence of timber, speaks to its original intent to be of heavy industrial use. This Heavy Duty (first of the kind in the city) construction style has allowed 100 Main Street to survive floods and fires over the years without damage. Lower Main Street historically has been a mix of building types with many purposes including, retail, residential, and industrial. ® With a business that is open 7 days a week, Lot One has 18 long term full and part time employees. In addition, there are numerous suppliers and support businesses in the local economy that would benefit from the expansion of Lot One's facility. With this project, Lot One would be able to continue to grow its downtown business and expand the number of employees which will in turn provide extra promotion for downtown Dubuque and expansion for the local economy. Also, this project will be constructed by Lloyd Construction, a local contracting business with the support of local specialty businesses (Bradly Ironworks, etc.) • The Lot One building at 100 Main Street was never designed to be a "stand alone" building. Architecturally and aesthetically this building was meant to be the south "end cap" on a block of buildings. With the destruction and removal of the Kennedy Aquarium building (formerly the Dennis Brothers Feed and Seed Building) due to fire, and the future demolition of the Cathy's Treasure building planned, we now are isolated at the end of the block without attached neighboring buildings on the block to provide us with the obvious visual purpose that is enjoyed by the rest of the Lower Main Street District. In point of fact, the current north facing exterior wall is actually the remaining south wall of what was the Kennedy Aquarium Building (Dennis Brothers Feed and Seed Building). (See picture) • Lot One would like to be able to promote outdoor dining along Main Street. This is currently not available because the building is located on an incline and has a handicapped ramp to allow access to the building. This ramp utilizes the majority of the frontage of the building which is only 22 feet. The outdoor dining has proved to be a success for similar business in the district, and Lot One would like to provide the same service to its patrons, just one floor up. Lot One has provided outdoor seating on the south side of the building, but the feedback from customers has been negative because of the intrusion of noise from the adjacent highway 151 and busing rail lines. • The metal railing that Lot One will use for the balcony will be the same style as the railing on the handicap ramp in the front of the building. This railing is something that owners had worked with the city to design since Lot One was the first building on Lower Main Street to add handicapped accessibility to our facility. This will provide consistency with the city approved and promoted design for the Main Street District. • The cable attachment system for this project is similar to the cable attachment system used for the Julien Hotel entryway covers which extend over the sidewalk in the front of the building to the edge of the sidewalk. (See pictures) _ -= _ _ i,= _ _ i -�- -__ ` -` ''� - t: w!', i , . . _ _ i - _ _ I _. - a __ _ � � � ,�� ,.. -- ,; - -- � 4 � 1^ ,_ _____- �, .�� O• od 010 i i� rr it � y� - r d° v i �Q Llc-� F� r I F �Y J I l' t I r= 1 - 1 I � 1 1 � iU11rN1�" _ I � � I I I fl u I I 1 y �� I I� wveuuai� _II I s7• ;u � II I ouw I •' \I I Jill W; - _ r sti.y • New construction in the Downtown District has been allowed which has metal landings and staircases on the front of buildings. (See Oky Doky pic). ��_� - - Ley. - . _ � � � _ _ _ W111 i.�_ — �� o�� --- - -- �`— �� --- - --- -- --_ is - --- -----__ ----- ,L:.. - ----- -- - --- I e�ui —, _ _ _ s. II .�..-. __ `— � _ s — i � i ® Metal walkways/ladders/stairs and landings used as fire escapes are consistent with buildings of this age in the downtown area. As can been seen on the fagades and exterior of many buildings to this day. (See pictures). 1. !* +aw0 :. / 1 sn � � I 4 l � Mcm _.. f i I i � y - �� A 1 i t, t IIT r n Callahap Photography e� iv�rhune j ri�aj a•ar�s — r= �1 1 -- T-r- til f i flT „se "vo - - - _ - -_ __�_ -- - __ .z- . .. .. __— ,, .� _ - '�.__ ---� _ ,. ,n,.....""'moi---- :�.�:� �_��� Mn Y�y _ _ N; -.y - _ _ � -f _�i..c K1l. . .. Ate'^-_ �0 `.t� '"' vl?amu ti�rA4� n... ��. - .. a � J�� 3._� F� _ `!7 *'STs.�. .. • This project will be done with the intention of making it reversible to original style if there is a desire or need to do so in the future. • A structural engineer has designed this project to meet and exceed all commercial requirements. In addition, the railings will be an additional 6 inches high with backstops to provide even greater safety to patrons, employees and pedestrians. • During the renovation of 100 Main Street, old awning attachments for 2nd and 3'd floor front windows were removed. Historically, there have been structures attached to the outside several floors of the building. • Exceptions have been made within the district for new and existing balconies with regard to desire of metal work, and the inappropriateness of heavy timber. (See pictures) _ 1 d _ vinn�r- IL WN r —mss_„��� — ♦ '� I 0 , !o- c r �� }� � �,t-�,,;317fi' -r]`�'e. . � 1��s5_'-�'t}` �. -� - ^r-. , C - •Z. _a”' .. . n • t\ 5S ssr 5.. . u•- Y i 1 _ I � IIh I 12, M 2.3 2,3 8 6 en i� f 1i t t _ its — 1 t i 1 � I f� 9Pt ak r _ . S At 1. 1 � 1, S I ��ddtt II -- I I � I a r a 1. v f ' I I - jiI asp, 0 ' .r • The Millwork District has significant structural renovations of buildings (including balconies/walkways/openings) without diminishing the historical atmosphere of the district. In fact, the City of Dubuque and the State of Iowa have provided funds and grants to enable this. The City of Dubuque has even provided a "forgivable" loan to a competing business in the Millwork District. We want the same opportunity for renovation and expansion, but at our own cost. (See pictures) Y _� /q[ x-it ®r/•/� 11 T�-�� Br.' _ _ l n � •fin Kim 'ala Ln 1 ifNO Qlo - '-- I� 1IM '� I "ll - — - .. Z �I \ '-- � 1 �T '11/dam\�I�JG.i�\\Irmo lk � it ,II '" Iii. /III am II/� 'AMR, IIIIIIII�vw 1]A-Id_fl �� n Lq F 1 I rl _ 1 - I I I \ •9 I � I \ i I w. w s r 1 1 rl '' 1 rl J 1. I I � � I �i■�.�i�..•�u��� i..� ����moi— � I ���® �!®�®r-��a-�� I_ ■®®� `,_�_' . III � NA FA 12 OF 7`7 STOP • The Metal I Beam construction is consistent with the fa§ade of many of the neighboring buildings on Lower Main. (see pictures) 1 1 -- I v i uo \/\ = Ic = 1= 1 ,{ i T .. ..v �i . 1 _ I - tj _ RYT'HINNG-PHOTOGRApH ST __ -- - - RE__ _ I lei ri��Wwepro i .rr a 90 . MA N --- -- •\� '05 `i Bppm"a • 0 m e� f� s' i 1 1 I �i cA- t KNIPPRUS l Gifts& = supplies � o c e 123 MAIN -- - ._ e- KNIPPELS RELIGIOUS GIFTS mu 12 '� � i�..�y O.I 6 t� � � �. i In. I x.: ,�' . .. _ � � _ t, „ , . `1 j :� �. �; � , . . ,. '�-�*t'�'---,.,.�,.�.�,.J, t � I i I �. i iii .� � � � � i /� .�/ � i I -- � i f i v' / ��! .-��� : � ail � . I ^a'J it ^, ``'{ qr�� civ 1 Zf.M...yti • Yrryy _��R,•�w� � f J • • �. ..1.: _ r. __..._. v. i 114.1 r �S.f DESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: July 16, 2015 Property Address: 100 Main Street Property Owner: Joe Zwack Applicant: Adam Johnson, Adam Johnson Architecture Project: Install an exterior stair, balconies, roof addition and enclose window openings. Historic Preservation District: Old Main Style: Side Gable Vernacular Duplex Landmark: No Funding: No Date Built: 1911 Present Land Use: Commercial Existing Zoning: C-4 Downtown Commercial Level of Significance: Level of Rehabilitation: ❑ Neighborhood (Kriviskey 1979) ❑ Alteration/Addition ❑ Contributing (Jacobsen 2004) Physical Characteristics: This property is located in the Old Main Street Historic District. The five-story building is notable for its height in contrast to its single-bay width (22 feet by 114 feet). It is of fireproof reinforced concrete construction. The design is fully fenestrated on its fagade with window bands while the south frontage has smaller paired windows in each bay level. Larger display windows infill both frontages on the ground level. Concrete sills are on those larger openings and a belt course divides the lower floor. A corbelled brick cornice caps the whole and pilasters divide the south wall into six bays. Canvas awnings cover the lower level windows. Modifications/Additions: The building was remodeled in 1999. Narrative Statement of Significance: The Old Main Street Historic District comprises the best preserved and most substantial clustering of Dubuque's earliest surviving commercial buildings. The district also includes a number of noteworthy buildings that played a central role in the historical development of Dubuque. 100 Main Street contributes to the Old Main Street City and National Register of Historic Places Districts. The building housed a wholesale drug firm from 1911 through 1962. Staff Analysis: The property owner is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness to install an exterior stair, balconies, roof addition and enclose window openings. The applicant has provided drawings which detail the scope of work. Exterior Stair: The property owner is requesting to install a new metal fire escape stair on the east fagade (rear) of the building. The application states the stair is needed for egress as the upper stories are developed. The stairs will be Design Review Staff Report: 100 Main Street Page 2 constructed of 10" steel channel stringers and beams supported by 4"x4" steel columns. New aluminum doors with transoms will be installed on the rear fagade to provide the required fire egress. Balconies: The property owner is requesting to install new balconies on the Main Street (primary facade) of the building. The balconies will project out from the building 8'-0" on the 2nd floor and 4'-0" on the 3rd 4th and 5th floors. The balcony railings will be designed similar to the railings already in place at the front entrance accessibility ramp and the rear stoop and steps. The windows on the primary fagade will be replaced with aluminum clad doors designed similarly to the existing windows. Enclosed is an illustration from the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines which illustrates the priorities for preservation of a primary fagade, secondary wall and rear wall. Roof Addition: A new rooftop addition will be introduced. The addition is simply a stair enclosure that will provide access to the rooftop deck. The deck will not be visible. The addition will be approximately 9' tall, T wide and 21' long. The addition will be clad in brick with a rubber roof to match the existing elevator equipment shed also located on the roof. The stair enclosure will be approximately half the size of the existing elevator equipment shed. Enclose Window Openings: The application states the upper stories of the building are going to be developed which necessitates installation of an elevator. The new elevator will be installed in the existing freight elevator shaft in the rear corner of the building. Installation of the elevator requires the existing windows be bricked in using salvaged brick the same color and dimensions. The brick will be recessed 2" from the building wall to clearly show the original window openings and locations. Compliance with Guidelines: The following City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines apply to this project: 1) Balconies: a) Which Areas are the Most Sensitive to Presence? Page 11 of the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines provides guidance on preservation priorities for alterations and improvements to primary, secondary and rear facades of buildings. The guidelines state "the front wall is the most important to preserve intact. Alterations are rarely appropriate. Many side walls are also important to presence where they are highly visible from the street." b) Balcony Additions: The Architectural Guidelines state "Although in most cases one should avoid adding elements or details that were not part of the original building, a balcony addition may be considered. This can enhance the adaptive reuse options for the building type. The balconies should be located to the rear and/or at a minimum two bays back on the Design Review Staff Report: 100 Main Street Page 3 sides of the building. They should have as little impact on the structure as possible and be a simple design." c) Windows — General: The Architectural Guidelines state "the character defining features of a historic window and its distinct materials and placement should be preserved." Architectural Guideline 1.37: Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. d) Doors— General: Architectural Guideline 1.54: Avoid installing a new door opening on a key, character defining wall. The proposed balconies and new doors on the primary fagade (Main Street) side of the building could be considered inconsistent with the Architectural Guidelines which recommend preserving the primary fagade, locating balconies to the rear and/or at a minimum two bays back on the sides of the building, preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall, and avoid installing new door openings on key, character defining walls. 2) Exterior Stair: a) Which Areas are the Most Sensitive to Preserve? Page 11 of the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines provides guidance on preservation priorities for alterations and improvements to primary, secondary and rear facades of buildings. The guidelines state "The rear wall is usually the least important (except free-standing, individual landmarks or certain civic and industrial buildings), and alterations can occur more easily without causing negative effects to the historic significance of the property." b) Emergency Egress: In some cases, exterior exit stairs or fire escapes may be needed in order to comply with life safety regulations. These alterations can help extend the usefulness of a building and can be designed to minimize impacts on the historic character of the property. Architectural Guideline 1.37: Design exterior life safety exits to minimize impacts on key features of a historic property. Locating an exit system to the side or rear is preferred. c) Doors— General: Architectural Guideline 1.54: Avoid installing a new door opening on a key, character-defining wall. A new opening may be considered on a secondary wall. Design Review Staff Report: 100 Main Street Page 4 The proposed stairs and new doors on the rear of the building is necessary for emergency egress, located and designed appropriately and appears to be consistent with the Architectural Guidelines. 3) Enclose Window Openings: a) Which Areas are the Most Sensitive to Preserve? Page 11 of the City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines provides guidance on preservation priorities for alterations and improvements to primary, secondary and rear facades of buildings. The guidelines state 'The rear wall is usually the least important (except free-standing, individual landmarks or certain civic and industrial buildings), and alterations can occur more easily without causing negative effects to the historic significance of the property." b) Windows — General: The character-defining features of a historic window and its distinct materials and placement should be preserved. In addition, a new window should be in character with the historic building. Architectural Guideline 1.37: Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. Enclosing a historic window opening is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear walls. The elevator is a necessary component to the adaptive reuse of the upper stories of the building. Installing the elevator in the existing freight elevator shaft in the rear corner of the building is the most logical location and will have the least impact on the architectural significance of the building. The new elevator will require enclosing existing windows. Enclosing the windows with recessed salvage brick appears to be a logical and appropriate design accommodation for the elevator. There is not an established historic ratio of solid-to-void on the rear windows. The recessed enclosure would distinguish the original openings, not create a false sense of history, it is reversible and will have less of an impact on the architectural significance on the rear of the building than if the elevator were located elsewhere. It appears to be a reasonable accommodation to adaptively reuse the upper stories of the building and could be considered consistent with the Architectural Guidelines. 4) Roof Addition: Additions to Commercial Properties: The Architectural Guidelines state 'Two distinct types of additions to historic commercial buildings may be considered. First, a ground level addition that involves expanding the footprint of a structure may be considered. Such an addition should be to the rear or side of a building. This will have the least impact on the character of a building, but there may only be limited opportunities to do Design Review Staff Report: 100 Main Street Page 5 this. Second, an addition to the roof may be designed that is simple in character and set back substantially from the front of a building. In addition, the materials, window sizes and alignment of trim elements on the addition should be compatible to those of the existing structure." Architectural Guideline 1.82: An addition may be made to the roof of a building if it does the following: 1) An addition should be set back from the primary, character defining facade, to maintain one's perception of the historic scale and character of the building; 2) Its design should be modest in character, so it will not detract attention from the historic fagade; and 3) The addition should be distinguishable as new, albeit in a subtle way. The addition, or stair enclosure, provides roof access for tenants. The enclosure is set back from the primary fagade, modest is size and character, and will be distinguishable as new. It appears the roof addition is consistent with the Architectural Guidelines. Prepared by: ^ice Reviewed: Date: City of Dubuque Architectural Guidelines ��• � - ��-' _� ;' is �' � � 1 7 71 i i 000 Opp 0 mom rr �- , Ons Iib 1 ► ,= ` ��;, �1, e fl� N�l 0-0 of i Illr ■s■ --- -- February 3, 2014 Which Areas are the Most Sensitive to Preserve? For most historic resources, the front wall is the most important to preserve intact.Alterations are rarely appropriate. Many side walls are also important to preserve where they are highly visible from the street. By contrast, portions of a side wall not as visible may be less sensitive to change.The rear wall is usually the least important(excepting free-standing, individual landmarks or certain civic and industrial buildings), and alterations can occur more easily without causing negative effects to the historic signifi- cance of the properly, RUH eve eo ea Boo Bor og . B B 9 B 8 B 8 B Primary Facade Secondary Wall Rear Wall PrimaAFa,aleSecondary Wall Rear Wall o � Primary Facade Secondary Wall Rear WaIf Location A. Location B. Location C. Location D. Location E. Primary Facade: A Secondary Wall, A Secondary Wall, A Rear Wall That A Highly Visible Preservation and Which Is Highly Which Is Not Highly Is Not Highly Vis- Rear Wall: Preser- repair of features in Visible:A compat- Visible: Preserva- ible: A compatible vation and repair of place is the priority, ible replacement tion is still preferred; replacement or features in place is This is especially or alteration however, a compatible alteration may be the priority. Some important at the Is acceptable. replacement or alters- acceptable when flexibility may be street level and in Some flexibility in tion may be acceptable it is not visible to considered. locations where the treatment may be when it is not visible to the public.A higher feature is highly considered. the public. More flex- level of flexibility In visible, ibility in treatment may treatment may be be considered. considered. Introduction 71 Windows - General Policy: A variety of window sizes, shapes and details exist among the historic resources of Dubuque. The character-defining features of a historic window and its distinct materials and placement should be preserved. In addition, a new window should be in character with the historic building. Also, repairing, weather-stripping and/or insulating (perimeter window cavity) a window is more energy efficient, and less expensive than replacement. Guidelines: 1.36 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. • Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins, mullions, glazing, sills, heads,Jambs, i I' moldings,hoods,operation and groupings of windows.Repair ?� frames and sashes rather than replacing them, whenever conditions permit. i' t Keystone Hood, lintel An example of decorative glass. Top rail Historic Window Upper sash Components include: Sash Frame Number of lights(panes) Shutters --- Parling rail Security Devices (bars and screens) • Insect screens Lower sash Storm windows • Hood/Lintel Sill Bottom rail Muntin Sash SIII Window and decorative features. Chapter 1 Rehabilitation Guidelines for Historic Properties 31 1.37 Preserve the position, number and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. • Enclosing a historic window opening is inappropriate, as is adding a new window opening. This is especially important because the historic ratio of solid-to-void is a character- defining feature. • Greater flexibility in installing new windows maybe considered on rear walls. f 1.38 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. » • Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing It to receive a larger window is preserve the position, number and inappropriate. arrangement of historic windows in • Preserve a distinctive window opening shape, such as an a building wall. arched top. 1.39 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a primary facade. • Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a primary, character-defining wall will negatively affect the integrity of the structure. m zL-yE' 1.40 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. • If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window a ■ � � should also be double-hung or appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. _---- "" • Matching the original design is particularly important on key Inappropriate: altering the shape of character-defining facades. This includes decorative glass, historic window openings. such as leaded or stained glass. Alternative Window Designs If it is not possible to match the original design and materials of a window,then an alternative design may be considered in the following locations: -� On a non-primary facade, accessory building or addition On a primary facade if no other option Is available i Alternative window designs should: • Match the general profile and details of the original window,whenever possible. , i Use materials that match the original appearance in dimension,profile and finish. Match the appearance of the original window design (i.e., if the original is double-hung, use a double-hung replacement window, or a window that appears to be double-hung). Chapter 1 Rehabilitation Guidelines for Historic Properties 33 1.52 When replacing a door, use materials that appear similar to that of the original. • A metal door, if seen from the street, is inappropriate where the original was wood. • Alternative materials for a door may be considered on secondary walls. 1.53 When replacing a door, use a design that has an Y appearance similar to the original door, or a door associated with the building style or type. i • Very ornate doors are discouraged, unless photographic evidence can support their use. I 1.54 Avoid installing a new door opening on a key, character- defining wall. lA new opening may be considered on a secondary wall, 1.55 If energy conservation and heat loss are a concern, consider using a storm door instead of replacing a historic When replacing a door,use materials entry door on a residential building. that appear similar to that of the original. Generally, wood storm doors are most appropriate. • A metal storm door may be appropriate if It is simple in design and if the frame is painted so that raw metal is not visible. 1.56 Enhance the energy efficiency of an existing historic door, rather than replace it. Use these measures: • Add weather stripping and caulking around the window and frame. .+ ■ 0 Install a storm door. �I • Install an insulated window shade over glazed portions of the door on the interior. Anew door such as this, that differs from the original orthatis inconsistent with the historic style,is inappropriate on a primary wall. 38 Chapter 1 Rehabilitation Guidelines for Historic Properties BALCONY ADDITIONS Policy: Although in most cases one should avoid adding elements or details that were not part of the original building, a balcony addition may be considered. This can enhance the adaptive reuse options for this building type. The balconies should be located to the rear and/or at a minimum two bays back on the sides of the building. They should have as little impact on the structure as possible and be a simple design. The addition of a balcony should be reversible. Guidelines: 1.68 The balcony should be in character with the building. • Mount a balcony to accentuate character-defining features. • The balcony should fit within the opening when feasible. • A balcony located across two smaller window openings may fW be considered in limited circumstances.The window opening and balcony proportion should be balanced. • Use colors that are compatible with the overall color scheme of the building. In most cases dark metal matte finishes are A balcony railing should be mostly appropriate. transparent. One should be able to see through to the building fabric behind the rail. 1.69 A balcony p gn should be simple in design. • Simple metal work is most appropriate. • Heavy timber and plastics are inappropriate. • The balcony should be mostly transparent. One should be able to see through to the building fabric behind the guard rail. 44 Chapter 1 Rehabilitation Guidelines for Historic Properties EMERGENCY EGRESS Policy: In some cases, exterior exit stairs or fire escapes maybe needed in order to comply with life safety regulations. These alterations can help extend the usefulness of a building and can be designed to minimize impacts on the historic character of the property. Guideline: 1.74 Design exterior life safety exits to minimize impacts on s key features of a historic property. Locating an exit system to the side or rear is preferred. When it must be located on the front, design it to maintain 11 '_ visibility of key character-defining features. ��irlq t Locating an exit system to the side or rear is preferred. ' f I r„ The new fire escape is appropriately located on the secondary facade and is also a good representation of a compatible design. A contemporary interpretation of a fire escape is an appropriate addition to the rear or secondary facade of a historic building. 48 Chapter t Rehabilitation Guidelines for Historic Properties ADDITIONS TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES Policy: Two distinct types of additions to historic commercial buildings may be considered. First, a ground- level addition that involves expanding the footprint of a structure may be considered. Such an addition should be to the rear or side of a building. This will have the least impact on the character of a building, but there may only be limited opportunities to do this. Second,an addition to the roof may be designed that is simple in character and set back substantially from the front of a building. In addition, the materials, window sizes and alignment of trim elements on the addition should be compatible to those of the existing structure. Guidelines: 1.80 An addition should be compatible in scale, materials and character with the main building. ' .�rl,a • An addition should relate to the building in mass, scale and form. It should be designed to remain subordinate to the main structure. • An addition with a pitched roof is inappropriate for a building with a flat roof. • An addition to the front of a building is inappropriate. IL 1.81 An addition should not damage or obscure �) architecturally important features. • For example, loss or alteration of a cornice line should be avoided. 1.82 An addition may be made to the roof of a building if it .� does the following: • An addition should be set back from the primary, character - d defining facade, to maintain one's perception of the historic r I scale and character of the building. The historic structure illustrated • Its design should be modest in character,so it will not detract above has a rooftop addition that is attention from the historic facade. set back from the primary facade to • The addition should be distinguishable as new, albeit in a be minimally visible from the public subtle way. street and sidewalk. Chapter 1 Rehabilitation Guidelines for Historic Properties 53 �1 -milt , Io - - 9er fi GAII -- oR�NC AI� WWII MW �- -- •`� ?� ids I ' ll II II O PILE I I s i v \C � � AV WON- N hall- T4 4 u ARM I Q _ - - _ - .i s INI i d"YZ �T e 7-1 ------------ n a MWA:s I ' ^I rr f A. rtV � o 1 II I I lq. - „�— v I _ ; y : 1 I , 1 e 1 _ ti � �^ � '� 1 i LLLeJ•���G�i�R�� Masterpiece on the Mississippi Mr. Joe Zwack 100 Main Street Dubuque, IA 52001 Ms. Susan Hess Hammer, Simmon & Jensen, P.C. 775 Sinsinawa Avenue East Dubuque, IL 61025 Dubuque MI -America City 11111 2007 • 2012 • 2013 Re: Lot 1 —100 Main St. Dubuque, IA Mr. Zwack, City Clerk's Office City Hall 50 W. 13t0 Street Dubuque, IA 52001-4864 (563) 589-4120 office (563) 589-0890 fax ctyclerk@cityofdubuque.org www.cityofdubuque.org September 9, 2015 At its September 8, 2015 meeting, the Dubuque City Council voted 7-0 to affirm the Historic Preservation Commission's denial regarding the addition of balconies at the above referenced property. Please contact me if you have any questions. Kevin S. Firnstahl, CMC City Clerk cc: Historic Preservation Commission Barry Lindahl, City Attorney Laura Carstens, Planning Services Manager