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, Cory Lien, Gerad Paul, Dale Sickels, Sandy Slater
Others: Todd Mitzel, ICON Architects; Ed Nierode, Grand Forks County Administrator; Peg O’Leary
Motion:
to approve the minutes of the September 26, 2006 meeting as presented. (Paul, Iseminger)
Motion carries.
Grand Forks County Courthouse
– Ed Nierode, Todd Mitzel
Mitzel explained that the County is considering whether it is feasible to make the front (S. 4th St.) entrance of the Courthouse more accessible to people with disabilities. He and Nierode had asked for time on the agenda to explore the options and request input on potential ramp designs.
Mitzel distributed preliminary footprint and elevation drawings for discussion. (See attached.) For a ramp on the front elevation, the front steps would be disassembled and moved forward the width of the ramp, creating a larger platform at the entry. The ramp would be 3’ – 4’ from the building, running parallel to the building, and would extend about 40’ north and south. Mitzel said he designed the ramps to run both directions to continue the symmetry of the building. The ramp is not detailed and would be constructed of stone to match the Courthouse, in order to not draw attention away from the Courthouse. Plans also showed how a ramp on the south entry would extend about 3’ past the end of the building.
Nierode explained that the departure of the jail has left the rear entry of the Courthouse largely unguarded, which has already created some difficult security situations. Security is a huge concern for the court system, which remains in the Courthouse. The preliminary design for a front ramp would cover some of the grated basement windows. The north side of the building, closest to the parking lot, has exterior basement stairs making it impossible to ramp that entrance. A ramp at the south entrance would not solve the security difficulties. He said it is their intent to make changes in a way as to not hurt the building. They would also be able to make the front steps level again, which is needed.
Gunderson asked about a railing; Mitzel said there would be a partial wall but a railing of some sort would be needed also. Slater asked why the ADA concern at this time; Nierode said having the accessible entrance at the rear became a security factor when the jail and its guards moved to the new facility. Iseminger asked how high the ramp would be; Mitzel said about 40” at the highest point. Mitzel noted again that these drawings represent preliminary thoughts and, if the County decides to go through with the project, more plans would be brought back to the HPC. Iseminger expressed opposition to the plan: he said that the front is the only unspoiled part of the building and this change would spoil it; he felt that the ramp would detract from the building, no matter what; he said the area between the ramp and the building would become a repository for dead leaves and trash; he said he believed that the back door could be secured, by hiring a second guard, more cheaply than by building the ramp. Nierode said that Courthouse personnel take very good care of the grounds now and would continue to do so, making sure that the area behind the ramp would not be an eyesore; he also noted that voters would probably consider the County better served by having a $62,000/year officer on the road than by having one sitting at the back door of the Courthouse. Nierode said that security was sometimes an issue even with the jail in the building. He said the financial issues remain to be resolved, since the County Commission has not yet had this issue before it. Nierode noted that the County Commission and its employees take a lot of pride in the building as well, as the recent careful remodel of the interior attests, but ADA compliance and the security issues really need to be addressed.
Gunderson read several excerpts from the National Park Service (NPS) Preservation Brief (#32) on Making Historic Properties Accessible:
“Solutions should provide the greatest amount of accessibility without threatening or destroying those materials and features that make a property significant.”
The first priority when modifying to improve accessibility is “Making the main or a prominent public entrance and primary public spaces accessible, including a path to the entrance;…”
“The goal in selecting appropriate solutions for specific historic properties is to provide a high level of accessibility without compromising significant features or the overall character of the property.”
She noted that the HPC needs to look at the building and the resources we have to determine areas of significance while remembering that the guidelines from the NPS are clear that a primary entrance should be accessible.
Jelliff asked if a rendering of the elevation, with the ramp, could be provided; Nierode said the plans weren’t at that stage yet because he had wanted to approach the HPC before going to the County Commission. Mitzel said, if the County decides to pursue the ramp, 3-D designs would be available for viewing. Slater said HPC members should also go and carefully look over the building as it is now. Gunderson noted that the proposed front ramp is, technically, reversible as they have presented it. Nierode agreed that, should it be feasible in the distant future, the ramp could be removed and no evidence of it would remain. O’Leary suggested that the State Historical Society be consulted for information they may have about similar projects in other states and for advice about materials, etc. Sickels asked what they might use for the hand railing and whether the joints on the ramp would match the building; Mitzel said they’ll have to decide between detailing or simple, Nierode noted that all the historic interior hand rails are tubular and maybe something on that order would be appropriate; Mitzel said joints would be in sync with the base of the building. Regarding materials, Nierode noted that the material on the newer southwest addition matches the historic building very well and the contractor has the specs for that match. Regarding landscape, one pine tree will probably be lost and a couple others need checking. Nierode said, if the County pursues the project, they will have to let the bid package by Jan/Feb, 2007. That would give everyone several months to tweak the design. Gunderson said that it looked like the planners had done a good job, given that HPC would rather not do it at all. Lien asked whether the doors would need to be changed; Mitzel said the fact that a guard is stationed there and could assist with the door at any time might mitigate the need even for extra hardware on the doors. Nierode said his plan is to take the preliminary drawings to the County Commission at their next meeting (10/17/06) to see if they like it, too, and then take it step by step.
Consensus
: that a sensitive ramp at the front entrance would not be ruled out at this time.
Office of Urban Development
– Curt Siewert
Siewert explained that the projects were brought before the Commission because federal funding is involved in each one.
1405 1st Ave. N., built 1947 – The owners propose replacing a flat multi-layered tar roof with a rubber membrane flat roof.
Motion:
to concur with a determination of no historic properties affected if the work is as described. (Flemmer, Sickels)
Motion carries.
211 S. 4th St., built 1918, contributes to the Downtown Historic District – The accessible entrance requires an extension of the stoop and installation of an automatic door opener. This is CVIC’s primary entrance and it’s at the rear of the building.
Motion:
to concur with a determination of no adverse effect if the work is as described. (Slater, Lien)
Motion carries.
Chair Report
– Marsha Gunderson
18th Annual Governor’s Conference on North Dakota History, Bismarck, October 27-28, 2006 – Gunderson noted that there are several interesting sessions on North Dakota and the Cold War. The GFHPC will also be recognized at the evening program for the nomination of the Downtown Historic District.
Riverside Nomination State Board Presentation, Bismarck, Oct. 27 – Steve Martens and O’Leary will present the Riverside Nomination for review by the State Historical Board at 1:30 p.m. in the Heritage Center.
Coordinator Report
– Peg O’Leary
FY06 Regrants – The state has approved the regrant for work on the Hook and Ladder Co.; that contract is in the works. There’s a mortgage on the property; the mortgage holder will have to agree to co-sign the covenant. We have not received approval for the Dinnie Apartment regrant yet because people are out of the office at the state. We should hear soon. The owner was pleased with the allocation.
FY05 Travel Funds – The projects that the state approved for this money are now completed and require authorization for payment.
Motion
: to authorize payment of $1,000 the for masonry work on the Jacks Building. (Sickels, Lien)
Motion carries.
Motion:
to authorize payment of $650 for painting/staining of the new lower level windows in City Hall. (Jelliff, Slater)
Motion carries.
Riverside Nomination – O’Leary requested a motion to pay the final $750 on the contract with Steve Martens. Contract stipulations have been met and the State has agreed to payment at this time.
Motion:
to authorize the final payment of $750 on the Riverside Nomination contract. (Jelliff, Flemmer)
Motion carries.
Near Southside Historic District Brochure – O’Leary requested a motion to pay the Fine Print bill in the amount of $3,000.
Motion:
to pay the $3,000 Fine Print bill. (Sickels, Slater)
Discussion: This is for 8,000 copies of the brochure.
Motion carries.
Lustron House Report – The house-raising will be on Friday, October 13th, at Noon. Everyone is welcome.
St. Michael’s Hospital Nurses’ Residence, 613 Lewis Boulevard – O’Leary recently attended a meeting, along with Jay Bushy (ACE), Ginny Gnabasik (ACE), Mike Yavarow (GF Engineering), and Scott Kringstad (Construction Engineers), to discuss several details about the finish work on the entries.
Ceramic tiles for the floor of the Hospital entry – The tile colors selected earlier are no longer available. The group at the meeting selected similar colors from another company.
Top four Hospital entry steps – The original sandstone steps had been replaced with wooden steps prior to the flood. The plan is to use poured concrete, stained to match the remaining sandstone steps. Gunderson asked if sandstone is available; O’Leary will ask.
Side walls of the steps on the Hospital entry – Should the brick form run to the ground, as it does on the wall, or replicate a stone detail?
Consensus
: run the brick to the ground.
Column cutaway on the Hospital entry – The Commission has requested that this be repaired by using cement, stained to match the sandstone. The contractor says this solution will require chipping away 2-3 inches of stone, effectively undercutting the pillar, and inserting rebar to prepare the surface sufficiently to hold the suggested cement.
Consensus:
clean the area and we’ll see how it looks. No final determination at this time.
Cleaning of the building – The MOA calls for cleaning the stone but the wall has been stained to match the dirty stone. Should the stone still be cleaned?
Consensus:
clean a patch and we’ll take a look.
Other Business
Cold War Memorial Plaza, GF Air Force Base – Sickels noted that there are a number of plaques on the Base describing the Cold War and the local repercussions. Iseminger suggested having a meeting there sometime.
HPC Website – Flemmer said one of the things that came up at the CLG meeting was putting a walking tour on the website, which he thought was a good idea.
Sioux City – Flemmer described a steam boat exhibit that had interpretative plaques about a bridge similar to the Northern Pacific Railroad Bridge.
Motion:
to adjourn. (Slater, Jelliff)
Motion carries.
Meeting adjourned. 8:45 p.m.
The next regular meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, Oct. 24, in room A101, City Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Peg O’Leary
Coordinator