HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Agenda packet 8.13.2020
Thursday
August 13, 2020
5:30 p.m.
Electronic
Zoom Meeting Platform
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, August 13, 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
1. 516 Fairchild Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (garage and driveway
remodel)
2. 424 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (porch reconstruction)
E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff
Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review
1. 418 North Gilbert Street – Northside Historic District (rear stoop repair)
2. 608 Dearborn Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (front porch flooring and railing
replacement
3. 608 ½ Dearborn Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (deck floor replacement)
Minor Review –Staff review
1. 1220 East Court Street- Longfellow Historic District (reopening front porch and new stair
construction
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/tJApfumrrjgpHtPQ0HVpQCg1opqjP_dN_DL2
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 944 9030 3347 when prompted. Providing comment in
person is not an option.
2. 418 Church Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (aluminum siding
removal, siding and trim repair and porch repair)
3. 1107 Burlington Street – College Hill Conservation District (new guardrail)
F) Amendments to the Historic Preservation Guidelines
1. Basement egress window and window well alteration project as minor review
2. Front Step and Stoop alteration project as minor review
3. Solar panel installation project as minor review
4. Skylight alteration project as minor review
5. Commercial sign installation project as minor review
G) Consideration of Minutes for July 9, 2020
H) Commission Information
1. Sanxay-Gilmore House update, 109 Market Street
2. Development Update, 400 Block North Clinton Street
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 August 6, 2020
Historic Review for 516 Fairchild Street
District: Goosetown Horace Mann Conservation District
Classification: Non-contributing
The applicant, Kathleen O’Neill, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 516 Fairchild
Street, a non-contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. The project
consists of changes to the window and door openings in the garage and breezeway and alterations to the
configuration of the breezeway entry and canopy and the driveway and curb cut.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.3 Doors
4.11 Siding
4.12 Site and Landscaping
4.13 Windows
7.0 Guidelines for Demolition
7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features
Staff Comments
According to the survey, this house shows the evolution from the early two room hall-and-parlor and the
later two-story I-house. The hall-and-parlor would be two rooms wide and a single room deep. The I-house
would have been two-full rooms high. While this house is not quite that tall, the full windows on the front
show a move toward the I-house type with some of the plan features of the hall-and-parlor type. The
construction date is unknown but the house appears on the 1899 Sanborn map. A single-story kitchen
addition was also shown on the 1899 Sanborn map. A garage was shown on the property as early as 1906.
As part of a UniverCity Partnership project, the Commission approved several changes in 2017: The removal
of both original but unsupported chimneys, non-historic awnings, the extended awning over the garage
entrance area, and the cellar door and stairs; the replacement of the standing seam metal roof with asphalt
shingles, the replacement of some windows for egress, the front door and the garage door and the resizing of
the kitchen window.
The applicant is proposing to reconfigure elements of the breezeway and garage, removing most of the
elements that make this house non-contributing to the Conservation District. The half of the garage closest to
the house was converted to living space at some point in the past. For the current project the door and
window will be removed. The existing overhead door will be moved closer to the corner making room for a
second overheard door in the former living space. Both overhead doors will be Clopay 9138 insulated steel
doors with a plain flat panel design in a “stucco” finish texture. To gain entry to the addition garage space, the
existing column supporting the canopy will be moved south, to one side of the east entry to the house. The
curb cut will be reconfigured to be a 16 foot cut, leading to a 10 foot driveway that will widen to the pair of
overhead doors.
In addition to the overhead doors, several other changes will be made to the garage and breezeway. The east
entrance is located in an angled wall that will be removed and replaced with a wall that is set back from the
corner of the house and is shifted forward from the garage. The existing door will be reused and the window
will be removed. On the west side of the breezeway, a pair of windows (installed by the UniverCity
Partnership) in a laundry area will be separated as the space is remodeled into a restroom. One of the
windows will be reinstalled in a portion of the existing opening. The other window will be used to replace a
large modern sliding window in the west wall of the existing garage. All areas of siding will be repaired with
wood siding to match the existing. Trim will also match the existing. Removal of the asbestos siding is not
part of the current project.
The guidelines provide the following recommendations:
• Section 7.1 recommends removing alterations that are not historic and that significantly detract from
the building’s historic character or that are structurally unsound and are a safety hazard.
• Section 4.13 Windows recommends adding windows that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use
of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows and adding new windows in a
location that is consistent with the window pattern of the historic building or buildings of similar
architectural style. Windows on outbuildings should be relatively small and rectangular or square. If
an opening is to be relocated, it should not detract from overall fenestration pattern. If an opening is
to be closed on a framed structure, appropriate siding that matches the existing should be used with
its members being placed across and randomly extended beyond the opening (toothed-in).
• Section 4.12 Site and Landscaping recommends that driveways leading from the street to garages or
parking at the rear of the property should be one lane in width but can be widened toward the back
of the lot to provide access to multi-stall garages or parking spaces.
• Section 4.11 Siding recommends replacing deteriorated (or missing) sections of wood siding with
new or salvaged wood siding that matches the historic wood siding.
• Section 4.3 Doors recommends installing new garage doors that resemble the styles of historic ones,
or installing new garage doors which are simple in design, adding trim to garage door openings that
matches that of other doors and windows in the garage, and installing two single-car doors instead of
a single door.
Staff finds that these changes will help restore this property to contributing status within its Conservation
District. Returning the front of the garage and its use to vehicular access removes an inappropriate change
that was created when the property was a rental property. Removing the large sliding window on the west side
will also remove an inappropriate window type and size from the garage. Removing the angled entrance wall
on the breezeway will help clarify the existing building forms, the NE corner of the house will be exposed
once again. Since the relocated wall will be bumped out from the face of the garage, each space will be more
clearly defined. The overhead doors will be replaced to match and the proposed doors would be appropriate.
All other openings in this project will be replaced with existing windows and doors that, while not historic,
were approved as part of the 2017 projects. The existing canopy over the front of the breezeway and garage
was reduced from an earlier form with projecting elements in 2017 but will not be removed as part of this
project because it provides a covered entry to the house. Relocating one of the supporting columns to
provide vehicular access to the garage will have very little impact on the historic character of the building.
As part of the process, the applicant provided photo-composite images of the project to show the changes.
While not mentioned in the application, this image shows that the through-wall air conditioner and one attic
vent would be removed from the second floor of the garage. Staff finds these changes appropriate and would
also recommend approval if the applicant wanted to replace the inappropriately large attic window with the
window on the first floor. Currently, this is not part of the scope of the project. The original driveway
configuration included in the application was a double wide curb cut with a double wide driveway over the
entire length. Staff finds that this does not meet the guidelines which recommend a 16 foot maximum curb
cut with a 10 foot maximum driveway. Staff recommends approving a curb cut and driveway that meets the
guidelines and widens at a point as far back from the curb as possible while still providing access to the south
portion of the garage.
Recommended Motion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 516 Fairchild Street as presented in the
staff report with the following condition:
The siding condition at the NE corner of the house is reviewed and approved by Staff once exposed
as part of the project.
516 Fairchild Street
Current picture of house along N. Johnson St
Current drawing/view of house along N. Johnson St
Proposed drawing/view of house along N. Johnson St
Sept 2017 First Floor Rendering (Current)
June 2020 First Floor Rendering (Proposed)
Proposed picture of house along N. Johnson St
10’3”10’9”
15’
12’9”
10’7”11’5”
6’8”
Black/Gray= Current driveway dimensions/ layoutRed= Proposed new dimensions/layout
Staff Report August 6, 2020
Historic Review for 424 Clark Street
District: Clark Street Conservation District
Classification: Contributing
The applicant, Solstice Properties, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 424 Clark Street,
a Contributing property in the Clark Street Conservation District. The project consists of the removal of a
non-historic stone structure at the entry porch and the reconstruction of porch columns and railings.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.1 Balustrades and Handrails
4.10 Porches
7.0 Guidelines for Demolition
7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features
Staff Comments
Originally built between 1915 and 1925 as flats, this two-story house has a hip roof with a street-facing hip-
roof dormer and a south-facing side main entry porch. A rear-facing gable extension also has a hip roof. A
one-story rear addition with basement garage existed prior to 1933, as did the additional single car garage
extended from that. The house has a projecting bay on the south side east of the entrance. On the north side,
there is a projecting bay with canted walls. The basement is constructed of clay tile. The house has a brick
base and that brick extends over the exposed portion of the basement walls. The basement was converted
into an apartment in 1946 and the garage was converted into an apartment in 1968. Aluminum soffits were
installed in 1986. A rolled siding was installed prior to 1975 and asphalt siding with a brick texture was
installed over that prior to 1981.
A 2019 project approved the replacement of the non-historic concrete porch floor with a tongue-and-groove
wood porch floor.
The applicant proposes to remove the non-historic stone structure and steel pipe columns at the front entry
porch and replace them with tapered wood columns and railing to match the existing east railing. The
presumably original brick porch piers obscured by the stone will remain. The space between the piers and
between the piers and the house will be enclosed with porch skirting.
The guidelines provide the following recommendations:
• Section 7.1 recommends removing alterations that are not historic and that significantly detract from
the building’s historic character or that are structurally unsound and are a safety hazard.
• Section 4.2 Balustrades and Handrails recommends Constructing or replacing missing balustrades by
using historic photographs or by choosing a style that is consistent with the architectural style of the
building. Installing square spindles that are 1-1/2 inches or greater in width and installing top and
foot rails that are at least 2 inches in thickness. It is also recommended to slope the top and foot rails
slightly to allow water to be shed from these surfaces and help prevent deterioration of these
members.
• Section 4.10 Porches recommends replacing badly deteriorated (or missing) components with new
ones that match the historic components in design and material. Custom fabrication of columns,
brackets, pedestals, and moldings may be necessary. It is also recommended to leave exposed the
support piers below the porch columns. Skirting must be added to fill the space below the porch
floor and grade if this space is 18 inches or greater. The skirt must be located between the porch
piers and constructed using a 3-6 inch wood frame with slats fastened to the back of the frame in a
vertical or lattice pattern.
Staff finds that removal of the stone structure and metal columns at this entry porch will improve the historic
character of the building. New wood columns and railing to match the existing railing on the east side of the
porch are appropriate.
Early site inventory forms mentioned a Colonial Revival style in the discussion of the architecture of this
building but included the shutters which are unlikely to be original because they do not fit the window
opening. Staff finds that it appears to have some Prairie School elements instead, especially in the horizontal
emphasis in the ganged windows, wide, flat eave overhang and the details of the brick base. Since the siding
obscures the original cladding and metal obscures the soffit condition, it is difficult to make further stylistic
determination. A new column design is necessary for approval of this project.
Staff finds that the remaining original elements including the size and location of the porch piers, the size of
the remaining east railing, and the location of the remnant of the column capital determines that the porch
likely had square or battered (tapered) columns. The width of the columns would also be determined by the
position of these remaining elements. The contractor who has been involved with the project and the floor
reconstruction has submitted an example column that staff finds acceptable as long as the elements align as
shown on an attached column diagram. Staff also find that any skirting devoid of diagonals would be
appropriate on this building.
Recommended Motion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 424 Clark Street as presented in the staff
report with the following conditions:
If the proposed battered column does not appear to align with the existing elements appropriately,
modifications, including straight columns, will be approved by staff
The columns will have simple square bases and capitals
424 Clark Street
Example column from contractor
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
1
Memorandum
Date: August 6, 2020
To: Historic Preservation Planner
From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
Re: Amendment to the Historic Preservation Guidelines: Minor Review – pre-approved items
The Historic Preservation project review process includes four types or levels of review as follows:
• Major review: Reviewed by the full Commission for projects on Landmark properties or
contributing properties in historic or conservation districts that do not qualify for a Certificate of
No Material Effect or Minor review as described below
• Intermediate review: Reviewed by Staff and Commission Chair, the work is not on a Landmark
or Contributing property (requiring full Commission review) and does not qualify for a Certificate
of No Material Effect or Minor review as described below or the project is a minor revision to a
previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness
• Repair – No Material Effect: Reviewed by Staff and Commission Chair, the proposed work will
not alter the appearance of significant architectural features. The project consists of repair or
replacement of existing damaged or deteriorated feature with like materials
• Minor review: Staff review of items that the Commission has placed on a “pre-approved item” list
because they are the most routine projects that have in the past garnered Commission
consensus. These items are universally acceptable or are acceptable if certain conditions are
met.
The Commission may consider projects or items to be included on the list of “pre-approved” items for
Minor review at their discretion. Once approved, these items can then be approved by staff without
consultation with the HPC Chair or Commission. To become pre-approved projects, these items are
reviewed at a meeting like Major review projects. If approved, a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
project type is created for reference and for use on projects that meet the requirements of approval.
Minor review applications are reviewed by Historic Preservation Staff to verify that they comply fully
with the guidelines, require no exceptions to the guidelines, contain nor problematic elements, and
involve only materials, processes, or work which have been pre-approved by the full Commission.
These projects would not meet the requirements for a Certificate of No Material Effect.
Basement egress window and window well
Staff recommends approving basement egress window and window well alterations as a pre-approved
item eligible for a Minor Review if the following conditions are met:
• The egress window is required by code
• The egress window will be installed in a basement and it located on the back of the building or
in the back half of either side of the building
• The window will fit the width of the existing window and only require a change to the window
height
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
2
• The new window will be wood or metal clad wood casement window with a muntin bar adhered
to the inside and outside of the window to mimic a double-hung window
• The window well is constructed of a material to match or blend with the existing foundation, at
least as exposed above grade.
Front Step and Stoop
Staff recommends approving Front Step and Stoop additions as a pre-approved item eligible for a
Minor Review if the following conditions are met:
• The building does not have a traditional covered porch at the entrance where the stoop is
planned
• The landing will be restricted to approximately 5 feet wide by 5 feet deep and will be positioned
roughly level with the entry door, not a step down from the door
• The railing will follow the guidelines for balusters and handrails, including the use of posts
• The steps will have closed risers and a toe kick (overhang from risers and stringer)
• The stoop will be supported on piers or posts aligned with the corner posts in the railing
• The space between the piers will be enclosed with porch skirting if the space is greater than 18
inches
• All wood elements will be painted to blend with the house.
Solar Panel Installation
Staff recommends approving Solar Panel Installation as a pre-approved item eligible for a Minor
Review if the following conditions are met:
• The solar panels are installed on an outbuilding roof or the rear-facing roof of a primary building
or are on a non-street facing side elevation, not impacting the street view of the house, if the
preferred locations are not possible
• The solar panels are installed close to the roof surface and at an angle that is similar to the roof
surface
• The frame and brackets for the panels are a color that blends with the building roof material
• Any equipment is located away from a street-facing elevation, preferably on the back of the
structure.
Skylight installation
Staff recommends approving Skylight Installation as a pre-approved item eligible for a Minor Review if
the following conditions are met:
• Skylights are installed on rear-facing roof slopes or on side elevations that do not face the street
• Skylights are framed in metal and in a color that blends with the building roof material
• Skylights are low profile, follow the angle of the roof and do not include fish-eye lenses or other
elements that protrude more that 6 inches above the roof surface.
• The skylight is sized to fit between roof joists and have a length that is no more than 3 times the
width.
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
3
Commercial Sign Installation
Staff recommends approving Commercial Sign Installation as a pre-approved item eligible for a Minor
Review if the following conditions are met:
• The sign is a surface mount or painted sign, installed in an existing, historic sign band on the
front of a commercial building, or
• The sign is a projecting signs located below the second-floor window sill, a minimum of 8 feet
above the sidewalk and project a maximum of 4 feet.
• The sign is scaled to fit the building and takes into consideration the architectural features and
proportions of the building in its design
• The sign shall not be installed on or obscuring any original architectural features such as
columns, pilasters, band boards, or trim.
• Signs on masonry buildings are anchored into masonry joints and do not damage historic
masonry
• Sign materials do not damage or discolor historic materials over time (such as rust)
• The sign has limited illumination. Plastic signs with painted letters where the entire face of the
sign is illuminated is not allowed
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
July 09, 2020
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Carl Brown, Helen Burford, Sharon DeGraw, Lyndi
Kiple, Cecile Kuenzli, Quentin Pitzen, Jordan Sellergren, Austin
Wu
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Kent Ralston, Lee Casebolt, Ginalie Swaim
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
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:
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
North Half of 817 Dearborn Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (new construction).
Bristow explained this is Lot 20, Block 8, in the Rundell Addition. It is just south of Sheridan on
Dearborn Street. The property has been historically occupied by one house that is on the south
half, or Lot 19. The garage that is on the north half will be remaining, at least for now. The
application is new construction in the empty area that has historically been empty, Lot 20.
Bristow said one of the things Staff did was look at the types of houses in the surrounding
neighborhood, and there is a variety. To meet the applicant needs, the house will be two stories
and tends to look like a Foursquare. She said the packet contained some of the first set of
drawings. She has received revised drawings since then that dealt with some issues.
Bristow described the house to be two story with a hipped roof and half-width porch. The porch
roof on one side is extending beyond the wall a little bit. She said typically that would be pulled
in so on the back side the porch roof doesn’t need to be continued around the side wall. She
said Staff would work through that with the applicant.
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
July 09, 2020
Page 2 of 14
The windows would be separated by a mullion. There is a continuous band board. Up
underneath the eave would be a frieze board. The windows would be four-over-one double-
hung. The roof is 6/12 pitch.
Bristow said there was an issue with the chimney shown on the original drawing. Commission
guidelines require that a chimney is full height or incorporated within the building with a true
masonry or fake thin brick kind of chimney added to the roof. In the packet she included a photo
of a house on Seymour that has an exterior, siding-clad chimney. She said this potentially is an
option that would be less expensive than a masonry chimney and work equally well with this
style of house. With some styles it would not be appropriate.
Bristow displayed one of the side elevations. It does show how the porch roof projects. She said
adding more windows on the sides is something the Commission may wish to discuss. Some of
the things dictating window location have to do with the location of closets and other spaces
inside. Bristow thought a decorative window at the stair landing may be a possibility. She noted
that newer developments tend not to put windows on the side.
Bristow shared the rear elevation. The windows have changed to a more appropriate style from
the original drawings; same with the door. She noted there is an exception that can be used for
new construction in a Conservation District to allow a sliding door instead of French doors.
The north side elevation shows the full-height chimney, which is appropriate.
Bristow discussed the roof plan. Here, the porch roof terminates before the corner of the house.
She said, again, staff is still working through that.
Bristow showed drawings for the foyer and the landing of the stairs. She again mentioned the
possibility of a small, decorative window there. Originally there had been a window in the stair
run. She thought there may be opportunities for some additional windows, possibly in the dining
room area.
Bristow shared the plan for the upper floor. On the original plans a deck was discussed and a
railing. She said a deck on new construction would just need to meet the guidelines like any
other deck. It would have the appropriate railing. It would be set in from the sidewalls on the
back in a dimension that’s in the guidelines.
Materials would include architectural asphalt shingles and some kind of cement board or LP
SmartSide smooth siding. An Azek product has been discussed for the trim. Bristow said ideally
the columns would have some type of small base and small capital.
Bristow said generally this project meets the guidelines for the neighborhood. The proportions
and size of the house for this particular lot seem appropriate for the neighboring houses. The
materials for the siding and trim could be approved for this project. The owner was talking at
one point about using a solid aluminum window instead of a metal-clad wood window.
Commission guidelines do not include a way to approve that currently. Metal-clad wood is
what’s required in our guidelines. The window well would be the same material as the
foundation.
Boyd asked for clarifying questions.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 09, 2020
Page 3 of 14
Kuenzli said her reservation concerned the windows. She wanted more windows on the side
wall.
Wu asked about the porch. If it was supposed to reflect a Foursquare style, he wondered if the
Commission could recommend the porch extend along the entire length of the face of the
building.
Bristow explained the standard width or depth from front-to-back on a porch is about eight feet.
She thought that’s what was represented in the drawings. She also believed there were
examples of half-width porches in the Longfellow and Northside neighborhoods.
Wu asked how close the first story was to the ground.
Bristow said the guidelines talk about being between 12 and 30 inches out of the ground. That’s
the first floor level – the door level. For a concrete porch, it needs to be 18 inches or less out of
the ground.
Burford noted that windows on a Foursquare house usually have a certain amount of symmetry.
She said normally there is a window on each side of a corner. The master bedroom shows one
window on the plans and the mudroom, sitting below the master bedroom, had no windows.
Boyd opened the public hearing.
Kent Ralston, applicant, thanked the Commission and Staff for looking at his project. In full
disclosure, he said he was a division head within the Department of Neighborhood and
Development Services, but neither Jessica nor Anne work in his division.
Ralston thought there were quite a few examples around town of half-width porches on
Foursquares. He would prefer not to have the porch run all the way across the front so he can
get more light in the windows. He thought it would be difficult to add windows to the side of the
house because of the inside orientation, but said he was not opposed to trying. He noted the lot
is only about 50 feet wide and the house is about 30 feet wide. He said privacy is a
consideration when adding windows to the side of the home. In his opinion, the existing planned
windows were oversized.
Boyd asked if the Commission had questions for the applicant, then closed the public hearing.
Sellergren commented that it can be distracting when windows don’t line up vertically on the
sides or back of homes.
Wu believed a lot of Foursquare houses have a tic-tac-toe pattern of windows - four and then a
middle staircase window. He liked that this was an infill project of traditional style within the city
limits.
Kuenzli said if it would be called a Foursquare style in an historic neighborhood, then it should
meet the pattern of window placement in other Foursquare homes, including on the sides.
Burford explained ventilation was the reason why there were historically two windows in a room.
She also said natural light is an asset, but understood the privacy issue.
Kiple agreed that the side windows were distracting as configured currently.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 09, 2020
Page 4 of 14
DeGraw wondered if examples of window proportions and placement could be studied to help
this project.
Wu said he had a field guide to American houses that warns about having few side windows
and shallow porches.
Boyd said when there is new construction in historic districts it should not feel out of place, and
should fit the character of the neighborhood, but it should not be fake history. He thought the
front was critically important and was less concerned about the sides or back. He noted that
viewing the elevations would not be the same as how someone would view the house when it
exists in the neighborhood.
Bristow said it was not the applicant’s intent to copy an actual Foursquare, but that was most
similar to the eclectic look he liked. She said Commission guidelines were very specific about
additions, but new construction is rare. With new construction there is some leeway, while
getting major details right, such as trim to fit within a style.
Wu wondered if it could be approved with some added conditions.
Boyd said often projects are approved as presented in the application with conditions. He said
usually the conditions are for items that have not been finalized or if there is something the
Commission wants to weigh in on.
Bristow agreed. She said the recommended motion already has some conditions since there
were some unknowns. She said the chimney issue has been solved and that condition could be
removed. She said the Commission could add that Staff and Chair work through the window
patterning with the applicant to see what could be added.
MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
Lot 20 of Block 8 in the Rundell Addition as presented in the application with the
following conditions, all to be approved in final drawings by Staff and Chair: Siding and
trim revisions are made according to the mark-ups on the drawing; site revisions are
made according to the mark-ups on the drawings; the windows are metal-clad wood four-
over-one double hung that are separated with a weight pocket and appropriate trim and
windows are added to the side elevation; the porch is revised according to the drawings
and approved through an exception for new construction that is less than 18 inches
above grade or revised to use traditional wood porch construction and thicker straight
square columns of a dimension to be approved through drawings; the rear door is
changed to a half-lite door; all soffits and porch ceiling are beadboard or beadboard
plywood. Wu seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0.
13 South Linn Street (Hohenschuh Mortuary) – Local Historic Landmark (signage installation).
Bristow explained 13 South Linn Street is the Hohenschuh Mortuary, which is a local historic
landmark. The application is to install two signs on this building. Bristow showed the location of
one of them, a directional sign to the rear entrance that is down the alley to the side. She
displayed the drawing submitted with the application for that sign. It is within a certain size
parameter that is required by the Commission’s sign code. The sign would be mounted to the
wall. It would be anchored in the mortar joints. It is not permitted to be anchored into the brick
unless it is anchored to existing anchors that are already in the brick.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 09, 2020
Page 5 of 14
Bristow said a second sign is over the rear alley door. The infill of this original overhead door
area was approved by the Commission years ago. The sign currently is a large sheet sign that
doesn’t really fit well within the space. The new sign has a reduced area since it doesn’t have as
much background. She thought both of them were acrylic signs with vinyl lettering to allow the
light to come out in the white areas.
Bristow said these do appear to fit within other signs we have approved in the downtown area
and in the Northside Marketplace area. They also meet the Downtown District’s signage
guidelines.
Boyd asked for clarifying questions, then opened the public hearing.
Lee Casebolt, from CR Signs, said he was available to answer any clarifying questions.
Boyd closed the public hearing.
DeGraw wondered if the sign could be mounted on the side of the building and have it project
out from the side. She said the building looks really beautiful as is – that’s why she suggested
moving the sign to the side.
Casebolt didn’t believe it would be as mechanically secure, but thought it would be possible.
Kuenzli agreed with DeGraw that the building façade is beautiful as it is.
Bristow thought there were two potential issues. One is that mechanically this might make the
arm longer and could have engineering implications. She said Building officials would also need
to verify whether or not there is a setback with the alley that could not be projected into.
Boyd said he was inclined to support the project as-is. Since it would be anchored in the mortar,
which is replaceable, it is not altering the building in any way.
Kiple thought it was similar to a sign approved a couple months ago and said consistency in
those types of approvals would be appreciated by applicants.
MOTION: Burford moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 13
South Linn Street as presented in the application. Sellergren seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 9-0.
810 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (demolition of non-historic addition
and construction of new addition).
Bristow explained this is a large corner lot in the Brown Street Historic District and shared an
image of the Johnson Street elevation from the north. The subject of this application is a 1960s
addition with a solarium that is partially below grade. There is a stone wall that creates a little
sunken patio. The solarium is all glass and aluminum. The application calls for removing this
entire structure and creating a new screened porch area. It would be widened three feet so it
aligned better with the house to the east. There would be a new, low-slope, membrane roof that
would be installed. The top line of that roof would be lowered a little bit to give a window a bit
more breathing room. Bristow said the solarium is currently nine feet wide. In the proposed
project it would be expanded to 12 feet wide. Because this is partially below grade, there would
be a concrete wall that would match the existing foundation on the house if it’s exposed, which
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 09, 2020
Page 6 of 14
is likely in some areas. There would be some stone wall that’s existing. Any stone wall that
needs to be removed for the project would be rebuilt.
Bristow shared two sketches. One was looking toward the west at the screen porch where there
would be a screen door to this small sunken patio. There would be a concrete block knee wall.
The low-slope roof would have exposed rafter tails. At least the corner posts and possibly the
intermediate posts would be 6 x 6, which are often used in this simple construction to give it
more of a sense of columns, so it has a more apparent structure. It would be wood and
screening and very simple. It would have a slight overhang on each side.
Boyd asked for clarifying questions, opened and closed the public hearing.
MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
810 North Johnson Street as presented in the application and described in the Staff
report. Pitzen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0.
DISCUSSION OF THE 400 BLOCK OF NORTH CLINTON STREET:
Russett said this was an extension of the discussion that the Commission had in January
regarding the 400 block of North Clinton Street
She said this area has quite a bit of history. Summarizing the background, she said the
Commission originally had hoped to designate 410/412 North Clinton Street as an Iowa City
Historic landmark. That rezoning vote failed at the City Council so Staff worked with the property
owner to try to find another solution to help preserve 410/412 North Clinton Street. The property
owner had proposed to Staff to redevelop 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport
Street in exchange for voluntarily landmarking 410/412 North Clinton Street. This item was
discussed at the Commission in January and then was discussed with the City Council in
February of this year. After those discussions, Staff has received some revised elevations and
site plan for the project. Some of the comments that were addressed are ones the Commission
and Friends of Historic Preservation had requested, as well as the City Council had
incorporated into those changes.
Russett said there was one specific change that is new that the Commission should weigh in on.
She shared an aerial view of the properties. What is being proposed is that two buildings would
be demolished, a new building would be constructed, and what they are proposing would
require not only a rezoning of the zoning map, so it would be an up-zoning to a different
multifamily zoning designation, but also some changes to the text of the code, because what
they are proposing goes beyond what our current zoning regulations would allow. They would
then voluntarily landmark the 410/412 North Clinton Street property.
Russett shared photos of the area for context and the elevations that the Commission looked at
in January. It was a six-story building with a gabled roof. It was suggested to remove the sixth
story on these elevations and allow a five-story building with a flat roof. The Council agreed with
those design changes by the Commission and Friends of Historic Preservation. They did have
some concerns with the lack of open space on the design.
At the January meeting there were some questions about what could be built on these sites now
with the current zoning designation if it was redeveloped. Russett provided a table to summarize
the maximum development potential allowed by the current zoning.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 09, 2020
Page 7 of 14
Russett said with 410 and 412 North Clinton Street there are currently 18 units on that property.
If it was redeveloped, the current zoning would allow a maximum of 24 dwelling units. These
would be one-bedroom dwelling units, so there could be 24 bedrooms. The parking would
require 24 spaces.
400 North Clinton and 112 East Davenport are similar. If those two buildings were demolished
and redeveloped, you could get 24 one-bedroom units, and again 24 parking spaces would be
required. The maximum height would be 35 feet.
The far right of the table showed what is being proposed. The revised plans have 32 dwelling
units, 71 bedrooms. They are proposing just over 1700 square feet of open space and they are
providing 21 parking spaces. If 410/412 North Clinton, 400 North Clinton, and 112 East
Davenport were all consolidated they could get a maximum of 48 one-bedroom dwelling units.
Russett shared the revised plans received about one week ago. She said this was the main item
to be discussed with the Commission. Originally the building was just a rectangle. The revised
plans add a portion that wraps around behind the historic structure. The revised plans show the
open space they have added. A majority of it is on the historic parcel. There is a little bit on the
400 North Clinton Street side.
Russett shared the western elevation showing the historic building and the portion of the new
building that wraps around behind the historic structure. She said when Staff originally received
the plans in May they had a five-story extension here. Based on some comments from Staff we
had requested they remove this extension entirely. What they came back with was a design that
reduced the height to three stories.
The overall main building height has been reduced to five stories, which was recommended by
the Commission. The gabled roof was removed and a flat roof added. The property owner did
provide a 3-D model that their architect put together.
Staff would like feedback from the Commission on the revisions and then the project will go
back to City Council for their discussion.
Boyd opened the public hearing.
Ginalie Swaim, Board President, Friends of Historic Preservation spoke. She thought this was a
very big improvement from January. Dropping the sixth floor and changing the gabled roof to a
flat roof reduces the mass and scale considerably. She said Friends of Historic Preservation are
mildly supportive of this.
She did note on some of the plans a brick wall stretches from the new building to the historic
house at 412 North Clinton. She didn’t think it should actually connect to 412 in order to set
history aside from the new. 412 North Clinton, the building in front, is from the 1860s. 410 North
Clinton has the 1960s addition.
Swaim said the end goal was to save 412 North Clinton. She said Friends of Historic
Preservation were grateful that the developer is willing to do a voluntary landmark, but they
have concerns that 412 North Clinton needs some rehabilitation and restoration. Swaim said
restoration of 412 North Clinton should be part of any agreement, and the repair plans should
be reviewed and approved by the Commission before a building permit for the new construction
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 09, 2020
Page 8 of 14
is given. Also, the work on 412 North Clinton should be completed and inspected for compliance
with the Secretary of Interior guidelines before occupancy permits are issued for the new
construction.
Bristow said a similar request was used with a developer for landmarking the Fraternity house
on North Dubuque Street. Staff and Building officials worked with the applicant to come up with
a plan and a timeline was assigned. The Commission approved the work and the timeline as
part of that project.
Kuenzli said she went over to look at the property and walked all around it. She said developers
have enormous power in determining how a city looks. In the past, developers have done
projects that illustrate how making rental properties and historic preservation can exist
harmoniously and even be an asset to the city visually, and named a few examples. She said
this project is not one of those.
Kuenzli said the proposed apartment building is out of proportion to every other building on the
East side of Clinton Street. It dwarfs 412 North Clinton, which already looks crowded by the
motel-like addition behind it, 410 North Clinton. The project does not meet current zoning
standards. It does not meet suggestions made by City Council members in their work session
for more open space and their suggestion to limit its height to 4 stories to make it more
compatible with Currier Hall across the street. It says nothing about restoring 412 Clinton as part
of the project, and it destabilizes the whole remaining block north of it. She said the plans
submitted tonight are not adequate for approval.
Kuenzli listed six things that need to be done:
1. Restore 412 North Clinton according to the standards of the Secretary of the Interior.
2. Remove 410 North Clinton. That would allow for more open space.
3. The materials from 400 North Clinton should be allowed for salvage use.
4. Limit the new building to four stories to make it fit better with Currier Hall, as Council
suggested.
5. Have the owners agree to a high level of design review and Historic Preservation
Commission review in accordance with all in-fill projects.
6. Once 410 North Clinton is removed, plant tall trees with evergreens to help conceal the
wrap-around aspect of the new project if it should happen to be built.
Wu said he was okay with the scale of the building as submitted with the new proposal. He
would also like to see some sort of condition that the Clarks restore 412 North Clinton.
Wu said another condition he was interested in pursuing was to move one of the buildings set to
be demolished, maybe the one on Davenport Street just because it is smaller. He mentioned the
corner of Church and Clinton as a possible move location. This lot is owned by the University.
Boyd and Bristow both said the University was not interested in discussing that location at all.
DeGraw thought the current plans were an improvement. She did like Kuenzli’s idea to take
down 410 North Clinton for green space with trees. She said she would welcome a four-story
building instead of five, but understood that might not be possible at this point.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 09, 2020
Page 9 of 14
Boyd said he would love the block to remain as it is, but pointed out anyone could tear down
that whole half a block get it rezoned to build a block-scale building across the whole thing.
Boyd thought the current plan was a big improvement. He thought the Commission’s
recommendations should include a rehabilitation plan of some kind for 412 North Clinton. He
thought the gap in the wall was important for structural reasons and preservation reasons. He
believed materials should be salvaged from the buildings that eventually come down.
Burford said in order for the developers to have the change in zoning and additional bedroom
units, they must take into consideration the demolition of 410 North Clinton. She said it was
important that 412 North Clinton stands alone as an historic residence.
Brown asked what the Commission could actually control or influence. He asked what would
happen if there were a rehabilitation plan and then conditions were not met.
Bristow said it would take a period of time to construct the new building and it would be possible
to tie rehabilitation of 412 North Clinton to the occupancy permit. She said otherwise the
Commission’s control is limited. Change to the zoning code goes through the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council. This is a negotiation about what happens to the historic
house in order to make the change to the zoning code. The Commission is making a
recommendation to Council.
Russett said the rezoning would be conditioned on substantial compliance with the concept
plan, which would limit it to the five stories. She said there are ways to do that through the
rezoning process.
Boyd summarized there was broad consensus for some kind of rehabilitation plan for 412 North
Clinton. There has previously been broad consensus to make sure the properties coming down
are salvaged. The Staff recommendation was about the gap in the wall. Some Commissioners
have additional things they want the Council to consider.
Kiple asked why the flat roof was preferred over the previous design.
Swaim explained the flat roof reduces the visual scale and mass of the building. Comparing the
drawings, the pitched roof seemed to create an even more enormous building than the flat roof
does. It drew attention to it because it was going to be dark shingles.
Kiple noted the prior design reminded her of Currier Hall.
Swaim agreed, but said when looking closely at Currier, it is on a bit of a rise and there are so
many dormers on Currier’s roof that you do not think of it as being a huge, pitched, shingled
roof.
Bristow added that Currier is a narrower building with a courtyard in it, so the roof is just smaller
than this was going to be. It’s all that empty attic space that’s unnecessary and adds to the
height.
Sellergren said the project reminded her of 215 E Prentiss that was surrounded by flat-roofed
multiunit apartment buildings and the historic house was preserved. She thought it had a similar
esthetic.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 09, 2020
Page 10 of 14
Wu again said he would like at least some minor exploration of potentially moving any one of
the two buildings.
Kuenzli asked if there was any Commission support to ask that 410 North Clinton be knocked
down so 412 North Clinton would stand alone and declutter the lot.
DeGraw said she liked the idea if the developers were willing to consider it. She said she also
preferred the Clarks know some Commissioners do not appreciate the building behind the
beautiful historic building.
Bristow said if 412 North Clinton is landmarked and someone wanted to take 410 North Clinton
down, the Commission would approve it and help with how the back of the building was
repaired. The Commission would also review any addition or any new construction. A major
alteration would require historic review and there is nothing that requires that it be allowed in the
same footprint it has. A change would come before the Commission.
Burford asked if 410 North Clinton had been factored into their equation as affordable housing.
Bristow said the rooming house units in the historic building are the only affordable housing
units. She said rooming house units are no longer allowed by zoning code. They are
grandfathered in.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF
Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review.
815 Ronalds Street – Brown Street Historic District (front step and railing and rear railing
replacement).
Railing and stairs will be replaced because they were rotting out.
617 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (chimney repair or reconstruction).
Bristow noted this to be the home of former Commissioner, Kent Ackerson. She said the house
is being sold. The glazed white brick chimney is being repaired.
409 Ronalds Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (storm windows and
foundation braces.
Bristow said part of the Historic Preservation Fund will be used to replace some storm windows.
She said there are also some major issues with the foundation that will be repaired.
Minor Review – Staff Review.
1510 Sheridan Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (roof shingle replacement).
Three-tab shingles will be replaced with an architectural shingle in brown or dark gray.
1127 Maple Street – Longfellow Historic District (roof shingle replacement).
Bristow said part of a project from long ago was to replace the shingles on this house. The
shingles will match the garage, which was part of a recent project.
1011 Woodlawn Avenue – Woodlawn Historic District (flat roof membrane replacement).
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 09, 2020
Page 11 of 14
Bristow explained an addition on this house has a flat metal roof with soldered joints. It is being
replaced with a membrane because it leaks. Some heat coils will be added to the adjacent low-
slope roof and a gutter installed.
1133 East Court Street – Longfellow Historic District (flat roof membrane replacement, rear
second floor deck railing installation, synthetic siding removal from porch).
Bristow said this house belongs to former Commissioner Gosia Clore. The project will replace
the membrane roof on the back porch and install a simple, square-spindled railing. There is a
door on the second floor but there has been no railing. It is also replacing the shingle roof on the
porch with a membrane roof. There is some skirting missing in random places and there is a
remnant on the side that will be matched. Aluminum siding will be removed, and original wood
repaired. Storm windows or screens will be installed.
503 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (aluminum siding removal and original trim and
siding repair).
Bristow said this project is in progress. They are removing the aluminum siding and repairing
and painting the whole thing. She noted there are some issues with this project, probably from
previous shoddy workmanship.
430 Ronalds Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (aluminum siding removal
and original trim and siding repair).
Bristow said all the metal siding is being removed, but there is significant trim and other things
to repair. A location has been uncovered where there used to be a column. There will not be
any siding here because the porch used to wrap around. Siding will need to be added. Bristow
thought the owner might eventually put the wrap-around porch back on this house.
Intermediate Review – Chair and Staff Review.
513 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (minor changes to previous COA).
Bristow explained this house had a somewhat unfortunate 1970s addition on the back that
protruded too far to the side. Changes have been made to the rear of the addition recently
approved by the Commission. The house is already being painted. The Commission had
approved a pair of French doors. Instead, it will be balanced out with windows below. She said
the original project was to add a second floor to the existing addition. A window was removed,
but it was back in the north side. In the back corner exists the original door and two other doors,
which were approved to be half-light or three-quarter light doors.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 11, 2020
MOTION: Burford moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission’s
June 11, 2020 meeting. Kuenzli seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0.
COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION:
Chair memo re: Sharing the Stories of our Community’s Full History.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 09, 2020
Page 12 of 14
Boyd explained that he has been considering for a long time how to share the full history of Iowa
City. He noted that the existing history was largely written by straight white men about people
they knew, which tended to be more straight white men.
He noted Oak Grove Park was the site of early Mexican immigrants, the Unitarian Church that
was just landmarked in the last couple years was a site of a same-sex, early pride event that
was raided by law enforcement.
Boyd thought work had been done to tell the story of African Americans who were allowed to
come to the University but were discriminated against in terms of housing. He said a lot of
history has been forgotten or lost. He noted the area around South Capitol Street was
essentially a black neighborhood and there was very little, to nothing of that left.
Boyd would like to gather these stories for an inclusive history and asked the Commission to
think about how history could be preserved beyond the work of preserving physical structures.
In his memo, Boyd outlined several places the Commission has preserved that have been
critical to telling the full story, but he felt there was more work to do with the need to get others
engaged in the process. He wanted to recognize the moment society is in and try to tell a
broader history of Iowa City.
Sellergen noted Little Village has a themed issue every August and it focuses on buildings. She
wondered if there was an opportunity for a partnership between the Commission and Little
Village as an initiative across the community, to tell a story.
Boyd thought using publications to help tell the stories would be a good idea, even if the
physical structures were no longer there.
Wu expressed interest in being part of the subcommittee Boyd recommended be created. He
noted there may be some darker parts of the City’s history worth highlighting. Places where
people were kept out. He said Colin Gordon, a professor at the University, recently released a
map called “Mapping Segregation in Iowa City” that highlighted racially restricted covenants and
also places where Latin and African American houses were situated. Some of those were
located along South Capitol Street. There were significant chunks by East Court and 7th Avenue
along Lower Muscatine Road and Friendly, and then around Bowery, South Johnson, South
Van Buren where entire subdivisions were subject to racial covenants where non-white
populations were kept out. One of the places won a historic preservation award – 1818 North
Dubuque Street, the stone cottage with the green roof. The initial deed said sales to colored
people or Jewish people is prohibited.
Wu wondered about looking for funding for plaques to say this is what it was like back then in
these areas. Wu said Bowery Street was a great example of a walkable neighborhood with a
corner grocery store. A lot of people would not have been allowed to live there. Wu said he
would not have been allowed to live there back then. Wu is interested in looking at spaces
where people were not allowed as part of our City’s racial history.
Boyd agreed such things should be told as part of the City’s history.
Swaim said she would be happy to serve on the committee. She worked at the State Historical
Society for 30 years in publications and knows some of the academic research that has been
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 09, 2020
Page 13 of 14
done through the Historical Society collections, Iowa Women’s Archives, History Department,
and University archives. She believed there was some foundational research already done that
could help get things rolling.
Boyd said he envisioned a mix of Commission members and non-commission members on the
subcommittee.
Boyd summarized there was general consensus of the Commission to move forward on all three
points of action - amend the Commission work plan, form the subcommittee, and ask for some
staffing support.
Burford left the meeting at this point.
Preserve Iowa Summit Notes.
Commission members shared what they learned and experienced at the virtual summit, which
included functional uses of historic properties, retrofitting, and maximizing energy efficiency;
using murals to tell a City’s stories; neighborhood redevelopment after traffic pattern alteration;
climate change and embodied energy. Boyd added that Bristow did a great job in her session
representing Iowa City and representing the Commission’s process in design review.
Election of Officers.
Boyd said he was willing to serve again as chair.
Bristow explained the vice-chair is only active when the chair cannot attend a meeting or is not
able to assist with Staff and Chair items.
MOTION: Kuenzli moved to nominate Boyd as chair and Sellergren as vice-chair. Kiple
seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
Boyd asked if there were any additional items. He explained this was a time for sharing
information using one-way communication, not a time for discussion.
Wu asked if anything should be done regarding Facebook pages about preserving The Mill.
Boyd said if anyone wanted to properly engage with the Commission, the Commission was
willing to listen.
DeGraw asked about the status of the Historic Preservation Fund.
Bristow said the new fiscal year just started. Three projects approved last fiscal year were not
finished. A request was submitted to carry those funds over. Four applications have already
been submitted for the new fiscal year and Bristow mentions it for every appropriate project.
She thought additional promotion should be held until September or October to ensure approval
of the carryover and encumbrance of funds for new projects. She noted many of the projects
would not start until spring.
ADJOURNMENT: DeGraw moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Kiple.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Judy Jones
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
July 09, 2020
Page 14 of 14
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2019-2020
NAME
TERM
EXP. 8/08 8/19 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 1/09 2/13 3/12 4/09 5//14 6/11 7/09
AGRAN,
THOMAS 6/30/20 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X --
BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X
BROWN, CARL 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
BURFORD,
HELEN 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X
CLORE,
GOSIA 6/30/20 O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X --
DEGRAW,
SHARON 6/30/22 X X O/E O/E X O/E X X O/E X X X X
KARR, G. T. 6/30/20 X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
KUENZLI,
CECILE 6/30/22 X X O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X X X
KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 X X X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X
PITZEN,
QUENTIN 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X
SELLERGREN,
JORDAN 6/30/22 X X X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X
WU, AUSTIN 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- O/E X X O/E X X X