Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-10-2019 Historic Preservation Commissionloved City Historic Preseryation Commission ,J -11, 1 1iitill Thursday January 10, 2019 5:30 p.m. - s �I Emma Harvat Hall ► `� `' City Hall IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, January 10, 2019 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma Harvat Hall 5:30 p.m. A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 803 Church Street— Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (porch reconstruction) 2. 738 Dearborn Street — Dearborn Street Conservation District (porch reconstruction) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Minor Review —Staff review 1. 1205 Seymour Avenue — Longfellow Historic District (front entry step replacement) 2. 530 Summit Street — Summit Street Historic District (tear breezeway column and frieze reconstruction) F) Consideration of Minutes for December 13, 2018 G) Commission Information and Discussion 1. 2018 Historic Preservation Awards 2. Previous Agenda Items H) Adjournment If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Jessica Bristow, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5243 or at Jessica-bristowC3a iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Staff Report January 4, 2019 Historic Review for 803 Church Street District: Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Marcia McNamara, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 803 Church Street, a Contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. The project consists of removing the deteriorated and enclosed front porch and replacing it with a traditional open porch. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.6 Gutters and Downspouts 4.10 Porches 4.14 Wood 7.0 Gaidelinesfor Dernahtion 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features Staff Comments Site Inventory fortes indicate that this house was built about 1895 as a two-story vernacular cottage with a north/south facing gable. The one or one and one-half story east -facing gable addition was added with a porch in both the north and south sides of the addition. Around 1946, the porches may have been enclosed even though the front porch shows evidence of some reconstruction when the vinyl siding was installed. Between 1957and 1961, a larger addition with basement garage was added to the south end of the house. Currently, the house has fish -scale shingles in the gable ends and vinyl siding and metal soffits throughout. Shutters are not original. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing, deteriorated front (north -facing) porch and replace it with a new open porch with the same footprint. The existing porch consists of potentially an original roof with internal gutters that have failed and would need to be completely reconstructed. The porch columns no longer exist and have been replaced with partial walls and storm windows. The porch floor structure may be original but is assumed to be in poor condition because of its proximity to the ground and vegetation. The new porch will have a simple low -slope hip roof and new external gutters similar to other cottages of this type in the area. The columns will be square, wrapped columns with a simple base and capital. To provide the owner with a sense of enclosure, the porch will have a solid balustrade even though it will be close enough to the ground to not require one. The ceiling and soffits will be headboard or beadboard plywood. Currently, the siding on the house in the enclosed portion of the porch is the original lap siding. Staff recommends that it is prepped and painted instead of being covered with vinyl siding to match the rest of the house. Section 7.0 Demolition recommends removing alterations that are not historic and that significantly detract from the building's historic character or that are structurally unsound and are a safety hazard. In section 4.10 Porches, the guidelines recommend repairing historic porches and conserving as much of the historic material as possible. Badly deteriorate components should be replaced with new ones that match the historic components in design and material. It is disallowed to enclose front porches. Missing balustrades should be constructed using historic photographs or in a style that is consistent with both the building and the neighborhood. Wood substitutes may be used if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood and is durable accepts paint, and is approved by the Conunission. Section 4.6 Gutters recommends pairing built-in gutters and covering them only if the roof slope is not altered and they are not a significant feature for the building's historic character. In Staffs opinion, the existing porch is extremely deteriorated, especially the existing gutter system, and the porch is inappropriately enclosed. Staff recommends approval of the demolition of the existing porch including the roof and internal gutter. Since the internal gutter is not a significant feature of this house and porch, it is recommended that the applicant is approved to use an external gutter system on the new porch. Staff has worked with the applicant to investigate appropriate porch designs and has found several similar house/porch configurations in the neighborhood. It is likely that the original porch was similar to the porch at 914 Fairchild Street. Without photographs or other evidence (ghost of column, etc.) it would be considered adding a false sense of history to reconstruct this porch with the spindled columns and architrave found at 914 Fairchild. Until evidence of this type of ornament is found for this house, it is recommended that the new porch details are simple and square. It is also believed that the applicant would prefer a simpler porch design. Staff recommends approval of the simple porch design shown in the application with details modeled after the diagrams in the enclosed attachments. The applicant has expressed a desire to have a solid balustrade. Several houses in the neighborhood have original or reconstructed porches with solid balustrades. Staff finds that this would be an acceptable way to create this sense of enclosure without having an enclosed porch. If, during the project implementation, the applicant decides to remove the balustrade that would also be acceptable. In addition, this balustrade could be removed by a future owner. The majority of the project will be constructed in wood. The porch roof will have a low slope making shingles difficult to use. The new porch roof will likely be a membrane roof. Because of the low elevation of the porch, almost sitting on the ground, staff recommends approval of alternative porch floor material. Vertical -grained Douglas Fir is recommended and pretreated decking with gaps under 1/8" may be approved by the Commission through an exception. Azek porch flooring with an eased edge has been approved in at least one other application and staff finds that this project may be another where this material could help increase the longevity of the new porch floor. Staff recommends approval of several options for the porch floor. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 803 Church Street as presented in the application with the following condition: + Porch flooring is either Vertical -grained Douglas Fir, pretreated decking with gaps under 1/8", or Azek porch flooring with an eased edge APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC REVIEW Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the Neighborhood and Development Services office at City Hall or online at: www.icgov.org/historici2reservationresources For Staff Use: Date submitted: 8/16/201 ❑ Certificate of No material Effect m Certificate of Appropriateness ® Major Review ❑ Lntermediate Review ❑ Minor Review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building penniL Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second 'Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the office of Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See last page of this application for deadlines and meeting dates. PROPF-RTY OWNER/ APPLICANT INFORMATION (Please check primary contact person) Property Owner Name: I Marcia McNamara Email: marcia-mcnamara iowa.edu Phone Number: C: 319-400-1704 City: lowa City State: Iowa zip ❑ Contractor/Consultant Name: Email: Phone Number; Address: City: State: 0 Zip Code: fmW PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION Address: 1803 Church St Use of Property: lResidence Date Constructed (if known): i 880's -'r""`r�---T-'`,.,,. HISTORIC DE,SIGI3�►j 1 (Maps are located at the following link: w�nrw.icgnv�urg lustori reservationres_ ounces) ❑ This Property is a local historic landmark. OR ® This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown St. Historic District ❑ Nortiiside Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ Summit St, Historic District ❑ Dearborn St. Conservation District ❑ East College St. Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ® Goosetown/ Horace Mann ❑ Jefferson St. Historic District ❑ Clark St. Conservation Conservation District ❑ Longfellow Historic District District ❑ Governor -Lucas St. Conservation Within the district, this Property is Classified as: District m Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Product Information ❑ Photographs Constraction of a new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Evidence of deterioration ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Repair or Restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information Other Please contact the Preservation Specialist at 356-5W for materials which need to be included with applications APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS nv..Fnrh Tlncrrin#inn: Replace/rebuild front porch. %,sa4nrin IQ #n hp 17aPdt F..bori nr 9nnaarance ChanEes: SUBMIT 803 Church Street porch replacement project: Scope: Demolish the existing north facing porch at 803 Church Street and construct a new open porch in the same location. The existing double -hung window on the porch will be repaired as needed and a new storm window installed. Dernolitiom Remove the existing north -faring porch including theflooring, floor framing, north and east -facing walls, siding, storm windows, roof framing, roof covering, soffit, storm door, and internal gutter. If any materials are in a condition for re -use, they may be salvaged or retained at the discretion of the contractor. Care must be taken to not damage the existing door and window in the north wall of the house and retain as much siding on the house as possible. New Construction: A new porch will be constructed according to the attached elevation drawings and including the following materials: New square 6-inch porch columns may be constructed with a treated square post wrapped in wood with beveled corners. Wood for column wrapping and trim may be cedar, cypress or an approved equivalent and must be primed and painted with at least two coats of paint. Column base will have a tapered edge to help drain water away. Column base will sit on porch floorwith outside edge of base aligned with skirtboard (trim) covering rim joist. Porch floor will extend beyond base 1 inch on any outside edge. Column shaft will be aligned with fascia trim board above and Column capital will protrude beyond that on all sides Beam or rim joist for porch roof will be centered on columns so it is fully supported and he trimmed out including the bottom face. Space for trim will be accounted for in construction so that trim passes over column instead of butting into the side of the column. Porch floor framing will be treated wood. Porch flooring may be vertical -grained Douglas Fir, new or reclaimed, an equivalent wood, or Azek porch flooring with an eased cut edge. Porch baluster is a solid paneled baluster constructed of wood with a top and bottom rail sloped to promote proper drainage. Porch ceiling and soffits are either beadboard or plywood headboard. Soffit material will be mitered at the outside corner. New external gutters will be either K-style or half -round. Siding will be patched or replaced as necessary. In the porch area, the siding may remain as original lap siding that is painted if that is a possible option. Window: The existing window on the porch may have had the glass in one pane replaced with an alternative material. This window will be assessed for its condition. At a minimum, the window may need reglazing. In order to address the change from an enclosed porch to an open porch, a new storm window will be installed. This storm window should be a flush -mount storm window. Reference: The attached drawings show the final configuration of the new porch. The porch at 914 Fairchild may be used as an example for much of the construction of this porch. This porch will not include the decorative spindled architrave or the turned columns. This house will have simple columns and a paneled baluster because they are not original. z O s O � � � 5 � O � z O � v � � �-, � s z 0 V s U s � O v �fl z O Q O z Existing front (North) Elevation a" y�:� q r "nA V--;q ju �..:- �x ID 790 tf08 Al2 Of# brzy82B 1926 Sanborn fire insurance map �H North open porch va. *Dw R03 / R& o0l ae Cii E «, � M� rc roc 6 n It c to u. :h n ri dif rus nu hic , fa, ]eta W nd win 'At THE ORDERS 3.42 Post Designs to Avoid i Avoid rymo capilols h Avoid tapilals and bases that are longer than width of pier or Avoid using Erma, molding (crown) for capilul of post Avoid dropping the aslragol too low —distance to cupgnl should be no greater than vedih of post Avoid using Erma for Bose —it is taa small and will be damaged Avoid stepped -out abstract capitals and buses —they will make pier or post look mrtaonish Piers & Posts A Are both capital and base derived from classical columns? ❑ Is the astragal set high enough? ❑ Is the base low enough? ❑ Have you avoided using eyma moldings? PIERS AND POSTS A pier is a square column. In a formal design, the details can be worked out as they would be for the capital and base of a round column. Piers are typically straight -sided —that is, they don't taper. The diameter should be set from the neck. This gives the pier a smaller shaft at the base than a tapered column would have, and it makes the pier slightly smaller than any adjacent columns. re posts anarrow piers, often used on back porches, screen porches, or breezeways. The detailing of a post is derived from the classical orders, but represents a much less formal and often more economical option than a column or pier. Details to Avoid Figure 3.42 shows three common mistakes to avoid, and variations on these errors are endless. Stacked blocks of wood should not be used as capitals, nor Should eyma moldings (eeeTerminating and Supporting Moldings, page 50). Make sure that you don't make the implied "neck" of your pilaster appear stretched by placing the astragal too low. Details to Use Figure 3.43 shows how to construct a simple post from stock moldings. The capital is a base molding turned upside-down and topped with a cove. The astragal is a nose and cove molding, and the base is a flat board topped with a base cap. Use the width of the post to determine the maximum height of the base and location of the astragal. Bases taller than they are wide should be avoided, as should astragals set too low. Figure 3.44 illustrates a post closer in detail to the profile of a column. In this example the capital and base are formed out of bedmolds. Note that the base molding is larger than the capital molding. Here the corners of the pier are chamfered, another option to create a more formal look. If you f choose to add a chamfer, stop it short of both the base and the astragal for an authentic effect. 62 G E T Y 0 n R H 0 US E R I G H 7 P;F.R5 AND PosT.5 3.43 Traditional Post Profiles Here a post is detailed more like a column, with chamfered corners that contri6ute to a more Formal look. The dimensions shown are for a 6"x6" post. A — I �T V2„ rate 3"simple casing I' nose and cove /a" base cap i I x 6 Nol board Details for the design of the new porch 3.44 Simplified Post Profiles Less formal than a pier, o post can be correctly detailed as shown here. The capitals and bases on piers and pilasters, however, should be designed to match the profile of a column. The molding dimensions specified are for a 6'x 6' post; for larger or smaller posh, adjust proportionolly. "t e � I %r" hedmold 1 I I' nose and rove T l - --- t 51 � I V. 6edmold L—L a€ T YOUR HOUSE R r E H T 63 Staf_f_Repo rt January 3, 2019 Historic Review for 738 Dearborn Street District: Dearborn Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Stephen Hendrix and Karen Copp, are requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 738 Dearborn Street, a Contributing property in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. The project consists of the removal of the existing, non -historic wrought -iron porch columns and balustrade and their replacement with columns and balustrade following historic designs. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 r'owa OryHlstorie Preservation Gwdohnnes for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.5 Foundations 4.10 Porches 4,14 Wood staircomments This one and one-half story gable roof house is an example of the Bungalow style and was built between 1924 and 1930. With clay tile wall construction, the house is stucco -coated and has a front -facing, shed roof dormer addition on the front. The front porch columns and baluster have been replaced with wrought -iron. The porch floor has also been reconstructed with the original foundation structure and piers replaced with decorative concrete block. The house has asbestos siding in the gables and dormers. In 2004, the Commission approved a kitchen addition and covered entry at the rear of the house. The chimney, located to the rear, was also approved to be removed as part of this project. The applicant is proposing to replace the deteriorated non -historic, wrought -iron porch columns and balustrade. The new columns will consist or square battered (tapered) columns on stucco -coated piers that extend above the porch floor. The existing porch structure and floor will be modified for the piers to extend from the ground to a point above the railings. The balustrade will consist of a top and bottom rail and square spindles. The long run will be divided through the use of a wider section of spindle in the center of the run. The stucco coating will match existing stucco on the house. Battered columns and balustrade will be constructed of wood. The existing stairs and handrail will remain. The guidelines recommend, in section 4.10 Porches, repairing historic porches and conserving as much of the historic material as possible. It is also recommended to construct or replace missing balustrades and handrails using historic photographs or in a style that is consistent with both the building and the neighborhood. Section 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails recommends that square spindles have a width of at least 1 t/z inches. Top and bottom rails ate recommended to be at least 2 inches thick. In Staffs opinion, the existing wrought -iron is both non -historic and deteriorating and teplacement is recommended. While the remnants of material at the column head seem to point to a set of three smaller columns in each corner and no central columns, this is a possible configuration that is found in reference materials but not fully supported through photographic documentation for this property. This configuration is also highly decorative and therefore not necessarily appropriate unless supported by documentation. In addition, structurally the porch needs to have columns in the center of the span. For these reasons, a simpler design was sought with the intent to retain the historic material when the new columns are constructed. Staff worked with the applicants to research porch columns for this Bungalow -style house and similar houses in the neighborhood. Several options were pinpointed and a contractor developed the final design. Given the overall stucco -coated foundation and first floor exterior walls, the use of larger piers that would also have the stucco coating was preferred. The tapered column fits the bungalow style and a proportion was determined based on the existing elements that will remain as well as existing examples. The baluster design is also sympathetic to what was potentially built originally. Since no historic photographs of the house exist, the proposed configuration of piers and columns is an appropriate design for this style house in this neighborhood. The non -historic porch structure that willremain will be recessed beyond the piers and not draw attention from them. Maintaining some of this structure will also reduce the financial impact of the project Recommended Ndotion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 738 Dearborn Street as presented in the application. ;-71 1 APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC REVIEW Application for alterations to the historic Iandmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the Neighborhood and Development Services office at City Hall or online at www.icgov.org/"toriWreservationrc-sources For Staff Use: Date submitted: 6/14 018 ❑ Certificate of No material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major Review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor Review The HPC does not review applications for compliance with building and zoning codes. Work must comply with all appropriate codes and be reviewed by the building division prior to the issuance of a building permit. Meeting Schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Applications are due in the office of Neighborhood and Development Services by noon on Wednesday three weeks prior to the meeting. See Iast page of this application for deadlines and meeting dates. PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT INFORMATION (Please check primary contact person) ❑ Property Owner Name: [Stephen Hendrix and Karen Copp Email: ste hen-hndrix uiowa.edu Phone Number; 319-337-3621 Address: 738 Dearborn St W City: Iowa City State: Zip Code: 52240 ❑ Contractor/Consultant Name: Inot known at this some Email: Phone Number: Address: City; L State: Zip Code: PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION Address: 1738 Dearborn St Use of Property: JPrivate Residence Date Constructed (if known): 1924 HISTORIC DESIGNATION (Maps are located at the following link: wwwdcgov.org /historicpe_servationresources) ❑ This Property is a Iocal historic landmark. OR ❑ This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ grown St. Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ Summit St. Historic District P9 Dearborn St. Conservation District ❑ East College St. Historic District ❑ Woodlawn Historic District ❑ Goosetown/ Horace Mann ❑ Jefferson St. Historic District ❑ Clark St. Conservation Conservation District Longfellow Historic District District ❑ Governor -Lucas St. Conservation District Within the district, this Property is Classified as: 0 Contributing 0 Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. ❑ Addition (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑✓ Alteration (Typically projects entailing work such as siding and window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, deck or porch replacement/construction, baluster repair, or similar. If the project is a minor alteration, photographs and drawings to describe the scope of the project are sufficient.) ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Product Information ❑ Photographs ❑ Construction of a new building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ FIoor Plants ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plans ❑ Demolition (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) ❑ Photographs ❑ Evidence of deterioration ❑ Proposal of Future Plans ❑ Repair or Restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Productlnformation ❑ Other Please contact the Preservation Specialist at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with applications APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Project Description: request at this is for an assessment and exploration of alternatives to meet requirements- porch posts and Materials to be Used: not known at this time Exterior Appearance Changes: known at this time k` t ® - / £ )$)¥ k�§k k)\ m \Q�� / a!)/E /4 � §w2 E § # 7)7 E:� ` \ ) �. \�;� �; k 3E—°«s § § t �GIE;, #.T u a) L: I L c2A_ I § \ \ 0 t y. `�i ✓ w � Non -historic columns and railing beginning to deteriorate Existing material at column head likely original and will remain as historic remnant Existing non -historic porch structure includes decorative concrete block base which will remain in areas not impacted by piers for new columns MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL December 13, 2018 MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Kevin Boyd, Zach Builta, Helen Burford, Gosia Clore, Sharon DeGraw, G. T. Karr, Cecile Kuenzli (arrived late, left early), Quentin Pitzen, Lee Shope MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Joe Coulter, Jan Full, Carl Klaus, Nancy Bird, Ginalie Swaim RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 10-0 the Commission recommends approval of the local landmark designation for the property at 1818 North Dubuque Street. By a vote of 10-0 the Commission recommends approval of the local landmark designation for the property at 416 Reno Street. By a vote of 9-0 (Kuenzli absent) the Commission recommends that City Council direct staff to immediately pursue a National Register nomination, which will include public outreach, a formal opinion from the State Historic Preservation Office, and hiring a consultant to begin the National Register nomination process. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION: 1818 North Dubuque Street — Dr. H.H. and Svlvella Jacobsen House Bristow noted this house is at the intersection of North Dubuque Street and Faster Road and its extension. The site wraps around the bluff. Bristow displayed the view normally seen of the house as you drive by on Dubuque Street, nestled up in the trees or, during the summer, not being able to see it at all. The owner, Joe Coulter, is the applicant. He has requested local landmark designation for the property. Bristow said the house is extremely intact. It has all its architectural features and much of its furniture and interior fixtures. The house was built in 1929. It is an example of Arts and Crafts architecture. Arts and Crafts developed after the Industrial Revolution when architects and artists were interested in getting back to a hand craft type of architecture and design. It was an organic development of space and architecture which is evident in the front fapade of the house. The house is clad in field stones that were sourced in East Central Iowa. They have beaded joints, which is a raised joint that is an old style. The house has a glazed ceramic tile roof. Stucco and board detailing, seen on a lot of Tudor architecture, is also an element that could be hand crafted, as well. Bristow shared a slide displaying the shape of the house. It has a north -south facing gable and east -west gable projections on each end. There is also an entry projection on the east, a small sunroom on the north and a courtyard on the west. The garage can be seen nestled into the bluff below the house. Bristow showed a slide of the south view of the house, the back door. Also apparent from this view is the north -south gable and the crossing gable that runs east -west. Bristow pointed out many little details in this Arts and Crafts movement and organic development like dormers in the roof. All windows are original. The doors are original. The house has been well cared for over time. Bristow showed a photo of the front door, noting it is also on the doors of Iowa City poster that can be seen around town. Bristow said the integrity of the interior is not really discussed for our local landmark process but included a couple pictures of this interior, noting the house has a very high degree of integrity. The living room has a large stone fireplace with grout of a darker color. The library has a door out to the courtyard. The land that this house was built on came from a development started by the Balls, who at one point owned the Englert-Pownell House that is just to the south of this. That was a much older, frame -built house, but the owners of it developed this area. The Jacobsens bought the land from the Balls and built the house. In conclusion, Bristow stated this property is a very intact example of Arts and Crafts architecture and development of the picturesque bluff area that overlooks and is around the river and the historic mill that we had historically anchored this northern extent in the early development of Iowa City. According to the site inventory form that was completed for the gateway project, staff determined the house is eligible for local landmark designation because it is significant to Iowa City architecture, it possesses a high integrity of location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship. It also meets criterion E, embodies distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the works of a master. Staff finds that it meets the requirements to be designated a local landmark. Boyd asked if anyone had clarifying questions for Bristow before opening the Public Hearing. Shope asked if the Commission would be arbiters of what becomes an Iowa City historic landmark. Bristow said the Commission would determine eligibility according to criteria in the packet, which is also based on criteria for a National Register nomination. If eligibility is met, the Commission passes the application on to the Planning and Zoning Commission. They determine whether it meets the comprehensive plan and works with the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and neighborhood plans. The Planning and Zoning Commission would determine if they recommend that the application proceeds to City Council, who either approves or denies the ordinance. Kuenzli arrived very early in this presentation. Public Hearing Open: Joe Coulter, second owner of the house, said he has all the original plans, some artwork, and some original (re -upholstered) furniture. He said the kitchen had been remodeled in the 50s or 60s. Using the original plans, he moved it back to the way it had looked, adding a dishwasher and refrigerator. Coulter said he was intent on keeping the house as is. He purchased the house in 1986 from the estate of Sylvella Jacobsen. He provided an Irving Weber article with other interesting historical points, including the Englert family ice business and the meaning of Bjaysville (Benjamin John Alberhasky). Coulter said he just had roof work including new underlayment and tile as needed. He said the company that made the original tile is still in business. Jan Full asked if the tile was manufactured by Ludowici. Coulter said yes. Boyd thanked Coulter for his stewardship. Public Hearing Closed. MOTION: Agran moved to approve the designation of 1818 North Dubuque Street as an Iowa City Historic landmark based on the following criteria for a local designation: Criteria A, B, and E. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION: 416 Reno Street —Albert J. and Alice E. Borts House. Bristow said the local landmark eligibility and National Register nomination for this property would all be based on the same presentation. Bristow showed a slide of the property location, which is in the area of the North Market Park, Horace Mann School, and the Reno Street Park. She stated the National Trust and the owner were both applying for local landmark designation and National Register Nomination for this property. Bristow noted the staff report addressing local landmark eligibility and introduced Jan Full, the nomination writer, to talk about the house's significance. Full said the Borts house is being listed for the National Register criterion C for its architecture. It has a family history associated with the Borts family and they were prominent mason contractors. The house's architecture is Queen Anne. Full said the Queen Anne movement started in England in the 19'" century with references to medieval and much earlier forms of architecture, but it's basically an English 191h century style that jumped the puddle and came over to America in the late 1911 century. In England, Queen Anne architecture tends to be brick, polychromatic brick, colorful, lots of white and red. She said when it came over here it primarily has been executed in wood, as frame. Most of our Queen Anne houses in this country are wood. Full noted there was a photograph of every side, showing a pyramid roof and prominent gables on every elevation. She said they added decorative brick work. The mason was an expert, which is not surprising since it was in the Borts family. She noted classical details such as the pediment returns on the gables and the columns on the porch. Full said its setting is in one of the older neighborhoods in town. This is the east edge of Goosetown and it just barely predates the arrival of the Bohemian immigrants and the development of Goosetown. It's more associated with the Frederick Irish, Rose Hill, when that area of town was rural. The area gets filled in later with Goosetown residents. Goosetown has great little cottages that are wood frame. Full discussed a picture showing one of the major alterations - the north windows on the ground floor. She said this was the kitchen, but because of counters they put in shorter windows and filled in below with brick. Another slide showed the Borts House on the far right, behind an evergreen, and the two houses to the north of it which were even older. Full thought they were probably 1850s. She said the one on the left has become a daycare, and it's altered, but you can still see that it is midcentury, civil war era. She thought the one in between was an I -house. It has a couple windows on the ground floor, but she thought it was a single room, it's not very deep, and midcentury, too. Full noted the neighborhood is very intact, even the trees and the setting. Full said this is not a huge house. You walk into a living room with the staircase going up — a gateleg staircase. A wall has been removed between the front door and the door on the far right seen on a slide. It had been a narrow passage. She said the wall was removed and the kitchen remodeled. Upstairs the rooms go off one small hallway. Full introduced Professor Carl Klaus, the homeowner. She said he redid the attic into his studyloffice. One of the doorways takes you through and up the staircase to his office and his thousands of books. Full said that Kate Klaus, Carl's late wife, stripped all the paint off the woodwork down to the yellow pine. This house is 1898 so it's not a local hardwood. It's probably yellow pine. It's not late enough to be Douglas Fir. Another picture showed the view through to the dining room. Full said the radiator heat was a later addition. She said it probably had coal stoves with a central chimney. Full expressed her desire to understand the Queen Anne architecture within Iowa City. She said there are a lot of Queen Anne houses in Iowa City, as it was an extremely popular, common house type. Using the State's architectural database, Margaret Keyes' book, and Laurence Lafore's book, she put together a population of Queen Anne houses in Iowa City. By far, the majority were wood frame. Full could only find about seven brick Queen Anne houses in Iowa City. Full said based on that alone, and its intact nature, it's a very good representative of a brick Queen Anne in a town that primarily has wood frame Queen Annes. Full also had a geologist from the Iowa Geological Survey view the house and he was fascinated by the foundation. He figured out the foundation stone came from down along Dubuque Street, a little farther south of Joe Coulter's house. There's an exposed rock face there and he thought that's probably where the foundation material had come from. They had to haul the stone up from the river valley with horse and wagon. Bristow said the house would be eligible as a local landmark for its architecture. Staff felt it was also eligible because of its association with the Borts family — Albert Borts, who owned the house, and his father David Borts, who did Calvin Hall and other buildings in town. She said staff wasn't sure if he built this house but, based on the architectural detailing in the brick work by a master mason, it was very likely. Boyd asked if a local landmark can have a different set of criteria than a national landmark. Bristow said it could. Boyd asked for any other clarifying questions. Full added that Albert Borts had a brother named Charles. Albert became a mail carrier, but his brother started working for his father, David, and was a mason all his life. In 1898 David would have been getting up in years, but he had a contracting business and Charles was still working, so there's a very strong association with the Borts family. Public Hearing Open: No comments from the public. Public Hearing Closed. Boyd expressed appreciation for the stewardship of this house. MOTION: Kuenzli moved to approve the designation of 416 Reno Street as an Iowa City Historic landmark based on the following criteria for a local designation: Criteria A, B, D, and E. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION: 416 Reno Street — Albert J. and Alice E. Borts House. Bristow said since this property has been nominated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, before the State reviews the nomination and discusses whether or not to send it on to the National Park Service, they ask the local government to review the nomination and determine whether or not we agree with the criterion under which it is nominated, which for the National Register it would just be for its architecture. Bristow said the Commission can include a comment, but it's not required. She said the form included in their packet must be signed and the Commission must state whether they agree with the nomination. She said a public hearing is not needed, MOTION: Agran moved to recommend the Albert J. and Alice E. Borts house at 416 Reno Street is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places in criterion category C at the local level and meets the criteria of both significance and integrity, Kuenzli seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS — CONSENT AGENDA: 1120 Sheridan Avenue — Longfellow Historic District window alteration). MOTION: Agran moved to approve the consent agenda. Buiita seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. DOWNTOWN DISTRICT SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS: Boyd noted that he included a letter on this subject since it's hard to both weigh in on his opinion and facilitate discussion. Bristow said she would go through the recommendations from the consultant briefly, outlining what was in the staff report, as well. Bristow went through recommendations in the order they were presented. Bristow said all recommendations would begin with public outreach and education. She said the first thing is to make sure that the public and any property and business owners understand there is a very distinct difference between a National Register Historic District and a local historic district. She said the National Register Historic District is basically an honorarium. It includes the whole neighborhood in a listing in the National Register of Historic Places and opens these properties up for the possibility of state and federal tax credits, property tax exemption if they do a substantial rehab, and other financial incentives that would be available from the state and federal level. Bristow noted two options for this historic district were included in the downtown survey. She said that was done because the recommended option is for a larger boundary that includes our urban renewal area - the pedestrian mail and some of the other buildings that were built around that time. This area was included because urban renewal changed the way the buildings and people relate to the street. Instead of having cars traveling down the street and people walking only on the sidewalks adjacent to the building, with the pedestrian mall filling that space, it's a pedestrian only area, and the ability to see and interact with the buildings completely changed. The use of the automobile in the area has also changed. If we did not include urban renewal as an important part of the story of our downtown, that area would not be eligible for listing on the National Register. Urban Renewal was very controversial, and it significantly changed downtown and how Iowa Citians and visitors interact with downtown. There was an option to do a smaller district that did not include the pedestrian mall. The consultant did not recommend doing that, partly because it would be discounting part of the story of Iowa City. Staff felt it also would limit the amount of property owners who could benefit from tax credits and grants available through a National Register Historic District. Bristow said staff recommends going with the larger district, both for the ability to benefit the greatest number of owners and the ability to really talk about the story of Iowa City. Bristow said there has been some discussion from local historians about whether the National Register would accept this recommendation because of urban renewal's contentious relationship with historic preservation, and because it happened right at the cutoff for our 50- year mark that we use when talking about things being historic. For that reason, the nomination must use criterion consideration G for eligibility of the Urban Renewal area. Criterion Consideration G allows eligibility for the National Register, even though it's relatively recent. Bristow said the second step for the National Register Nomination is obtaining an opinion of eligibility from the State Historic Preservation Office. If the HPC sought a grant for this nomination, it would have to obtain that opinion. Staff feels that opinion of eligibility should be sought right away. Bristow said the next step would be to hire a consultant for the nomination. After the nomination form is complete there would be the nomination approval process, which is lengthy and likely to go into 2020. Bristow said benefits include tax credit eligibility, property tax exemption, and potential grants. She said the City, the community, and property and business owners could use this for advertising — the City would have this historic cultural district that's also listed on the National Register. Bristow listed potential concerns. There should be few concerns for property and business owners because there are no regulations or restrictions tied to a listing in the National Register. If a building is listed, owners do not have to do anything different than what they have been doing so far since have owned the property. It just opens it up to benefits for them. She said there is a need to educate the public on the difference between this and a local designation. As with all the recommendations, this process will require some additional staff time. Recommendation B. designation of a local overlay district, would follow the boundaries of the National Resister District. Bristow said the process for this would require even more extensive public outreach. She said this will be a process which would include individual and public discussions with the property owners, business owners, the Iowa City Downtown District, and the public about the local district process. The boundaries for a local district do not need to be the same as for the National Register Historic District. Because of confusion about the difference between those two designations, the State really likes them to be the same, but there is no requirement. Bristow said the City would likely begin with the National Register District, but would work with the public and business and property owners to determine what boundaries work for our community. Similarly, the Commission would probably work on developing additional incentives. A design review process for commercial buildings would need to be developed and the area would also go through the formal rezoning process. Bristow said benefits to this would include preservation of our cultural heritage and the unique character of downtown. Many people talk about the diversity of our downtown and the juxtaposition of old and new. The only way to maintain that diversity, though, is by keeping the historic buildings we have. Once they start to go away it becomes less and less diverse and is suddenly just a new downtown. Bristow said there would be benefits from City programs such as the Historic Preservation fund, professional assistance with rehab project planning, etc. For concerns, Bristow again noted the need for extensive outreach. She said there is a need for development incentives. The Commission would want the property and business owners to also feel that this is a benefit to our community and a benefit to them. Bristow said developing the design guidelines prior to implementation is also a concern. It would require the hiring of a consultant, a professional who is experienced in developing these guidelines. Bristow said it would be a big challenge to regulate a new historic district of this size under current staffing. Recommendation C: Individual Local Landmarks Bristow said this recommendation included any properties that were either individually eligible or key contributing properties. She said it would be the same process used recently for local landmarks. Public outreach and communication with property owners would be needed. Each property would be evaluated to see if it met our criteria for a landmark designation. She said it would come with additional incentives, a design review process, and a formal rezoning process. Bristow said benefits of individual local landmarks would be state tax credit eligibility, zoning incentives, historic preservation fund eligibility, and it would preserve important individual properties. Bristow said a concern is the time needed for extensive outreach and education and the development of incentives. She noted while this would preserve key individual properties, it would not preserve the historic neighborhood context for all properties. Recommendation D: Staffing Bristow said this would add a full-time City staff person with dedicated responsibility for overseeing the downtown historic resources. Increasing current staffing to full-time would be an important first step. Recommendation E: Online Resources Bristow explained this would establish a collection of topical digital resources accessible from the City website. She said it has long been a Commission goal to have something digital and searchable that would provide information currently found only in file cabinets or available to researchers. She said staff would like to develop a database tied with GIs mapping. Bristow said making this information easily accessible to property owners and those with an interest in historic preservation would be a major benefit. It may also reduce the load on staff, who currently must field requests for information and then track things down. This would be offset by the staff time to maintain it. Recommendation F: Working with the Iowa City Downtown District Bristow pointed out the need for continued partnership with the Iowa City Downtown District to actively engage business owners in the historic rehabilitation of buildings. She said this would play an instrumental part in any of the recommendations presented. Forming a committee that combines members of this Commission with property and business owners, or others who are otherwise involved in the Iowa City Downtown District, is very important. Boyd also made this point in his memo. Recommendation G: Development Policy Development of a clearly delineated policy aimed at addressing the pressure for increased density and contemporary design within the proposed district. Bristow said such development policies might keep some of the historic character of our downtown and that staff would explore this option if a local historic district is not pursued. She said alternatives could include form -based regulations and a new design review overlay. Bristow said there would be a lot of community outreach because this could potentially be something new, coordinating with the Downtown District, and probably ultimately hiring a planning consultant. Recommendation H: Financial Incentives This was a recommendation to pursue and promote other financial incentives for owners of historic properties that seek historic rehabilitation. She said property owners currently have state and federal tax credits and property tax exemption on increased value following rehabilitation. Other incentives include the Iowa City Historic Preservation Fund, the Iowa City TIF policy, and this Building Change Program that is discussed in the staff report, as well. Bristow stated while the City does have a number of financial incentives, there is always the possibility for others. This would need to be researched to determine the possibilities. She said looking at what other communities have utilized for financial incentives would be a good way to start and see how they might work for our community. Recommendation l: Non -Financial Incentives Bristow said the City could promote nonfinancial incentives for owners of historic properties that seek historic rehabilitation. The consultant had talked about the use of the International Existing Building Code (IEBC). Bristow said on an existing building, this code allows developers to meet codes that provide for life safety, but they might not need to meet the same code requirements put on a new building. Currently developers can use the IEBC, but sometimes they don't know about it or maybe it's not mentioned to them. Promoting the use of the IEBC is what the consultant was talking about in her recommendations. Bristow stated the City could promote the use of historic buildings for sustainability. Rehabbing an existing building might be more affordable than building a new building, and it would keep demolition debris out of the landfill. Bristow said the staff recommendation is pursuit of a National Register District immediately, following the process that was outlined. She said staff believes in the idea of pursuing an overlay district at a later date and coordinating with the Downtown District and the stakeholders, creating a steering committee, hiring a consultant to develop guidelines and explore incentives and, at the same time, the local landmark designation of properties that are outside whatever the local district boundary would be. Kuenzli left the meeting at 6:25. Public Comment: Swaim said it was gratifying to see more landmarks coming down the pike. She noted urban renewal is a huge part of Iowa City history and thought the larger district boundary area was very appropriate and was a very wise and respectful way to look at the history of the community. As a new board member speaking on behalf of Friends of Historic Preservation, she stated the downtown is really the heartbeat of the community. When we look at neighborhoods, we think this is an asset to the people who live there or own property there. In terms of the downtown, the human scale and the historic character of our downtown appeals strongly to people who frequent there because they live there, they shop there, they work, they dine, they socialize, they seek education, art, meaning, and entertainment in their lives. Swaim said the Downtown District won't stay the way it is on its own. She believed the Commission was the appropriate body to get historic designation started. She stated the Downtown District is Iowa City's largest cultural asset in built form. She said the recommendations clearly spell out the need for education and outreach. She said these things are needed constantly, but especially when taking on a preservation project that has such a community -wide impact as downtowns do. She said the Friends of Historic Preservation will try to assist in every way with the education and outreach as that is part of their mission. Swaim was also glad to see the recommendation to digitize historical resources. She said in the long run that, too, is part of education and outreach and noted it may cut down on staff time. She said it is something the public deserves, and it would benefit the community interest in preservation and historians in multiple ways. Swaim pointed out districting will take more staff time but said it must be done. She said we need to figure out a way to find the time and the money to make it happen for staff. Swaim said Friends also supports a local district, when that part comes up. She said comparing to landmarking individual buildings, a local district will increase the positive impact of a historic downtown and maintain the context or the big picture of our built past. She believed the local district was a wiser way to go than individual landmarks. She thought the City's reopening of the Building Change Program was an excellent step. Swaim thought Boyd's idea of creating a working group was very good because it would add more voices. She said he makes a good point that the Downtown District is quite different from a residential district. It has different concerns, different constituents, different opportunities, and it's also different from a residential neighborhood because a neighborhood is generally the concern of the owners and the residents, but the downtown is also about the users, and that's a lot more, so we need more voices on such a group. Swaim closed, stating the downtown is a thread through all our history — it will continue to be. She said this is a huge opportunity. She and Friends of Historic Preservation support going forward with the National District and then a local district. Next to speak was Nancy Bird, Iowa City Downtown District: Bird thanked the Commission and staff for their thoughtful conversation and for all the work and the survey that's been prepared to -date. She said she has had a number of conversations with property owners about this process and had a couple key points. Bird said the National Register District, for the most part, sounds like a really good idea. She said the issue is so complex, especially in a commercial district, and we need to make sure there is educational outreach. She said the Downtown District is a proud partner in that process. She was concerned about moving too far ahead with the local district as it may discourage or frighten certain people; that maybe the City is moving more quickly than they are ready. Bird liked the idea of a steering committee or some sort of joint committee to look through all the elements that go along with a local ordinance, especially when it pertains to all the things that were not in the presentation. She noted that while there is additional staff time that's added and a cost for the City, there is also additional staff time for each property owner and costs that go with it. She said that's usually where the crux of the matter is. It's not over preservation. Bird said all the private owners downtown have stewarded these buildings for a very, very long time and they understand them intimately and care about the buildings. She thought the idea of a steering committee was a really great idea. Bird said the Downtown District was has been instrumental in putting together a set of design guidelines for downtown. She said four years ago they hired a consultant in partnership with the City as a joint effort. She said a consultant was used that understood the retail environment and also understood historic districts. They used the Secretary of Interior's standards when they created the design guidelines for the downtown area. She said the Downtown District has been using them as a guide for new businesses that come in who might really understand a flower shop, but do not understand how to treat the exterior of the store front. She said it was a good way for us to suggest how to really relay your business brand and preserve or consider the architecture as you do that. Bird said it was her understanding that those guidelines have also been used by the Commission but have never been formally adopted and were not really considered at all in the packet. She wondered why we needed a whole additional step rather than looking at the document they have on hand to see if it could work. She said the study wasn't cheap and she believed it was well done, targeting the need for pedestrian oriented signage and human scale and when a new development is coming in, ensuring that the bays kind of match so you don't have the standard zoning, but you're matching up to the older buildings that are there. She hoped the study would be given some consideration and looked forward to working with the City. She said she did understand that the guidelines might not go far enough. Bird again stated the National Register is a great first step. She encouraged the Commission to reach out to property owners downtown rather than talking about it amongst themselves and historians. She said questions should include asking property owners how they manage and maintain their buildings. Ask what issues they are seeing. Bird said the maintenance piece is the biggest one. She said a lot of these buildings share a wall so, if they want to fix up their interior or they want to do something to the building, they are also impacting their neighbor. This leads to nothing being done, which has fostered deferred maintenance over time. She said these cost issues were quite large and looming in a lot of ways. She thought adding another layer of regulation would become a concern. Boyd asked if any other members of the public cared to speak. Seeing none, he said it was time for the Commission to talk about the process. Public Comment Period Closed. Agran asked for a better understanding of the timeline. He wondered if the Commission made this recommendation and started the National Register process, which would include hiring someone, etc., what would be the expected end date and when would staff recommend that the local landmark status nomination start. He wondered if it would start before the end of the National Register process, if it would be queued up to follow shortly thereafter or would that be a separate motion made after everything was signed and sealed. Bristow said without any input from the public it would be very hard to start the local landmark process before the National Register process is finished. For that reason, the recommended motion was written only for the National Register at this time. She said The National Register process will involve seeking the opinion from the State. That will take a minimum of 45 days. She noted someone would need to be hired to write the nomination. She said if the City puts out a call for consultants it may take more time than if the City hired the consultant we already used, who is well versed in this story. She noted there are deadlines for the draft submittal that pertain to when the final review meeting would be. Bristow said it would be early to mid-2020 before it was completed, and before the National Park Service came back and said we have a National Register listed historic district. It would be over one year. Karr asked if the Commission could include in the motion something stating the City would not pursue any local overlay district until the National Registry decision was known. He thought by only pursuing the National Registry at this point, the Commission may receive more active input and conversation from the downtown property owners. Boyd noted broad consensus for Recommendation A. He asked that Recommendation E be added to a future agenda since it would be of interest to all properties, not just the downtown. Boyd said the Commission should partner with the Downtown District and other stakeholders and work through the recommendations. He believed part of the Commission's job was to figure out what tools and resources the City might be able to provide to property owners to preserve their buildings for another 100 or 200 years. He wanted the working group to discuss incentives and protections and to look for creative solutions. Karr agreed that collaboration with property owners is important, finding incentives for property owners who want to be good stewards but are concerned about the cost. He again expressed his concern with the local overlay, wanting to make sure it didn't just get pushed through, catching people by surprise. Boyd thought the working group would make some recommendations and the Commission would act on them. Burford thought it was important to look at Recommendations H and I and to show the community how the Commission could facilitate the process. She wanted to engage people and show how they would be supported so they understand the true benefits and would really want this. Boyd stated the Commission should set a future agenda item to talk about Recommendation E, as well as seek some examples of site inventory forms to then be discussed as a future agenda item. He felt there was broad consensus for Recommendation A. He wanted to put some structure behind the working group. He said he would work with stakeholders and make a more specific recommendation about what the structure might look like and bring that back to the next meeting for approval. DeGraw asked Bird if she had a couple recommendations of business owners to speak with Bird said she would share all the property owners that came to a recent meeting. She said some had historic buildings and noted they were a productive group that cares and would provide good feedback. DeGraw asked If any were out-of-state. Bird said yes, but her list would be all local. DeGraw asked if out-of-state property owners would be a hurdle Boyd said it would be a challenge, but a local group would be a good place to start. He noted while each individual has different ideas, hopefully focal representatives could identify the interests of property owners in general. He asked for a motion on Recommendation A. MOTION: DeGraw moved that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend the City Council direct staff to immediately pursue a National Register nomination, which will include public outreach, a formal opinion from the State Historic Preservation Office, and hiring a consultant to begin the National Register nomination process. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. Agran requested visual mapping for property owners showing what property they own and in what part of the district, as well as which owners live in the community and which ones are not in the community. He wanted to understand the voices at the table. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF Certificate of No Material Effect — Chair and Staff Review. 802 North Dodge Street — Brown Street Historic District. The flat, shingled porch roof was replaced to match the existing. 1044 Woodlawn Avenue — Woodlawn Historic District. This property had a new metal roof put over the porch before roofs were regulated in the historic district. They will be doing the same with the main roof. They build a system of wood members over the existing metal roof and attach the new flat panel, standing seam over the top of that. They will be putting on new, larger, half -round gutters. It will raise the roof about 2 inches. It will not impact the crown molding around the top edge of the roof or anything because the metal flashing will just cover the roof edge. Minor Review — Staff Review. 819 Iowa Avenue — Colleoe Hill Conservation District. This house has an odd, yet somewhat historic one-story flat addition. It had a railing around the top that was removed and needed to be replaced. The roof also needed to be replaced on that flat area. Some of the siding needed to be replaced on that, as well. 1033 Woodlawn Avenue — Woodlawn Historic District. This property has been painted and an addition on the back is under construction that was approved by the Commission. By code, they do not need a handrail around their new rear entry porch, but they wanted to have one for accessibility in the future. 416 South Governor Street — Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District. Bristow said we had a staff review to repair the porch supports last month. This month they will be replacing the plastic corrugated garage door with a more appropriate garage door. The windows on the garage are rotting and nonfunctional. They will be replaced with matching ones that are an awning style, which would be appropriate for this garage. Intermediate Review — Chair and Staff Review. 725 Linn Street — Brown Street Historic District. There was a small change to the addition that was approved on the back of this house by the Commission. The deck will be slightly smaller and because of the moisture in this backyard, the decking will be a composite material. 429 Ronalds Street — GoosetownlHorace Mann Conservation District. This property has had many projects come through the Commission. They are actively trying to sell the house and it has no off-street parking at all. They have put in an application to add a driveway. The only existing spot is between the accessory structure and the house. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 8 2018 MOTION: Agran moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's November 8, 2018 meeting. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: 2018 Historic Preservation Awards. Bristow said letters were sent to all the awardees. She said she's had to reach out to a few. A few said they did not get their letter. Staff will investigate that. She said Shari DeGraw is helping with the program for the awards. Friends of Historic Preservation will be helping with some of the presentation. Next, we will be collecting information and photographs and writing the script. The awards will be Thursday, January 17t'- 225 and 229 North Gilbert Street — Request for Information. Bristow included a request for information in the Commission packet. She said these are the two houses on Gilbert Street across from Mercy Hospital that the City Council directed staff to purchase. The City is taking proposals for arts or other similar types of organizations asking how they might potentially use the houses. The houses need a certain amount of rehab. At the same time, staff put out a request for a consultant to determine if they were landmark eligible. Bristow said the City did not know what would be done with the properties and the request for information is seeking any ideas. She noted this is an important neighborhood with a lot of traffic and people, so the houses could be used very intensively. Boyd asked if the City could put an easement on the smaller house, if not local landmark eligible, to have it protected. Bristow said there are possibilities for some type of protection. Agran thought at rezoning you could advocate that they be rezoned to CN1, Neighborhood Commercial, which would provide a greater degree of protection versus if it was rezoned to CB5. ADJOURNMENT: Clore moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Agran. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Minutes submitted by Judy Jones HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2017-2018 TERM 1111 218 318 4/12 6/10 6114 7112 819 8I23 9113 10111 11108 12/13 NAME EXR AGRAN, 6/30/20 X X X X X X O/E X X X OIE X X THOMAS BAKER, 6130118 X X X X X X - - ESTHER SOYD, 613012D X X X X X X X X X X X X KEVIN BUILTA, 6130/19 X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X ZACH BURFORD 6130/21 -- -- -- - -- -- X X OIE X 01E X , HELEN CLORE. 6130120 OIE X O/E X X X X CIE DIE X O/E X X GOSIA DEGRAW. 6130/19 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X SHARON KARR, G. 6130120 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X T. KUENZLI, 6130119 X X X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X CECILE MICHAUD. 8130118 X X X X X - - PAM PITZEN, X X X X X X X OUENTIN SHOPE. 6130121 - - X X X O/E X X LEE SWAiM, 6130118 X X X X X X - - GINALIE WAGNER, 6/30118 DIE X X X X X - - - FRANK