Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Packet 9.14.17 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Esther Baker, Kevin Boyd, Zach Builta, Sharon DeGraw, G. T. Karr, Ginalie Swaim, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Gosia Clore, Cecile Kuenzli, Pam Michaud STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Bob Miklo OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Swaim called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 641 South Governor Street. Bristow said this bungalow is in the Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District. She said that it has all of its original siding and windows and has a little bump out on the side. Bristow showed an area where the applicant would like to build a small studio/outbuilding. She then showed where it would be three feet from the property line on one side and three feet from the rear fence. Bristow said the applicant came to staff early on and was shown some of the barn-kind of buildings in the historic districts, partly because building the simple pyramid or gable-roof garage structure that is in the guidelines really would not fit the owner's needs, because this would be a studio space. Bristow said that the proposed structure would sit in the back of the lot. Bristow said that the street and the house are about five feet above the grade of the proposed outbuilding. She said that the ridgeline on the outbuilding is proposed to be about 20 feet, while the house has a ridgeline at 24 feet, but it is also another five feet above. Bristow said the outbuilding will therefore be sitting downhill at the back of the property. Bristow said there has never been a garage on this site. She said that although there is a driveway that is aimed in the general direction of the new structure, it won't be readily visible because of other landscaping and pergolas on the property. Bristow showed the drawing of the front, east view. She referred to a handout, showing a few changes that have been made since the agenda was distributed. Bristow said this is a two-story structure with a board and batten siding above and all the way around on the other side. She said there will be ship-lap type siding on the lower level. Bristow said there will be a sliding barn HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 10, 2017 Page 2 of 14 door, and the rail that it is on makes the definition between the two levels and the siding. She said that the door has been moved over a little bit from where it was originally located. Bristow said the owner would like a 16 by 24 interior space, so adding six-inch walls on each side makes the exterior footprint 17 by 25. She said that originally the owner had a two-foot extension on the roof that has been reduced to one foot. Bristow said the reason for that is that by going three feet from the property line on each side, one can only extend the roof one foot into that space. She stated that the owner can't really move the building over the four feet as discussed in the packet because of an adjacent tree that he does not want to take down. Bristow showed a double hung window that would match the configuration of the windows on the house. She showed a small gang of windows that would let in a little bit more light in the upper half. Bristow said that the applicant proposes to find salvage window for the windows in the structure and to build the sliding door also using salvage windows and material. Bristow showed the south-facing view. She said that the building is sitting on a little bit of an extended concrete slab so that there is some space outside to sit or work. Bristow stated that the owner has also created a projection of the roofline by four feet on that side, which would have been the front, overhanging that barn door. She said that at staff's suggestion, the owner has added skylights to help get a little bit more light inside. Bristow said the skylights would have to follow the guidelines, specifically the section on mass and rooflines and using a metal- framed skylight in the appropriate location and not on a street-facing view, which will not be the case here, since this is an outbuilding in the back. Bristow stated that the applicant has a door already on hand that he wishes to use. She said that he would paint it to match the trim color that is proposed. Bristow showed where the applicant has lowered a window and where it used to be. She showed the window with which it now aligns. Bristow said it has the full board and batten siding. Bristow showed the north view near the property line with the neighbor. She said there are no windows because of code issues, but the owner included some skylights. Bristow showed the west view facing the alley. She said that it is not an accessible alley, and this side of the structure does not have any windows either. Bristow showed some drawings of the proposed structure. She said the owner would like to keep a kind of weathered cedar look, using green trim and blending some of the trim and other elements with the house. Regarding the overhang issue, Miklo said the original design was two feet, but the zoning code only allows a foot overhang or a foot projection into the side yard setback of three feet at the property line to adjoining properties. MOTION: Agran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 641 South Governor Street, as presented in the application. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, Kuenzli, and Michaud absent). HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 10, 2017 Page 3 of 14 314 South Summit Street. Swaim said that when the Commission is being asked to allow demolition of a building, a couple of things have to happen. She said that first it has to be shown that the building is unsound and irretrievable. Swaim said the second requirement is that the building that is being proposed as a replacement is architecturally appropriate for the lot and is sympathetic to the house. Swaim said that once discussion of the garage demolition is initiated, she will ask for a consensus regarding the demolition of the garage. She said the Commission will not vote on it then, because what is being proposed to replace it has to be approved before the demolition can be approved. Bristow said this house is in the north end of the Summit Street Historic District. She said it looks like a foursquare, but it is known that because of changes made on the interior and exterior, the house is much older than the site inventory says, at least 15 to 30 years older. Bristow said the house was originally a Queen Anne of some kind. She said that some of the evidence of that is on the south side and some is in the shape of it. Bristow showed a whole area of the front of the house that she said would have been originally stepped back. She said it was built back out to create the kind of modern foursquare with Craftsman elements. She said that is also evidenced in the windows, in that these are much taller, narrower windows than one would normally see on a foursquare. Regarding the existing garage, Bristow said it is a two-car garage that is listed on the site inventory as non-contributing. She said the garage is in extremely dangerous condition. Bristow said that on the front, the garage just looks like it is rotting, but one can see a lot of light coming through. She said there is a base of the wall that is totally rotted away. Bristow said that once one started repairing this, it would be all new anyway. She stated that it does not meet the owners' needs, and staff really feels that this building is structurally unsound and should be taken down. Bristow showed the site plan and where the existing garage is located. She said that the proposed garage would be a straight shot in on the driveway. Bristow said the brick driveway has been taken up and is all on pallets so that it can be relaid. She stated that it was removed so that the construction traffic for the house and garage would not damage it any further. Bristow said the two-car garage would have an accessory apartment and a carport. She said that the hipped roof would echo the hipped roof on the house, and the projection is also a hip. Bristow said the projection allows a little bit of differentiation for the accessory apartment entrance, as it is stepped back from the facade. Bristow said the windows would be similar to the windows on the house, as would the inverted scalloped trim. She said that currently, for the carport, the trim and the deck are scheduled to match the front of the new plans for the house, with columns to match those in the new plans. Bristow said they are also appropriate with the existing columns. Bristow said that the square spindles like this would be an appropriate railing on this deck, whether or not it matched the house. She said that it is probably the simplest railing that one HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 10, 2017 Page 4 of 14 could have, and that would be appropriate on this kind of carport area. Bristow said the columns are acceptable. Regarding the garage doors, Bristow said they look partially like panel doors, but they have windows. She said that what would be appropriate here would either be a flat panel door with no windows or more of a carriage house style door, if the owners want windows. Bristow said that product information has not yet been provided for the garage doors, so that would be one of the conditions staff would like to see on approval of the garage. Bristow said that staff has seen the window product information, and it is an acceptable window. She said it is wood and simple, as is appropriate for these new windows. Bristow showed the side view, pointing out where the projected section is drawn darker so that the recessed section that is the main garage is a little bit lighter behind. She added that this would all have gutters to match what is proposed to be on the house - copper, half-round gutters. Bristow showed the windows similar to the house here. She said that the door product information has been submitted. Bristow said that those would match what is proposed for the house and would be a three-quarter light with a single panel below. Bristow showed the rear of the proposed building, where there is a single window for a kitchen- like space inside. She showed where there are a few more windows to allow light in on the south side, including some on the garage. Bristow showed the overall plan for a simple garage, with stairs up to an accessory apartment and then just a simple accessory apartment with exterior deck. Bristow said that beyond approving the doors, staff feels it would be very acceptable to remove the existing garage and that the proposal for replacement is an acceptable plan. Swaim asked the applicant if they had anything to add regarding the garage. They did not. Swaim asked for discussion regarding whether the Commission should allow the garage to be demolished. Baker stated that, based on the photographs, it is pretty clear that there is nothing salvageable with the garage. DeGraw said she agreed. Agran said that in addition, the building was non-contributing to begin with. Boyd said he agreed. MOTION: Baker moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the garage demolition at 314 South Summit Street, as presented in the application. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, Kuenzli, and Michaud absent). Swaim asked for discussion regarding the construction of the new garage. MOTION: Agran moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of the new garage with accessory apartment and carport at 314 South Summit Street, as HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 10, 2017 Page 5 of 14 presented in the application, with the following condition: the garage door product material is to be approved by staff and chair. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, Kuenzli, and Michaud absent). Regarding the house, Bristow showed the demolition drawing that was included in the Commission's packet and also showed a photograph that is clearer. She said that this project includes removal of the dormer that faces north. Bristow said the dormer would be replaced with a dormer that instead has three windows. She showed where the current stair up to the second floor is located, saying that the owners want to add a second stair up to the attic in that location. Bristow said the project would also remove the two-story porch in the back and the single-story addition, along with some work on the front porch. She showed the windows that would be removed and reorganized in a much more regular pattern. Bristow said this is due partly to interior plan changes. She stated that some of them might not originally have been where they were anyway because of the addition. Bristow showed one particular window and stated that staff recommends that if it can be moved and salvaged, because it is just moving over slightly, that it be done that way. Bristow showed a bump out on another view that is probably a remnant from the house's Queen Anne days. She said that because of plan changes and because it does not relate to the roof properly above, staff recommends approval of the applicant’s proposal to remove that. Bristow showed the single-story addition and the two-story sun porch and lower open porch. She stated that the sun porch does kind of show up on the Sanborn Map so that it might be historic, but it is heavily damaged. Bristow said that rebuilding this would be entirely appropriate. She said that generally, the locations of the windows on the back will be reorganized a little bit. Bristow showed how the new area would look once the one-story addition is removed and there is a regular pattern of windows, with one possibly just being moved over. She showed part of what one would see in the second-story sun room. Bristow showed all of the windows in the main part of the house that will be assessed as to whether they can be rehabilitated. She said staff suggested the assessment instead of just replacing all of the windows. Bristow said that most of the windows appear to have a storm window that needs to be replaced, but the windows themselves should be repaired instead. Bristow showed the demolition for the back of the house. She said that because it is taking off the whole sun porch, it is really extensive. Bristow said that one of the things not in the staff report is the fact that this would remove a chimney. She said the guidelines discuss not removing an important chimney - one that is really architecturally significant. Bristow said that this chimney is on the back, but there is another chimney that is much more prominent and has a little bit of architectural character to it. She said the chimney to be removed does not, and it is in the sun porch area that is going to be removed anyway, so staff would recommend allowing removal of that chimney. Bristow said there is the one-story addition being removed as well as the two-story area. She showed the area that will become and the open porch and the part that will also be removed. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 10, 2017 Page 6 of 14 Bristow said the drawings show removing the little side porch and reconstructing it. She stated that staff actually recommends only doing the work needed to put new footings under it and retaining any of the material that is not in bad repair. Bristow showed an image demonstrating that the new sun porch would have a paneled base. She said that currently there is siding there. Bristow said that the new windows would be similar to those on the house and a little bit longer than the ones currently in the sun porch, making the area below the windows smaller. She said that putting it back in kind of a paneled siding configuration seems appropriate. Bristow showed the new columns on the porch under the sunroom. She showed the two columns that currently exist and said that staff recommend retaining them if they are in good enough, workable condition and then just remaking two new columns to match them instead of replacing all of them. Bristow stated that the whole house will be reroofed so that the house and garage will match. She said that, as with the garage, there will be new copper gutters on the whole house. Bristow added that all of the windows on the back part of the house are new windows, and the door is also a new door. She said that with this build-out being an addition, she did not think there would be an historic door on the back anyway. Bristow showed the south side of the house and the side porch. She said the stair railing to the side porch is new and not historic. Bristow said that the plan currently proposes to remove the short balustrade around the porch and remove the non-historic railing and the stairs and change the stair configuration so that it is a stair that wraps all the way around the porch. She said that then it would not need a handrail at all, but that would involve removing the balustrade. Bristow said that the spacing does seem to match the spindled architrave above, but staff does not know if this is an original railing and feels that it is probably not. She said the spindles are a little bit too narrow for what one normally sees, but staff does recommend keeping the spindled architrave and column as just one of those elements of the history of the house. Bristow said that currently the drawings show replacing that with brackets to match what is happening in the back. Bristow said that this house has had multiple periods of work done on it. She said that the guidelines discuss letting that show and remain as the story of the house’s history. Bristow said that changing the one door, however, to be a full height door is definitely an acceptable move that staff would like to see. Bristow showed the front of the house and said that the demolition would involve all of the porch structure. She said there is a slope on the porch where the whole column and pier have been sinking quite a bit. Bristow said that the Commission did approve the replacement of the roof product and the ceiling underneath because of some storm damage in the past year. She said, however, that other structural repairs were not made at that time. Bristow said that currently what is being proposed is to fix the foundation problems at the pier and make sure the other one is fine and to remove the panelized balustrade and replace it with simple, square spindles. She said the owners want to change this condition for a couple of reasons. Bristow said staff also feels that the arch is not as sophisticated of a design as many of those types of arches when they were put on houses originally. She said that it has a very HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 10, 2017 Page 7 of 14 great span, and it dives into the sidewall a bit more awkwardly than one sees in many of the foursquares that have an arch like this. Bristow added that it is very, very dark on the porch. She said that part of the applicants' interest with the front porch work is to increase the amount of light that comes in through the front. Bristow said that to do that, the applicants would remove the astragal and put it up at the point where the beam rests or the columns and remove one part of the arch, creating a flat beam on tapered columns. She showed an example of that. Bristow said staff feels that if the balustrade could remain and the material was sound, the panelized balustrade is again another aspect of the history of the house. She said that at the same time, the applicants would like to get more light in, and that would help make the area darker. Bristow showed some photographs of the porch, which show that it is fairly dark and that it seems to have a really low beam across the front. Bristow showed the proposed new front porch. She stated that all of the stone work at the piers and the stairs is original, and the owners propose to remove the paint. Bristow showed the proposed new front door with a three quarter panel and the single panel below. She showed all of the windows that would be assessed for repair. Bristow said that a couple of them on the porch don't have storm windows at all. Bristow said the question is about the balustrade. She said staff feels that either could be acceptable. Bristow said that she could see making an exception to remove the balustrade to let the light in as a possibility. She said that would be for the Commission to discuss. Bristow said that she put some possible things for the Commission to talk about in the motion. She said that if anything is not there that the Commission wants to include, it should be included in the motion. Agran said the staff recommendation includes replacement of the porch floors with vertical grain Douglas fir. He asked if there is a reason that is being specified and that alternatives are not included. Bristow responded that was added because the guidelines do recommend that as the material. She said that the Commission has occasionally approved, depending on the situation, alternative materials. Bristow said that unless the applicants want to present an alternate wood product, that would be the only one staff would recommend. Agran said the phrase "false history" is used in terms of deciding which elements of the history of this house staff is determining to be "false history" or real history. He said it strikes him as strange that staff would say that we should hold on to certain elements from a certain era of this house but would allow the removal of other things. Agran said he is trying to think about this in terms of someone looking to change something in the future. He asked about the balustrade on the front and the logic behind allowing the removal of that. Agran said someone could say that is not in character with the house, but this house has an ambiguous character because it has changed so much over time. Bristow responded that generally, if a feature is historic and is salvageable or could be repaired, it should be retained. She said after that, it is a matter of if there is an exception then for an individual item to not retain it. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 10, 2017 Page 8 of 14 Bristow said that with the side porch and the short little balustrade, there could be some question about whether that is original or was put on by the most recent owner before the current owners. She said that because a more recent owner just kind of did things, it is entirely possible that owner put that railing on. Bristow said that is not known as a fact, but if the previous owner put it on, it would not have been within an historic time frame, it would not be considered historic, because it would have happened within probably the last 40 years. Bristow said she agrees that there is some awkwardness in that, and that some of those things have not been resolved. She said that if there is a condition that could warrant it to be replaced, then that condition could be used. Miklo said that, regarding the back porches, because they tell the story of the earlier Queen Anne house that was damaged by fire and heavily remodeled, to keep those as evidence of the earlier architecture is important. In terms of the front porch and a false sense of history, he stated that the front porch that is proposed looks very much like a porch that would have been built in the early 1900s, and it is almost interchangeable in terms of design for the period as the existing porch. Miklo said that is why staff felt comfortable with going with a simplified version. He said it is not adding another era or element to the house that isn't there. DeGraw said this would look nice with the style of the balustrade that is going on the garage on the balcony. She said it looks like they would match, if they went with spindles. Bristow agreed and said that is what is shown. Agran said he has no problem with spindles but was just curious about what it means if the Commission makes this exception. He said that the exception is based not on the integrity of the material but the whim of the owner. Agran said he wanted to understand the rationale. Miklo said there are some structural issues as well with the front porch. He said that the front porch, except for the roof, has to be taken off and rebuilt. Bristow showed the image in which the whole corner has settled. She said staff does not know what the condition of this is. Bristow said she would assume that there is rot there but has not poked around in it to see. She said that kind of exception could be written so that if the balustrade is shown to be rotten beyond repair and needs to be replaced, replacing it with spindles instead would be acceptable. Swaim said that the piece that makes the broad band an actual arch appears to be original. Bristow said she did not think that has had any changes for a long time. Agran said that part of the character of this house is that owners did things that they thought looked modern in their own era. He said that would not be allowed anymore, so that if one wanted to do something to modernize the house, none of the things that have been done to this house could be done. Agran said that there is something there that he could see from a homeowner's perspective as confusing - that the Commission is celebrating and honoring awkward changes and stylistic changes that occurred to this house over time, in terms of the recommendations by staff, but also very strictly prohibiting all kinds of other things of our own era. Agran said this particular house is an example of this house not being a museum piece. He said he just wanted to understand what the precedent is that is set when one says that he would like the feel of this to be different. Agran said he can see, for instance, wanting to have more HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 10, 2017 Page 9 of 14 light in a house and wanting to put way more windows on one side. He said that it starts to get subjective. Miklo said that it is somewhat subjective in that there is a judgment call here. He said that if one follows the strictest guidelines, one would say that the front porch should be rebuilt as is. Agran said he does not believe that is what should happen because of other examples that exist already. He said he can see this coming up later - someone saying this is okay, because the Commission said it was okay here. Miklo said that each property the Commission reviews is individual, and the Commission does not set precedent. Bristow said that allowing this for this house does not mean the neighbor could proceed with the same thing. She stated that each house is judged individually, and this project is very complicated, because this house has an extensive addition/remodel history. Bristow said it is also complicated because of the extent of the proposed work. She said that it is true that if one wanted to follow the guidelines absolutely to the letter, the porch should be rebuilt as it is. Agran said he is asking too that if one is following the guidelines to the letter, should this be rebuilt as a Queen Anne. He said he understands that it should not, but that is what he is trying to get at. Agran asked at what point Commission makes a distinction. Bristow answered that if something is over 50 years old, it is historic and is part of the history of the house. Agran asked if an addition put on in 1967 is therefore part of the historic character of the house. He said that possibly an addition put on in 1967 might be what is being taken off here in the rear single-story addition. Bristow said that might be correct. Agran asked if there is a time span on each of these properties, for example on Summit Street, because now an addition from 1967 would be considered historic. Miklo said that an addition from 1967 might be 50 years old, but that does not necessarily make it historic. He said that it would also have to have other characteristics. Miklo said that an addition put on by a home carpenter would not have the same value as one that was designed by an architect. He said that they have to each be judged individually. Agran said the additions that were put on this house to turn it into a foursquare for reasons of fashion or modernization or whatever are now part of the history of the house. He said he wondered at what point is one going to say that we are going to stop honoring the history of the house. Bristow said that the important thing to remember is each district has its period of significance. She stated that an addition that was put on after the period of significance might just not be considered historic because it is outside of the period of significance of the district. The period of significance for a district determines the dates by which “Historic” is determined. Builta said that if the process was strictly objective to the point at which a computer could decide these issues, there would be no need for the Commission. He said these types of discussions are why the Commission exists. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the renovation of the house at 314 South Summit Street, as presented in the application, with the following conditions: the south side porch including trim detail is retained instead of removed but the porch railing may be removed, the stairs may be reconfigured, and HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 10, 2017 Page 10 of 14 porch footings may be added; all porch floors that are replaced use vertical-grained Douglas fir; paint removal to the existing porch piers follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation for the removal of paint on masonry; and any windows that are determined to be deteriorated beyond repair are reviewed by staff and chair for approval of replacement prior to their removal. Karr seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, Kuenzli, and Michaud absent). REPORTS ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect - Chair and Staff Review. 314 South Summit Street. Bristow said this project was for reparation of the side foundation. She said that when it was repaired, some of the existing stone was able to be reused. Bristow said that currently it shows a poured concrete wall below one row of stone. She said that the grade will be raised because of a bad drainage problem so that what shows will be stone that was originally there. 26 East Market Street. Bristow stated that this is the Old Brick property. She showed the north addition and where there is a condition with mulch next to parking. Bristow said excavating all of this and pouring some new foundation wall has been approved. She said there has been a problem with water pouring in to the lower level and the basement. 447 South Summit Street. Bristow said this project involved a rear chimney that was still in use. She said the owners are reconstructing the chimney entirely. Bristow said there is also a 1920s side chimney. She said the owners were instructed that they could use brick to match the side chimney or match the original chimney. Bristow stated that none of the brick could have been reused because of its poor condition. 408 Fairchild. Bristow said this property has a new, small outbuilding. She said that all of the cedar shake shingles in the gable ends have been replaced. Bristow said that the contractor noted that he used the cement board cedar shakes on the outbuilding and real cedar shakes on the gables. She said he told her that the real cedar shakes will be much easier to install. 415 Brown Street. Bristow stated that reroofing for this house was approved last year. She said the owners found someone to repair the internal gutters and any of the rotten trim. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 10, 2017 Page 11 of 14 Bristow said there are some areas where there were downspouts that were removed on the internal gutters. She stated that the owners are putting those downspouts back in, because they are needed for capacity of the gutter. 728 Fairchild Street. Bristow said the project involves the reconstruction of some of the windows that were so rotten that they did not have parts of the frames any more. Minor Review - Staff Review. 828 Dearborn Street. Bristow said the owners are replacing all of the windows that are in the 1970s addition on the back with something that will match the historic windows. She added that they are replacing the storm windows mostly on the sides and on the second floor on the back for something that is operable so that they don't have to switch out storms and screens all the time. Bristow said the owners are retaining all of the storm windows on the front of the house and a few right around the corner on the front. 409 Grant Street. Bristow said that this house is completely non-historic. She said it has some wood siding and trim, which the owners are replacing. Bristow said the material is similar to the Azek that the Commission has approved in the past. 815 East Bloomington Street. Bristow said that the front steps and some of the balustrade were rotten and will be replaced. She said it will have closed risers when it is done. 1601 Center Street. Bristow said that this is believed to be a Moffitt house. She said the house had a replacement set of casement windows in the front. Bristow said the replacements were rotten and deteriorating so will have to be replaced again. She said the new windows will be double hung windows that will match all of the other replacement windows on the house. 125 North Gilbert Street. Bristow said this house has metal siding. She stated that the porch is being reconstructed. Bristow showed the stucco balustrades and said this is therefore going for stucco. 839 Roosevelt Street. Bristow said this house has a small, non-historic front step. She said the owners are replacing it with concrete in a more square but still layer cake type of configuration. Bristow said the current step was really rotten. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 10, 2017 Page 12 of 14 625 Davenport Street. Bristow stated that the owners are replacing the railing. She referred to photographs of the neighboring house that used to be a twin to this one. Bristow showed the house that is still contributing, because it still has the original front configuration. She then showed the one that was opened up and was made into a duplex and is therefore now non-contributing. Bristow said the owners will put in a railing that will not rot and will meet the guidelines. 721 Brown Street. Bristow said that the rear foundation wall in the corner of this property is falling apart and is being reconstructed. She said that the deck is supported partly on the concrete wall that is falling in, so that is also being replaced. 1029 Court Street. Bristow stated that this house is non-contributing, possibly because of some additions on the back. She said that it has an extensive deck, some of which will be repaired to match what is there, which meets the guidelines. Bristow said that off to the other side, the owners are adding a landing and some steps down and another landing on to that side of the property. She pointed out that there are some grade changes in this yard. 723-725 South Seventh Avenue. Bristow said this is a completely modern 1970s house in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. She said the owners plan to put on a new rear deck. Bristow said staff is allowing the modern deck configuration, because this is a modern house. Intermediate Review - Chair and Staff Review. 827 Brown Street. Bristow showed the driveway as it was. She said that the owners are widening the curb cut a little and basically moving it over so that it aligns better with the garage. 104 East Jefferson Street. Bristow stated that this is a non-historic property. She showed the old monument sign and said the building will have a new monument sign. Bristow said the new sign will not have the raw aluminum case anymore and will go better with the architecture. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JULY 31, 2017: Swaim stated that on page four, paragraph two, line two should be changed to read, "...in any community are often threatened when a congregation wants a larger space..." HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 10, 2017 Page 13 of 14 MOTION: Boyd moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's July 31, 2017 meeting, as amended. Baker seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0 (Clore, Kuenzli, and Michaud absent). COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Preserve Iowa Summit. Staff asked to table this item to a later meeting. Brochure: Preserving Black History in Iowa City: Tate Arms and the Iowa Federation Home. Swaim said that Sylvia Bochner, the staff intern, put this brochure together regarding the civil rights grant. She said the Commission is looking for more stories from people who lived in these houses. Downtown Survey: Swaim said that the Commission members received information regarding a downtown survey. She said that Alexa McDowell will be working on this for the Commission. Bristow said that on Tuesday, September 12, at 5:30 p.m. at the Englert Theater, McDowell will talk about the process of reviewing the 2001 downtown survey and updating it. She said she will answer questions regarding historic preservation from the public. Bristow said staff would like as many people to attend as possible. Boyd asked where this event fits into the timeline of things being done in terms of the downtown assessment. Miklo replied that this would be the kickoff event - the first meeting to announce the project, its goals, and how it will proceed. He said the process will take approximately one year. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:28 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2016-2017 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member NAME TERM EXP. 8/11 9/8 10/13 11/10 12/8 1/12 2/9 3/9 4/13 5/11 6/15 7/31 8/10 AGRAN , THOMAS 7/1/20 O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X X X BAKER, ESTHER 7/1/18 X X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X BOYD, KEVIN 7/1/20 --- X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X BUILTA, ZACH 7/1/19 X X X X X O/E X X O/E X X O/E X CLORE, GOSIA 7/1/20 X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X O/E DEGRAW, SHARON 7/1/19 O/E X O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X KARR, G. T. 7/1/20 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X KUENZLI, CECILE 7/1/19 X X X X X O/E X X O/E O/E X O/E O/E MICHAUD, PAM 7/1/18 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X O/E SWAIM, GINALIE 7/1/18 X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X X X WAGNER, FRANK 7/1/18 X X O/E X X X X X X X O/E O/E X