Committee Minutes

Grand Forks Historic Preservation Commission
1405 First Avenue North
Grand Forks, ND 58203
701-772-8756

Meeting Minutes
June 27, 2006
6:30 p.m.
City Hall

Present: Marsha Gunderson, Chair, Chuck Flemmer, Gordon Iseminger, Melinda Leach, Cory Lien, Gerad Paul, Sandy Slater, Dave Vorland
Others: Susan Quinnell (SHSND), Mary Kate Ryan (SHSND), Kevin Severson (RRVCA), Peg O’Leary

Gunderson welcomed Mary Kate Ryan, architectural historian, and Susan Quinnell, review and compliance officer, from the State Historical Society of North Dakota.

Motion: to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2006 meeting as presented. (Slater, Flemmer)
Motion carries.

Red River Valley Community Action – Kevin Severson
 1408 Walnut Street, built in 1938 – The owner proposes to use a low-interest CDBG loan to replace existing vinyl siding with new vinyl siding, replace four windows with vinyl windows, replace gutters and downspouts, perform interior kitchen work, and purchase and install two aluminum combination storm doors. The Commission determined that the house does not retain sufficient integrity of materials to be considered historic and the work will not negatively affect neighboring homes.
Motion: to concur with a determination of no historic properties affected by the work as described. (Slater, Flemmer)
Discussion: Leach questioned how a determination of “no historic properties affected” differs from a determination of “no adverse effect.” Since this same question had come up at an earlier meeting, Gunderson read a definition recently provided by Susan Quinnell and paraphrasing Tom King: No historic properties affected – can mean either that there are no historic properties in the project area of potential effect or that one way or another you’re going to avoid affecting them. No adverse effect – means that there are historic properties and they will be affected, but the effects will be nice or at least not too bad. Members requested that this definition be provided in writing for reference at future meetings.
Motion carries.

Policy Discussion: Mid-century Housing
Gunderson noted that the Commission has had a significant number of mid-century house projects presented for Section 106 review. Her understanding was that the goal of the discussion would be for the members come to a clearer understanding of what is significant about mid-century housing and reach consensus on how to assess individual projects. She expressed the Commission’s appreciation to Mary Kate Ryan, architectural historian at the State Historical Society, for offering to come to Grand Forks and facilitate the discussion, and to Susan Quinnell who, as the State’s review and compliance officer, is responsible for acting on HPC recommendations at the state level.

Ryan began by noting that preservationists all around the country are trying to come to grips with this style period. She provided a brief overview of post-WWII housing development. The dominant building style was a low one-story house with a flat- or low-pitched roof. Material was varied, including wood, asbestos shingle, early steel siding and Masonite. The front façade almost always included a large picture window and clerestory windows were often used in bedrooms. When conducting a Section 106 review it is necessary to first establish the level of integrity possessed by the property and the neighborhood. The federal guidelines list seven criteria for establishing architectural integrity: location, design, setting, material, workmanship, feeling and association. Feeling and association are more amorphous, being dependent on the integrity levels of the other five criteria. For 1950s houses, location is usually intact in that they remain situated where they were built, therefore having a high level of integrity. Design is assessed by determining if the house retains the original defining features. If so, integrity is high; if not, for instance if a second story is added to the basic ranch style house, integrity is low. Materials are assessed in the same manner: the greater the retention of original material (doors, windows, siding, etc.) the higher the level of integrity. Setting is defined by the neighborhood: is this house reflective of the surroundings, does the streetscape present a consistent face (even if eclectic)? Once individual integrity levels are established for these various criteria, an assessment of the property as a whole evolves, providing a sense of, or lack of, feeling and association.

Ryan asked what sort of issues have been coming up. Gunderson said it is often difficult to decide at what point integrity is gone, making it unnecessary to hold the homeowner to federal guidelines. A specific instance arose when an owner wanted to replace all the windows in the home; three of the existing windows were original wooden, double-hung windows. Do the guidelines require that those three be replaced with wooden, double-hung windows or has the house lost so much integrity already that those windows do not count? Or, if a front door is particularly representative of the house style but many elements of the house have been changed, is it necessary to keep the front door or replace it in kind? Ryan said integrity is cumulative; must look at each criterion individually and see how they all add up. In the case of the front door, with little general integrity, she would advocate for appropriate change. Explain to the owner why the door is appropriate to the house and why it actually makes the whole house have a better ‘feeling’ than a door designed for a Queen Anne style house will have. Try for a compromise that lets the owner replace the door but with something more suitable to the style of the house. Flemmer noted that new doors can be spotted at a glance as one drives down a street; they all look alike and most are not appropriate to the neighborhood or the style of the house. Ryan said big-box stores have been very hard on preservation because they make cookie-cutter material available at low cost without regard for architectural elements of individual houses.

Flemmer suggested that the Commission begin each 106 review with an assessment of integrity, before diving into the individual merits of each proposed change. Slater stated that often sympathy or empathy for the homeowner, especially with the loan programs, gets in the way of objective assessment. She questioned whether some lenience is appropriate, noting that all influence is lost if owners go elsewhere for funding. Quinnell said perhaps the level of review is reflective of the fact that there are relatively few good Victorian Era houses in the community versus the number of post-1950 homes. Perhaps a neighborhood approach is warranted; hoping to preserve the neighborhoods where integrity is generally high. Several members advocated for a more educational approach to the review process. Ryan summed it up: in trying to help the owner look at the house as a whole, Commissioners could point out all the positive features of a home and explain why, for instance, one door choice would support the look of the home much better than another option. Paul said that the ability to strike a compromise or suggest alternatives was valuable to him. Leach suggested taking a few minutes at the beginning of each review to explain the aspects of integrity regarding the house. Slater agreed and thought that might keep the tone of the review from seeming adversarial. Ryan suggested even explaining why there’s a debate about elements of integrity. Iseminger stated that he lives in Swangler’s Subdivision, in a 1957 house. He said that neighborhood is rapidly losing integrity as people change out doors and add bay windows to the houses. Lien said his neighborhood has only one house remaining with excellent integrity. Iseminger wondered how we convey that neighborhoods can be historic even if individual houses are not and suggested a direct-mail newsletter to owners about what is historic in the neighborhoods and suggestions about what to do and not do to maintain historic integrity. Flemmer agreed with the concept of reaching out to owners. Gunderson pointed out that there is a big distinction between being “historic” and retaining integrity; she would want any contact with the public to use nomenclature that would avoid misunderstandings. Slater was concerned that it smacked of “big brother is watching,” and might feed the misconception that HPC can interfere in people’s decisions about their homes, when we can’t. Ryan suggested something a little less direct, like a news article in the paper. Flemmer suggested a piece that could be tied to the opening of the Lustron at the Myra Museum.

O’Leary suggested developing a weighted checklist to use in determining integrity during Section 106 reviews. Commissioners could use the checklist for each property until everyone is more comfortable with the criteria. Streetscape pictures of the area adjacent to the property could also be required, to help establish a sense of the neighborhood. O’Leary noted that part of the problem with materials integrity is that post-WWII housing was often built with materials that have not stood the test of time.

Leach noted that the guidelines do not advocate for replicating history, in the sense that if you’re going to change something, make the change big enough so it doesn’t appear original. How does that fit in to the discussion? Ryan agreed that history should not be “faked,” but if something can’t be repaired it should be replaced with something feasibly different but similar.

Slater asked whether HPC should be looking at mixed neighborhoods differently than cohesive ones; Ryan said it depends on whether the mixture represents evolution of building styles or non-contributing infill. Examples of both can be found in the Near Southside Historic District where styles evolved from Queen Anne to American Foursquare and Prairie styles within the period of significance, and where non-contributing infill (e.g. Ranch style houses between 4th and 8th avenues on Belmont and Reeves) is also apparent.

Flemmer asked about evaluation of commercial structures from the period. Gunderson said how do you evaluate a box? Ryan said ‘history by virtue of age’ isn’t commonly considered historic by North Dakotans. Buildings were frequently built for immediate commercial needs and often meant to come down. That makes them hard to evaluate.

Iseminger said Swangler’s Subdivision would make a good study area because there’s a large concentration of period appropriate houses and quite a few long term residents who could be interviewed about their homes and the neighborhood. He suggested graduate students in history at UND might be able to do the work. He also noted that infill construction since the 1997 flood has not been sympathetic to the design of the neighborhood. Vorland agreed that the demographics of Swangler’s Subdivision lend themselves to study because the people there have the resources and the will to pay attention to aesthetics. Flemmer thought collecting information was a good idea because it could be used in a variety of ways if we had it on hand. Slater said she was not comfortable having grad students perform architectural surveys. It was agreed that, if HPC proceeds, the students would be involved with interviews, but architectural surveys would have to be conducted by more trained personnel. Ryan suggested that Commissioners drive through neighborhoods and identify good examples of the style, then contact owners to see if they are willing to be interviewed about their experience living in the house. Keep the focus on good examples and not identify any bad examples. Slater felt that, to be effective citywide, the sampling should be done citywide, so the general populace could identify with the style instead of thinking it only applied to Swangler’s Subdivision.

Products to result from the discussion:
  weighted checklist for integrity assessments
  streetscape pictures for each review
  definitions of ‘no adverse effect’ vs. ‘no historic properties affected’
  promotional/educational material regarding 1950s era housing in Grand Forks

Chair Report – Marsha Gunderson
No formal report.

Coordinator Report – Peg O’Leary
St. Michael’s Hospital and Nurses’ Residence – O’Leary described discussions held over the past week regarding the flood wall at this property. The Corps of Engineers ran into a problem that they intended to solve by drilling rebar into the hospital and applying cement to the exterior wall along the full length of the building. Intervention by Mike Yavarow resulted in scrapping this plan and returning to a solution that will not damage the building.

The Corps has also requested input regarding the type of patching/construction for an area at the base of each entry pilaster on the hospital building. After removing the wall that previously ran along the edge of the entry platform, they were left with a gap in the sandstone and broken, exposed brick. Ryan and Quinnell will make recommendations and pictures will be provided for the next meeting, at which time the Commission will recommend a plan.

CLG Survey Funding – O’Leary read a letter (attached) from Charlene Roise of Hess Roise, historic architectural consultants, that delineated her reasons for not responding to the Near Northside Survey RFP. Essentially, the budget for the project is less than half the minimum amount she would need to charge to complete the scope of work as described. Gunderson expressed concern that a number of complications are conspiring to run up the cost of architectural surveying: no North Dakotans seem inclined to take on surveys; out-of-state firms have to spend more on travel, per diem, and lodging than the cost for the actual survey work; and required paperwork appears to be uniformly objectionable to potential surveyors. If local people won’t do surveys and we can’t afford to bring in people from out-of-state, surveying in North Dakota will completely stop. She questioned whether the SHSND is looking for solutions. Ryan said the forms are about 16 years old and are slated for review but there hasn’t been time to do it. Quinnell said she would immediately begin work on a formal guideline for Level 2 or reconnaissance surveys; this should help limit paperwork and time for surveys of areas where no historic district is anticipated.

O’Leary asked the Commission to consider what to do with the $15,000 awarded for the survey. After discussion that included revamping the survey parameters, adding funding to the City Hall project, nominating properties and/or a district, and developing an RFP for bricks and mortar work on NRHP properties, Commissioners concluded that the best use of the funding would be bricks and mortar work for listed properties that are not typically eligible for grant funding because they are income producing. O’Leary will draft an RFP for the next meeting and review the decision with grants administrator Amy Munson.

Vacation – O’Leary requested and was granted vacation beginning August 4, 2006.

Other Business
Margaret Kelly Cable House, 419 Princeton, built in 1927 – Slater said the University is planning to demolish the Cable house, which is now owned by the Alumni Association. O’Leary contacted Rick Tonder, UND Associate Director for Facilities/Planning, who says no federal funds are involved in the demolition and it is necessitated by foundation deterioration. HPC is welcome to document the structure inside and out before the demolition. He also assured O’Leary that any Cable pottery or tile work in the house will be salvaged for appropriate display. Vorland noted that he had lived in the house many years ago and the foundation was a problem then; the house has flooded many times. It was also noted that Don Miller has video documentation of the house.

Motion: to adjourn. (Lien, Slater)
Motion carries. Meeting adjourned. 9:45 p.m.

The next regular meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 11, 2006 in Rm. A101, City Hall.

Respectfully submitted,



Peg O’Leary
Coordinator