The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHPC Agenda Packet 6.11.2020 Thursday June 11, 2020 5:30 p.m. Electronic Zoom Meeting Platform IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, June 11, 2020 Electronic Meeting – 5:30 p.m. Zoom Meeting Platform Agenda A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1118 East College Street – East College Historic District (skylights and west-facing window on rear addition, new window added to the front elevation) E) Climate Action and Preservation presentation from Climate Action Committee F) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review 1. 407 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (deteriorated siding, trim, and soffit replacement) 2. 608 ½ Dearborn Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (overhead door replacement) Minor Review –Staff review Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19. You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by going to https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMlf-CsqTgvGdemO_yqYImskIjnKec1TjQQ to visit the Zoom meeting’s registration page and submitting the required information. Once approved, you will receive an email message with a link to join the meeting. If you are asked for a meeting or webinar ID, enter the ID number found in the email. If you have no computer or smartphone, or a computer without a microphone, you can call in by phone by dialing (312) 626- 6799 and entering the meeting ID 978 8947 3533 when prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option. 1. 720 North Van Buren Street – Brown Street Historic District (2nd floor rear deck floor and railing replacement) 2. 409 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (roof shingle replacement) 3. 230 East Jefferson Street, St. Mary’s Catholic Church – Jefferson Street Historic District (louver replacement, wood trim repair) 4. 1415 Davenport Street – Local Historic Landmark (kitchen and porch roof shingle replacement, kitchen window infill panel reconstruction, west basement window well/window replacement) G) Consideration of Minutes for May 14, 2020 H) Commission Information and Discussion 1. Historic Preservation and Sustainability references 2. Commissioner retirements 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-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Staff Report June 6, 2020 Historic Review for 1118 East College Street District: East College Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Kerry Howley, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 1118 East College Street, a contributing property in the East College Street Historic District. The project consists of the addition of skylights and a west-facing window to the non-historic rear addition and the addition of a window to the first-floor front façade. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.13 Windows 4.14 Wood Staff Comments This front gabled vernacular house was built ca. 1900. The house has a full-width front porch and dormers in both sides of the roof. Stylistically, the house appears to be built in a transitional style from the Queen Anne to the Free Classic style. Several elements seem to point to a Free Classic style, such as the simple Doric columns, plain balustrade and window with sidelights on the second floor that may be a simplified version of a Palladian window. This tripartite window is repeated on the first floor on the west side of the house. There are other paired and single one-over-one double-hung windows on the house. Leaded glass windows in the first-floor chamfered corner and next to the door are elements of a more formal Queen Anne style. The house has had several changes. The larger east facing dormer was remodeled. About 1973, a renovation project added a single story to the rear, aluminum siding, and according to a note on one of the building inspections, a layer of sheetrock over the plaster on the first floor. In 2006, the Commission approved the demolition of an existing addition on the house and the construction of a new addition as well as several changes to the remaining portion of the 1973 addition including the addition of the two double-hung windows on the northwest corner, changes to the east wall of the addition and the removal of the aluminum siding on the house and the repair of the original siding and trim. The additions were all clad in cement board and wood trim to match the original siding. The applicant is proposing to add a skylight to each slope of the roof on the addition. The skylights will be low-profiled and dark-framed to match the roof shingles. In addition, the applicant proposes to add a window to the west wall of the rear addition. The proposal is a 16” x 90” fixed horizontal window. The applicant also proposes to add a single double-hung window to the front in a size to match other windows on the house and trimmed to match the others. The window would be located between the door and the cornered chamfer, slightly west of center so that it is not positioned in front of the central porch column. The application desires to have a window in this location similar to other houses of this age. The guidelines for roofs, Section 4.7 Mass and Rooflines, recommend that mechanical devices, vents, solar collectors and skylights not be located on prominent street elevations. Section 4.13 Windows recommends adding new windows that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. The guidelines also recommend adding new windows in a location that is consistent with the window pattern of the historic building or buildings of similar architectural style. New windows should be wood or metal-clad, solid wood windows. Section 4.13 Windows also states that it is disallowed to either install modern types of windows when they are not original to the building, consistent with the architectural style or required for egress or to introduce new window openings into primary elevations. An exception exists for all properties where modern window types may be considered on a case-by-case basis situations where multiple window types exist on a building. In Staff’s opinion, the proposal for skylights in the rear addition meets the guidelines for this alteration. The proposal for a new window in the west wall of the new addition is appropriate but the proposed configuration of a long, thin fixed window does not meet the guidelines. A window of this configuration is too modern for a 1900 vernacular Queen Anne. In addition, this area had modern casement windows prior to the approval of the 2006 project which replaced them with appropriate windows. New windows in this area should also match the windows on the historic portion of the house. Staff finds that either a single double- hung window or a pair of double hung windows would be appropriate in this location because the historic house has windows hung individually, in pairs, or with sidelights. In Staff’s opinion, the history of changes to this house may be partially unknown. It is unknown why the plaster interior was covered in sheet rock. The front-facing windows in the attic seem larger than typical attic windows. The front-facing window on the second floor and the similar window on the west side appear like simplified Palladian windows. The ceiling height in that area lacks the height necessary for a full Palladian window. Numerous houses in Iowa City have some type of bay window. During a brief review of several neighborhoods, a number of bay windows or corner tower forms were noted. Another chamfered corner, similar to this house was not located by the time of the writing of the staff report. Most window configurations in the example properties tended to fall into two types, those where the front door was adjacent to the bay windows so that no space existed for a window or those where a space exists with a double hung single window occupying that space. It does appear unusual for such an expanse of windowless wall in the front façade of many Queen Anne’s or those with Free Classic details. In Staff’s opinion, this property may present a unique condition that justifies an exception to the guidelines because the original window condition may have been altered or because the addition of a window in this location would not negatively impact the historic character of the home and the neighborhood and may follow a tendency for front façade window patterning. Without an exception, the guidelines would disallow the addition of a window to the front façade. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1118 East College Street as presented in the staff report through an exception to the guidelines allowing the addition of a new window opening because it will not negatively impact the existing window pattern or the historic character of the neighborhood due to the unique conditions presented by the existing architecture with the following conditions:  Double hung windows as a single or a pair are installed in the west wall.  The final window pattern is approved by staff and chair  All window product information is approved by staff and chair. Application for Historic Review Property Owner/ Applicant information (Please check primary contact person) Historic Designation (Maps are located at the following link: www.icgov.org/historicpreservationresources) Proposed Project Information Application for alterations to the historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 14-3B. 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/historicpreservationresources 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. For Staff Use: Date submitted: Certificate of No material Effect Certificate of Appropriateness Major Review Intermediate Review Minor Review Property Owner Name: Email: Address: Phone Number: City: State: Zip Code: This Property is a local historic landmark. This Property is within a historic or conservation district (choose location): Contractor/Consultant Name: Email: Address: Phone Number: City: State: Zip Code: Address: Use of Property: Date Constructed (if known): OR Brown St. Historic District College Green Historic District East College St. Historic District Longfellow Historic District Northside Historic District Summit St. Historic District Woodlawn Historic District Clark St. Conservation District College Hill Conservation District Dearborn St. Conservation District Goosetown/ Horace Mann Conservation District Governor-Lucas St. Conservation District Within the district, this Property is Classified as: Contributing Noncontributing Nonhistoric Jefferson St. Historic District Application Requirements Application Requirements Addition Building Elevations (Typically projects entailing an addition to the building footprint such as a room, porch, deck, etc.) Choose appropriate project type. In order to ensure application can be processed, please include all listed materials. Applications without necessary materials may be rejected. Product Information Floor Plans Site Plans Photographs Alteration Building Elevations (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.) Product Information Photographs Construction Building Elevations of a new building Product Information Floor Plans Site Plans Photographs Demolition Photographs (Projects entailing the demolition of a primary structure or outbuilding, or any portion of a building, such as porch, chimney, decorative trim, baluster, etc.) Evidence of deterioration Proposal of Future Plans Repair or Restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. Other Please contact the Preservation Specialist at 356-5243 for materials which need to be included with applications Project Description: Materials to be Used: Exterior Appearance Changes: Photographs Product Information 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 Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 1 Memorandum Date: June 8, 2020 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Historic Preservation and Climate Action The City recently adopted the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan to do their part to combat climate change. At this month’s meeting, a representative of the Climate Action Commission is presenting to the Commission about the Plan. Staff is providing some baseline information on the role that historic preservation plays in global climate action. In 2016, the Preservation Green Lab of the National Trust for Historic Preservation published their study, The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse, on the contribution of historic preservation in combatting climate change. The executive summary and “one- pager” are attached to this memo for your reference. Additional information including the entire study and methodology can be found at the following link: https://forum.savingplaces.org/connect/community- home/librarydocuments/viewdocument?DocumentKey=227592d3-53e7-4388-8a73- c2861f1070d8&CommunityKey=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000&tab=librarydocuments In PartnershIP wIth:wIth suPPort from:a rePort by: the Greenest b uilding: Quantifying the environmental Value of b uilding reuse This report is the copyrighted property of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, all rights reserved 2011. This report may be printed, distributed, and posted on websites in its entirety in PDF format only and for the purposes of education. This report may not be altered or modified without permission. THE gREENEST BUILDINg: QUANTIFyINg THE ENVIRoNMENTAL VALUE oF BUILDINg REUSE VI executIVe summary Until now, little has been known about the climate change reductions that might be offered by reusing and retrofitting existing buildings rather than demolish- ing and replacing them with new construction. This groundbreaking study concludes that building reuse almost always offers environmental savings over demolition and new construction. Moreover, it can take between 10 and 80 years for a new, energy-efficient building to overcome, through more efficient operations, the negative climate change impacts that were created during the construction process. However, care must be taken in the selection of construc- tion materials in order to minimize environmental impacts; the benefits of reuse can be reduced or negated based on the type and quantity of materials selected for a reuse project. This research provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the poten- tial environmental impact reductions associated with building reuse. Utilizing a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) methodology, the study compares the relative environmental impacts of building reuse and renovation versus new construc- tion over the course of a 75-year life span. LCA is an internationally recognized approach to evaluating the potential environmental and human health impacts associated with products and services throughout their respective life cycles.1 This study examines indicators within four environmental impact categories, including climate change, human health, ecosystem quality, and resource depletion. It tests six different building typologies, including a single-family home, multifamily building, commercial office, urban village mixed-use build- ing, elementary school, and warehouse conversion. The study evaluates these building types across four U.S. cities, each representing a different climate zone, i.e., Portland, Phoenix, Chicago, and Atlanta. A summary of life cycle environmental impacts of building reuse, expressed as a percentage of new construction impacts, is shown in the following figure (Summary of Results). Key fIndInGs and anaLysIs BUILDINg ReUSe aLmOST aLwayS yIeLDS FeweR eNVIRONmeNTaL ImPaCTS THaN New CONSTRUCTION wHeN COmPaRINg BUILDINgS OF SImILaR SIze aND FUNCTIONaLITy.2 The range of environmental savings from building reuse varies widely, based on building type, location, and assumed level of energy efficiency. Savings from reuse are between 4 and 46 percent over new construction when comparing buildings with the same energy performance level. The warehouse-to-multifam- ily conversion – one of the six typologies selected for study – is an exception: it generates a 1 to 6 percent greater environmental impact relative to new con- struction in the ecosystem quality and human health impact categories, respec- tively.3 This is due to a combination of factors, including the amount and types of materials used in this project. This research provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the potential environmental impact reductions associated with building reuse. Summary of Results – The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse EnvironmEntal impacts of rEnovation as a pErcEntagE of nEw construction A full description of each impact category and the methods used to evaluate them is located in the Technical Appendices. Base Case = average energy performance; see Section 4 on methodology for determining energy use. Advanced Case = 30% more efficient than Base Case. -8% -16% -9% -10% -12% -11% -11% -13% -15% -9% -10% -12% -13% -12% -13% -14% -15% -14% -12% -15% -15% -14% -12% -14% -20% -20% -24% -27% -14% -14% -16% -17% -6% -13% -6% -7% -7% -9% -9% -10% -10% +6% +5% +4% +5% +5% +5% +4% +5% +1% +1% +1% +1% -1% -1% -1% -1% -7% -7% -8% -8% -11% -12% -13% -9% -14% -9% -11% -10% -12% -12% -14% -13% -17% -14% -12% -15% -20% -18% -15% -18% -24% -23% -27% -30% -28% -27% -31% -33% -9% -10% -11% -11% -12% -13% -14% -10% -17% -10% -11% -11% -15% -16% -17% -17% -21% -18% -14% -19% -26% -23% -19% -24% -29% -28% -30% -33% -32% -31% -33% -35% -10% -11% -11% -12% -15% -16% -16% -7% -12% -7% -8% -9% -9% -9% -10% -12% -9% -7% -6% -8% -11% -9% -7% -10% -11% -10% -11% -13% -12% -11% -13% -14% -7% -7% -8% -10% -9% -9% -10% -4% -9% -4% -5% -6% -5% -6% -7% -8% -7% -6% -5% -7% -9% -8% -7% -8% -7% -7% -8% -9% -8% -8% -9% -10% -5% -5% -6% -7% -7% -7% -8% -15% -25% -15% -18% -20% -18% -19% -22% -24% -33% -29% -26% -30% -38% -34% -31% -35% -34% -34% -41% -44% -39% -38% -44% -46% -16% -17% -19% -21% -20% -20% -23%Resource DepletionAdvanced Case Warehouse to OceCommercial Oce Mixed-Use Elementary School Single-Family Multifamily Warehouse to Multifamily Advanced Case Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Advanced Case Advanced CaseHuman HealthClimate ChangeEcosystem QualtyLegend Chicago New Construction (represents 100%) Rehabilitation + Retroﬁt in: Atlanta Phoenix Portland -8% -16% -9% -10% -12% -11% -11% -13% -15% -9% -10% -12% -13% -12% -13% -14% -15% -14% -12% -15% -15% -14% -12% -14% -20% -20% -24% -27% -14% -14% -16% -17% -6% -13% -6% -7% -7% -9% -9% -10% -10% +6% +5% +4% +5% +5% +5% +4% +5% +1% +1% +1% +1% -1% -1% -1% -1% -7% -7% -8% -8% -11% -12% -13% -9% -14% -9% -11% -10% -12% -12% -14% -13% -17% -14% -12% -15% -20% -18% -15% -18% -24% -23% -27% -30% -28% -27% -31% -33% -9% -10% -11% -11% -12% -13% -14% -10% -17% -10% -11% -11% -15% -16% -17% -17% -21% -18% -14% -19% -26% -23% -19% -24% -29% -28% -30% -33% -32% -31% -33% -35% -10% -11% -11% -12% -15% -16% -16% -7% -12% -7% -8% -9% -9% -9% -10% -12% -9% -7% -6% -8% -11% -9% -7% -10% -11% -10% -11% -13% -12% -11% -13% -14% -7% -7% -8% -10% -9% -9% -10% -4% -9% -4% -5% -6% -5% -6% -7% -8% -7% -6% -5% -7% -9% -8% -7% -8% -7% -7% -8% -9% -8% -8% -9% -10% -5% -5% -6% -7% -7% -7% -8% -15% -25% -15% -18% -20% -18% -19% -22% -24% -33% -29% -26% -30% -38% -34% -31% -35% -34% -34% -41% -44% -39% -38% -44% -46% -16% -17% -19% -21% -20% -20% -23%Resource DepletionAdvanced Case Warehouse to OceCommercial Oce Mixed-Use Elementary School Single-Family Multifamily Warehouse to Multifamily Advanced Case Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Advanced Case Advanced CaseHuman HealthClimate ChangeEcosystem QualtyLegend Chicago New Construction (represents 100%) Rehabilitation + Retroﬁt in: Atlanta Phoenix Portland -8% -16% -9% -10% -12% -11% -11% -13% -15% -9% -10% -12% -13% -12% -13% -14% -15% -14% -12% -15% -15% -14% -12% -14% -20% -20% -24% -27% -14% -14% -16% -17% -6% -13% -6% -7% -7% -9% -9% -10% -10% +6% +5% +4% +5% +5% +5% +4% +5% +1% +1% +1% +1% -1% -1% -1% -1% -7% -7% -8% -8% -11% -12% -13% -9% -14% -9% -11% -10% -12% -12% -14% -13% -17% -14% -12% -15% -20% -18% -15% -18% -24% -23% -27% -30% -28% -27% -31% -33% -9% -10% -11% -11% -12% -13% -14% -10% -17% -10% -11% -11% -15% -16% -17% -17% -21% -18% -14% -19% -26% -23% -19% -24% -29% -28% -30% -33% -32% -31% -33% -35% -10% -11% -11% -12% -15% -16% -16% -7% -12% -7% -8% -9% -9% -9% -10% -12% -9% -7% -6% -8% -11% -9% -7% -10% -11% -10% -11% -13% -12% -11% -13% -14% -7% -7% -8% -10% -9% -9% -10% -4% -9% -4% -5% -6% -5% -6% -7% -8% -7% -6% -5% -7% -9% -8% -7% -8% -7% -7% -8% -9% -8% -8% -9% -10% -5% -5% -6% -7% -7% -7% -8% -15% -25% -15% -18% -20% -18% -19% -22% -24% -33% -29% -26% -30% -38% -34% -31% -35% -34% -34% -41% -44% -39% -38% -44% -46% -16% -17% -19% -21% -20% -20% -23%Resource DepletionAdvanced Case Warehouse to OceCommercial Oce Mixed-Use Elementary School Single-Family Multifamily Warehouse to Multifamily Advanced Case Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Advanced Case Advanced CaseHuman HealthClimate ChangeEcosystem QualtyLegend Chicago New Construction (represents 100%) Rehabilitation + Retroﬁt in: Atlanta Phoenix Portland -8% -16% -9% -10% -12% -11% -11% -13% -15% -9% -10% -12% -13% -12% -13% -14% -15% -14% -12% -15% -15% -14% -12% -14% -20% -20% -24% -27% -14% -14% -16% -17% -6% -13% -6% -7% -7% -9% -9% -10% -10% +6% +5% +4% +5% +5% +5% +4% +5% +1% +1% +1% +1% -1% -1% -1% -1% -7% -7% -8% -8% -11% -12% -13% -9% -14% -9% -11% -10% -12% -12% -14% -13% -17% -14% -12% -15% -20% -18% -15% -18% -24% -23% -27% -30% -28% -27% -31% -33% -9% -10% -11% -11% -12% -13% -14% -10% -17% -10% -11% -11% -15% -16% -17% -17% -21% -18% -14% -19% -26% -23% -19% -24% -29% -28% -30% -33% -32% -31% -33% -35% -10% -11% -11% -12% -15% -16% -16% -7% -12% -7% -8% -9% -9% -9% -10% -12% -9% -7% -6% -8% -11% -9% -7% -10% -11% -10% -11% -13% -12% -11% -13% -14% -7% -7% -8% -10% -9% -9% -10% -4% -9% -4% -5% -6% -5% -6% -7% -8% -7% -6% -5% -7% -9% -8% -7% -8% -7% -7% -8% -9% -8% -8% -9% -10% -5% -5% -6% -7% -7% -7% -8% -15% -25% -15% -18% -20% -18% -19% -22% -24% -33% -29% -26% -30% -38% -34% -31% -35% -34% -34% -41% -44% -39% -38% -44% -46% -16% -17% -19% -21% -20% -20% -23%Resource DepletionAdvanced Case Warehouse to OceCommercial Oce Mixed-Use Elementary School Single-Family Multifamily Warehouse to Multifamily Advanced Case Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Advanced Case Advanced CaseHuman HealthClimate ChangeEcosystem QualtyLegend Chicago New Construction (represents 100%) Rehabilitation + Retroﬁt in: Atlanta Phoenix Portland -8% -16% -9% -10% -12% -11% -11% -13% -15% -9% -10% -12% -13% -12% -13% -14% -15% -14% -12% -15% -15% -14% -12% -14% -20% -20% -24% -27% -14% -14% -16% -17% -6% -13% -6% -7% -7% -9% -9% -10% -10% +6% +5% +4% +5% +5% +5% +4% +5% +1% +1% +1% +1% -1% -1% -1% -1% -7% -7% -8% -8% -11% -12% -13% -9% -14% -9% -11% -10% -12% -12% -14% -13% -17% -14% -12% -15% -20% -18% -15% -18% -24% -23% -27% -30% -28% -27% -31% -33% -9% -10% -11% -11% -12% -13% -14% -10% -17% -10% -11% -11% -15% -16% -17% -17% -21% -18% -14% -19% -26% -23% -19% -24% -29% -28% -30% -33% -32% -31% -33% -35% -10% -11% -11% -12% -15% -16% -16% -7% -12% -7% -8% -9% -9% -9% -10% -12% -9% -7% -6% -8% -11% -9% -7% -10% -11% -10% -11% -13% -12% -11% -13% -14% -7% -7% -8% -10% -9% -9% -10% -4% -9% -4% -5% -6% -5% -6% -7% -8% -7% -6% -5% -7% -9% -8% -7% -8% -7% -7% -8% -9% -8% -8% -9% -10% -5% -5% -6% -7% -7% -7% -8% -15% -25% -15% -18% -20% -18% -19% -22% -24% -33% -29% -26% -30% -38% -34% -31% -35% -34% -34% -41% -44% -39% -38% -44% -46% -16% -17% -19% -21% -20% -20% -23%Resource DepletionAdvanced Case Warehouse to OceCommercial Oce Mixed-Use Elementary School Single-Family Multifamily Warehouse to Multifamily Advanced Case Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Base Case Chicago Atlanta Phoenix Portland Advanced Case Advanced CaseHuman HealthClimate ChangeEcosystem QualtyLegend Chicago New Construction (represents 100%) Rehabilitation + Retroﬁt in: Atlanta Phoenix Portland THE gREENEST BUILDINg: QUANTIFyINg THE ENVIRoNMENTAL VALUE oF BUILDINg REUSE VIII reuse-based impact reductions may seem small when considering a single building. however, the absolute carbon-related impact reductions can be substantial when these results are scaled across the building stock of a city. For example, if the city of Portland were to retrofit and reuse the single-family homes and commercial office buildings that it is otherwise likely to demolish over the next 10 years, the potential impact reduction would total approximately 231,000 metric tons of Co2 – approximately 15% of their county’s total Co2 reduction tar- gets over the next decade.4 When scaled up even further to capture the poten- tial for carbon reductions in other parts of the country, particularly those with a higher rate of demolition, the potential for savings could be substantial. given these potential savings, additional research and analysis are needed to help communities design and employ public-policy tools that will remove obstacles to building reuse. ReUSe OF BUILDINgS wITH aN aVeRage LeVeL OF eNeRgy PeRFORmaNCe CONSISTeNTLy OFFeRS ImmeDIaTe CLImaTe-CHaNge ImPaCT ReDUCTIONS COmPaReD TO mORe eNeRgy-eFFICIeNT New CONSTRUCTION . It is often assumed that the Co2-reduction benefits gained by a new, energy efficient building outweigh any negative climate change impacts associated with the construction of that building. This study finds that it takes 10 to 80 years for a new building that is 30 percent more efficient than an average-per- forming existing building to overcome, through efficient operations, the nega- tive climate change impacts related to the construction process.5 As indicated in the following table, an exception also exists here for the warehouse-to-mul- tifamily building conversion. Upon analysis, this adaptive use scenario does not offer the carbon savings provided by other reuse scenarios. building reuse alone cannot fulfill the urgent task of reducing climate change emissions. The summary of results of this study, shown on the previous page, documents how reuse and retrofitting for energy efficiency, together, offer the most significant emissions reductions in the categories of climate change, human health, and resource impact. Certainly, the barriers to retrofits are numerous. However, a variety of organizations are presently working to address the obstacles to greening existing buildings. This study finds that reuse and retrofit are particularly impactful in areas in which coal is the dominant energy source and more extreme climate variations drive higher energy use. maTeRIaLS maTTeR: THe QUaNTIT y aND T yPe OF maTeRIaLS USeD IN a BUILDINg ReNOVaTION CaN ReDUCe, or even negate, TH e BeNeFITS OF ReUSe. In general, renovation projects that require many new materials – for example, an addition to an elementary school or the conversion of a warehouse to a residen- tial or office use – offer less significant environmental benefits than scenarios in which the footprints or uses of the buildings remain unchanged. In the case of the warehouse-to-multifamily conversion scenario, the newly constructed building actually demonstrated fewer environmental impacts in the categories of ecosys- tem quality and human health. This study finds that it takes 10 to 80 years for a new building that is 30 percent more efficient than an average-performing existing building to overcome, through efficient operations, the negative climate change impacts related to the construction process. THE gREENEST BUILDINg: QUANTIFyINg THE ENVIRoNMENTAL VALUE oF BUILDINg REUSE IX Although warehouse conversions and school additions require more material inputs than other types of renovation projects, reusing these buildings is still more environmentally responsible – in terms of climate change and resource impacts – than building anew, particularly when these buildings are retrofitted to perform at advanced efficiency levels. Better tools are needed to aid designers in selecting materials with the least environmental impacts. Such resources would benefit new construction and renovation projects alike. study objectIVes and aPProach Every year, approximately 1 billion square feet of buildings are demolished and replaced with new construction in the United States.6 The Brookings Institution projects that some 82 billion square feet of existing space will be demolished and replaced between 2005 and 2030 – roughly one-quarter of today’s existing building stock.7 yet, few studies to date have sought to exam- ine the environmental impacts of razing old buildings and erecting new struc- tures in their place. In particular, the climate change implications of demoli- tion and new construction, as compared to building renovation and reuse, remain under-examined. year of Carbon Equivalency For Existing Building Reuse Versus New Construction This study finds that it takes between 10 to 80 years for a new building that is 30 percent more efficient than an average-performing existing building to overcome, through efficient operations, the negative climate change impacts related to the construction process. This table illustrates the numbers of years required for new, energy efficient new buildings to overcome impacts. Building Type chicago Portland Urban Village Mixed Use 42 years 80 years Single Family Residential 38 years 50 years Commercial office 25 years 42 years Warehouse to office Conversion*12 years 19 years Multifamily Residential 16 years 20 years Elementary School 10 years 16 years Warehouse to Residential Conversion Never Never *The warehouse-to-multifamily conversion (which operates at an average level of efficiency) does not offer a climate change impact savings compared to new construction that is 30 percent more efficient. These results are driven by the amount and kind of materials used in this particular building conversion. As evidenced by the study’s summary of results, as shown on page VII, the warehouse-to-residential conversion does offer a climate change advantage when energy performance for the new and existing building scenarios are assumed to be the same. This suggests that it may be especially important to retrofit warehouse buildings for improved energy performance, and that care should be taken to select materials that will maximize environmental savings. Warehouse conversions and school additions require large materials inputs, however reusing these buildings still has lower climate change and resource impacts. THE gREENEST BUILDINg: QUANTIFyINg THE ENVIRoNMENTAL VALUE oF BUILDINg REUSE X Although awareness about the need to reduce near-term climate change impacts is growing, a greater understanding of the potential environmental savings that can be offered by reusing existing buildings rather than developing new buildings is still needed. This study compares the environmental impacts of building demo- lition and new construction relative to building renovation and reuse. The study has three key objectives: • To compute and compare the life-cycle environmental impacts of buildings undergoing rehabilitation to those generated by the demolition of existing buildings and their replacement with new construction; • To determine which stage of a building’s life (i.e. materials production, construction, occupancy) contributes most significantly to its environmental impacts, when those impacts occur, and what drives those impacts; and • To assess the influence of building typology, geography, energy performance, electricity-grid mix, and life span on environmental impacts throughout a building’s life cycle. In examining these themes, the authors consider potential opportunities to reduce carbon emissions and other negative environmental impacts through building reuse and explore how differences in building type, climate, and energy-efficiency levels affect these opportunities. This research is intended to serve as a resource for those who influence and shape the built environment, including policy makers, building owners, develop- ers, architects, engineers, contractors, real estate professionals, and non-profit environmental, green building and preservation advocacy groups. To that end, the study identifies key environmental considerations and challenges related to new construction, retrofits and reuse. Findings from this study should be con- sidered in light of the myriad realities that affect development decisions, such as building codes, zoning, financing, demographics, and design trends. Each year, approximately 1 billion square feet of buildings are demolished and replaced with new construction. THE gREENEST BUILDINg: QUANTIFyINg THE ENVIRoNMENTAL VALUE oF BUILDINg REUSE XI concLusIons For those concerned with climate change and other environmental impacts, reusing an existing building and upgrading it to maximum efficiency is almost always the best option regardless of building type and climate. Most climate scientists agree that action in the immediate timeframe is crucial to stave off the worst impacts of climate change. Reusing existing buildings can offer an important means of avoiding unnecessary carbon outlays and help communities achieve their carbon reduction goals in the near term. This report sets the stage for further research that could augment and refine the findings presented here. Study results are functions of the specific buildings chosen for each scenario and the particular type and quantity of materials used in construction and rehabilitation. great care was taken to select scenarios that would be representative of typical building reuse or conversion projects. How- ever, environmental impacts will differ for building conversions that use different types and amounts of materials. others are encouraged to repeat this research using additional building case studies; replicating this analysis will enhance our collective understanding of the range of impact differences that can be expected between new construction and building reuse projects. This study introduces important questions about how different assumptions related to energy efficiency affect key findings. In particular, further research is needed to clarify how impacts are altered if a new or existing building can be brought to a net-zero level using various technologies, including renewable energy. about the Project team This research was made possible by a generous grant from the Summit Foun- dation to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The project was coordi- nated by the Preservation green Lab, a programmatic office of the National Trust, which is dedicated to advancing research that explores the sustainability value of older and historic buildings and identifying policy solutions that help communities leverage their built assets. The project team includes Cascadia green Building Council, Quantis LLC, Skanska, and green Building Services. Most climate scientists agree that action in the immediate timeframe is crucial to stave off the worst impacts of climate change. Reusing existing buildings can offer an important means of avoiding unnecessary carbon outlays and help communities achieve their carbon reduction goals in the near term. THE gREENEST BUILDINg: QUANTIFyINg THE ENVIRoNMENTAL VALUE oF BUILDINg REUSE XII endnotes 1. Section 1 of this report explains Life Cycle assessment (LCa) in greater detail. 2. where energy performance for renovated and new buildings is assumed to be the same. 3. The warehouse-to-multifamily conversion required significantly more new materials than other reuse scenarios tested in this study. The table on page Ix provides additional details. 4. Based on demolition rates between 2003-2011 provided by City of Portland Bureau of Planning and CO2 emission targets as outlined by the City of Portland and multnomah County 2009 Climate action Plan. Reduction in CO2 emissions assumes both the new and the existing buildings are consid- ered to be of the same size and functionality. 5. In this study, energy-use figures for average-performing existing buildings, also known as the ‘Base Case,’ were established using national survey data and other recent research. more details are pro- vided in Section 4 of the for the report. For purposes of this study, the term ‘new, efficient buildings,’ or the ‘advanced Case,’ refers to new buildings that achieve 30 percent greater energy efficiency over Base Case energy performance. 6. National figures tracking demolition are out-of-date. However, a 1998 study by the U.S. environmental Protection agency (ePa) provides a sense of the annual scale of demolition nationwide; it estimates that approximately 925 million square feet of residential and nonresidential space were demolished in 1996. U.S. environmental Protection agency: Office of Solid waste, “Characterization of Building- Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States,” ePa530 -R-98-010. (washington: U.S.environmental Protection agency, June 1998). 7. arthur C. Nelson, “Toward a New metropolis: The Opportunity to Rebuild america” (washington: Brookings Institution, 2004). A report produced by the Preservation Green Lab of the National Trust for Historic Preservation provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the potential environmental benefit of building reuse. This groundbreaking study, “The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Value of Building Reuse,” concludes that, when comparing buildings of equivalent size and function, building reuse almost always offers environmental savings over demolition and new construction. These findings add to the already impressive economic and quality of life advantages offered by building reuse. Studies show that building reuse creates more and better-paying jobs than new construction, and that rehabilitation projects keep more dollars circulating in the local economy. It is also well known that residents, businesses and tourists are drawn to communities that retain their distinctive character and heritage. The report’s key findings offer policy-makers, building owners, developers, architects and engineers compelling evidence of the merits of reusing existing buildings as opposed to tearing them down and building new. Looking for the “Greenest” Building? Start with the one that already exists. continued > ‘Main Street’ buildings, common in historic neighborhoods, are one building type evaluated in the study. Each year, approximately 1 billion square feet of buildings are demolished and replaced with new construction. Study partners included: Those finding include: Reuse Matters. Building reuse typically offers greater environmental savings than demolition and new construction. It can take up to 80 years for a new energy efficient building to overcome, through efficient operations, the climate change impacts created by its construction. Scale Matters. Collectively, building reuse and retrofits substantially reduce climate change impacts. Retrofitting, rather than demolishing and replacing, just 1% of the city of Portland’s office buildings and single family homes over the next ten years would help to meet 15% of their county’s total CO2 reduction targets over the next decade. Design Matters. The environmental benefits of reuse are maximized by minimizing the input of new construction materials. Renovation projects that require many new materials can reduce or even negate the benefits of reuse. The Bottom Line: Reusing existing buildings is good for the economy, the community and the environment. At a time when our country’s foreclosure and unemployment rates remain high, communities would be wise to reinvest in their existing building stock. Historic rehabilitation has a thirty-two year track record of creating 2 million jobs and generating $90 billion in private investment. Studies show residential rehabilitation creates 50% more jobs than new construction. THE fuLL REPoRT cAN BE AccESSEd oNLiNE AT: www.PRESERVATioNNATioN.oRG/SuSTAiNABiLiTy Reuse and retrofit of existing buildings offers immediate opportunities to address climate change impacts A Report by:with support from: MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL May 14, 2020 MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Kevin Boyd, Helen Burford, Gosia Clore, Sharon DeGraw, Lyndi Kiple, Cecile Kuenzli, Quentin Pitzen, Jordan Sellergren, Austin Wu MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Ginalie Swaim, Sean Hilton, Megan Schott, Ayman Sharif, Nathaniel Bequeaith, Ashley Carol-Fingerhut, Gary Milavetz, Alec Deer RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 10-0 the Commission recommends approval of the local landmark designation for the property at 109 East College Street. By a vote of 10-0 the Commission recommends approval of the local landmark designation for the property at 111-113 East College Street. By a vote of 10-0 the Commission recommends approval of the local landmark designation for the property at 115 East College Street. By a vote of 10-0 the Commission recommends approval of the local landmark designation for the property at 117-123 East College Street. By a vote of 10-0 the Commission recommends that City Council execute the proposed transfer agreement obligating the City and the University to preserve the Sanxay-Gilmore House as proposed therein. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the electronic meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. utilizing Zoom. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. PUBLIC HEARINGS – LANDMARK DESIGNATIONS: Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff, and the public presented by COVID-19. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 14, 2020 Page 2 of 14 109 East College Street (Dooley Block, west bay). Bristow said each of the proposed local landmarks meet the criterion of being significant to American and/or Iowa City history, architecture, archaeology, and culture. In Iowa City, this is considered achieved if the architecture is recognizable, there were people associated with it, or it is representative of an element of our culture. The property needs to be historic, over 50 years old, and achieve some basic significance. The property also must possess an integrity of location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship. All the criteria are the same criteria, generally, that the National Register would use for a National Register listing. The National Register would consider the interiors and some other things not considered locally. This building and all the buildings we are discussing tonight are in their original location and they have not changed significantly since they were built. Staff would contend that all these properties meet the basic criteria of A (Iowa City significance) and B (integrity). It would also be evident that they meet these criteria because they are part of an historic district that is currently being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. We will talk about the other criteria as we go. These properties are located on College Street, right off Clinton Street. We have what was the opera block on the corner and then, moving east, the next four properties proposed as local landmarks. The first property is 109 East College. It is the west bay of the original Dooley block. This is the first portion of the block building that was built about 1874. Bristow explained this is just one bay of a two-story brick building. The site inventory form and the Downtown National Register nomination talk about this as being late Victorian Romanesque with Italianate details. The Italianate details are most evident in the cornice at the top of the building. Half-round arches with keystone detail are Romanesque. This storefront has changed, but it is still historic with prism glass and some of those other details noted in the site inventory form. It is notable that this building is in our original commercial district and it has housed numerous stores, billiards, and saloons. Staff finds that this building is going to meet the criteria for C (association with events) and E (architectural characteristics). C is a criterion that all these buildings will meet. It is tied to the Downtown National Register nomination. Historic downtowns tend to be associated with an event that is the history of commerce in the community, the development of commerce, and how that basically leads to the development of a city and the expansion of the city. Along those lines, 109 East College also meets architecture criteria. Bristow shared an historic photo of the original Dooley block. In the 1920s the middle two bays were removed and the Sears Roebuck building was built. The photo showed the west bay of the Dooley block with some of the prism glass and included the midlevel cornice that is missing now. Other than that, this building has strong integrity. Boyd asked for clarifying questions, then opened the public hearing. Ginalie Swaim, Board President of the Friends of Historic Preservation, added their support for landmarking these four important buildings. She said they are an integral part of Iowa City’s architectural and commercial history and are great benefits to the streetscape. Boyd closed the public hearing. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 14, 2020 Page 3 of 14 MOTION: Kiple moved to approve the designation of the Dooley Block (west bay), 109 East College Street, as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, c, and e. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. 111-113 East College Street (Sears, Roebuck & Company). Bristow presented the next potential landmark, the Sears, Roebuck & Company building, 111- 113 East College Street, located right next door. In the 1920s the two middle bays of the block were demolished and this building was constructed in 1929. It was built in a style commonly know as the Commercial Brick Front. It has some terra cotta inlays and some elaborate brickwork in the upper level. It has Chicago style windows on the second floor. The original storefront had an entry in the center and display windows on each side, along with some prism glass, like the other buildings, at the transom level with a sign board above. Bristow noted the storefront level has been changed so there is an entry on each side with a display window in the middle. Despite that change, the rest of this building façade has a high level of integrity. She said this building also represents our commercial history and the history of the downtown. Staff finds it is eligible under the same criteria as the Dooley block, including C and E. Boyd asked for clarifying questions, opened and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Kiple moved to approve the designation of the Sears, Roebuck, & Company Building, 111-113 East College Street, as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, c, and e. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. 115 East College Street (Dooley Block, east bay). Bristow explained this property to be next door to the last property. The east bay is the farthest extent of the original Dooley block. She said this was built between 1892 and 1899, but the definite date is not known. Bristow pointed out the midlevel cornice detail, stating it was hard to tell if it was the same detail found on the entire block before, or if was built to mimic the crescent block next door at a later date. She said the integrity of the upper level of this building is very high. The storefront has been changed so that the entire central area opens the existing restaurant to the patio portion. It retains the same proportions and scale that the original storefront would have had, so it is not a change that would make this ineligible or detract from the historic character of the building. Staff found this would be eligible for both C and E. Boyd asked for clarifying questions, opened and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Kiple moved to approve the designation of the Dooley Block (east bay), 115 East College Street, 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. 117-123 East College Street (Crescent Block). HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 14, 2020 Page 4 of 14 Bristow explained the Crescent Block is a little bit different than the other buildings. In the nomination for the National Register Historic District, the other buildings are marked as key contributing. That also means the building would probably be eligible for local landmarking. That does not necessarily mean it would be eligible for individual National Register listing because the National Register also looks at the interior of a building, and that information is not available for most of these buildings. Bristow said for the Crescent Block we do have some of that interior information. It has quite a bit of integrity. It is not in good condition in the upper levels, but it does have some integrity there. It also has an association with an individual, something the other buildings do not have. It was built by C. F. Lovelace, who built the Martini’s building next door, and did some other work in town. He was also an important local individual. Bristow shared an image with a view from the Clinton Street corner looking southeast, with the opera house on the corner, the Dooley Block, and then the Crescent Block, about 1910. Another image of the building in 1925 before the Sears building was built down the block is a good representation of the building. She noted the slightly original rhythm of windows in the upper level, not quite as concentrated as you see on many other buildings, and the original configuration of the windows on the second floor. This is a three-story building. It is taller than the neighboring buildings. It does have a slightly extended storefront level with a little shed roof at the cornice level that extends out over that area. This building was remodeled in the 1930s with Carrera glass in a very Art Deco style. This is a change that was made historically during the period of significance of not only the building, but also the downtown area. This is the kind of change that would not impact the historic character of the building negatively. The fact that it is kind of rare in our downtown, and that it remains, heightens the importance of this building. Because of the association with Lovelace, Staff feel this building would be eligible locally under C and E like the others, but also criteria D (significant persons). Boyd asked for clarifying questions, opened and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Kiple moved to approve the designation of the Crescent Block, 117-123 East College Street, as an Iowa City Historic Landmark based on the following criteria for local designation: criteria a, b, c, d, and e. Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 510 North Van Buren project review was moved to the end of the meeting because of a conflict of interest with a Commission member as applicant and because the traditional methods of responding to a conflict of interest was not effective in a virtual meeting. 708 Dearborn Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (screened porch rear addition). Bristow said this property is noncontributing because of the application of metal siding and the change to the front entry area. Otherwise it looks very much like a minimal traditional you would find elsewhere in the district. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 14, 2020 Page 5 of 14 The proposal is to add a screen porch addition to the back of the property. The property line is close to the house - only two feet away. Not only is the addition stepped back the normal distance, it is stepped back further to meet some code requirements. Bristow said the roof slope would be matched. It will be a gable end. This house does not have elaborate trim details. It does not have any kind of overhang on the gable ends. The contractor will match what happens on the house. To meet code, it will have a baluster all the way around the screened porch on the inside. There will be an entry stoop and step with a railing and baluster facing south. This type of house would not have had a front porch so there are no porch details to mimic. The corner posts will be 6 x 6 to make it apparent that the roof is supported. Depending on the condition of the siding that is removed within the screen porch area, either there will be some new siding matching the lap of the original siding or possibly some of the metal siding could be placed here. The gable will match either the original siding or the existing siding. There is an exception in the guidelines to approve a sliding glass door on the back of a property in a conservation district. This property is noncontributing currently because of the entry and the siding. It is noncontributing, so that is an exception that can be made for this property. Staff does recommend approving an exception to allow a sliding glass door from the house into the new screened porch. Bristow displayed some side elevations. She said the porch will have a screen door. The roof material will match. Boyd asked for clarifying questions, then opened and closed the public hearing. MOTION: Kuenzli moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 708 Dearborn Street as presented in the application with the following condition: Door product information is submitted and approved by staff. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. 221 East Washington Street, Englert Theater – Local Historic Landmark (signage repair and revision). The Englert Theater is not a local landmark. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and it would also be contributing to the Downtown Historic District listed on the National Register. Bristow said it is coming under review purely because of a code requirement. The sign does not meet downtown sign regulations, so it is considered a nonconforming sign for a few reasons including its size. Signs that are nonconforming can be maintained but, as soon as a change is made, a special exception is needed from the Board of Adjustment in order to remain in its nonconforming state. Part of that requirement, if it is historic, includes approval of the project by the Commission. Bristow believed the overall project for the Englert was working toward tax credits. Englert has been in discussion with the State Historic Preservation Office and they are following the Secretary of Interior Standards. Generally, the project is the type of project that the Commission would have approved. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 14, 2020 Page 6 of 14 The marquee sign projects from above the first floor with a canopy over the entryway. There are several components to this project. The marquee roof membrane and drainage system will be repaired. Part of the project will increase the energy efficiency of the sign overall by replacing all the bulbs with LEDs that are made specifically to mimic the existing incandescent bulbs. The change from the existing bulbs to LED with not impact the historic integrity of this sign. The neon will all be taken down and repaired and replaced if necessary, with one exception. The red neon along the bottom, which in some places is broken and missing, and is often the subject of vandalism will be replaced with a non-illuminated metal tube which will look like the others during the day. Staff recommends approval of this project. The changes are minimal and mostly for energy efficiency and safety reasons. Staff recommends approval. Boyd asked for clarifying questions, opened and closed the public hearing. Kuenzli noted the Englert brings people to the downtown area. She wondered about extending a local historic landmark designation to the Englert. She said the City has invested a lot in the Englert and there has been a lot of citizen involvement in saving it. Boyd said he would reach out to Englert to see if they would want to join the list of Iowa City landmarked properties upon completion of their project. MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 221 East Washington Street as presented in the application with the following condition: Approval of the special exception is granted by the Board of Adjustment. Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. 1331 Muscatine Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (signage installation). Bristow explained this to be the small brick commercial building just on the very edge of the Longfellow Historic District. It is going to be opening as a meat market. Historically, it was a grocery. It was built in 1920, a commercial brick front. It has housed many grocers over time. Bristow shared a photo from when it was Hunter’s Grocery Store. There was a sign that occupied the existing sign board at the top of the wall with a frame in the architecture. At the time of the photo, it also had a sign midlevel. Bristow said this property is in a residential-zoned district and there are limitations to signs. The sign would have to be below the first floor and a small dimension, such as two square feet. This owner will have to acquire a special exception from the Board of Adjustment to allow the sign to be at the top of the wall in the original historic sign board, and to be the dimension of that sign board. Bristow explained the Commission’s review of this project is to determine that the most appropriate place for a sign on this building would be in the historic sign board. That is historically where the sign was. That is what was added to the building architecturally to house that sign. The Commission would urge the Board of Adjustment to approve a special exception to retain the historic character of the building. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 14, 2020 Page 7 of 14 Referencing the information put out by the National Park Service, it appears this would be the only appropriate location for a sign on the wall of the building. Staff recommends approval of the sign in the original sign board location and at that scale. This approval will not only help maintain the historic character of this commercial building in this residential neighborhood, but it will also help prevent further damage to the brick were they to try to install a sign elsewhere. Boyd asked for clarifying questions. Agran thought it was superfluous that the owner had to apply for a special exception to put a sign in the original sign board on the building. Bristow said City code for the residential neighborhood is also looking at situations where someone decides to open a home business. A large sign is not wanted in a residential neighborhood because it could potentially be a distraction or disturbance for occupants in that neighborhood. Code is written for that kind of a situation. It is not written to say whether you could do it because it was there historically. There are some points to the code that say they can issue that special exception because the building is historic and locally designated. Those are things that the Board of Adjustment will look at. Kuenzli thought it was a bit ironic, because if you are looking for a commercial establishment in a residential neighborhood, the sign must be distinguishable. Putting the sign in the original location would not detract or intrude into the neighborhood like a sign that stuck out or waved in the wind. Agran wondered if, instead of pursuing this path, if they rezoned to CN-1 the owner would not have to go through the Board of Adjustment process. Russett said both options were proposed to the applicant and they chose the current route. Boyd opened and closed the public hearing. Agran said based on the original signage for the building, and the fact that there is a memorable trade sign currently on that building, he wondered whether it might make sense to simplify the text on the top sign band and then utilize a trade sign on the front of the building. Agran also wanted to talk about City regulations - how a sign impacts the historic integrity of the building. He said if it were his building, he would not want to put any screws into the sign band. He would want to hand paint the sign in the sign band. He believed a painted sign would be more sensitive to the building than vinyl sign on a piece of Dibond that is screwed to the front of the building. Bristow said she would talk to the applicant about whether it needs to be something attached or painted. She was not sure if there was a code issue. DeGraw and Kuenzli also advocated for a painted sign. MOTION: Pitzen moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1331 Muscatine Avenue as presented in the application with the following condition: Approval of the special exception is granted by the Board of Adjustment. Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 14, 2020 Page 8 of 14 FINAL PRESENTATION ON THE IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION INITIATIVE PROJECT BY THE STUDENTS OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING. Sean Hilton and Megan Schott, two members of the team, presented their final presentation. Other team members include Nathanial Bequeaith and Ayman Sharif. Schott explained the University of Iowa Graduate School of Urban and Regional Planning had been working with the City of Iowa City, as well as the Iowa City Downtown District, to do a project about historic preservation in the downtown and identifying some areas where there may be some challenges, some opportunities, and some flexibility in future historic preservation policy in Iowa City. The team started this in August and just wrapped up this week. During the year, the team analyzed historic preservation practice in Iowa City and how that practice relates to economic, environmental, and social goals. The team reviewed existing tools and best practices to produce a set of recommendations. Recommendations regarding social values included highlighting more of the minority and immigrant population in Iowa City, as well as educational programming to provide information on the benefits of historic preservation. Establishing a workforce competent in historic preservation would assist in the efforts. The team recommended shortened long-term public engagement plans for historic preservation. Continuing the emphasis of Downtown as a center for arts and culture, identifying opportunities to reuse structures instead of demolishing them, and then engaging schools, nonprofits, and neighborhood groups in historic preservation, and the coordination with Kirkwood Community College to revive the interior and exterior certificate series that was once offered. One key environmental recommendation would be to clarify the role of preservation in the Climate Action Plan. It could be added as a goal to preserving buildings in the name of sustainability, increasing the retrofits of older buildings. There were not a lot of people taking advantage of energy audits and seeing what could be done to make buildings more efficient, and then implementing an adaptive reuse ordinance. This is an ordinance that expedites changes in use and grants any sort of incentive to reuse buildings. The group reported on economic values, including an introduction to economic values and historic preservation, funding mechanisms, affordability, which covers historic tax credits, federal and state tax credits, and everything in between. Recommendations included a survey implemented at regular intervals to gather data on commercial and residential affordability and availability, implementing a split-rate tax incentive, and enhancing and expanding funding opportunities for beginning project loans. This was viewed as a barrier by project owners or building owners because of the upfront costs of preservation. Their final report will be available at: https://www.urban.uiowa.edu/iisc/2019-2020-projects SANXAY-GILMORE HOUSE AGREEMENT. Russett provided some background related to the Sanxay-Gilmore House. Gloria Dei Lutheran Church sold the Sanxay-Gilmore House, which is located at 109 East Market Street, to the University of Iowa in 2018. There were a lot of concerns regarding the future of the building. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 14, 2020 Page 9 of 14 There were concerns that the building could potentially be demolished. Staff, Bristow, and Ginalie Swaim, former Chair of the Preservation Commission, analyzed potential sites for relocating the Sanxay-Gilmore House. As part of that analysis they identified that the vacant lot across the street from the home was the most appropriate site for relocation. In addition to that, Staff secured an emergency grant from the State to assess the structural condition of the home. That final report concluded that the building could be moved, and it could be rehabilitated. Since that report came out Staff has been working with the University to identify possible solutions to preserve the building. At this point, Staff has reached an agreement with the University to move the building to the City-owned lot across the street. Tonight, the Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding that draft transfer agreement. Russett shared a map showing location of the Sanxay-Gilmore House and the vacant City- owned lot across the street, which is the location where it would be moved. She noted the full draft agreement was included in the agenda packet. In the draft agreement it states what the University would be responsible for. The University would be responsible for relocating the house to the City-owned parking lot. They would cover all the costs associated with consultants and engineers to make that move. They would remodel the house, keeping the Secretary of Interior standards in mind. They would be responsible for maintaining and preserving the home with sensitivity to the age, architecture, and historic nature of the home for a minimum of 40 years. If the University no longer had a use for the home within that 40-year period, ownership would revert to the City. Additionally, after the 40-year period, the University can either preserve the home on site or, if they choose, on another suitable property. Russett noted City Staff has received some concerns about the proposed location of the vacant parking lot. That parking lot is currently used by religious institutions in that area and they have concerns about that lot potentially being occupied by a structure. Staff is recommending that the Commission recommend the City Council authorize execution of the agreement. Boyd asked if any members of the public wished to speak. Ashley Carol-Fingerhut spoke. She is the new Executive Director of Iowa Hillel, a foundation for Jewish life on campus at the University of Iowa. The foundation would be the potential next-door neighbors to this house. The foundation is currently located at 122 East Market Street. She said they want to be good neighbors but would like the opportunity to understand what was happening with this project and any impacts it would have on their organization and their students. Carol-Fingerhut said their concerns include taking away parking next to their building, which is used by students. Boyd explained the City has been working with the University on this for a while. They have come to an agreement. If the Commission approved the recommendation tonight, the agreement would go to City Council for their approval. He was not sure if any parking would remain but the house may not take the entire lot. Gary Milavetz, board member at the Hillel House, said he supported Carol-Fingerhut’s statement. He said they have not had time to consider what is going on and the implications it could have regarding programming for students, which also has a potential for community HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 14, 2020 Page 10 of 14 impact. He said they do not have a problem with the house but noted it will have implications for their programs. Alec Deer, also a board member at Hillel, echoed the statements of Carol-Fingerhut and Milavetz. Ginalie Swaim spoke. She is the current Board President of Friends of Historic Preservation, an Iowa City nonprofit since 1975. She said she found herself again speaking about Iowa City’s oldest remaining house within the original town limits. Before joining the Friends Board, Swaim chaired the Commission. She said this has been an agenda item for a long time. There have been a lot of people working on viable options for this building. She said the Commission’s recommendation in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan called to preserve this building. In the fall of 2017, Alicia Trimble, who was director of Friends at that time, and Swaim, representing the Commission, began months of meeting and communication with City Staff, with the Mayor at that time, and the City Council; with Gloria Dei Lutheran Church, and with the University and the community. In early 2018 Preservation Iowa identified this house as one of the most endangered properties in the state. In 2019, as a Friends representative, Swaim again addressed the Council on trying to find a viable option. Swaim said the City has listened and thought carefully about how this 1843 structure could survive. She thought the agreement would be a very sound solution for an important building for five reasons. First, the location. In the best of worlds, the house would be best if it could stay where it is. It cannot, but across the street can also work quite well. Swaim recognized the lot has some parking spaces that are useful. Parking is always a premium in Iowa City. She said saving Iowa City’s oldest house is really important, too. Across the street it will still be quite close to Old Capitol, the town’s other oldest structure. The second reason this is a sound solution is that the Secretary of Interior standards will be kept in mind for any remodeling inside. Some interior spaces need a lot of updating, but other spaces retain some 19th Century details that are quite wonderful. Swaim was pleased the University will keep those standards in mind. Third is recognizing the importance. The University will be required to maintain and preserve the home with sensitivity to the age, architecture, and historic nature. She said it is now accepted by all parties that this 1843 house is a fine example of Greek Revival with later Italianate details that are representative of Iowa City’s founding years. The fourth reason is the use. The agreement speaks to appropriate renovations to support new programmatic space for the University. This shows that the University realizes that Sanxay- Gilmore House, like many historic buildings, can and will be used. That is every preservationist’s dream, that older houses are recognized, preserved, and used. The fifth reason is the future. The University is agreeing to 40 years of stewardship. That is a good new lease on life for a house that is almost 180. After that, the house may well come back to the City, well-preserved and appreciated. Swaim said she had nothing but gratitude for City Staff, including Jessica Bristow and Geoff Fruin, and others for working on this, including former Mayor Jim Throgmorton and Council HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 14, 2020 Page 11 of 14 members who continue to believe in this house; former owner Gloria Dei Lutheran Church, who have been good stewards of the house for so long; the University for the wisdom of adding Sanxay-Gilmore to their campus and thus allowing students and staff to step back in time every time they enter the house. Lastly, Swaim thanked the Commission for what she hoped would be a unanimous vote forwarding this proposal to the City Council. Boyd asked if the City was giving the entire lot to the University for the lease. Russett said site plans would need to be reviewed, but most of the lot would be used for the house. She was not sure if there would be any space left for parking. Agran pointed out the City can negotiate this agreement and work to find a solution. He noted other City initiatives that have to do with traffic calming and buffered bike lanes. If the City energy and vision is there, there might be the ability to leverage this moment in a way that could create more parking in the area for these kinds of organizations that need the parking. MOTION: Burford moved that the Historic Preservation Commission recommend the City of Iowa City City Council execute this proposed agreement. Wu seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. Boyd asked Russett, as this moved forward, to share Commission members’ concerns about finding solutions for parking. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review. 1022 East College Street – East College Street Historic District (rear addition membrane roof replacement, deteriorated siding and trim repair and replacement). Bristow said this involved replacement of a roof membrane on this house at 1022 East College Street. The one-story addition in the back needed a new roof membrane. There are significant areas of damage to trim and siding, too. Any damage to material/trim will be repaired and replaced only if necessary, and it will match the existing. Minor Review – Staff Review. 737 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (modern window replacement). Bristow said this stucco bungalow on Grant Street had one window that was a modern, casement-style window in the kitchen. It is being replaced to fit the original opening size, so it will not have odd, wide trim and the trim will match the others. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 9, 2020 MOTION: Agran moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission’s April 9, 2020 meeting. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Montgomery-Butler House. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 14, 2020 Page 12 of 14 Boyd reminded the Commission that this is an historic property the City owns in Waterworks Park. Waterworks Park is not maintained by the Parks Department but, rather, the Public Works Department. As such, there is no one taking lead on finding a solution for this house. Boyd proposed getting a working group together. He wanted the direction to come from the Commission as a group. He recommended the Commission ask City Staff to help form a working group of relevant City Departments, which would include Historic Preservation, Public Works, Parks and Rec, and potentially others, as well as engaged citizens and perhaps some users of the park, and work out a plan and recommendation for an adaptive reuse for the Montgomery-Butler House. He noted it has been a part of the Commission’s yearly plan for a couple of years and needs some action. Preserve Iowa Summit, Dubuque, June 4-6, 2020 (Virtual presentation). Bristow said she had signed Commissioners up to attend the virtual Summit. If any other Commissioners still wanted to register, they should contact her. She said she would be presenting at the Summit and the information and Power Point should be available afterward. Annual Historic Preservation Awards Update (live Virtual presentation 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 28, 2020). Boyd explained this year the awards would be a virtual presentation on Facebook Live. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 510 North Van Buren Street – Northside Historic District (porch reconstruction). Boyd noted one of the Commission members was the applicant for this agenda item. Agran recused himself. Bristow explained 510 North Van Buren Street is in the Northside Historic District and is noncontributing because of some synthetic siding and the porch is gone. Bristow shared an image of the house. The project proposal currently is to reconstruct a porch. She said it was known that this house, the house next to it at 512 North Van Buren, and the houses across the street, were all some type of catalog home. A concerted effort was made to see if plans could be located. Plans were not located, so the specific design of the original porch is not known. Bristow noted that across the street, two porches have square columns. The porch next door at 512 Van Buren has round columns. She said when researching the different types of catalog homes, it tended to go either way with round columns or square columns. Bristow shared the site plan. The porch would be a traditional eight-feet wide, stepped in from the corners so the roof can terminate before the end wall of the house. The front elevation was shown. It does show that the roof slope is slightly higher than what we see in a lot of these porches. One of the issues commonly seen with some of these porches would be the low slope. It tends to mean you want to use a rubber roof membrane instead of something like shingles. Historically, many of them were a metal roof, not with standing seams, but with soldered seams. Bristow believed increasing the slope would help with the maintenance of the house. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 14, 2020 Page 13 of 14 Otherwise, she said the porch would meet all guidelines, including skirting. Staff would recommend that the piers under the posts match the foundation. Any railing would be a simple square railing. It would be a basic design to meet the guidelines, which conveniently would also tend to match the other catalog homes in the vicinity. Bristow said she believed everything was proposed to be constructed of wood. The current project is just to reconstruct the missing front porch, which would go a long way toward making this house contributing to this district. Boyd asked for any clarifying questions. There were none. The public hearing was opened. Agran spoke as the applicant. He said he has wanted to rebuild this front porch ever since moving in next door. He said he appreciated the opportunity to do it. He said he did plan to use wood for the materials. Regarding pier material, Agran said he preferred to use brick instead of rough-edged block, if possible. He did not view rough-edged block as very attractive or sympathetic to the period. Boyd asked if the pier material could be reviewed by Staff and Chair. Bristow said yes, or the Commission could make a recommendation at this time. She said the guidelines do talk about having the piers match the foundation because it is technically a foundation material. Kuenzli thought the foundation for the front of the house looked like smooth concrete blocks in the photo. Agran said flat cinder block was used where the porch will be, and they only used more decorative block on the outside He said it had a stucco coating in some areas and is flat block in others. He said what would ultimately be exposed after the porch was built would be rough- edged CMU. Boyd closed the public hearing. MOTION: Clore moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 510 North Van Buren as presented in the application with the following conditions: Final materials are wood or appropriate wood substitutes approved by Staff, and an exception to use brick for the porch piers. Kuenzli seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. ADJOURNMENT: Clore moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by DeGraw. The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Minutes submitted by Judy Jones HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION May 14, 2020 Page 14 of 14 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2019-2020 NAME TERM EXP. 5/23 6/13 8/08 8/19 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 1/09 2/13 3/12 4/09 5//14 AGRAN, THOMAS 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/20 O/E X X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X BUILTA, ZACH 6/30/19 X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BURFORD, HELEN 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X CLORE, GOSIA 6/30/20 X O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/19 X O/E X X O/E O/E X O/E X X O/E X X KARR, G. T. 6/30/20 X X X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- KUENZLI, CECILE 6/30/19 X O/E X X O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 -- -- X X X X X X O/E O/E X X X PITZEN, QUENTIN 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/22 -- -- X X X X X X O/E O/E X X X SHOPE, LEE 6/30/21 X O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- WU, AUSTIN 6/30/20 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- O/E X X O/E X