Committee Minutes

Grand Forks Historic Preservation Commission
1405 First Avenue North
Grand Forks, ND 58203
701-772-8756
Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2006
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
City Hall

Present: Marsha Gunderson, Chair, Chuck Flemmer, Gordon Iseminger, Ted Jelliff, Gerad Paul, Dale Sickels, Sandy Slater, Dave Vorland
Others: Steve Martens and David Seifert, Riverside Nomination; Kevin Severson, Red River Valley Community Action; V. J. Coe; Meredith Richards and Curt Siewert, Office of Urban Development; Lonnie Laffen, JLG Architects; Libby Kathman, Habitat for Humanity; Susan Quinnell, State Historic Preservation Office review and compliance officer; Mary Kate Ryan, State Historical Society of North Dakota architectural historian; Beth Bouley; Peter Bouley; Eliot Glassheim; Joanna Martens; Renee Powell; Peg O’Leary

Riverside Neighborhood Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places
Gunderson introduced the topic and asked the Commissioners to identify themselves, which they did. Gunderson introduced guests: Steve Martens, nomination author; David Seifert, nomination researcher; Mary Kate Ryan, SHSND architectural historian; and Susan Quinnell, SHPO review and compliance officer.

O’Leary provided background information on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and on the process involved in nominating a property or district to the NRHP. After an architectural survey establishes the likelihood of a significant property or district, a nomination is written. The nomination is reviewed locally and a Public Hearing is held to provide a forum for questions and concerns. The second review is at the State Review Board, which also invites comment from the public. When that board’s concerns are met, the nomination is forwarded to the Keeper of the National Register for comment and approval. When federal approval is provided, the subject of the nomination is officially listed on the NRHP. The process for a neighborhood, from beginning the survey to listing, can easily take more than three years.

Martens presented his research and conclusions regarding the eligibility of the Grand Forks Riverside Neighborhood. The survey determined that 69% of the properties in the neighborhood fit within the established pattern. Patterns of growth, change of land use, importance of the park and pool, development of the trolley car system, the proximity to St. Michael’s Hospital and other employment opportunities, to Wilder School, to Simonson’s Lumber Co, and the residents’ response to flood events throughout history were all considered as the nomination developed. Martens described the personalities of early developers, and used maps as well as patterns and styles of housing to demonstrate development of the neighborhood over time. He noted that the type of housing clearly changes west of Third Street, which helped define the western boundary of the proposed district. The southern boundary is along the alley north of Gateway Drive; the Red River of the North provides the north and east boundaries. Martens stated that research provided compelling evidence that the Riverside Neighborhood meets National Register Criterion A, association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, and Criterion C, architecture that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, … or that represent a significant an distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. He also noted that the Riverside architectural surveys, now on file with the SHSND in Bismarck, would be valuable tools for homeowners wishing to research the history of their homes.

PUBLIC HEARING
Gunderson opened the Public Hearing on the National Register Nomination of the Grand Forks Riverside Neighborhood as a Historic District. She invited anyone wishing to comment to step forward, state his/her name and address, and present comments or questions.

Eliot Glassheim, 619 N. 3rd St, City Council 3rd Ward Representative:
The draft proposal and presentation were very well done. Is there any plan to make a booklet available to the public that would cover some of the material? Response: O’Leary said a brochure for the Near Southside Historic District is being printed and funding is available for a Downtown Historic District brochure. The Commission would have to request funding for a Riverside brochure, but that is likely for the next budget go round.
Any plans for signage that locates historic properties or that indicates that one is entering a historic district? Response: Gunderson noted signage for the Near Southside District and said she anticipated similar signage would be a goal for the Riverside Neighborhood. She noted that if you want people to be aware of districts and promote them for tourism, you need good signage. Funding for such signs will be needed. O’Leary noted that owners of homes that contribute to the district may purchase plaques for their homes indicating that the house is on the NRHP. The HPC office can put owners in touch with vendors; the price is quite reasonable. The SHSND is also developing a certificate that owners can frame and hang in their homes. It will be free of charge after it becomes available.
Understanding that private owners are not restricted by National Register listing, what does it mean for government projects? Response: The neighborhood will have more protection from federally funded projects. If a federal project would damage the neighborhood, the area would now be considered as a unit and damage would have to be avoided if possible or mitigated, as damage was mitigated after the flood. This protection doesn’t necessarily stop an action from taking place, it just means there has to be consideration of the ramifications of the action on the historic property.
What impact, if any, on Riverside Pool? Response: The Riverside Pool and Bathhouse were protected before by virtue of being eligible for listing on the NRHP. Actual listing doesn’t provide any more protection.
Flood proofing is under consideration for retaining use of the pool. This would involve putting some structures above ground. That would change the essential aesthetic look of the building. What would be the position of the Commission? Response: A determination would have to be made whether the changes have an adverse effect. If there is adverse effect, mitigation would be required. The first priority would be to see if there is a way to do what is necessary without affecting the appearance of the building.

Hearing no further comments from the public, the Public Hearing is closed.

Commission discussion: Iseminger supported the idea of a booklet on the Riverside Neighborhood. He also asked Martens to clarify a statement regarding the pertinence of “flood response” in the nomination. Martens said that floods throughout history have bonded the neighborhood together but the response to the 1997 flood had more impact on the physical character of the neighborhood than any other event and the Register process addresses the importance of events impacting a neighborhood longer ago than 50 years. When people look back on the way the city responded following the flood of 1997, 50 years hence, he thought there will be a good deal of support for the wisdom of the planning that went into preserving as many residences as possible, relocating them sensibly, and the individual responses of all the homeowners in making the houses actually better, in many instances, than they were before the flood. Iseminger also asked about the wisdom of printing a booklet; Martens said it would be entirely appropriate, especially based on the interactions he and Seifert had with property owners in the area, which led him to think there would be substantial interest in some sort of publication. He suggested that there might be a broader scholarly interest, such as a journal article that would expose people around the state to the lessons learned in the Riverside neighborhood. Flemmer asked about the term “float house.” Martens said an earlier survey of part of the neighborhood, by Steven Hoffbeck, included more social history of the area. Hoffbeck made an effort to document “float homes,” a term that came up often in his interviews with area residents. The stories variously included the lumber being floated up from Winnipeg on the Red River or over from Crookston on the Red Lake River, but Hoffbeck was unable to find any absolute verification that that’s what happened.
Motion: to approve the nomination of the Riverside Neighborhood District to the National Register of Historic Places and to forward the nomination to the State Historic Review Board for their consideration. (Slater, Jelliff)
Motion carries unanimously.

Gunderson thanked Martens and Seifert for all the work, the hours put in on this wonderful project. Martens said he thoroughly enjoyed the project and thanked the residents and the Commission for their support and interest in the work.

Five minute break.

Motion: to approve the minutes of the September 12, 2006 meeting as presented. (Flemmer, Vorland)
Motion carries.

Office of Urban Development – Curt Siewert, Meredith Richards
Siewert explained that the projects were brought before the Commission because federal funding is involved in each one.
 28 N. 3rd Street, new construction – Lonnie Laffen, JLG Architects, presented artist renderings and the construction materials for the new building, The Current, being erected on the SE corner of First Avenue North and North Third Street. Laffen noted that the construction drawings are about 50% complete and the renderings have been updated since the Commission last saw them. There will still be some changes as windows are brought into alignment with interior rooms, etc. Laffen presented material samples: concrete formulated to look like stone will be at the base of the building; red brick (real, mason-laid brick) will be used for the first story throughout and the second and third stories on the corners of the 3rd Street façade; EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems), a finish product that looks like stucco, will be used on the upper stories; a high-end, smooth-finish metal system in a galvanized silver color will be used for the bay window over the 3rd Street entrances; entry doors of same metal system as the bays; other windows probably will be silver-gray vinyl-clad wood, because of pricing; most of the top story will be faced in a product called Profile Galvalume, having a galvanized aluminum appearance. Quinnell questioned how the design fits into the historic downtown; Laffen said the design borrows massing, traditional window size, scale, proportion, and materials (flat roof, brick, metal) from older buildings but is detailed in a more contemporary fashion, so it’s not a copy of a 100 year old building but it is a contemporary building that will fit with a 100 year old building. Slater noted that infill buildings are not supposed to replicate, or pretend to be, historic buildings. Laffen noted that the design is in keeping with the Corporate Center. Gunderson said there seems to be echoing of the design of the Dacotah Hotel (1946, NRHP, Art Moderne), which is across 1st Avenue from this lot. Quinnell asked if the balconies are functional; Laffen said these are “balconettes,” the doors are operable and there is room to step out onto the balcony but not enough room for furniture or grills, etc.
Motion: to concur with a determination of no adverse effect on the Grand Forks Downtown Historic District. (Slater, Paul)
Motion carries unanimously.
The building will be all apartments and have no basement. The first floor is above the 100-year flood plain. They will break ground in October; HOME funds are involved in the financing.
701 4th Avenue South, new construction – Habitat for Humanity proposes the same house design that they built at 512 Oak Street. Elevations and floor plans were submitted, along with pictures of the house on Oak. The new house will front on Cherry Street; the Oak Street floor plan will be flipped so there are windows on the 4th Ave. façade. The egress window will be kept on the south façade. The neighborhood has mixed housing styles; this two-story will fit in. The city has allocated $25,000 from HOME funds and deeded the lot over for the affordable housing project. General discussion ensued about detailing that would help the building appear less stark. Slater noted that it is a substantial looking house; the roofline particularly gives it interest. No garage will be built at this time.
Motion: to concur with a determination of no historic properties affected if the floor plan isflipped and the egress window is on the south side as described in discussion, if decorative shutters are applied to the windows on the north and east elevations, and the false pediment and eave returns are as shown on the drawings. (Flemmer, Jelliff)
Motion carries unanimously.
3500 Gateway Drive, built 1966, demolition – Owned by Simplot; formerly Volker’s Auto dealership. The building has had several additions and changes, and is severely damaged. It’s approximately 500’ off Gateway. CDBG funds are available to assist in demolition “to eliminate conditions of slum and blight along Gateway Drive.” The program pays 100% of the first $10,000 and 50% of cost above $10,000. Siewert said there is a total of $75,000 available to rehab and/or demolish structures along the same stretch of Gateway but nobody has applied for historic rehab funding.
Motion: to concur with a determination of no historic properties affected by the demolition of the former Volker’s building at 3500 Gateway Drive. (Sickels, Flemmer)
Motion carries. One dissenting vote (Slater).

Red River Valley Community Action – Kevin Severson
409 N. 18th Street, built in 1904, no survey – RRVCA proposes a grant to reroof, install new combination storm doors, install new metal front and rear entry doors, replace three basement windows with vinyl clad windows of the same shape and size, install handrails on front and rear entry, and perform various interior work. Slater questioned whether any siding work was to be done; Severson said it’s in fair condition and other things need more attention. The new front entry door will have one small rectangular lite.
Motion: to concur with a determination of no historic properties affected by the work described at 409 N. 18th Street. (Jelliff, Vorland)
Motion carries unanimously.
118 Walnut Street, built in 1895, individually eligible and contributing to the Near Southside Historic District – RRVCA proposes a loan to vinyl side and insulate the house, install 15 new wood windows (matching in style, design and size), and install new gutters and downspouts (with historic profile). Slater noted the fish scale and sunburst designs in the gables; the homeowner said those will be retained, scraped, primed and painted. Members questioned removing the original siding; Severson said the wood siding is badly deteriorated and painting is not feasible; to replace damaged areas with new wood would require residing about ¾ of the house. Gunderson expressed concern that window details would be lost due to the thickness of both the insulation and vinyl siding. Flemmer asked about the corner trim, as well . Paul asked what size siding reveal would be used; Severson said they plan triple three inch siding. Severson said that to retain the detail of the windows, he could either insulate or keep the original siding underneath; doing both would make the siding come out farther than the window trim.
Motion: to concur with a determination of no adverse effect. (Vorland, Sickels)
Motion to amend: that the motion include the following stipulations: the original siding is removed, triple three inch vinyl siding is used, all gable detail (fish scales and sunburst) remain, original trim and profile on windows remain, corner vertical trim reproduced, and replacement windows are wood, double-hung in the same style and size as original. (Slater)
Amendment accepted by Vorland and Sickels.
Motion, as amended, carries unanimously.

CLG Regrant Project
Gunderson notified the Commission that the Masonic Center is unable to accept the $7,500 allocated at the Sept. 12, 2006 meeting; they feel they cannot raise sufficient funding to complete the project next year. O’Leary has informed the other grant proposers that their projects would be reconsidered for the remaining funding.


        Building
        Amt. Req.
        Match
        Total Budget
        Allocated
        224 N. 4th St., Jacks Bldg.
        $ 2,500.00
        $ 1,450.00
        $ 3,950.00
        $1,000 (from other funds)
        Oxford House, UND Campus
        $ 14,608.00
        $ 14,608.00
        215 S. 4th St., Hook & Ladder
        $ 13,500.00
        $ 13,500.00
        $7,500
        102-108 4th Ave. S., Dinnie Apt
        $ 15,000.00
        $ 15,000.00
        $ 81,749.80
        413-421 Bruce Ave., Masonic Ctr.
        $ 15,000.00
        $ 10,000.00
        $ 25,000.00
        $7,500

O’Leary suggested that the Commission had various avenues to pursue: further funding for the Jacks building, partial funding for the Oxford House request, further funding for the Hook and Ladder request, or partial funding for the Dinnie Apartments request. Special consideration should be given to the request, from the state, for match from the grantees. There was general discussion about the use of replacement materials and the effect of historic covenants.
Motion: to grant $7,500 for work on the Dinnie Apartments (102-108 4th Avenue South). (Slater, Paul)
Motion carries.

Chair Report – Marsha Gunderson
No items.

Coordinator Report – Peg O’Leary
FY05 Travel Funds – The state has approved the following reallocation of these funds: $750 for Commissioner and staff travel to Bismarck for the annual CLG meeting, $1,000 to the Jacks Building for necessary masonry work, and $650 for painting/staining of the new lower level windows in City Hall ($100, for City Hall blinds, was denied).
Near Southside Historic District Brochure – O’Leary requested a motion to pay the Ad Monkeys bill, in the amount of $507.68.
Motion: to pay the Ad Monkeys design bill. (Flemmer, Jelliff)
Motion carries unanimously.
Annual CLG Meeting – Slater reported that it was an enjoyable meeting and she particularly liked the breakout sessions. Flemmer added that the food was great.
Campbell House Report – Still waiting for the pictures to come back.
Lustron House Report – The reconstruction is running a bit behind schedule. The house-raising will probably be later in October.
CLG Travel Reimbursement Forms – Members signed their travel vouchers.

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

The next regular meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, Oct. 10, in room A101, City Hall.


Respectfully submitted,



Peg O’Leary
Coordinator