Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-11-2019 Historic Preservation CommissionIowa City Historic Preservation Commission Thursday April 11, 2019 n� 5:30 p.m. ' ( J 'r c? ; 4'�j�A III Emma Harvat Hall City Hall .•,.Ax ��r., - X • Gam- IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, April 11, 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 — Consent Agenda 1. 1030 Bowery Street — Clark Street Conservation District (new side entry canopy) E) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 802 Summit Street— Summit Street Historic District (secondary entry door change to window opening) 2. 718 Davenport Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (garage demolition and reconstruction) F) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Minor Review —Staff review 1. 217 East Davenport St.— Northside Historic District (porch roof replacement and siding repair) 2. 1011 Sheridan Avenue — Summit Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement) G) Consideration of Minutes for March 14, 2019 I) Commission Information and Discussion 1. Samay-Gilmore House Structural Report 2. Preservation at its Best Nominations 3. Preserve Iowa Summit I) 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-bristow@iowa-dty.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Staff Resort April 1, 2019 Historic Review for 1030 Bowery Street District: Clark Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Jim Majusiak, is requesting approval for a proposed an alteration project at 1030 Bowery Street, a Contributing property in the Clark Street Conservation District. The project consists of the addition of an entry canopy at the north -facing rear door. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa C rrMstoric Preservation Gudellnes forAlteradans 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.10 Porches 4.14 Wood Staff Comments This two-story brick and stucco house, built before 1926, is a well-preserved example of the Craftsman style. Typical hallmarks of the style exhibited here include the broad overhangs with decorative purlins, a sweeping gable roof that kicks out at the eaves, and the rustic materials of the brick and stucco. The house includes a variety of smaller projections arranged asymmetrically and topped by gabled roof sections sloped to match the lower slope of the main roof eaves. A variety of ganged and single eight -over -one double hung windows are found on the house with a pair of casement windows flanking each side of the prominent, front -facing chimney. The applicant is proposing to add an entry canopy to the back door, which faces north but is also visible from Clark Street. The roof slope, shingles, fascia, and decorative purlins would match the other small gable projections found on all other sides of the house. The guidelines recommend matching any existing trim, materials, and profiles for new alterations to existing properties. In Staff's opinion, the new entry canopy will add protection to the back door of this house. It is notable that the rear elevation of this house is fairly flat in that it does not have the same variety of gabled projections that the other elevations have. Since this is the rear elevation, it would not include the same high level of Craftsman detailing. Another notable difference is that all of the other gable projections spring from a stucco section of the house instead of the brick that covers this extent of the first floor. It is suggested that care is taken during construction to avoid damaging the brick which will be difficult to replace if damaged. Staff finds that the new entry canopy will fit well with the character of the house while also protecting this opening from the weather. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1030 Bowery Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: • Roof slope and proportion matches other roofs on the house; Bracket, fascia, shingle, and soffit (underside) materials match other roofs on the house. 5 cm ZIA I -APPLICATION FOP. HISYORIC: REVIEW Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or propext es located in a bi.atoric district or.coxtservation disttic 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.icgoy.org/histgftreservatioiiresources For Staff Use: Date submitted: ❑ Certificate of No material Effect Appropriateness C'Ur or 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 last page of this application for deadlines and meeting dates. PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT INFORMATION (Please check primary contact peraon) ❑ Property Owner Name:\(,Y City: Phone Number: State: CVE:] Zip Contractor/Consultant Name: )(-A - Email: I Address: city State: [TA- Zip Coder PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION Address: I =0 -A L Use of Property: Date 6WLructed (if known): HISTORM DESIGNATION (Maps are located at the following link. www ' v o /1 t oir serV4 ❑ This Property is a local historic landmark. OR This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown St. Historic District ❑ Northside 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 i Longfellow Historic District District ❑ Governor -Lucas St. Conservation District Within the district, this Property is Classified as: Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric APPUCAT IOM 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 ❑ 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 ❑ Reuair or Restoration of an existing structure.that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Other Please contact the Preservation Specialist at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with applications .fio APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Project Description: r04 avev I � der Materials to be Used: � kVMtK•!n aS Clos-e fi� �ex�`�� Y1�+ev�a 5 �5 �s� �, Exterior Appearance Changes: Rao'N be ad 'Mba�dcar c To Submit Application: Download form, Pill it out and email it to Jessica-bristow@iowa-city.org or mail to historic Preservation, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 tZ� ■■ oo ■ ■ W. A 1 0 V_ k it I _e Fgg w r ..: :� '' � � � '���_•�; �%C� ors .. + 5i ��`J•. �. `-`` vr: 1 14i-.T- . - - -&-.- i N I 1� r.i Staff Report October 4, 2018 Historic Review for 802 South Sumnift Street District: Summit Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Adam Dupuy and Sarah Russett, are requesting approval for a alteration project at 802 South Summit Street, a Contributing property in the Summit Street Historic District. The project consists of removing the door to the front porch from the west projection and replacing it with a window. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa CltyHistoricPresemadon GufdelinesfotAitemdons 4.3 Doors 4.11 Siding 4.13 Windows 4.14 Wood Staff Con2rvents This 1 1/2 story Queen Anne Cottage was built ca. 1890 with a hip roof and gabled projections to the north, east, and west. A larger gabled projection to the south was either original or added at an early date. At an unknown date the east gable was enlarged with a shed roof and extensions to the north and south, the front porch was enclosed and altered, and the west side of the south gable projection was extended out to the west, possibly enclosing a side porch. The house has clapboard siding, one -over -one double -hung windows, and barge boards simply trimmed out to emphasize boxed eaves. In 1996, the Commission approved a multi -faceted project that removed the porch and rebuilt it to match historic photographs. The east dormer was altered to better fit the architectural details of the house, a set of French doors and a small deck were added to the south of the east projection, and the windows in the remaining gables were replaced with a wider pair of windows. In addition, the kitchen door and two windows facing Summit were changed to three windows with raised sills and a skylight was added in the south -facing gable roof. In 2018 the Commission approved a project to remove the existing attached garage and replace it with a two -car attached garage and breezeway. The applicant is proposing to remove the door that leads to the front porch from the dining room which is located in the west -facing projection. The door would be replaced with a custom wood window matching the other first floor windows. The trim and siding will match trim and siding on the house. The door may be reused in the addition. Section 4.3 of the guidelines, Doors, states that the original size and shape of door openings should be maintained. This section does not discuss the removal of a door opening but does discuss the possibility of the addition of a new door opening that would be trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building. Section 4.13, Windows, recommends adding windows that match the type, size, sash width, trim, and overall appearance of the historic windows. It is recommended to add new windows in a location that is consistent with the window patter of the historic building. This section also suggests that if a window opening is closed, it should not detract from overall fenestration patterns. Past approvals for work on this house provide evidence that the porch had been altered prior to its reconstruction in 1996. The reconstruction followed the historic photos with the exception of the west -facing stairs which were omitted. The applicants have suggested the house was duplexed at one time. Comparison of historic photographs with current conditions provide evidence that the front, north -facing door has been altered with either a new door with a reduced height or the loss of a transom in addition to changes to the trim. The historic photo of the west side of the house does not show the door that is the subject of this application. This door currently is the same height, proportion, and trim condition of the original front door. Whether or not the house originally had a door in this location or whether a door was added when the house was duplexed is not known at this time. Iowa City properties show examples of houses of this era with secondary doors in a similar location and also examples of houses with windows in this location. Because the wall is canted, unlike the wall of the gable above, it is likely that either a window or a door was originally in this location instead of bare wall. Given the other changes that have occurred with this property and the lack of information for the original door and window configuration, staff fords it acceptable within the guidelines to replace the existing door on the west side of the porch with a window matching other first floor windows. During discussion of this project, it was suggested that the applicants may be able to use the removed door at another location in the project. As currently designed the breezeway would not be able to incorporate the door and transom and reusing the door in this location may not be appropriate. Staff would ford it acceptable if the applicant wanted to reuse the door by replacing the existing front door with this door including the trim and transom. In this location the door would better match the historic photograph. Because it is not currently part of the project scope to alter the front door and it is unknown when that change was originally made, staff does not ford it appropriate to add this as a requirement for approval. If, however, the existing front door was replaced with this one, it may be appropriate to reuse the existing front door in the breezeway of the addition. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 802 Summit Street as presented in the application. ., ,�•.'' '�r'a -�.� ��� M .. � _.. �� i..'�' S; 4- i -'I .. .�, � � - ?- `�';= orAPPLICATION 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 14-4C. 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/historicl2reservationresources For Staff Use: Date submitted: 11 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 last page of this application for deadlines and meeting dates. PROPERTY OVNNER/ APPLICANT INFORMATION (Please check primary contact person) _ © Property Owner Name: Email: ser0926 ail.com adam'du u ails Phone Number: 319-594-2812 Address: 802 S Summit Street City: lIowa City State: ® Zip Code: 52240 © Contractor/Consultant Name: lRuss Garrett Garrett Construction Email: Fgarrettconstruction101 Agmail.com Phone Number: Address: 13044 Rohret Road SW City: Ilowa City State: ® Zip Code: 52246 PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION f -41[ Address: 1802 S Summit St Use of Property: 1primary residence Date Constructed (if known): �1890 HISTORIC DESIGNATION (Maps are located at the following link: Org/histkiricpmservatinnresofsrcet) ❑ This Property is a local historic landmark. OR © This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ❑ Brown St. Historic District ❑ Northside 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 District Within the district, this Property is Classified as: ❑ Contributing 0 Noncontributing 7 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 El Construction 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 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with applications -r r� APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Project Description: attached Materials to be Used: A custom wood window will be constructed to match the adjacent windows. Wood siding and trim will be used to match the existing exterior around the new window. Exterior Appearance Changes: door facing Summit Street will be replaced with a custom wood window. To Submit Application: Download form, Fill it out and email it to jessica-bristow@iowa-city.org or mail to Historic Preservation, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 Project Description: Our home currently has two front doors that exit onto the porch. One faces Sheridan Avenue and serves as the functional front door to the home. A second door is set back toward the side of the home facing Summit Street. This door no longer functions and essentially opens into our dining area. Based on the door designs and the surrounding moldings, it does not seem that these doors were installed at the same time. We understand that our home functioned as a duplex prior to a major renovation in the late 1990's, at which time it was converted back to a single family home. The second door located on the side of the house facing Summit Street is now no longer needed. We would like replace this door with a double hung window that matches the adjacent windows. The door that is removed would then be used as the entrance door into the mudroom that will be constructed as part of the project that was approved by the HPC in October of 2018. f Y id' pia ik �.- 1 W . P G-1 SP m i b-im Staff Report April 8, 2019 Historic Review for 718 Davenport Street District: Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District Classification: Key Contributing The applicant, Mary Ellen Chudacek, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition and new construction project at 718 Davenport Street, a Key Contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. The project consists of the demolition of the existing deteriorated garage and its reconstruction to match the original. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.11 Siding 4.14 Wood 6.0 GurdelMesfw-Now Construcdon 6.2 New Outbuildings 7.0 Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features Staff Comments This house at 718 East Davenport Street is the historic Joseph Cerny House. This two-story brick house built ca. 1890 is a large-scale vernacular, Front Gable and Wing, house form common to Iowa City's Bohemian Goosetown Neighborhood. This house has two wings and a flat roofed front porch (once screened -in) that does not wrap around into either ell. The porch has square columns and a closed, paneled balustrade. The windows are one -over -one double -hung set beneath segmental arches. The house is set on a brick foundation and has veneered brick walls with decorative fish -scale shingles in the gable peaks. The brick was likely produced by a local brickwork and laid by the original owner, Joseph Cerny, who worked as a bricklayer and general contractor. It is similar to a house at 214 N. Gilbert Street which was built by Cerny at a similar time. The garage was built between 1926 and 1933 according to Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. It is a small gable - roofed garage with the south -facing shed -roof extension. The main roof has a standing -seam metal roof and exposed rafter tails. The garage is sided in a tongue -and groove headboard siding with battens added to the seams. The windows are small divided-lite sashes permanently affixed to the opening. The garage door is a standard wood door with small windows and trimmed panels. The applicant is proposing to remove the deteriorated existing garage and replace it with a new construction garage built of wood to generally match the original. The applicant proposes to make the new garage 2 feet wider and two feet longer and eliminate the shed -roof portion by extending the gable. The new garage will meet all setback requirements which may relocate it slightly to the south off the alley. The applicant proposes to use a flat -panel standing seam metal roof, cedar board and batten siding, exposed rafter tails, and reclaimed doors or window or new sashes to mirrc the originals. The overhead door will be a flat panel single -car garage door. The guidelines recommend retaining historic garages. Where it is not possible to save an existing garage, the guidelines recommend designing replacement garages to be compatible in design with the primary structure and/or other outbuildings in tine neighborhood. New outbuildings should be constructed to the rear of the property and subordinate in size and ornamentation to the primary structure, but should reflect the style of the primary structure. Carriage -style garage doors may be used if they are a style appropriate for the property. Otherwise, flat panel garage doors are recommended. Windows should be relatively small and rectangular. The existing garage shows a high degree of deterioration. Much of the siding has deteriorated because of contact with the ground. The shed roof and soffit conditions throughout are deteriorated beyond repair. Windows are not operable or have been boarded over. While repair was originally discussed the amount of material that would need to be replaced left only structure and roof to be retained. The structure is not regular but has supporting posts and intermittent studs to frame openings. In addition, the soffits and exposed rafters are also deteriorated so that it may be impossible to retain the roof while replacing them. Generally, on this garage, historic materials are likely not in salvageable condition. Staff finds that the garage has structurally deteriorated so that staff recommends demolition and reconstruction. Staff finds it acceptable to build the new garage slightly larger to meet the owner's needs and change the roofline to avoid the need for the shed -roof section. Staff does recommend including a curb around the slab to raise the siding above grade. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 718 E Davenport Street as presented in the application. t 'Ni.;, � 4 L,r�� �fi,� s14 - L i " A- 11w I - ZI Al. �RPLI<Cr�►�`IOJdti'Fb� HI�'Q.l�lf� ���Il�''�. .. _.�:.: . Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found ut 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/histoiicpreservationresources 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 buildirt¢ hermit. 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. 1 13OP1;RTY. o'iAillY ale/ A'I°�1.,I: ANT INFrbttMAB N Q� Property Owner Name: jQjudacek parttiffship, Mary Ellen Chudacek Phone Number: city: I State: Zip Code:[ m Contractor/Consultant Name: Email: Irobertrunciman0vahoo.rA Phone City: Wellman State: owa Zip Code 2356 rROposct P�;�>t tl+tMATtoI. Address: ffI8 East Davenport St. lowacity Use of Properly.-Oarage behind rental house Date Constructed (if known): of known s ar®7o'cate# the €allowitt �' jitr�seattaut p ❑ This Property is a local historic landmark. OR m This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): ® Brown St. Historic District ❑ Northside Historic District ❑ College Hill Conservation District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ Summit St. Historic District ❑ Dearborn St. Conservation District ❑ East College St. Historic District ❑ Woodlawa Historic District ❑ Goosetown/ Horace rifam ❑ 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: ❑ Contributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric 0- l,. AFPL190M lTl R 4ufR.-amtlfl f 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 (rY*aUY 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 m Construction of anew building ❑ Building Elevations ❑ Floor Plans ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information ❑ Site Plana mDemolition (ftojects ending 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 Flans Repair or Restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Photographs ❑ Product Information Other Please contact the Preservation specialist at 3565243 for materials which need to be included with applications APP4.LCATTCI'MI RFQLiJl31=MENT& ' " i Project Description: is deteriorated boyond practical repairs. Job description is to demolish existing garage on (14'x22') pad with a (16'x24") New build will be constructed to match the appearance of the period house was constructed with 8' walls, 10 x 12 gable Materials to be Used: Concrete slab, standard 2x6 firming (unless you would prefer me copying original post and vertical 2x4 framing). 10" or 12"board and batten vertical cedar siding. Plywood sheathed roof with metal raised ridged roofing panels with flat profile (like existing). Recycled entry doors and windows or new sash to match time period, flat paneled garage door. Exterior Appearance Changes: e building now has a shed roof addition added on to the back. The new plan eliminates shed by extending the gable roof. would also like to add 2' to length and width of foot print (property linos fliom each side of existing building are 15' and 40). To Submit Application: Download form Fill it out and email it to jesdca-bristow®iowa-ctty.org or mail to klistoric Preservation, City of Iowa City, 410 E. Washington street, Iowa City, IA 52240 3 iy 3 5b- fo 3 - IP- IN a ;;wwwmiL wh m i rm A6- Frni .4 mi T.7 m La Iowa City `_1istoric Preservation Cow, -COssion City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 Memorandum Date: April 3, 2019 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner Re: 109 Market, Sanxay-Gilmore House, structural and relocation planning report Introduction: Built by 1843, the Sanxay (pronounced Sanksay) Gilmore House at 109 Market is the oldest -known residence remaining in Iowa City. The Historic Preservation Commission has identified the house as the number one priority for historic landmark designation. With the site under University of Iowa ownership, possible relocation of the house is under consideration if a plan cannot be developed to allow it to remain onsite. Discussions to allow it to remain in place are ongoing. In 2018 the City acquired an Emergency Historic Resource Development Program (HRDP) grant from the state to hire a consultant to evaluate and assess the structural requirements for relocating the house and the scope of work for the relocation and mothballing of the house. Historic architect, Doug Steinmetz, and his structural engineer, Todd Birkel, were hired to complete the assessment. Coordination between the structural engineer and the movers, Goodwin Housemoving, was delayed but the report became finalized in late January 2019. The report is now submitted for your reference [Attachment A]. Report Goals and Contents: The goal of the report is to provide advice and direction for planning a potential relocation and mothballing of the house that maintains its historic character, its potential for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and the rehabilitation incentives available now and in the future. The report contains several sections including a background on the process of evaluation, a general overview of the technical aspects of "mothballing", and a section on project planning. Structural observations conclude that it should be possible to move the house but some work will be required to increase the stabilization of the structure and prepare the house for relocation including the temporary removal of the tops of all chimneys, portions of the porches and entry canopies, the frame kitchen addition, and the permanent removal of the exterior addition to the east chimney. Additional underfloor structural support will be required. Architectural observations are complicated by the fact that the house currently does not have a specific new location, owner, or use. These facts impact any additional estimates for the costs of the relocation and the following rehabilitation. it should be Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 noted that once these details are determined, many of the estimated costs would change. For instance, a non -governmental owner could take advantage of state and/or federal tax credits for rehabilitation which would provide a 25% and 20% (respectively) return on rehabilitation costs. Also, the level of rehabilitation could vary widely with a full rehabilitation, returning most of the original historic character, incurring the highest cost and a minimal rehabilitation, simply returning the structure to a habitable condition, incurring the lowest cost. Sites will impact the cost of the move and the foundation and mothballing costs. On pages 7- 9 the consultant provides comments that elaborate on the costs included in the tables in Report Attachment #2 and provide an explanation of the numbers. Finally, the consultant provides an overview for considerations in planning a project such as this and available guidance and funding options. Report Attachments: Attachment 1: Structural Observation Report by Todd Birkel, Hooting Coyote, LLC. This is the engineer's report that is used to determine some of the preparatory work and costs necessary to stabilize the house if it is relocated. Attachment 2: Opinion of Probable Construction Costs by Doug Steinmetz. These costs would be considered the estimate for the project tempered by the fact that the "project unknowns" are large factors that greatly influence the cost of the project. For this memo, this table is summarized as follows: Building Relocation $262,000 Site Abandonment $20,000 New Site Foundation and minimal landscaping $110,800 Porch Rehabilitation $63,400 Stabilization, MEP and mothballin-q $65,300 Contingency at 20% $104,000 Professional fees $48,000 $673,500 IC97Annn There is potential for cost saving if City Staff experienced with housemoving is responsible for portions of the project that could reduce the professional fees and some of the elements that would be completed through the oversight of a general contractor instead of a series of subcontractors. For the rehabilitation of the house, it is assumed that an owner, able to utilize tax credit and other funding, would take on these costs. Currently they are estimated to be $80,000 to $480,000 plus contingencies and professional fees. The wide variation illustrates potential cost associations with the different levels of possible rehabilitation. n Iowa City City Hall, 410 3 Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 This cost is also impacted by the "project unknowns." If the house remains on its current site it could also undergo a rehabilitation that could fall within these costs. Attachment 3: Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: These standards are the basis for preserving the historic character of the historic building whether relocated or not. Attachment 4: Preservation Briefs published by the National Park Service to elaborate on specific elements and aspects of historic buildings in addition to the information in Attachment 3. Attachment 5: Overview of Planning Documents that can be provided by the consultant. W L DOUGLAS J. STEINMETZ 4121 Tlmbervlew Drive NE Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52411 319-294-4905 Fax 319-892-0568 doug@djsaia.com January 25, 2019 Mr. Geoff Fruin, City Manager City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1825 A R C H I T E C T Sanxay-Gilmore House, 109 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA (10/2018) RE: Pre -planning for Relocation of Sanxay-Gilmore House 109 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA Dear Mr. Fruin, Thank you for inviting me to be a part of this important planning process. I appreciate the time staff representatives spent with me on 23 October 2018 during my site visit and am appreciative of their expertise and input as the project moved forward. I am pleased to hear LL of the efforts being considering to retain and maintain this important historic resource in O your community. I hope my comments and the information provided in this report will be helpful towards that goal. Please remember the scope of this report is targeted towards the relocation and eventual rehabilitation of the house. The report is not intended to describe in specific detail the work related to those items or other rehabilitation or ongoing maintenance work that may be noted or required. Your current objective is to improve understanding of existing conditions and the potential the house holds for a successful relocation to a new site in Iowa City. Several questions remain unanswered as this report is written including identification of a O new site and how the building will be used when established at the new site. The answers to these have potential for significant impact on project costs and development strategies. Construction at this house should not adversely impact historic character nor should it am require significant changes to or loss of historic features or materials considered to be character defining elements. To do so will jeopardize the building's potential for listing on Wthe National Register of Historic Places thus eliminating a potential source of rehabilitation incentives including grants and other forms of financial assistance. Continuing to provide /y appropriate and regular maintenance while protecting the resource's Intrinsic historic 1..1.. character will serve you well as you work towards realizing the goals of your project. This project is supported in part by the State Historical Society of Iowa, Historical Resource Development Program. Sanxay-Gilmore House Project 738-18 109 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA Report of Site Visit GENERAL COMMENTS AND SITE OBSERVATIONS THE PROCESS An initial site visit and project start-up meeting were organized for 23 October 2018 beginning at the project site and moving to offices at City Hall. Originally this meeting was to include City Staff (Jessica Bristow and Anne Russett), this firm and its subconsultant (Todd Birkel— Structural Engineer) and a representative from Goodwin House Moving. Unfortunately, serious illness prevented Goodwin House Moving (GHM) from attending or being represented at the meeting. GHM's ability to respond to inquiries during the recovery was also impacted resulting in a longer than anticipated pre -planning process. In the interim, draft opinions of cost and scope of work proposed for rehabilitation of the house were prepared and reviewed in draft form by City Staff. Todd Birkel was able to speak with a representative of GHM mid -January 2019 and has prepared a report of his observations and professional opinions which is attached to this report. GHM conveyed they had no specific structural questions or concerns about the proposed relocation during that conversation. A proposal for relocating the building was received 22 January from GHM and the scope of work and opinions of cost provided in the previously submitted drafts have been adjusted to reflect GHM's proposal. The City continues to evaluate several alternative sites for locating the house: to -date a site has not been selected. The City has also not yet made final decisions on ownership, how the building will be utilized after relocation or to what level of historic accuracy the building will be rehabilitated. These factors have significant impact on project costs and available financial incentives which may be utilized towards rehabilitation. The City provided architectural drawings of the two main floors which were used to help make observations at the site. Observations at the site were visual only, no exploratory openings were made and observations were made from the ground. Two crawl spaces, visible from adjacent basement spaces, were not accessible for observation. STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS The full report from Todd Birkel is attached. Highlights of the report follow: • Moving the building should be possible. The most complicated aspect of the moving process will be the weight of the existing masonry walls and the need to keep the overall transportation framing system stiff enough to minimize cracking of the masonry walls. The following are specific structural elements that might influence the potential types of work needed to prepare the building for relocation and its eventual rehabilitation at the new site: • First Level Framing Modifications: o Various posts and beams were added beneath the first level framing to enhance strength and stiffness of the surrounding floorjoists. o Past floor openings were filled with supplemental framing members. • Crawl spaces: o The Kitchen addition and First Floor, Northwest Parlor are constructed over crawl spaces. (The remainder of the house is constructed over a full basement) • Existing Chimney: o Existing fireplaces were typically closed -off and no longer functional. January 25, 2019 © Douglas J. Steinmetz, Architect Page 2 of 12 @738-18 Sanxay-Gilmore Hse 109 E Market RO51-25-2019 FINAL2a.d= Sanxay-Gilmore House Project 738-18 109 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA Report of Site Visit • Supplemental East Chimney: o At some point in the pasta chimney was added to the exterior of the east side and extends through the roof. The following are additional recommendations and professional opinions that might influence the potential relocation of the building: • First Level Framing Modifications: o Provide new supplemental framing beneath the existing floorjoists to add strength and stiffness, replacing the existing beams and posts. o Past floor openings should be modified with additional members and or connection enhancements as warranted by building occupancy at new site. Current framing configuration is cobbled together and somewhat disjointed. Existing Chimney: o The existing fireplaces and two chimneys no longer perform a function. GHM requires removal of the chimneys to the ridge line at a minimum. I suggest removing the chimneys to sound material just below the roofline and repairing the roof to make it watertight. Chimney reconstruction can then be included/required in the scope of building rehabilitation at the new site. Supplemental East Chimney: o The durability of the connection to the older portion of the building is suspect, so moving the supplemental east chimney is most likely not feasible. I suggest removing the chimney and re- routing any required exhaust systems. Damage caused to original masonry at this location will require repair upon removal of the chimney. ARCHITECTURAL OBSERVATIONS REHABILITATION POTENTIAL Based on observations made during my site visit it is our professional opinion that the building is not deteriorated beyond repair or relocation. In addition, a rehabilitation following current rehabilitation Standards established by the Secretary of the Interior must be followed if the goal of listing the building on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)is formalized. Listing on the NRHP requires that a resource retain its historic integrity. "Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. Historic integrity is comprised of seven qualities; Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association.."a However, a moved property found to be significant under Criterion C (architectural character) must retain sufficient historic features to convey its architectural values and retain integrity as defined in a shorter list of criteria including only; design, materials. workmanship, feeling, and association. While several significant historic features have been lost or inappropriately modified (e.g. Window shutters removed, chimney added, windows replaced, main stair altered, fireplace details covered, front porch decks altered) the building retains these five important characteristics of historic integrity required for a moved property. A carefully planned rehabilitation project should ensure these qualities persist to facilitate future efforts to list the property on the NRHP. a "National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation", httos://www.nr)s.goy/nr/publications/builetins/nrbl5/INDEX.htm Accessed January 24, 2019. January 25, 2019 ® Douglas J. Steinmetz, Architect Page 3 of 12 @738-185anzry-Gilmore Hse 109 E Market RO51.25-2019 FINAL2a.docx Sanxay-Gilmore House Project 738-18 109 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA Report of Site Visit The minimal amount of sensitive and fragile interior finishes used in this building greatly simplifies the basic rehabilitation project by limiting the need for specialized materials and craftsmen. Materials used in the building are readily available today with appropriately skilled craftsmen still in practice. Some previously made alterations that are not appropriate appear to be reversible at least to the degree that more appropriate design may be used to replace the inappropriate treatment. An example of this is eventual replacement of the existing inappropriate nonhistoric windows with replacement windows that meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (STANDARDS). This is a voluntary change and is also an example of why a range of costs is shown in the OPINION OF COST rather than a single dollar value. At the low end of the range a rehabilitation may be completed that meets occupancy goals and the STANDARDS but may not meet the specific higher rehabilitation goals of a different new owner. The fact that the building is not cluttered with debris or showing signs of dangerous deterioration facilitates more complete understanding of the building by project planners and ultimately the bidders. This clarity, combined with well written project specifications and drawings helps to reduce the potential for increased costs due to late discoveries. Contingency planning is not unique to rehabilitation projects; it is also commonly practiced in budgeting for new construction. Consider alternatives to extensive rehabilitation of the entire building such as implementing the project in phases by aligning expenditures for development costs with evolving market demands for space. A phased approach may also help align the project implementation costs to take better advantage of multiple grants over an extended period which in the end has greater potential to cover a higher percentage of project cost through grant dollars than can often be accomplished with a single grant. This strategy may be accomplished by matching project phases to individual grant opportunities. For example, a grant for rehabilitation planning to identify potential building uses and a general rehabilitation approach could be pursued from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Based on the results of that planning effort (aka Master Plan) additional grants may be sought for actual project implementation on an as needed basis. Ownership structure also plays a significant role in available grant dollars making exploration of that element a critical piece of any initial planning. For example, Iowa has a preservation tax credit incentive program (The State's "Historic Preservation and Cultural & Entertainment District Tax Credit Program") which although not directly available to a government agency is available to and currently utilized by private, corporate and non-profit groups. The incentive program helps participants recover rehabilitation costs of historic properties by providing a fully refundable tax credit equal to 25% of qualified rehabilitation costs incurred on a project. There is a similar Federal rehabilitation tax incentive program reimbursing up to 20% of qualified expenditures for qualified participants. See Finding Out More About the State and Federal Tax Credit Programs later in the report. FINDING A COMPATIBLE USE This building is a viable candidate for rehabilitation from an architectural perspective. However, given the potential this building holds for successful architectural rehabilitation the more important issue to address is that of finding a new purpose, compatible with the building's historic character, local policy, economy and the community's overall goals. While I could suggest uses that are compatible with the building's architecture those suggestions may be off the mark as viable alternatives that will be sustaining developments in your community. Ideas for commercial development discussed at the meeting were January 25, 2019 © Douglas J. Steinmetz, Architect Page 4 of 12 @738-18 sanaay-Gilmore Hse 109 E Marke RO51-25-2019 FINAL2a.dou Sanxay-Gilmore House Project 738-18 109 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA Report of Site Visit certainly viable from an architectural perspective, it is beyond my expertise to comment on how well those uses would support the structure in the longterm. The market feasibility for a renovated structure is complex since the possible reuse is influenced by the character of the structure, area economic conditions, the structure design and its suitability for a particular adaptive reuse, structure condition, and location. Since market feasibility is closely related to financial feasibility it is very important to determine a reuse that will be supported financially by the community. Looking at reuse of similar structures in other communities will help determine a range of possible uses. The community should be part of this process including input from key leaders and an open house for general input. Ideally this effort results in identification of potential new uses based on community input and market feasibility. This should also include site plan options for parking, access, and compatibility with surrounding uses. Although there is strong interest in preserving this building the fact remains that the building is under threat of demolition. A major component that feeds this threat is the absence of a clearly defined use for the building. Once a use is determined it is easier to generate increased enthusiasm and support for the project through a broader spectrum of a community. I urge you to consider investigating this type of marketing consultation since the ultimate success of this project is so closely linked to finding a viable purpose for the building. MOTHBALLING Buildings that will not be soon rehabilitated and those that are fully or partially unoccupied for extended periods time should be mothballed. These appearto be the circumstances this building may face and so mothballing seems an appropriate and beneficial treatment to consider with regard to planning future rehabilitation expenses. Among other things, mothballing helps ensure that an unoccupied building or area of a building is monitored for change. This single component of the multifaceted mothballing process helps facilitate timely repairs, slow overall deterioration, and improve safety within and around the building. In addition to active building monitoring the mothballing process helps prevent moisture laden and stagnant air from causing or accelerating deterioration of the building's construction. This often -overlooked activity may help preserve and protect surviving historic fabric for future rehabilitation thereby reducing those costs and protecting the building's historic character. There are six basic considerations when mothballing a building: e Moisture • Housekeeping a Utilities Pests Security/Monitoring . Ventilation Attention to each of the six considerations shown above during the building's idle period helps protect the building from preventable damage and deterioration. It is suggested that appropriate mothballing treatments as described in Preservation Brief 31: Mothballing Historic Buildings be considered. January 25, 2019 ® Douglas J. Steinmetz, Architect Page 5 of 12 @739-18 Sanxay-Gllmore Hse 109 E Marke[ RO51-25-2M9 FINAL2a.doex Sanxay-Gilmore House 109 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA MOTHBALLING CHECKLISTb: Project 738-18 Report of Site Visit The following checklist may helpful when preparing a mothballing plan to help ensure work items are not inadvertently omitted. This is a broad scope list that has not been modified to specifically target your building. Moisture e Is the roof watertight? • Do the gutters retain their proper pitch and are they clean? • Are downspout joints intact? • Are drains unobstructed? • Are windows and doors and their frames in good condition? • Are masonry walls in good condition to seal out moisture? • Is wood siding in good condition? • Is site properly graded for water run-off? e Is vegetation cleared from around the building foundation to avoid trapping moisture? Pests • Have nests/pests been removed from the building's interior and eaves? • Are adequate screens in place to guard against pests? • Has the building been inspected and treated for termites, carpenter ants, rodents, etc.? • If toxic droppings from bats and pigeons are present, has a special company been brought in for its disposal? Housekeeping • Have the following been removed from the interior: trash, hazardous materials such as flammable liquids, poisons, and paints and canned goods that could freeze and burst? • Is the interior broom -clean? • Have furnishings been removed to a safe location? • If furnishings are remaining in the building, are they properly protected from dust, pests, ultraviolet light, and other potentially harmful problems? • Have significant architectural elements that have become detached from the building been labeled and stored in a safe place? • Is there a building file? Security • Have fire and police departments been notified that the building will be mothballed? • Are smoke and fire detectors in working order? • Are the exterior doors and windows securely fastened? • Are plans in place to monitor the building on a regular basis? • Are the keys to the building in a secure but accessible location? e Are the grounds being kept from becoming overgrown? Utilities • Have utility companies disconnected/shut off or fully inspected water, gas, and electric lines? • If the building will not remain heated, have water pipes been drained and glycol added? • If the electricity is to be left on, is the wiring in safe condition? Ventilation • Have steps been taken to ensure proper ventilation of the building? • Have interior doors been left open for ventilation purposes? • Has the secured building been checked within the last 3 months for interior dampness or excessive humidity? b Preservation Brief 31: Mothballing Historic Buildings, National Park Service, September 1993. January 25, 2019 ® Douglas J. Steinmetz, Architect Page 6 of 12 @738-185anzayGilmore Hse 109 E Market RO51-25-2019 FINAL2a.dou Sanxay-Gilmore House 109 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA OPINION OF COSTS AND SCOPE OF WORK GENERAL COMMENTS BUILDING RELOCATION - (SEE ATTACHMENT 2) Project738-18 Report of Site Visit Costs shown were provided by City Staff and are based on proposals submitted, and past experiences with similar projects. Final site selection will impact these costs. Therefore, all aspects of the costs associated with BUILDING RELOCATION should be updated when final site selection is made. GHM's proposal indicates their quote is to move the building approximately 1 block. GHM has since clarified that longer moves will not significantly impact their cost. However, the travel distance and specific route selected for transport will impact other costs. The Owner is responsible for contracting and completing most tasks to prepare the building for the work of the house movers who will temporarily support and transport the building. These costs will varying depending on the travel route and distance. The Owner is responsible for contracting all services and securing all permits required during the course of the journey to prepare and make safe the travel route. These costs will varying depending on the travel route and distance. GHM imposes a $200 per day charge in the event their support frame remains at the new site beyond fourteen days of delivery of the building to the new site, and properly aligned over the footings. In my professional opinion, to ensure precise alignment with the foundation walls the walls should be constructed after delivery of the house. Oversize footings may be installed ahead of delivery to allow flexibility in alignment of the house properly over the footings. The opinion of cost includes a thirty - day allowance to make available a period of construction and curing of poured foundation walls at the new site after delivery of the building. This critical timing element must be discussed with the foundation contractor and linked to their agreement for the work. The Owner is responsible for identification and removal of asbestos or other toxic materials. This is beyond my expertise and must be further investigated by the Owner. There is no cost allowance Included in the current opinion of cost for such. ABANDONMENT OF CURRENT SITE - (SEE ATTACHMENT 2) • Work at the current site, subsequent to removal of the building, Includes repair of damaged sidewalks and paving, abandonment of utilities, partial demolition of the existing foundation, backfilling the site, rough grading and seeding the site for erosion control. • The assumption is made that the parking pad at the rear of the site remains. FOUNDATIONS, BUILDING STABILIZATION AND MOTHBALLING - (SEE ATTACHMENT 2) • The assumption is made that the entire house will have a full basement. Currently the house has two crawl spaces, one beneath the kitchen addition and the second beneath the northwest parlor. • New footings and foundation walls are provided as well as additional interior bearing pads providing supplemental support lines for installation of intermediate beams and posts to increase the load capacity of the main floor to commercial load requirements. New underground utilities are provided to serve the building at the new site. • A concrete floor is provided throughout the basement. L Basement windows are provided to match current locations. • An allowance for repair Of masonry damaged as a result of building transportation is included as is a limited amount of spot replacement of deteriorated mortarto ensure the building envelope is weather tight. • The roofs are repaired where chimneys have been removed. I suggest reconstruction of the historic chimneys be made a condition of the building's sale as they are significant character defining elements but not a work item immediately needed to stabilize the building at the new site. January 25, 2019 © Douglas J. Steinmetz, Architect @738-18 Sanxay-Gilmore Hm 109 E Market RO51-25-2019 FINAL7a.dom Page 7 of 12 Sanxay-Gilmore House Project 738-18 109 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA Report of Site Visit • Rough and finish grading and seeding is included as are minimal amounts of paving, primarily at building entrances. At each of the three historic porches the suggested work includes reconstruction of each porch using materials appropriate to the building's period of historic significance and reinstallation and repair of ornamental columns, trim and railings. Current porches at the front of the building are concrete slabs, not an appropriate material for the era of construction of this building. • A new roof over the side entry to the main building and an entry porch at the kitchen are included and assume the use of detailing and materials appropriate to the character of the historic building. • The existing MEP systems are returned to working order assuming all new equipment is provided and connected to existing distribution systems left in place during the move. • Mothball and periodically inspect the building as recommended in Preservation Brief 31: Mothballing Historic Buildings and the checklist included with this report. This is primarily a staff labor cost as most of the work items needed to mothball the building are completed as a result of the relocation work at the new site. CONJECTURAL REHABILITATION OF RELOCATED BUILDING —BY OTHERS -(SEE ATTACHMENT 2) • These are expenses I anticipate being the responsibility of a future owner and do not directly impact the building's stability or weather protection at the new site. • No specific use is identified for the building at the new site so the figures provided represent a wide range from a simple approach to make the building habitable by freshening up interior finishes as found and making only minor adjustments to an extensive rehabilitation project setting its project goals to restore as much of the building's historic character as may be reasonably accomplished. These costs are intended only to offer an order of magnitude opinion for rehabilitation at two ends of a spectrum of possibilities. The future owner's goals and plans for use of the building will significantly impact these costs from the values shown. MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES -(SEE ATTACHMENT 2) • An early planning stage contingency is shown. The percentage used in this line item could be reduced as details of the project are refined and defined. For example, this amount could be reduced as each of the following items are decided; identification of a site, building ownership, and goals for future rehabilitation. I typically do not suggest a contingency of less than 10% for rehabilitation projects at historic buildings due to the many concealed conditions that often emerge during the course of project development and construction. During the BUILDING RELOCATION phase I suggest retention of professional services to design and detail the structural aspects of the project at the new site. This limited scope of services is included in this category of costs as it must be completed prior to the building relocation. This includes full services typically provided by a firm to prepare construction documents and assist during construction of the new foundation. The assumption is made that the City will handle contracting the construction work needed to prepare the building for transport, all utility work, and design and installation of MEP systems at the new site. • During the FOUNDATIONS AND BUILDING STABILIZATION AT NEW SITE phase the Opinion of cost Includes full services of a firm to provide design, detailing assistance, preparation of construction document and contract administration services to assist with detailing and coordinating the construction work of this phase. GENERAL Comments All dollar amounts are year 2019 values and have not been adjusted for projected (future) dollar values. The estimated prices are based on best judgments which can be made with available information. The full January 2S, 2019 © Douglas J. Steinmetz, Architect Page 8 of 12 @738-185anxay-Gilmore Hse 109 E Market ROS 1.25-2019 FINAL2a.docx Sanxay-Gilmore House 109 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA Project738-18 Report of Site Visit extent of work is in some areas obscured from view and can only be fully understood when actual construction starts and concealed conditions are exposed. Accordingly, the Consultant cannot warrant or represent that bids or negotiated prices will not vary from prices shown. Although a contingency amount cannot typically be included in a grant request, it is recommended that you carry funds totaling around to 10 to 20% of your anticipated project cost as reserve fund. These funds are intended to cover the cost of unforeseen work that maybe discovered during the course of the project. This amount is set at the high end of the range at this time due to many uncertainties that remain as regards concealed conditions, site selection and final rehabilitation goals. The opinion of cost is prepared using the assumption that all work will be performed by a prime contractor'. There may be cost savings if staff familiar with this type of work is utilized for some aspects of project development and implementation. GENERAL PLANNING CONSIDERATION In my opinion documenting plans for rehabilitation including long term care and maintenance is an often overlooked but valuable tool. Planning should be identified as a high priority task, especially in stewardship situations where individual involvement and roles change over time. A written plan may help maintain focus on tasks spanning changes in personnel, serving as a tool helping to ensure the resource's longevity by providing focus to tasks and coordinating available funds and resources with needs. Planning for immediate and future concerns generally fall Into one of two critical paths forward; BUILDING STABILIZATION or BUILDING REHABILITATION which combined yield a Master Plan for rehabilitation. BUILDING STABILIZATION: Deals primarily with high priority tasks such as correcting safety concerns, protecting the structure from moisture damage and implementing necessary maintenance work needed to address concerns that may cause or accelerate deterioration if ignored. This work is often completed in the earliest phases of projects and must be completed with sensitivity towards the building's historic character. BUILDING REHABILITATION: Deals primarily with tasks to develop and Implement plans created to address needed repairs and improvements in response to changes in building codes and contemplated alterations to accommodate changes in building usage all while maintaining sensitivity to the building's historic character. Additionally, work of this phase often presents opportunities to correct previous alterations that may have had an adverse impact on the building's historic character. This is often presented as a multiple phase scenario to allow for distribution of costs over an extended period. Because each of these pathways has great potential to impact a building's historic character, they each need to be completed with great care and with specific attention directed towards protecting surviving (known and discovered) historic fabric. The overall success of the project very often depends on development of a coordinated project plan (Master Plan) that includes both of these project elements at a minimum. Although typically implemented early in the project, building stabilization actions should be tempered and guided by goals consistent with your long-range vision for the building's rehabilitation conforming to recommended procedures for historic buildings. Such overarching guidance is found in Attachment 3 o A "Prime Contractor" is one with a contract directly with the Owner; not a "subcontractor" who typically has a contract with the Prime Contractor. January 25, 2019 ® Douglas J. Steinmetz, Architect Page 9 of 12 ®739-19 Sanzay-Gllmare Hse 109 E Market ROS 1.25-2019 FINAL2a.docx Sanxay-Gilmore House Project 738-18 109 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA Report of Site Visit "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" (STANDARDS) and the recommendation made in this report to develop a Master Plan for the building's rehabilitation early in the project's timeline. The following report sections are provided to assist you with planning strategies for development of a Master Plan including development of Building Stabilization and Building Rehabilitation plans. PROJECT PLANNING - DEVELOPING A MASTER PLAN GENERAL Building stabilization and rehabilitation work must be coordinated as the details of each project component evolve. The overall success of building stewardship depends on development of a coordinated project plan (Master Plan) that includes at a minimum Building Stabilization and Building Rehabilitation considerations. Work completed prior to understanding the scope of the entire project (whether it is for STABILIZATION OR REHABILITATION) may be a wasted or inefficient effort if it must be undone to accomplish subsequent work. This suggests that, unless a given work item is determined to be of critical importance to life/safety and or preservation of building fabric, implementation should wait until the full planning process is complete and the entire scope of the project is identified and sufficiently understood. This in turn leads to a suggestion that project planning be completed as soon as practical in tandem with a stabilization plan. Developing a set of well documented and published long range and short-range goals for the historic resource covering rehabilitation of the building and site may guide fiscal planning and position you and any financing partners to react quickly when funding sources or specific development opportunities come to your attention. A Master Plan that outlines and illustrates the types of repair and alteration work you hope to accomplish, including probable construction costs may be a useful tool for seeking donations, grants and other funding as well as providing a road map for you to follow over time. This is an important beginning step in a process of refinement that continues through the life of the historic resource. BUILDING EVALUATION AND STABILIZATION This step involves preparation of a Condition Report or similar document which identifies and prioritizes concerns related to the basic building as it now stands. Depending on your goals this level of report may represent the entire report or just a portion of a broader scope report. See Attachment 5 for an overview of various levels of reporting offered by this firm as an example. The content and scope of each of these may be customized to meet the particular needs of an owner. The Building Evaluation becomes the basis for development of a Building Stabilization/Rehabilitation Plan. BUILDING EVALUATION This step establishes a baseline for the building and proposes remedial actions associated with a basic project to protect the building from further deterioration and generally includes: • Establish your vision for the building • Identify your professional consultant team e Prepare measured drawings as needed, based on field measurements or available drawings • Identification and photo documentation of the building's character defining features and materials to ensure their protection through the stabilization/rehabilitation process • Architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical observations as needed with prioritized suggestions for remedial work Research into completed studies Research maintenance history and work completed where pertinent Opinions of probable construction costs for remedial work BUILDING STABILIZATION AND REHABILITATION PLAN This effort defines the project's rehabilitation goals and strategies for implementation through January 25, 2019 © Douglas J. Steinmetz, Architect Page 10 of 12 @738-285amay-Gilmore Hse 109 E Market R091-25-2019 FINAL2a.dm Sanxay-Gilmore House Project 738-18 109 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA Report of Site Visit development of a written Program Statement and Schematic Drawings showing proposed architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical alterations under study for the entire project and should Include: • Written description of how the building and site will be used including any special requirements for the project (Program Statement) • Analysis of applicable codes • Identification of appropriate treatments for the building's character defining features and materials to ensure protection of the building's overall historic character • Schematic Design study drawings showing how proposed uses or anticipated changes may fit into the building/site (or if not a fit, then what compromise is necessary) Outline specification for proposed work, and Opinions of probable construction costs for proposed work Frequently work must be phased to match available finances with construction and other costs. While this is not the most cost-effective approach, often it is the only option when resources are limited. Care must be taken when planning phased projects to be certain "new work" is not going to be lost when the next project is implemented. A Master Plan may help with that type of project coordination. The products of the Building Stabilization Planning and Building Rehabilitation Planning processes combine to form the projects Master Plan. Based on these documents strategies for Implementing the project are defined and implemented. This is a process of continuous refinement throughout the life of the building which should be periodically updated and refined to meet changing circumstances. FINDING OUT MORE ABOUT GRANT PROGRAMS The most direct way to discover available grants through the state is to contact the Grants Administrator to discuss the building and your specific goals once they are established. Contact Kristen Vander Molen, Grants Manager, State Historical Society of Iowa, 515-281-4228. Consider contacting the National Trust for Historic Preservation. They have a great deal of interest in saving historic buildings see httD://www.preservationnation.org/ or specifically for available grants you may e-mail grants@nthD.org or phone 202-588-6277. Grants through the National Trust are generally for planning purposes and may be an ideal way to help you establish and fund preparation of a clear set of project goals which go beyond this basic report. They have special grant opportunities to assist with costs of preparation of Historic Structure Reports. STANDARDS The "Secretary of the Interior's Standards forthe Treatment of Historic Properties" provides pertinent direction for building treatments. The guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings found within those standards are used as a basis for suggested remedial work in this Report (Attachment 3). The National Park Service publishes a series of useful Preservation Briefs (Attachment 4) that provide detailed discussion of appropriate treatments for historic buildings and materials. Recommendations of the Preservation Briefs are used as a basis for formulating strategies and approaches to Implementing remedial work. PROTECTING ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC POTENTIAL There may be archeological potential associated with the current and new site, all ground disturbing work should proceed cautiously so the maximum benefit may be reaped from any such discovery. You should discuss this with crews working at the sites so they are aware of your interest and special instructions regarding this. January 25, 2019 ® Douglas J. Steinmetz, Architect Page 11 of 12 @738-18 SannV411more Hae 109 E Market ROS 1-25-2019 FINAL28.docx Sanxay-Gilmore House Project 738-18 109 E. Market Street, Iowa City, IA Report of Site Visit It is also a good idea to share the historic significance of the property with workmen, perhaps during an initial meeting at the site, so they are aware of the property's value to you and the community. This helps them appreciate and understand their role in preserving the resource. GENERAL GUIDANCE Many firms have worked on historic buildings and will gladly tell you of their success. Often people claiming extensive experience with the rehabilitation of historic buildings are not familiar with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards or do not adequately understand them. Extensive experience on old buildings does not necessarily equate to an understanding of appropriate treatments. Preference should be given to repairing deteriorated historic fabric over replacement whenever that is feasible. Workmen should be cautioned to protect significant historic features and held responsible to provide satisfactory repair if damage occurs. In conclusion, it appears that a carefully planned and professionally guided project should be utilized for relocating and rehabilitating this important historic resource. To that end, it seems appropriate to decide on the path forward, assemble the necessary project team and secure funding. This report does not provide specifications or sufficiently detailed descriptions of work to secure proposals or to complete the work of a project. Suggestions made must be further verified by more complete observations, analysis, and where appropriate professional guidance before implementation; this is a preliminary overview only. This project is an ideal scope of work for preservation grants available through the State and other sources. The majority of grants and similar incentives directed towards preservation of historic resources require listing or at a minimum a determination by the State Historical Society that the building is eligible for listing on the National Register. Access to grants and other financial incentives such as these is a good reason to implement work which does not adversely impact the building's National Register of Historic Places eligibility by ensuring all work conforms to the STANDARDS described in Attachment 3. 1 hope this information is helpful in your effort to maintain this important building in your community. Please do not hesitate to call if you need additional assistance, I would be pleased to help in any way that i am able. Thank you again for the opportunity to be a part of this important effort. I welcome the opportunity to provide further assistance with this exciting project. �pramnn.,xnrn, Singmf ly, o9S"otp++. A ! O 4 J. STEINMETZ y to s ° 05049 �ougli J. Ste' metz, AIA t 4 Attachments: EhReywl'O,W 1. Structural Observation Report Hooting Coyote LLC, Todd Birkel, Structural Engineer, January 23, 2019. 2. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs, Pre -planning for Relocation of Sanxay-Gilmore House, January 25, 2019. 3. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. 4. National Park Service's list of available Preservation Briefs. 5. Overview of Types of Planning Documents. January 25, 2019 ® Douglas J. Steinmetz, Architect Page 12 of 12 @738-1R 58nray-Gilmore Hse 109 E Market RO51-25-2019 FINAL2aAM STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORT STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORT 109 Market Street (Report Date: January 29, 2019) On October 231d, 2018, the Lutheran Campus Ministry facility (109 Market Street, Iowa City, Iowa) was visited to observe the structural systems that were accessible regarding the potential relocation of the building. Initially, I met with Doug Steinmetz, and later with representatives from the City of Iowa City. Observations and Findings: The existing building was comprised wood framed roof and floor members spanning between exterior and interior masonry bearing walls supported by masonry foundation walls. The arrangement of walls, floor levels, and brickwork insinuates that the east and west sides of the building were constructed at different times, as well as the kitchen to the south. The kitchen addition was comprised of wood framed roof and floor members spanning between wood bearing walls supported by masonry foundation walls. The following are specific structural elements that might influence the potential relocation of the building: • First Level Framing Modifications: Various posts and beams were added beneath the first level framing to enhance strength and stiffness of the surrounding floor)oists. Past floor openings were filled with supplemental framing members. Existing Chimney: o Existing fireplaces were typically closed -off and no longer functional. Supplemental East Chimney: At some point in the past a chimney was added to the exterior of the east side and extends through the roof. Hooting Coyote LLC, 1553 W. Morley Rd., Elizabeth, IL 61028 Telephone: (815) 858-5514, Email: tbirkel@bootinecovote.com Website: httn://haotinscovotp.com/ Attachment 1: (Page 1 of 5) STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORT Structural Observation Report 109 Market Street Report Date: January 23, 2019 North Elava wll Basement Level - Supplep nWl Port Basement Level —Supplemental Post South Elevation F Int F 1por F raming -Pitched pin Flow Openelg Basement Level —Supplemental Post Hooting Coyote LLC, 1553 W. Morley Rd., Elizabeth, IL 61028 Telephone: (815) 858-5514, Email: tbirkeltWhootinecovote.com Website: http://hootingcovate.com/ Attachment 1: (Page 2 of S) STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORT Structural Observation Report 109 Market Street Report Date: January 23, 2019 9asemen! Layrf -Nnryh east Baseme nt Leval -Crawl Spare - Northwest Crone r Basement Level -Supplemental Post easement I.avel - Narthe st easement Level - Supplemental Post Basement Level -Chimney Hooting Coyote LLC, 1553 W. Morley Rd., Elizabeth, IL 61028 Telephone: (815) 858-5514, Email: tbirkel0hootin¢covote.com Website: htto://hootinacovote.com/ Attachment 1: (Page 3 of 5) STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORT Structural Observation Report 109 Market Street Report Date: January 29, 2019 Basement Level —Crawl Space beneath Kitchen Recommendations and Professional Opinions: East Exterior Wall —Supplemental Chimney Moving the existing building should be possible. The most complicated aspect of the moving process Will be the weight of the existing masonry walls and the need to keep the overall temporary framing system stiff enough to minimize cracking of the masonry walls. The kitchen addition to the south will most likely be moved separately provided it fits within the new site plan. A new foundation system will be needed at the new site wherever the building is moved, the new foundation system will most likely be comprised of reinforced concrete foundation walls on concrete footings aligning with the existing masonry bearing walls. During the relocation planning process, the City needs to determine the necessary extent and clear height of the new basement level to accommodate current needs (i.e. mechanical, plumbing and electrical distribution systems, storage, etc.). The following are additional recommendations and professional opinions that might influence the potential relocation of the building: First Level Framing Modifications: o Provide new supplemental framing beneath the existing floorjoists to add strength and stiffness replacing the existing posts. o Past floor openings should be modified with additional members and or connection enhancements as warranted by building occupancy at new site. Current framing configuration is cobbled together and somewhat disjointed. Hooting Coyote LLC, 1553 W. Morley Rd., Elizabeth, IL 61028 4 Telephone: (815) 858-5514, Email: tbirkel0hootingcovote.com Website: http://hootinacovote.com/ Attachment 1: (Page 4 of 5) STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION REPORT Structural Observation Report 109 Market Street Report Date: January 29, 2019 Existing Chimney: o The existing fireplaces and chimneys no longer perform a function. The chimneys should be removed above the roof level, or they should be capped to avoid water infiltration. Supplemental East Chimney: o The durability of the connection to the older portion of the building is suspect, so moving the supplemental east chimney is most likely not feasible. I suggest removing the chimney and re-routing any required exhaust systems. Damage caused to the original masonry wall requires repair upon removal of the chimney. If you have any questions while reviewing this information, please contact me via telephone (815-858-5514) or email (tbirkeliblhootinecovote.con,l. Sincerely, Hooting Coyote, LLC _' W -Y (CALAN M Todd Birkel 108Structural Engineer _-00 TAB Hooting Coyote LLC, 1553 W. Morley Rd., Elizabeth, IL 61028 Telephone: (815) 858-5514, Email: tbirkelODhootinecovote.com Website: htto://hootinacavote.com/ Attachment 1: (Page 5 of 5) [INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 0 B k « k ■ 0 0 to ■ a.__rm_a k CL # ) _vs __ _ NO_a__a_'n__ B k 0 $ � § 3 k / ! ! k k / - r 0 § ) ) k ! . ! » ; { s\�\ \ � LU §)�ks K | ; §! ■.1 K Ew 2 ! kk � );�7! § ° )22 e �` ° °§®!, 0kk { ] �` § .M= [�; 1 ! . O£,�a;, !•®| t 7k. - -■`; ; |!). ` ®60.8; ..., !!! !||■!l��7 ƒ!§® , , ,§!|!�.l�Ek■ \!§.--0E §■■-•! o :� ,■.| �|`k!!c °!!;■■,_■§`� a�,0&f_! e,� !ia|y.k; k §§ |f|2 ! -.m£G!§ &®§.k&�°■�,.■...�..-:!l7�«�!|-��a h,moII ;.=#==W0m42 l,ls,- .§; §,s,��:!° m§!l�,�.!l,�a,,,,,,�|� -,m§!! Kk�)§2k\�)\!$kk�loom|||J!!k))§!)k§!22 Ee,!)! o� . _ O,H. _ ___._a_' __o ■ C O O N s ofQ .o LagT m go O S O Fy�B 3 R o V RQ�!: 0 o�c ao gj 'ScE 8 LL Z m C c O S S m m O C A p G O S O _ IE 9 T r a �m3azg00 I M �D 5 e m a LL M N N E e c r O S o E ce m N w m QZii qym� a 3 `m �. n aa0E c$ �oEa ono N�� t o M's am O c�> W m, o c k ��w w33� N K a m o H >' r.@0i5 N f O J Z as N W Wa�O C L d Ili z J O m C m C /(O1 r F r0 W C O TQ iiii v Z LL rE W C MOOO �p O Q n S W N mo W Y Apc a U J a C L Z rRE0.0 s@ 5 woW Z � dd`= m@@ �O `m om o cOO �wC VI r E m n C y wm �.W �,�� g 8'�e Q $ E Wmm m¢'� oc o m O1 O Y 2 LL u m V g cEHE S . $ mZp = Lq � m �� @ a ° E ;ms ° J c c LL W w> c c y9... O .mgLe Z S y ni U 'tl G � a a a A 9 m O m a O $ J, w m Cl 0@6C c > E aEtfa N o E E 0 an d : 32 m & =O@ybaaC W yyLOU J w. J� 16n gg m^ y o s n a;Toa E ofn a2 N ado t pa E.°ycc a $ t 3 �m LL m�'a ui E OON c09'�3ti F m E E m m gJ mFi �e .a° W � D@ O m C Q -O m 6�a Lm @ L a Auvww s 3AlldVa dtldtl [INTENTIONALLY BLANK] The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are ten basic principles created to help preserve the distinctive character of a historic building and its site, while allowing for reasonable change to meet new needs. The Standards (36 CFR Part 67) apply to historic buildings of all periods, styles, types, materials, and sizes. They apply to both the exterior and the Interior of historic buildings. The Standards also encompass related landscape features and the building's site and environment as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. The Standards are applied to projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility. 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. S. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Attachment 3: (Page 1 of 1) [INTENTIONALLY BLANK] NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PRESERVATION BRIEFS Hard copies of the Preservation Briefs may be purchased from the Government Printing Office or viewed on line at htto://www.nps.aov/histoy/hos/tps/briefs/presbhom.htm 1. Cleaning and Water -Repellent Treatments for Historic Masonry 2. Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings 3. Improving Energy Conservation in Historic Buildings 4. Roofing for Historic Buildings S. Preservation of Historic Adobe Buildings 6. Dangers of Abrasive Cleaning to Historic Buildings 7. The Preservation of Historic Glazed Architectural Terra-Cotta 8. Aluminum and Vinyl Siding on Historic Buildings: The Appropriateness of Substitute Materials for Resurfacing Historic Wood Frame Buildings 9. The Repair of Historic Wooden Windows 10. Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork 11. Rehabilitating Historic Storefronts 12. The Preservation of Historic Pigmented Structural Glass (Vitrolite and Carrara Glass) 13. The Repair and Thermal Upgrading of Historic Steel Windows 14. New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns 15. Preservation of Historic Concrete 16. The Use of Substitute Materials on Historic Building Exteriors 17. Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character 18. Rehabilitating Interiors in Historic Buildings - Identifying Character -Defining Elements 19. The Repair and Replacement of Historic Wooden Shingle Roofs 20. The Preservation of Historic Barns 21. Repairing Historic Flat Plaster- Walls and Ceilings 22. The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco 23. Preserving Historic Ornamental Plaster 24. Heating, Ventilating, & Cooling Historic Buildings: Problems & Recommended Approaches 25. The Preservation of Historic Signs 26. The Preservation and Reoair of Historic Loa_ Buildings 27. The Maintenance & Repair of Architectural Cast Iron 28. Painting Historic Interiors 29. The Repair, Replacement, and Maintenance of Historic Slate Roofs 30. The Preservation and Repair of Historic Clay Tile Roofs 31. Mothballing Historic Buildings 32. Making Historic Properties Accessible 33. The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stained and Leaded Glass 34. Applied Decoration for Historic Interiors: Preserving Composition Ornament 35. Understanding Old Buildings: The process of Architectural Investigation 36. Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes 37. Appropriate Methods for Reducing Lead - Paint Hazards in Historic Housing 38. Removing Graffiti from Historic Masonry 39. Holding the Line: Controlling Unwanted Moisture in Historic Buildings 40. Preserving Historic Ceramic Tile Floors 41. The Seismic Retrofit of Historic Buildings 42. The Maintenance, Repair and Replacement of Historic Cast Stone 43. The Preparation and Use of Historic Structures Reports 44. The Use of Awnings on Historic Buildings: Repair, Replacement and New Design 45. Preserving Historic Wooden Porches 46. The Preservation and Reuse of Historic Gas Stations 47. Maintaining the Exterior of Small and Medium Size Historic Buildings 48. Preserving Grave Markers in Historic Cemeteries 49. Historic Decorative Metal Ceilings and Walls: Use, Repair and Replacement 50. Lightning Protection for Historic Buildings Attachment 4: (Page 1 of 1) DOUGLAS J. STEINMETZ 4121 Timberview Drive NE Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52411 319 - 294 - 4905 Fax: 319-892-0568 doug@djsaia.com OVERVIEW OF TYPES OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS A R C H I T E C T Owners want to know how to take care of their buildings. We are often asked to survey buildings and make recommendations regarding maintenance and repair. There are many different levels of studies available, depending on the needs of the building, the needs of the owners, and the funds available. DEFINITIONS Site Consultation: Usually based on one to four hours at a site. This consultation can include any subject of interest to the owner. Brief oral or written recommendations are made. No construction costs are estimated. These consultations are often provided to owners concerned about maintaining and improving their buildings without damaging architectural integrity or physical fabric. Report of Site Visit: After a brief walk-through a spreadsheet is prepared which identifies general work areas and priorities. Photographs and sketch floor plans are usually included in the report. No construction costs are estimated. This report is a very preliminary planning document, seldom used for funding applications. Condition Report: This extensive report concentrates on the physical fabric. It is a detailed report which identifies deficiencies, recommends repairs, includes cost estimates, and prioritizes work items. Granting agencies often ask for a condition report to ensure the owner understands the full scope of maintenance requirements and is attacking high -priority needs. Historic Structures Report: The highest level report currently recognized in the preservation field, often required when restoration is anticipated. It may be used when high-level funding is being sought for a significant resource. Historical analysis as well as study of the physical condition of the building is included. COSTS Professional fees vary depending on size and complexity of the building or site, location, general condition of the building, extent of the survey and report, etc., so any simple summary of fees is approximate: SC Site Consultation SV Report of Site Visit CR Condition Report HSR Historic Structures Report $ 500 to $1,000 $ 1,500 to 6,500 $ 5,000 to 18,000 $15,000 to 120,000 or more Each building and owner is unique. No estimate of professional fees can be accurate without a brief site visit and consultation with the owner to determine the scope of the survey. Attachment 5: (Page 1 of 2) OVERVIEW OF TYPES OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS SUMMARY OF SCOPE Targeted inspection and/or walk -around inspection Walk-through inspection Detailed inspection Brief oral or written recommendations Annotated spreadsheet of work items w. priorities Spreadsheet as above plus a written description Construction cost estimates Review of existing drawings Review of maintenance records Interview of maintenance personnel Interview of maintenance contractors Maintenance chronology Sketch floor plans Measured drawings Description of existing fabric Construction chronology Brief historical overview Extensive historical analysis Table of Contents Attachments Technical supplements Photographs Historic Photographs Historic Documentation Bibliography Engineering systems inspection Structural engineering analysis Archaeological Investigations Special studies (such as wheelchair accessibility, future uses, renovations or additions) SC SV CR HSR X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X * * * s : s *These services are options. Many reports are customized with these or other studies. ' Note that these reports do not include construction Contract Documents such as working drawings and specifications. Attachment S (Page 2 of 2) R Air ®R ss.: ,A VN Iowa City pr v—:a iHisTol'1Cs['�SGi1aC1i371 �ti111115ASS1437(1 City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, loins. City. LA- 52240 Memorandum Date: April 3, 2019 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Preservation at Its Best Awards Preservation Iowa has sent out its Call For Nominations for the 2019 Preservation at its Best Awards. The awardees will be announced at this summer's Preserve Iowa Summit in Newton, Iowa, June 6 to 8. In the past, the Commission has nominated several projects for the award. Past winners are the Bowery Street Grocery at 518 Bowery and the Levi Kauffman House at 304 Summit. Projects must be completed between January 1, 2017 and April 27, 2019. Several categories are possible. Staff will evaluate any suggestions in accordance with the eligibility requirements. If the Commission would like to nominate a property this year, staff will submit the Nomination. Nominations are due April 27, 2019. preservation 1OVTA Call for Nominations: 2019 Preservation at Its Best Awards Each year, Preservation Iowa seeks to honor individuals, organizations, projects, and programs whose work demonstrates a commitment to excellence in historic preservation. In doing so, we hope to inspire others to take action to preserve, protect, and promote historic resources. Project awards will be presented at the 2019 Preserve Iowa Summit, to be held in Newton, Iowa on Thursday June 6th (more event details to come). Winning projects will receive awards from Preservation Iowa and will be highlighted on the Preservation Iowa website and Facebook pages with press releases to go out to each winning nominee's community. ELIGIBILITY: Nominated projects must have been completed within the geographic boundaries of Iowa and completed within a time frame extending from January 1, 2017 and April 27, 2019. Incomplete projects will not be considered. Nominations can be made by/for individual owners, corporation, development groups, or organizations. Property owner(s) must be notified, before submission of property/project, so they can be notified of the nomination status. CATEGORIES: Adaptive Use - Conversion of a historic structure for a new or compatible use while retaining its architectural integrity. This category could include a mixed use project. Commercial (Small and Large) - Rehabilitation/restoration of a historic commercial structure. Commercial awards are given for both small structure (under 5,000 total square feet) and large structure (over 5,000 total square feet). This category could include a mixed use project. Community Effort - A community's concerted effort to save a historic structure, district or cultural resource. (Nominating groups could include, but are not limited to, downtown organizations, historic preservation commissions, city/county governments, development groups, neighborhood associations, preservation groups, etc.) Preservationist of the Year Award - Individual or group that has championed historic preservation planning, policy or activities in Iowa. Public Structure - Rehabilitation/restoration of a publicly/government owned structure. Residential (Personal/Multi-Family) - Rehabilitation/restoration and continued use of a residential structure. Residential awards may be considered for single family homes as well as multiple family structures. Page 2 of 3 Rural Preservation - Preservation or restoration of Iowa rural landscape, heritage or built environment. Sustainability in Preservation - Incorporation of sustainable practices into the rehabilitation/restoration of a historic structure. Project does not need to be LEED certified to be considered for award but nomination does need to demonstrate sustainable practices used in project. Award can be made to any typology of building project. Special Projects— Films, Books, Websites, Podcasts, Plays, etc. that tell Iowa's stories and promote the preservation of Iowa's historic resources. JUDGING: Preservation Iowa invites a jury of preservation experts to review nominations for the Preservation at Its Best Awards. This panel of judges will also place nominations in their respective categories to give each project its highest scoring potential. Projects will be judged on degree of historic preservation excellence, community impact, quality of work completed and thoroughness of the nomination submitted. Honorable mentions or multiple awards may be given if decided upon by the panel of judges. ENTRY GUIDELINES: One (1) nomination packet should be submitted for jurors' review, and should include: • Completed nomination form ■ A typed narrative, no longer than 750 words, describing the project. The narrative should clearly address each of the following: o The beginning and ending date of the project. o Description of before condition and historic significance of the building. Include building's square footage and building construction date o Description of work completed. o Project challenges and creative solutions. o The project's long range impact on structure and the neighborhood/community. o Accomplishments or contributions (if individual or organizational award) o Description of project funding. o Other supporting information. • If the nomination is for an individual please include a short biography. • At least 4 and no more than 8 photographs documenting the project. (Including before and after images) Images may be submitted as: o High resolution digital images are preferred (.jpg or .tiff formats preferred). Digital images can be submitted by email. o Where necessary please include photo credits. NOMINATION FEE: There are no nomination fees. Our Mission is to build partnerships that enhance our economic and cultural future through the preservation of Iowa's historic resources. Page 3 of 3 SUBMISSION: One (1) copy of the nomination packet described above should be submitted via email. Digital images and nominations may be emailed to pibApreservationiowa.oro. For larger files, we recommend sending them to the Preservation Iowa drop box account. Any additional auestions may be directed to Josh Moe, Awards Ceremony Coordinator at 319.383.3099. EMAIL DEADLINE: Saturday r April 27,'s'•{�; Submitted materials will not be returned. Submission to the Preservation at Its Best Awards provides Preservation Iowa permission to use materials in organization promotional materials. Our Mission is to build partnerships that enhance our economic and cultural future through the preservation of Iowa's historic resources. MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL March 14, 2019 MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Kevin Boyd, Zach Builta, Sharon DeGraw, Helen Burford, Gosia Clore, G. T. Karr, Cecile Kuenzli, Quentin Pitzen, Lee Shope MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) 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: Old Settler's Association of Johnson County Cabins, Upper City Park. Bristow said since these are City -owned properties, in addition to the normal process of going to the Commission and then Planning and Zoning and City Council, this item was presented to the Parks and Rec Commission and will be presented to the Senior Center Commission. She said Parks and Rec did vote and there was one dissent on the City Park Cabins. One member questioned the criterion about integrity because one cabin had been relocated to the park in 1918. Bristow explained the City Park Cabins, or the Old Settler's Association of Johnson County Cabins as they are officially known, are located in City Park. She said the property boundary description was determined by City Engineering for the National Register Nomination. Bristow shared a photo of the cabins from November, after going through a complete rehabilitation. She also shared a 1933 photo of a celebration for the Old Settler's Association of Johnson County. They were meeting in Upper City Park when they could no longer meet at the fairgrounds. The larger cabin is called a dogtrot cabin because it is made from two boxes, each one being one room. The rooms have a space between them and share a single roof. The intermediate space is called the dogtrot. Bristow shared a 1916 photo of the dogtrot cabin, constructed in 1913. She said it did not have a standing seam metal roof, it was something like a tar paper roof. A photograph from the Weber collection at SHSI was displayed, entitled the "Replica Trading Post." Bristow said it was known that the Old Settler's had been meeting at the fairgrounds. They occasionally made some commemorative cabins illustrating the old ways of cabin construction to commemorate the people who settled Johnson County and to memorialize that action. As time went on and the fairgrounds changed ownership, they had to relocate. The City determined they could have a space in City Park for their cabins. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 14, 2019 Page 2 of 11 Bristow said they were originally going to move them, but they were determined to be in too poor condition to move. They instead decided to have a celebration where they would have a cabin building, similar to a barn raising. The Settlers were so interested in doing this that they donated logs for the project. They had bronze letters that they used to mark which log they had donated and who it was memorializing, or in memory to, but we don't think any of that still exists. Bristow explained they built the dogtrot cabin and it was a big celebration, and they continued to meet in City Park from that point on. Eventually they decided the smaller cabin from the fairgrounds could be moved. A local mover did some minor repairs and moved it to City Park in 1918. She shared a picture showing its original location on the fairgrounds from the 1890s. The photo was from the Patterson Collection at SHSI. She said a lot of the photographs of the cabins were from that Collection. Bristow said the cabins were used by the Girls Scouts, school groups, and they really had a lot of good use until sometime in the 1970s, when they started to deteriorate. She said by the time the City wrote a grant to help with the roof portion of the project they had significantly deteriorated. She shared photos from at least two years before the grant was received. Bristow shared a photo from last summer of the cabins being rehabbed at Heritage Woodworks in Clemons. She said that while some material had to be replaced because it was in such bad condition, this group could use similar wood and they used the old ways of shaping the wood and fitting the building together, so the result was still the same commemorative log cabin. Another photo showed pieces tagged with little yellow labels. These were the original materials retained in the rehab process. She said the cabins were disassembled, taken to Heritage Woodworks, fit with new wood pieces, brought back, rebuilt and rechinked. Bristow said the grant called for the use of cedar shingles because they would last longer than the tar paper roof. The cabins are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. We know that the National Park Service has determined they are eligible for that. Bristow said the Commission's process uses many of the same criteria. She said the cabins need to have the same integrity that they did when the National Park Service reviewed it. She said we are assured of the integrity because, even though the grant was only for the roof, the State reviewed all of the work that was going to be done on the cabins. Bristow explained the State Historic Preservation Office agreed that the work being done was necessary and maintained the integrity of the buildings. Staff believed that they would be eligible as local landmarks for criteria a and b as they are significant to our history and the Old Settler's and commemorative movement that happened across the United States. They possess an integrity of location because one was built in this location and the other was moved by the Old Settler's during their period of significance. The small cabin was moved in 1918. Because it was moved by the same group around the same time the other one was built, and the other one was built because they were going to move them there, we do not find an issue with integrity here. Criterion c, which is the events, meaning commemorative and the Old Settler's Association, and criterion e, the characteristics of the architecture, which obviously they do have. Boyd asked if anyone had clarifying questions for Bristow before opening the Public Hearing Public Hearing Closed. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 14, 2019 Page 3 of 11 Kuenzli thought it would be appropriate to mention Heritage Woodworks in the history of the cabins to acknowledge their authentic rehabilitation methods. MOTION: Kuenzli moved to approve the designation of the Old Settler's Association of Johnson County Cabins off of Park Road in City Park as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, c, and e. Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION Ned Ashton House. 820 Park Road. Bristow explained the Ned Ashton House is located right next to the river. She said it has a Frank Lloyd Wright, Prairie/Mid-Century Modern look to it. She noted it fits well into the landscape with its limestone, which was from Stone City. Bristow shared a photo of the front entry door facing Park Road with a screened -in porch area She said this house was all built by Ned Ashton and his family. When they cast the big header for the garage door, they used rope nailed onto the inside of the concrete form to spell out the name Ashton and 1947. A view of the cantilevered breakfast nook was displayed. Bristow noted the owner and designer, Ned Ashton, was a very well-known bridge designer / bridge engineer. She shared a photograph of him working in the lower level. Ned designed the entire house using the same type of engineering principles and calculations that he would for any of the suspension bridges and other bridges that he designed around Iowa and elsewhere. Bristow said the images being shown were from a scrapbook one of his daughters compiled. The daughter notes there were 73 pages of calculations for the concrete. The foundation, footings, and columns were constructed just like he would for a bridge. This was advantageous along the river because it meant the house could flood and he had designed it for that. It also meant he had to design the footings to hold the 64,000 pounds of the chimney. He overengineered the house, but that helped save it, because it has been flooded and was actually flooding when he started construction. Bristow explained his principles as an engineer were also very forward thinking when it came to sustainability and reuse of materials. He bought in some packing crates, not small but gigantic packing crates, that were used to haul things for the war. He disassembled them, reused and straightened as many of the nails as he could. He used the wood for the concrete forms and then reused it in the framing for the walls and the roof on the first floor. He was very interested in passive ventilation. All these things are put into the design of the house. Bristow shared a picture showing the kids involved in the building. It was constructed between 1946 and 1954 and that all of it, including the land, was $16,000. Bristow said the importance of this house is in its design and its integrity, the character of the design, and also its relationship to Ned Ashton. Bristow shared a few things from the scrapbook about Ashton's career and accomplishments. He was nationally known and had won several awards. She said part of the reason for moving forward with these local landmark designations right now, is not only do we have the City Park Cabins that are done and going to be opening HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 14, 2019 Page 4 of 11 again, but Parks and Rec is celebrating the 70'" anniversary of City Park Pool. Ned Ashton was the one who designed that pool. So that ties these two properties together. Staff found this property meets criteria a and b. It is associated with a significant person, so it meets criteria d and a in the fact that it has the integrity and character of its architecture. Boyd asked if anyone had clarifying questions for Bristow before opening the Public Hearing. Public Hearing Closed. MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the designation of the Ned Ashton House, 820 Park Road, as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, d, and e. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION Old Post Office. 28 South Linn Street. Bristow pointed out only the Old Post Office is being considered, even though it is attached to the Ecumenical Towers. They are two separate properties. Bristow thought many communities assume these kinds of neoclassical civic buildings would be landmarks because they really represent a very specific kind of early 20'" century attempt to create a civic ideal and they obviously are landmarks. She said the City has maintained the integrity of this building. When the new Post Office came into existence the City came in and renovated this building to be the Senior Center. It is a building the Senior Center Commission realizes is difficult to care for because it is historic and has plaster walls, high ceilings, and such. Bristow said the original Post Office was constructed in 1904. It was very dressed, very formal, with a little bit of a Mansard roof. She shared a picture of it in its final state with the door to the south on Washington Street. When they added to it, they completely replicated everything. In a way, during this time period, the fact that they went so far to copy the details of the original and just basically took this and made it bigger by more than two-thirds, that was kind of unique. It is unique in that they went to such great lengths to expand it in the same way. They added the full second -floor area where the Mansard roof was. Bristow shared a view after it was rehabbed by the City in order to open as the Senior Center, sometime after 1981. Bristow said the main integrity of the exterior of this building is impeccable. Bristow showed interior photos including some stairs in the southwest corner. She wasn't sure if they were from the 1904 version that went up to some kind of an upper level under the Mansard roof or if it was from the 1933 version. Bristow said the Senior Center Commission was always questioning the big limestone hunks that are out in the front yard and what to do about them. When the skywalk was put in between the parking garage and the building, an agreement was made to retain them. The project was to put in a skywalk and remove part of the midlevel cornice, which is sculpted limestone. Since skywalks come and go, patching that and making it match in any way would be impossible. It HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 14, 2019 Page 5 of 11 was decided that they would maintain those removed pieces and keep them facing the same direction in the same area of the site so they would weather the same. Unfortunately, they are so close to the traffic they have darkened from soot and exhaust, but they are on a very heavy concrete plinth in order to stay in that spot. She said the City will keep it and for a very good reason, but is not regulated by landmark designation. Bristow said the Senior Center Commission will meet next Thursday and she would go to answer any questions they have. (Note inserted after Meeting: Senior Center Commission meeting was canceled due to lack of quorum. Bristow will attend their April meeting to address any questions) Staff does feel the Old Post Office meets criteria a and b, and also a in the integrity of its architecture. Boyd asked if anyone had clarifying questions before opening the Public Hearing. Public Hearing Closed. Shope was curious if there was any indication of how it came to pass that they just replicated the architecture rather than, as the Federal Government does sometimes, put on a red brick addition. He wondered if it was Iowa City being Iowa City, or if it was public pressure. Agran asked about saving the material, and nothing saying the material had to be saved. He asked about a previous project on Brown and Gilbert where the owners were asked to save a window. Bristow said whenever someone removes an architectural feature, especially if it is stone or brick, so we know it's going to be hard for them to copy if they need to put it back, we always suggest heavily that they keep that with the house, but we cannot require it. MOTION: Agran moved to approve the designation of the Old Post Office, 28 South Linn Street, as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, and e. Pitzen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN PRIORITIES AND ANNUAL WORK PROGRAM: Bristow said the Commission's work plan is due as part of the annual report to the State. Bristow said she and Boyd talked about having the formal work plan discussion changed to November so when it's done, it is for the year starting within a month instead of doing it now, three months into the year. Boyd explained his thoughts for doing the plan in the fall. He noted Commission terms were on a July -June basis. Waiting until fall would allow new Commissioners to make it through a few meetings before setting the plan. Secondly, the budget process gears up in January, so doing the plan in November would allow the Commission to weigh in before the budget was set. He also thought a stand-alone meeting might allow more thoughtful planning as opposed to competing with other agenda items. Bristow noted that the City budget is based on a fiscal year and their annual report to the State was based on a calendar year, causing a bit of a disconnect. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 14, 2019 Page 6 of 11 Bristow explained she would hit the highlights from last year's plan and provide a status, because some things would need to carry forward, and then point out a few things that are coming up. Bristow said the plan from last year was set up as different sections. There were key projects. Seven local landmarks were submitted and five were successful. Bristow said the Civil Rights Grant was supposed to be done in January. Due to delays an extension was requested. She noted that whenever a community has one Federal grant, its activity impacts all Federal grants, so they want to keep up-to-date. Bristow said Akay Consulting had been hired for the Downtown District Survey implementation. She said interiors of some buildings will be reviewed to confirm whether they are individually National Register eligible. Bristow said the Cabin Grant was complete and would be closed out by Parks and Rec. Bristow explained that they will have a presentation on the Historic Preservation fund in the future. Bristow said seven of eight projects approved during fiscal year 2018 have been completed and the eighth will be complete in the spring. She said for 2019 we have seven approved projects and one large one that is almost ready to be approved. Bristow said we could possibly take another applicant during the fiscal year as some of these projects finish up and come in under $5000. It would not likely be an entire $5000, though. Bristow said we have the intensive survey of 2040 Waterfront Drive. The consultant just dropped off the final project. Bristow said the National Register nomination of Clinton Street has been on her desk to review. It needs to go through the process at SHIPO anyway. It will not be reviewed by their nomination review committee until June. They will ask the Commission to review and comment on it. Bristow reported on the Summit Street Monument. She said the consultant is beginning now and will be done in time. He is reviewing the condition, making recommendations on how to repair or stabilize the monument, planning on whether we should relocate it and put a replica there or not. If it is moved, how should it be displayed and cared for. Bristow said the City's consultant for the Sanxay-Gilmore House has provided information and costs, which have been sent to the City Manager with a memo.Tthey are currently in discussions with the University about allowing it to stay in its location. She said she would provide a report to the Commission next time. Bristow said recruiting new Commission members was an item on the previous work plan. She said new members were located for each of the areas except for the East College Street District. She said a Jefferson Street representative may apply for the next term. Consideration beyond the work plan was discussed. Bristow noted the Preserve Iowa Conference was postponed. She said that senior staff still seemed supportive of moving forward with it at some point but, at the same time, it will be a staff commitment that will be impossible at this point. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 14, 2019 Page 7 of 11 Bristow noted the Education Outreach section on the work plan was open-ended in 2018. She said they had a digital information priority. She said an intern will be working this summer on the storybook aspect of GIS. The Commission needs to decide what people should be able to search by, what images would go up, and what historic information should be populated related to the Downtown survey. Bristow said design guidelines need to be updated. Bristow noted tax abatement was in the plan. A property tax exemption is available and is tied to State and Federal tax credit processes. Bristow said another item is additional survey and education work. She noted the City has very little information on Kirkwood Avenue area, so it could start with a reconnaissance survey. She said this could be done by volunteers and neighborhood people. She thought it could be done with very little staff time if the Commission chose to take it on as a project. Bristow said last year a newsletter was developed to go out with our yearly mailing to all the property owners. Everybody liked it. The Commission liked it. Our intern wrote it and laid it out and got it ready for us. We do not have that ability now, so Staff is requesting that a subcommittee of the Commission be formed to write something to go in the newsletter and then get it laid out so all we must do is print it and include it with the letters. She said the letter must by done soon. The City now notifies property owners once a year about regulations, traditionally in the spring because that's when people start thinking about their projects for the summer. Kuenzli believed the newsletter was important because it is the Commission's PR with the rest of City government, as well as with the community at -large. She said the only way most people would have contact with the Commission would be if they had a house project that needed attention. Boyd believed there might be an opportunity to put out the newsletter in the fall and tie in to the awards: ask for nominations about stuff people have seen, talk about their work, invite them to the event, when it exists, and use that as a tool to talk about what it means to do historic work. Bristow said they needed to completely change how the Historic Preservation awards are done. She said if it takes as much staff time as it had for the past 10 years, the City wanted to do away with it. The awards have been held for 36 years. She noted it is always well -attended. Boyd asked to review the model used by the Human Rights Commission for their annual awards. He said as we are thinking about our events, we should think about other City successful award events. It seems we could ask them to provide some information. Bristow said money was received to mothball the Montgomery Butler House and the mothballing was failing. In order to move forward a determining a use would be the first step. Kuenzli asked if there might be an individual who would like to buy it, restore it, and live there. Bristow said it's in the middle of Waterworks Park, on City property, without direct driveway access. Bristow noted the City Communications Department might force the Commission to eliminate their Facebook page if it has no regular postings. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 14, 2019 Page 8 of 11 Boyd went through a list of things that must get done by the end of the year. 1. The Civil Rights Grant to finish. 2. The National Historic Register part of the Downtown District. Boyd said he would have a memo next month regarding the steering committee. He noted there are a lot of people and groups offering to be involved. 3. The Certified Local Government Grants. Bristow said all three of them could lead to potential projects that need some Commission help, but they will all be done by June. 4. The Historic Preservation Fund. On Boyd's should -do list, as future work items: 1. Decide about a local district for the Clinton Street and Railroad Depot area. 2. Historic Preservation Awards. 3. Immediate need with the letter/newsletter. 4. Public relations more broadly. 5. Financial Incentives. 6. Digital library. Bristow added education and updating the Historic Preservation guidelines Karr noted his priorities. He said informing the public what it means to be and live in an historic district and understanding what is really driving the addition of our districts. He mentioned looking at Clinton Street and Kirkwood down the road, and how it plays into the Downtown, as well. He thought there was a serious education gap because daily he looks at jobs in historic districts and people have no idea what it means. Karr also included the Downtown and taking a closer look at individual landmark status when the property owner did not want to be involved in it. We had that happen this year. He wanted to have an honest, frank discussion about that. Burford expressed concern that people don't know how to do tax abatements or understand how it benefits them. Bristow agreed with educating realtors so they can talk appropriately about properties they are selling. She thought a similar program might be useful for developers. Boyd said he would like to discuss landmarks and financial incentives, looking at what other communities have done. He wondered if there was someone who could come talk to the Commission about how they have used it and the types of things that have been done. Bristow said she would make a plan of the things that the Commission will be discussing on future agendas and talk about the idea of setting a priority at one meeting for the next meeting so we can compile the information we need. Then during the meeting when it is on the agenda, it can be discussed thoroughly, down to in some cases, the actual tasks that need to happen to accomplish this, and then how does it need to be assigned, depending on the activity. Boyd recommended discussing the newsletter as the priority for next agenda. Agran said he was in favor of setting a subcommittee to handle the letter. Then at the next meeting the Commission could move to approve it. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 14, 2019 Page 9 of 11 DeGraw said she would go with what it is currently, update the photos, update anything out-of- date, and then have a draft ready for people to look at next time for approval. Agran thought the idea of forming a PR subcommittee would still be good, though, so the subcommittee could start to strategize a few plans for the awards, for instance, or for communication with people. Burford wanted to look for a model demonstrating the economic benefit of the work that is done by the Commission and the dollars that are brought into the community. She wanted the City Manager to see there is a large investment that happens in the community because of the work of the Commission and then maybe we could get more staff time. Bristow agreed that staff time and projects must be tied to the City's strategic plan and the financial stability of the community. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF Minor Review— Staff Review. 809 South 71h Avenue — Dearborn Street Conservation District (new front and rear stoops). 527 North Van Buren Street — Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (non -historic rear step and canopy removal). CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 14, 2019 MOTION: Agran moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's February 14, 2019 meeting. Karr seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Agran provided an update on 410 Clinton, the brick Italianate house that did not get approved for landmark status. He said the City is in negotiations with the owner of that property to, in exchange for landmarking the building, give the property owner the opportunity to buy the two properties directly to the south and they are seeking increased development rights on that land. City staff sought Council's indications of whether they would approve that project, not in a commitment, but tentatively, so City staff did not pursue it down the road to find out later that City Council was not interested. They talked very basically about what that project could look like. Agran wanted to bring it up, partially because that property sold and transitioned owners during the process of identification and landmarking. He noted since he has been on the Commission there have been three prominent properties that have been leveraged by developers to get increased development rights somewhere else. He believes the City uses that as a strategy for protecting properties. He noted City Council will not vote to landmark a building but then, directly after that, the building gets landmarked as part of a negotiation for increased private benefit at the expense of the public. He noted other examples to be the Unitarian Church and Tate Arms. Agran did not believe it was an effective strategy to mortgage public agreements about how zoning works to protect individual properties. Though it does protect the properties, developers HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 14, 2019 Page 10 of 11 could approach owners of properties listed as potential landmarks to buy those properties, knowing they could then leverage them for gain. He said 410 Clinton had very little development potential on that site, so there was very little loss of development potential on that site if it had been landmarked. Now we're looking at landmarking it and giving away a lot more. Agran thought a conversation should happen at the City Council level or City Manager about how do we proceed as a Commission in identifying and protecting properties without leaving them and the City vulnerable to being leveraged for private gain. He believes the City got played and is concerned as a Commission member and as a citizen how the City proceeds. Karr said it was not a good precedent to set. In a previous City meeting, Bristow noted Staff commented it could be difficult for the Commission to make a decision to take down one historic house to save another. This was related to the Sanxay-Gilmore House and the two properties on Gilbert Street. Bristow thought the 410 Clinton situation was similar. You must put one property over another, which is not something preservationists usually like to do. While the house at 410-412 Clinton is very important and should be preserved, the house at 400 Clinton is also individually eligible for listing in the National Register. Boyd noted City Council had an opportunity to decide what policy would exist for everything, to make sure it was known and public for all to use. He said they chose not to do that and now they are offering benefits one -by -one. If Council wants to know what the Commission thinks they should ask in a public way, putting it on an agenda so the public could come into the discussion too. ADJOURNMENT: Agran moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Karr The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Minutes submitted by Judy Jones HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018-2019 NAME TERM EXP. 4/12 5/10 6/14 7/12 8/9 8/23 9/13 10/11 11/08 12/13 1/10 2/14 3/14 AGRAN, THOMAS 6/30/20 X X X O/E X X X O/E X X O/E O/E X BAKER, ESTHER 6/30/18 X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X X X X X BUILTA, ZACH 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X X X X X X BURFORD, HELEN 6/30/21 -- -- -- X X O/E X O/E X X X X CLORE, GOSIA 6/30/20 X X X X O/E O/E X O/E X X O/E X X DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/19 X X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X KARR, G. T. 6/30/20 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X KUENZLI, CECILE 6/30/19 X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X MICHAUD, PAM 6/30/18 X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- PITZEN, QUENTIN 6/30/21 -- -- -- X X X X X X X X X X SHOPE, LEE 6/30/21 -- -- -- X X X O/E X X O/E X X SWAIM, GINALIE 6/30/18 X X X -- -- -- WAGNER, FRANK 6/30/18 X X X -- -- --