HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-09-03 Info Packet
City Council I nformation Packet
September 3, 2020
IP1.Council Tentative Meeting S chedule
Miscellaneous
IP2.2020 B uilding Statistics
Draft Minutes
IP3.Community P olice Review Board: A ugust 19
IP4.Historic P reservation Commission: A ugust 13
IP5.Telecommunications Commission: J une 29
September 3, 2020 City of Iowa City Page 1
Item Number: 1.
S eptember 3, 2020
Council Ten tative Meeting Sched u l e
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Council Tentative Meeting S chedule
City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule
Subject to change
September 3, 2020
Date Time Meeting Location
Tuesday, September 15, 2020 5:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, October 6, 2020 5:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Monday, October 19, 2020 4:30 PM Joint Entities Meeting Zoom Meeting Platform
Hosted by Johnson County
Tuesday, October 20, 2020 5:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Monday, November 2, 2020 5:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
7:00 PM Special Formal Meeting
Tuesday, November 17, 2020 5:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, December 1, 2020 5:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Tuesday, December 15, 2020 5:00 PM Work Session Zoom Meeting Platform
7:00 PM Formal Meeting
Item Number: 2.
S eptember 3, 2020
2020 Bu ildin g Statistics
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
2020 B uilding Statistics
Item Number: 3.
S eptember 3, 2020
Community Pol ice Review Board : August 19
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Community P olice Review Board: A ugust 19
Item Number: 4.
S eptember 3, 2020
Historic Preservation Commission : August 13
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Historic P reservation Commission: A ugust 13
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 13, 2020
Page 1 of 14
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
August 13, 2020
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Helen Burford, Sharon DeGraw, Lyndi
Kiple, Jordan Sellergren, Austin Wu
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carl Brown, Cecile Kuenzli, Quentin Pitzen,
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: None
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:
None
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
516 Fairchild Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (garage and driveway remodel)
Bristow explained 516 Fairchild Street is in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District and is
the house that's on the corner and right next to North Market Square Park. It is also a house that was
rehabilitated by the UniverCity partnership and sold to the current owner. As part of the UniverCity
partnership project they removed some non-historic awnings and replaced many of the windows, they
resized a kitchen window and they removed the cellar as they think this house originally had a
crawlspace and someone dug out the basement. Because of that there were two chimneys that were
no longer supported so they were removed. Additionally, the roof material was replaced and along one
side there was an projecting canopy that was also removed. The current owner is going to continue
with improvements to the house.
Bristow explained this house has a potentially long history. It is a form that's similar to the I-House.
This house is not quite two stories tall and normally an I House is two stories tall, meaning that the eave
would just be higher above the windows. This is more like a one and a half story house. This particular
house had a one-story kitchen addition put on the back at one point in time, and there was a garage
and then a breezeway was enclosed to connect them all. Currently, the garage has an apartment with a
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
August 13, 2020
Page 2 of 14
bathroom on the second floor and a living space on the first floor because it was a rental situation for a
long time. The exterior wall angles so it slopes from the outer edge of the one-story addition back to the
garage. Bristow pointed out the space where there is laundry and entry into the kitchen. She also
pointed out a driveway on North Johnson, which is the street around the park that this connects to.
There is about a 15-foot drive curb cut and a 10-foot wide driveway. Bristow showed a sketch of those
spaces. Bristow stated right now it has three evenly spaced columns holding up the roof projection
which. Since it covers a walk it will remain. The structure of it will be altered because the one of the
main portions of the project is returning the two-car garage to a two-car garage so the door and window
that are currently in one half will be replaced with an overhead door. Bristow believes that the existing
overhead door will need to be slightly adjusted to the side so that both doors fit.
Next Bristow explained the breezeway will change so it's no longer a wall slanted from corner to corner.
and the window and door that are in that location will become just a door. She did add to the project
that if the owner ever wanted to replace the really large egress apartment style window in the gable
with something that was more appropriate for a garage, she would suggest approval for that. Bristow
cannot say that is a goal of the property owner but during the project she might decide that's something
that she wants to do, and it's something that staff would support.
Moving onto the new driveway, Bristow explained at first it had been edited so that it was just a double-
wide driveway all the way in but the guidelines suggests having a driveway be the single wide driveway
that then flares upon the approach to the garage. Part of that is to minimize some of the pavement and
activity that's happening in the sidewalk area. Bristow showed some sketches of how that driveway
might actually work. The guidelines talk about an 8 to 10-foot driveway with a three foot turning radius
on each side, which would be a 16 foot curb cut. The driveway would then would widen at the point
needed to go into the garage. Bristow noted this is not a traditional driveway length, typically the Code
requires that a driveway is 25 feet between the property line, which is on the far end of the sidewalk, to
the garage. This does not have that so it's grandfathered in with its current condition and doesn't need
to be changed because of the fact that they're not really enlarging this part of the driveway. Bristow
next showed an image of the proposed garage front with two overhead doors and the single passage
door.
Bristow showed the current plan that shows the angled wall with the entrance and noted one of the
doors and windows shown is a laundry area. She stated part of the project involves changing that
window configuration because the owner is going to put a bathroom there, so instead of two windows, it
will become one. There is a very large slider window that was installed at one point by a landlord for
egress for a tenant in the back of the garage. One of the relocated windows would be put in that
position to minimize the opening and make it more like a typical garage opening. Bristow noted that the
garage and breezeway have lap siding and the house itself has asbestos siding. So there is some
concern about what happens at the new corner where it transitions from the asbestos to the lap siding.
The new plan shows the single opening and the new bathroom area and the reduced openings in the
main part of the garage. The plan shows where the second overhead door is and how the entrance wall
will now be stepped back from the corner of the main house and project slightly from the garage so it
will help define those three different spaces.
Bristow noted the owner has submitted a flat panel garage door, it is metal but kind of like a stucco
texture, but it's still flat. The owner is reusing the passage door and the windows. Bristow suggests as a
condition for approval is to revisit the corner where the asbestos on the house will end up being
exposed and the wall moves to see how that ends up being detailed.
Boyd opened the public hearing. No one chose to comment so Boyd closed the public hearing.
Boyd commented that it seems like an exciting project.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 13, 2020
Page 3 of 14
MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the 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 northeast corner of the house is reviewed and approved by staff once exposed
as part of the project. Burford seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
424 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (porch reconstruction)
Bristow explained this is another exciting project at 424 Clark Street in the Clark Street Conservation
District. Bristow did check with the owner this morning and she did not have any damage at this house
from the Derecho storm. The house has an interesting history because it's hard to determine what's
going on. It has a layer of rolled asphalt siding and then also a layer of fake brick shingled asphalt
siding. So there are two layers of asphalt siding over whatever is the original siding. Bristow pointed out
a dormer and noted that is an addition and there is a smaller hip dormer in the front. Some historians in
the past had considered that the house might have some Colonial Revival influences but it may also be
a Prairie School design. There were some shutters on it that they thought were original in the past, but
they were not positioned or fit properly so they were probably not original. However, there are multiple
areas on this house where there's some horizontal emphasis in the windows, there's a pretty wide eave
overhang. Additionally, there's a really wide brick band at the bottom and she is suspicious that there
might be stucco underneath the two layers of asphalt. This building was built to be what they call flats,
even on the historic map, so it was always apartments. It had a small entry porch, the roof is original
and underneath there are some porch piers that line up that are brick that match the base of the house
and are also original.
Bristow explained this project came about because the past owner had poured a concrete slab for the
porch floor and it was actually deteriorating, rotting through, and needed to be replaced. Additionally,
the new owner also wanted to remove the stone, therefore it's a two-part porch reconstruction project.
Bristow showed a detail of the stone. Bristow stated all that will be removed. Currently the porch has
steel pipe columns and metal covering all of the soffits. Bristow pointed out a little bit of a column
capital that still shows to give some clues about some of the size and shape of the originals. It likely
had just the two fairly simple, fairly trim columns. The current proposal is a simple square column.
Bristow noted it appears it would align up with what they have for the column capital and the base. It
actually has a little bit of a taper which would fit more with Prairie School but also with the Craftsman
time period in which the house was built.
Bristow stated at this point the project is the removal of the stone, which since that's a non-historic
element, could be a staff review and the redesign of what would be an appropriate column. The original
remnant of the porch railing would be copied on the other side. Bristow said staff does add one
condition to make sure that that the battered or angled size really will fit, but overall approving the idea
of a square column, knowing that if the angled side doesn't fit, then it would be a straight sided column
instead.
Boyd opened the public hearing. No one commented so Boyd closed the public hearing.
Burford asked about in the forefront of the photograph of that building, it showed another door and
perhaps not actually a porch, but there is something that's built out there. Bristow acknowledged the
overhang in the back there. Burford asked if there was any discussion about complementing that to the
work that's being done on the front porch. Bristow stated this house has a new ownership and at the
moment she thinks that they're working slowly and taking things step by step. Bristow noted when she
looked through the history and the property records, there was a time when someone added a
basement apartment in what was a garage and that was probably at one point an entry to an apartment
that later was decided to be abandoned by removing the stairs. It is possible that there will be a
potential future project to remove the door and put a window in or something.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 13, 2020
Page 4 of 14
MOTION: DeGraw moved 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. Burford seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF
Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review.
418 North Gilbert Street – Northside Historic District (rear stoop repair)
Bristow stated they are replacing a stoop and stairs that's off the alley. Bristow did not have a photo but
showed something similar with the same kind of railing. She noted it's around on the alley. It's just a
simple stoop step that existed that rotted out. They are able to save some of the railings, some they
have to rebuild, but they're matching it all exactly.
608 Dearborn Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (front porch flooring and railing
replacement)
Bristow noted 608 Dearborn street is actually two properties. It is a Moff itt house and the front porch is
not Moffitt, it was an addition added later but it has been rotting out and they're replacing the floor and
some of this railing is rotting as well.
608 ½ Dearborn Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (deck floor replacement)
Bristow explained the half is a converted garage that is a living space in the back, and it has an entry
deck and for that one they will be saving the railing and reinstalling it but replacing the floor.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF
Minor Review – Staff Review.
1220 East Court Street- Longfellow Historic District (reopening front porch and new stair construction)
Bristow stated this is a project to open this porch up, however they suspect there's some lack of
columns so they've started talking to the owner about that and they might need to come back to the
Commission for approval, similar to the project approved earlier in this meeting. For a porch design
they are currently looking for a house to use as a model. The house has a hip roof and has an off-
centered gable projection. But currently, they're going to remove a step and remove the enclosure part
and discover what they discover when they do that.
418 Church Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (aluminum siding removal, siding
and trim repair and porch repair)
Bristow stated this is one of the many properties this year that is removing their aluminum siding and
repairing and painting. It's a staff review to remove the synthetic siding and she met with the owner to
talk about it, there are just some very basic details that are missing including a drip cap, crown edge
and some sills and stuff like that. Bristow stated it's all pretty basic and there's evidence of what was
there, so it’ll be an exciting project to have uncovered.
1107 Burlington Street – College Hill Conservation District (new guardrail)
Bristow explained this is a house that was flipped a while ago and has been for sale for a while and
because of a Code change there is need to install a guardrail on the side porch.
AMENDMENTS TO THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION GUIDELINES.
Originally when the first minor review items were created, the ones that include decks and ramps and
things like that, the Commission reviewed each one an agenda item where staff would present it to the
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 13, 2020
Page 5 of 14
Commission, the Commission would discuss it, and then the Commission would vote on it and create a
certificate of appropriateness that has all the conditions on it, making it eligible for staff review. Doing so
doesn't mean that applicants can say they met all the conditions so they’re approved, or they can do it
without coming to staff, they still need to come to staff and submit an application. What this is approving
is that these things that would normally be alterations or changes that need to go to the full Commission
and have generally tended to approve them in the same way over and over and over again could now
be approved by staff. This type of review helps streamline the process. The Commission needs to
decide if they feel comfortable with staff reviewing the application if the conditions that are listed are the
extent of the conditions that you want, or all necessary conditions.
Basement egress window and window well alteration project as minor review
Bristow explained she has very few examples of finished projects so some of the example images she
showed are actually are not perfect examples. In this case they are talking about an egress window that
replaces an existing basement window by maintaining the width of the window and replacing the height
to provide an egress window. Bristow stated in order to get something that meets egress requirements,
it's going to be a casement window, so that it opens enough. City requirements also include that if the
rest of the house is historic, it's usually going to have some double hung windows or something like
that, so the egress window must have a mutton bar configuration so that it resembles the other
windows and is not just a modern casement window. Another condition is that the window well has to
be a certain size in order to meet Code and is a material that matches the foundation. If the house has
a stone foundation, they tend to approve those rough faced block configurations but not say poured
concrete so they tend to either match or blend with the foundation.
Boyd asked if the Commission is in favor of moving it first to a minor review and then if there's broad
consensus around that, they can talk about any specific potential changes.
Boyd noted they had a broad consensus and asked if there's any changes the Commission wants to
make through conditions.
Burford said her only question is the implication here is that the window opening needs the Code
requirements size for an egress window and there may be instances where the property owner would
have to increase the size of the opening to accommodate an egress window. Bristow said the reason
that it would come to the Commission in the first place is that it is changing the size of a window
opening on a structure in a historic district. So far she has never had one that had to change the width
because basement windows tend to be a little awning windows or a little hopper windows and they do
tend to be a width that will allow them to meet egress if they change the height only.
MOTION: Burford moved to approve 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 is 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
• 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.
DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 13, 2020
Page 6 of 14
Front Step and Stoop alteration project as minor review
Bristow noted they have quite a few times when people need to alter or somehow change front steps or
stoops or rebuild them. Sometimes it's because they currently have a precast step that can't actually
remain if they want to change it. The conditions are that if the building does not have a traditional
covered porch where the stoop is planned so they're not removing anything. The landing will be
restricted to approximately five feet by five feet and positioned level with the entry door. She continued
to say the railing will follow the guidelines for balusters and handrails, the steps will have closed risers
and a toe kick, the stoop will be supported on piers or posts aligned with the corner posts and the
space between the piers will be enclosed with skirting. All wood will blend with the house or be painted
to blend with the house. Bristow shared some images of examples.
Boyd noted this was the one that seemed like the one the Commission has done least frequently of
these five so he was looking forward to understanding it a little better. Bristow stated the reason why it
might be less frequent but is the most problematic of all of them is because since she’s been here, staff
has been doing them as minor reviews.
Sellergren was curious in one of the images shown about the way the back columns of the of the railing
came into contact with the porch columns and if that's something that would be taken into
consideration. Bristow acknowledged that one is a little odd because there's an original porch pier and
they had to create something for this railing to attach to. Bristow said they would always want it to have
something so that the railing ends are not just attaching to the wall of the house. She stated they have
quite a few porches in town where the railings are grandfathered in at a historic height and now by
Code, it can't be that height so they tend to solve that problem by making the new part to be at the
correct height, and they tend to have to make two posts in order to make that happen. And sometimes
they needed to add a handrail to steps and those would actually have to probably be metal.
MOTION: Bufford moved to approve 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.
•
Sellergren seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0.
Solar panel installation project as minor review
Bristow showed an example of a garage at 813 Ronalds Street of solar panels. The conditions are that
solar panels are installed as to not impact the street view of the house so would be installed on an
outbuilding roof or the rear facing roof of the primary building or are on a non-street facing side
elevations. For a staff review they would not be installed on a street elevation on a house, they would
most likely be installed on an outbuilding or on the back. They are to be installed as close to the roof
surface as possible. The installers like to put them at a certain angle to maximize their solar heat gain
so sometimes they are not actually parallel to the roof surface, sometimes they have to be slightly
slanted so that they have a better angle. Staff would still ask that they are fairly similar instead of being
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 13, 2020
Page 7 of 14
really propped up at an extreme angle. Additionally, the frames and brackets would be a color that
blends in with the roof surface and that any of the equipment they install is on the back.
Wu asked if there is any reason why there's such strong restriction on putting panels on sides of the
building that would face the street and what if the building is on a corner lot and has less space that
panels can be put on versus one that's in the middle of a walk. Bristow said they tend to take their
direction from the National Park Service because they have also started talking about some of the
appropriate places and the guidelines currently include something about not installing these modern
vents, modern solar panels, skylights, things like that on the street elevation because they do impact
the historic character of the property. So that's one of the reasons that if they can go on an outbuilding
even if that surface faces the street, it's the outbuilding instead of the house or the primary and more
important building, but also trying to avoid a street elevation. Now that does mean that a corner lot does
have the potential to have a gable that faces one way and a roof surface that faces the other way and
that could minimize their ability to have solar panels. There are also situations where there are trees
that also block the sun and make it so that some roof surfaces aren't appropriate at all because they
don't get enough sunlight.
Boyd thinks that maybe over time there may be more openness to putting these on places that are a
little more visible but those shouldn’t be minor reviews and should be up to a Commission to decide if a
placement is appropriate in a in a different location.
Wu said then theoretically if there was a building where the ideal place to put an array would be on the
front, street facing, part of the building, the owner could come to the Commission and they can improve
it that way. Boyd confirmed that was correct.
Burford asked if they want to include the word roofing in here, because there are now solar roof tiles.
Bristow said she wouldn't recommend that because that is more of a roof replacement and they have a
minor review for roof replacement and this is for things that have gained consensus over time and not
necessarily for things that they haven't had to deal with yet.
MOTION: Sellergren moved to approve 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.
Wu seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
Skylight alteration project as minor review
Bristow was having audio difficulties so Boyd explained these are for skylight installations and they
have talked about these as similar in some ways to the solar panels by trying to install them on rear
facing roof slopes, that they're framed in materials and colors that blend with the roof material, that
they're low profile so that they don't kind of stick out above the roof, blend in and size is fitted between
roof joints and have a length that is no more than three times the width.
Kiple agreed it is very similar to the solar panels, so it makes sense.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 13, 2020
Page 8 of 14
Boyd is curious about the length and width requirements. Bristow put that in there because in modern
construction there's a current fad for really long, thin skylights so those would not be appropriate for just
a staff review. The standard size that tends to fit within those dimensions would be what staff could
review.
MOTION: Kiple moved to approve 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.
DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
Commercial sign installation project as minor review
Bristow stated the conditions for commercial sign installation will fit some of the more recent projects
the Commission has reviewed. The sign is a surface-mount or painted sign installed in existing historic
sign band or is a projecting sign located below the second floor windowsill and a minimum of eight feet
above the sidewalk and projecting a maximum of four feet. She noted the dimensions actually come
from the Sign Code so in order to meet the City Sign Code they will meet that as well. All of the
direction for this is taken from the Downtown District Sign Guidelines that they created, as well as the
City Sign Code and past projects that the Commission has reviewed using the Secretary of the Interior
standards. The sign must be scaled to fit the building and takes architectural features and proportions
into consideration. The sign shall not obscure any of the original architectural features. Signs on
masonry buildings are anchored into the joints instead of the masonry. The materials do not damage or
discolor historic materials over time, Bristow included that because of the current fad for Corten steel
because it does rust and would discolor. Finally, if the sign is illuminated it is part of the Sign Code that
it can't just be a big plastic bubble with painted letters, where the whole sign is illuminated. Bristow
showed examples of signs downtown.
Boyd noted they have done several of these in the past and have said they should think about
considering moving these to minor review. Additionally, to be responsive to commercial interests there
are pressures to move more rapidly on some of this stuff.
Kiple asked if the business owners are provided with these guidelines so they can just make it really
easy on themselves and get it done. Bristow said yes, they tend to talk first to the building official who
knows there are specific downtown sign guidelines.
Bristow added in response to what Boyd was said saying more than half of the signs that they have
approved since she been here they've had to call special meetings to get them approved because of
the timeframe and so not only is it helping them just do it faster and with less stress but it also allows
the Commission not to have quite as many special meetings and is also is a good thing for the
downtown properties as well.
MOTION: Kiple moved to approve 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
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 13, 2020
Page 9 of 14
• 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
DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JULY 9, 2020
Boyd had one amendment as they were talking about this subcommittee and asked the City Council to
provide some staff time to help support that subcommittee, but they haven’t moved it forward because
he had not heard back from them. In many of the minutes when they move something forward to
Council, there is like a recommendation to Council so he’d like to amend the minutes to include that
recommendation to Council.
MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission’s
June 11, 2020 meeting as amended. Burford seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote
of 6-0.
COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION:
Sanxay-Gilmore House update, 109 Market Street
Bristow stated the agreement was approved by City Council and the Board of Regents, in fact the
Board of Regents was very excited, and the University has determined a use for the building which was
always a key part of the relocation in making it a viable house. It will become the future home of the
Nonfiction Writing Program as they apparently are creating a writing area related to some of the
properties they already have near the President's home. They've hired an architect to go through the
process of the figuring out what rehab and coordinating the relocation.
Development Update, 400 Block North Clinton Street
Bristow stated this is the project they talked about at the last meeting. Council told staff to move
forward with the development and are working with a developer. They reviewed the condition of the
exterior of the historic building to talk to the developers about what they would recommend and
eventually some kind of rehabilitation plan would come before the Commission. Overall, the process is
going to be an extensive one because it involves some Code language and the rezoning for the
landmark and acquisition of other properties so it is a complicated process. Assuming that everything
continues to move forward, they will do a rehabilitation plan for what is needed on the exterior of the
house. Bristow noted the house was in pretty good condition considering, most of the brick is in good
condition and a lot of the mortar is pretty good, there are just general areas where there's been water
damage over time and a few missing wood elements. Russett added in speaking with the property
owner they were agreeable to the rehabilitation plan and were also agreeable to salvage for 401 & 112
East Davenport.
Boyd stated that obviously a lot of the historic neighborhoods suffered some tree damage, among other
things in the Derecho storm and Bristow, Russett, himself and Friends of Historic Preservation are
going to meet on Monday to talk about figuring out kind of the best approach to reach out to people.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 13, 2020
Page 10 of 14
They’re using some of the models used around 2006 tornado and will keep folks posted as they can via
email.
Boyd stated next month on the agenda will be the National Historic Register nomination for downtown.
The property owners downtown are receiving an official letter from the State Historic Preservation
Office, they're also receiving a joint letter from him as chair and Nancy Bird, the executive director of
the Downtown District, talking about why both of their organizations jointly support the effort and to
reach out to them directly if there are concerns
ADJOURNMENT: DeGraw moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Kiple.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Rebecca Kick
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
August 13, 2020
Page 11 of 14
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2019-2020
NAME
TERM
EXP. 8/19 9/12 10/10 11/14 12/12 1/09 2/13 3/12 4/09 5//14 6/11 7/09 8/13
AGRAN,
THOMAS 6/30/20 X X X X X X O/E X X X X -- --
BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X
BROWN, CARL 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X O/E
BURFORD,
HELEN 6/30/21 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X
CLORE,
GOSIA 6/30/20 X X X X O/E X X X X X X -- --
DEGRAW,
SHARON 6/30/22 X O/E O/E X O/E X X O/E X X X X X
KARR, G. T. 6/30/20 X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
KUENZLI,
CECILE 6/30/22 X O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X X X O/E
KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 X X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X X
PITZEN,
QUENTIN 6/30/21 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E
SELLERGREN,
JORDAN 6/30/22 X X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X X
WU, AUSTIN 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- -- O/E X X O/E X X X X
Item Number: 5.
S eptember 3, 2020
Telecommunication s Commission: Ju n e 29
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Telecommunications Commission: J une 29