Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
HPC Agenda packet 10.8.2020
Thursday October 8, 2020 5:30 p.m. Electronic Zoom Meeting Platform IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, October 8, 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) Certificates of Appropriateness 1. 503 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (front door reconfiguration) 2. 533 Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (garage demolition and reconstruction) E) Tailwinds Development Proposal, 109-123 College Street, initial comment on proprosal F) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review 1. 629 North Linn Street – Northside Historic District (porch floor replacement) 2. 516 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (roof, soffit, fascia, and bracket repair) 3. 119-123 North Linn Street, Union Brewery – Local Historic Landmark (wood trim and window repair) 4. 811 North Linn Street – Brown Street Historic District (siding and trim repair) 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/tJ0tfuirrT8pHNBfJFjzNT76_nJPL9ziX4M1 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 990 9133 4364 when prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option. 5. 625 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (screened porch, eave and soffit and window repair) 6. 728 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (soffit and roof repair) 7. 1411 Sheridan Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (front porch floor repair) Minor Review –Staff review 1. 833 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (basement egress window and window well) 2. 722 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (overhead door replacement) G) Consideration of Minutes for September 10, 2020 H) Commission Information 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 October 1, 2020 Historic Review for 503 Grant Street District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Zach Eastlund, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 503 Grant Street, a Contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of the alteration of the existing front entrance door and trim. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.11 Siding Staff Comments This one-story clipped gable house was built in 1924 and is likely a catalogue house. Originally the house was modestly designed, with the eye-brow hood over the entrance being the only applied ornament. The exposed rafter tails and clipped gable roof add design interest to the symmetrical façade. The north elevation features an enclosed porch over a basement garage. The house has had aluminum siding. In 2008, the Commission approved the shed dormer additions to the front and rear of the house. The front entry canopy was enlarged to cover the front landing and to appear centered under the large new dormer. The project also included the addition of a landing at the rear porch stairs, an extension to the roof overhang to cover those rear stairs, and a change to the windows in the north and south gables. The approval included a relocation of the existing door to the center so that the dormer, enlarged entry canopy, and front door would be centered. Instead of relocating the door, that owner added a non-functioning door panel to the entry as if it had been a double door originally. This change was likely made because the interior configuration of the entry made it impossible to move the door unless interior walls were also moved or removed. Staff can find no approval for this change from the original project. Earlier this year, staff approved the removal of the aluminum siding and the repair and painting of the original siding and trim. The applicant is proposing to remove the non-functioning door panel and synthetic trim applied during the 2008 project and restore the door to its original single-door width, retaining its original position. Any original trim remaining will be repaired, and missing siding and trim will be replaced to match the original with the current siding project. The existing siding under the canopy was not installed to align properly with the original siding. In Section 4.3 Doors, the guidelines recommend that the original size and shape of door openings should be maintained. Section 4.11 Siding, recommends replacing synthetic siding and trim with siding and trim to match the original siding. Staff finds that removing the unapproved non-functioning door panel is an appropriate change. While the original project, under a different owner had included the relocation of the original door so that it was centered, this portion of the project has not been completed because it would have been problematic or impossible to do so. The door will not be centered, but it will remain in its original location. The door was never centered on the structure and while the symmetry of the 2008 project will likely emphasize that fact, staff recommends approval of the project to remove the non-functioning door panel, synthetic trim and incorrectly installed siding. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 503 Grant Street as presented in the application. 503 Grant Street 503 Grant Street, August 2008 Drawing from 2008 project showing the asymmetrical placement of the original front door. Drawing from 2008 project showing newly centered door opening and enlarged entry canopy 503 Grant existing configuration Door in original location to remain Non-functioning door panel to be removed Staff Report October 1, 2020 Historic Review for 533 Summit Street District: Summit Street Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicants, William and Heidi Burns, are requesting approval for a proposed demolition and new construction project at 533 Summit Street, a Contributing property in the Summit Street Historic District. The project consists of the demolition of the garage and the construction of a new garage. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 6.0 Guidelines for New Construction 6.2 New Outbuildings 7.0 Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features Staff Comments This ca, 1878, two-story gable front house has an EL shape because of the crossing gable at the rear. Several changes have been made over the years including a reorganization of the main interior staircase which originally turned at the bottom. Straightening the staircase pushed the front door outward. At one point the house was duplexed and the rear staircase was also straightened to create an exterior entrance for an attic apartment. Originally, there was an open porch on the south end of the west side (rear) in addition to the wrap around porch. The house was clad in aluminum siding in 1978, obscuring its original details. Staggered shingled siding still remains in the gables. The wrap-around porch had been enclosed at one point but is now open. The existing garage was built in 1940. In 1987, the full Commission approved the construction of the landing and stairs on the north side of the house. This project was approved by the full Commission during a meeting in 1991 for the second time. Changes between the two projects are not apparent. In 2005, the full Commission approved the replacement of the window sashes with metal-clad wood sashes. The project also approved the replacement of the non- historic wood shutters with new wood shutters in a more historic style. PVC shutters were installed. Staff notes that it is likely shutters were added when the aluminum siding was installed, obscuring any original trim detail in order to provide some decoration to the siding. In 2008, a Certificate of No Material Effect was approved for the repair and replacement of elements on the non-historic north landing deck. In 2017, a Certificate of No Material Effect was approved for the reworking of the metal roof edge. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing garage and build a new one in the same location and with the same footprint. Like the existing, the new garage will have Dutch lap siding. Where the existing garage has Dutch lap siding hung vertically with a scalloped bottom edge in the gables, the applicant proposes to install staggered shingle siding in the gables to match the house. The garage will also be one foot taller to provide space for the roof structure and an overhead door opener. The overhead doors will be modern instead of the existing tilt-up doors. The garage will have small double or single hung windows and a passage door. In section 7.1 Demolition, the guidelines recommend retaining historic garages. Where it is not possible to save an existing garage, the guidelines recommend designing replacement garages to be compatible in design with the primary structure and/or other outbuildings in the neighborhood. Section 6.2 New Outbuildings recommend that they should be constructed to the rear of the property and subordinate in size and ornamentation to the primary structure but should reflect the style of the primary structure. Carriage-style garage doors may be used if they are a style appropriate for the property. Otherwise, flat panel garage doors are recommended. Windows should be relatively small and rectangular. Staff originally worked with the owner to repair the garage. Since then the derecho damaged the structure causing the front corner posts to split. It was discovered that the bottom cord of the roof trusses were only 7 feet off the floor slab. This is not enough room to provide space and structure to support two overhead garage doors and an opener. Multiple areas of siding would need to be replaced as well as all of the siding on the front of the garage. In the past, the structure was braced on the interior and new studs were sistered-in to the bottom of all of the studs. Because of the storm damage and inadequacies in the automobile openings, combined with the amount of repair, staff recommends approval of the demolition of the garage and the construction of a new garage that essentially copies it with a change to the height. Staff also recommends approval of the staggered shingle siding in the gables to match the house. Door and window product material has not been submitted and staff recommends staff approval of the products prior to purchase and installation. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 533 Summit Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: Window, overhead door and passage door product is approved by staff. 533 South Summit Street Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 1 Memorandum Date: October 1, 2020 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner Re: Tailwinds Development initial comment on development Background In 2017, as the Downtown study was being completed by Akay Consulting, the Crescent Block at 117- 123 College Street became available for sale after being owned by the same family for 94 years. Staff knew that the building would face development pressure and worked to develop some guiding thoughts that could allow development and preserve the building. The development of these ideals included site line studies for a potential rear addition to the building that would replace the 1929 Montgomery Ward Farm Store addition. Those site lines were based on several assumptions and code requirements. • It is assumed that the main block of the building would remain intact and its rehabilitation would pursue tax credits and other funding. • The building would be NR listed and a local landmark so that it would fall under Commission Review. • Retaining the front 80 feet of the building as-is would allow a 17-story tower based on the City’s current zoning regulations. • The FAA has flight path regulations that limit a rear tower to 150 feet. • The front building is three stories and 51 feet tall. A tower behind it could include a three-story base matching the existing building and then have a maximum of 10 stories above the front building (3-story) in the remaining 100 feet of height. This internal study resulted in several goals. • A compelling case would need to be made for the demolition of the farm store addition because it is a contributing portion of the resource. • While a tower built to the maximum height of 150 feet would be fully visible from all directions, its impact would be minimized by the setback of 80 feet from the front of the building. A maximum height matching the height of the Graduate Hotel would be preferred and much less impactful. • With the 80-foot setback the physical connection between new and historic portions of the building cannot be seen from the street and the addition almost appears to be a part of the south half of the block. • Since the addition could overwhelm the historic building it should be sympathetic to and reference the historic building. • If the addition were larger and extended over the adjacent buildings to the west, it is suggested that the design create a sense of three individual buildings to reduce the street presence of the addition. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 2 Current Development Process In terms of process, the proposed development is seeking Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and requesting local landmark designation through the rezoning process. The TIF proposal will need to be reviewed by the Economic Development Committee. The local landmark rezoning has been recommended for approval by both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Both the request for TIF and the local landmark rezoning need to go to the City Council for final review and approval. The Historic Preservation Commission review of the development will occur after the landmarking is complete and imposes some risk to the owner if the development cannot be approved by the Commission. For this reason, HPC comment, not formal review, of the proposed development is sought at this time. The applicant is asking that the Commission consider their ability to approve, in the future, some partial demolitions to the back of existing historic buildings and an addition that is ten stories tall. The addition is located on the alley and physically separated from the historic buildings with the exception of the West Dooley Block. The project will result in the continued existence of, concurrent rehabilitation of, and future maintenance of these same historic buildings. Tailwinds Development Proposal The current version of the development, which will undergo further design and revision as the project progresses, includes the following changes to the historic buildings: Crescent Block, 117-123 East College Street • Demolition of the 1929 Montgomery Ward Farm Store Addition and others and resulting changes to the rear wall of the building • Demolition of the modern storefront in the east half of the building • Replacement of the second-floor windows in the east half of the building • Updates to the original building entrance locally known as the Soap Opera storefront as needed for accessibility Dooley Block East, 115 East College Street • Demolition of rear additions and resulting changes to the rear wall of the building Sears Building, 111-113 East College Street • Demolition of the rear half of the building and construction of a new rear wall with openings • Minor repairs to the façade including the replacement of lost elements Dooley Block West, 109 East College Street • No demolition but the east side of the building may require repair or remodel once the portion of the Sears building is removed It should be noted that the College Block is included as a part of this development but as an existing local landmark, any changes to the exterior of the property already fall under the Commission’s purview. The development does propose to demolish a rear addition to this property. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 3 The development would then include an addition that is built adjacent and likely connected to the rear remaining portion of the West Dooley Block building and extends east behind all historic buildings, including the College Block Building. The addition would be separated by a courtyard from the historic part of the buildings. The first two levels would include concealed parking with residential space above for eight more floors. The addition would be as tall as the Graduate Hotel to the east. Staff Comment on the Current Drawings Crescent Block, 117-123 East College Street The new storefront appears to have similar patterning to a historic storefront but in modern materials and could be considered an appropriate and even preferable approach, depending on the final design and materials, in contrast to retaining the existing storefront. The second-floor window replacement could also be considered appropriate depending on the materials. Retaining the 1930s storefront is preferred to demolition of it, which could be considered inappropriate because of the impact to the historic character of the building. Staff would require more information about the changes for final review. Demolition of the rear addition is not ideal but staff finds its demolition for the construction of a new addition preferable to demolition of the entire building. During a formal review staff could recommend to the Commission to approve this demolition if the Commission could approve the new construction. Staff did remind the design team that the Commission would review the rear of the buildings and changes resulting from the demolitions as well as the front façade. Staff would recommend greater flexibility and use of exceptions from the Commission for the changes to the rear of any property. Whether or not the Commission may be able to find consensus to approve (not formal approval for) the demolition of the Farm Store Addition is one of the goals of this meeting. Dooley Block East, 115 East College Street The rear portions that would be demolished are much less significant than the main building and staff finds that this is unlikely to impact the historic character of the building for them to be removed. It is possible that some existing additions may not be historic. Sears Building, 111-113 East College Street Most of the work on the Sears building is demolition of the rear portion of the building. Like the Crescent Block, staff finds that this demolition for the construction of a new addition is preferable to demolition of the entire building. Staff would require more information about the changes for the final review. But, also, like the Crescent block, whether or not the Commission may be able to find consensus to approve (not formal approval for) the demolition of the rear portion of the Sears building is one of the goals of this meeting. Dooley Block West, 109 East College Street This building is least impacted by the proposed development project even though it is partially an addition to this building. Staff would want more information on the newly exposed east exterior wall and how the new addition relates to this building. New Addition When compared to the internal study, staff finds that the ten-story height (as opposed to the maximum possible height), increased setback, and courtyard space buffer reduce the impact of the addition on the historic buildings. While the building height has some impact on the shading of the pedestrian mall, Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 4 the impact is mostly in the 30 to 45 days on either side of the Winter Solstice. The location of the addition helps it to appear as if it is set within the south half of the block instead of on the landmark property. Staff finds that the weathered steel material may be considered an appropriate modern material to blend with a brick building when brick may not be an option because of cost. Staff also finds it appropriate that the elevator shaft, which would appear the most modern and in conflict with the historic buildings, is located on the far east end where the view of it is almost entirely blocked by the Graduate Hotel. While the addition is only in an early schematic design stage, Staff finds that it does not reference the historic buildings, beyond the current material color. Some additional goals of this meeting include whether or not the Commission may be able to find consensus to approve (not formal approval for) an addition of this size and height at this location. Comments toward the future design of the addition would also be sought. Summary At the Commission’s October 8 meeting, staff requests that the Commission provide comment on the proposed development, and specifically requests comments on the following: • The proposed demolition of the Farm Store Addition. • The proposed demolition of the rear portion of the Sears building. • An addition of this size and height at this location. • Comments on the future design of the addition. Conclusion Completion of the local landmark designation of these properties, 117-123 East College Street, 115 East College Street, 111-113 East College Street, and 109 East College Street will provide opportunities for the development of the rear portion of the properties. The completion of the designation is also contingent upon the Commission’s ability to approve the future project. While the Commission may not formally approve the project until the designation is complete and the project falls under their purview, the owner has hired an architect to begin work toward that project approval and seeks comment on the current phase of the project. The composition of the Commission changes over time and projects change as they develop, so predicting Commission approval or response is neither possible nor appropriate. Staff does find it appropriate for the Commission to discuss the project publicly, provide comments for the record, ask questions for future consideration, and discuss their ability to come to a consensus on the demolitions and scale and location of the new addition as described above. NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC REVIEW TAILWIND GROUP SEPTEMBER, 2020 CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW 2. KEY OBJECTIVES 3. PED MALL FACADES 4. EXISTING & PROPOSED 5. NEW BUILDING NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 OVERVIEW DOOLEY COLLEGE BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK CRESCENT NEW BUILDING PED MALL | E COLLEGE ST S CLINTONS LINNSEARS BLDG NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 Designate Local Historic Landmarks Activate Ped Mall with Small Businesses Devote Crescent Block 3rd Floor to Non-profit Arts Organization Match New Building Height to that of The Graduate Achieve LEED Gold Reuse Existing Buildings Cultivate Walkable City Fulfill Master Plan Vision Provide Exceptional Public Benefit Promote Environmental Sustainability KEY OBJECTIVES NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 PED MALL FACADES 19331910 NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 PED MALL FACADES 1925 1965 NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 PED MALL FACADES Existing Conduct minor repairs to Sears & Roebuck era facade, including replacement of lost decorative elements Update entry for accessibility. Install glazed storefront sympathetic to Montgomery Ward era CRESCENT BLOCKCOLLEGE BLOCK DOOLEY BLOCK DOOLEY BLOCK SEARS BUILDING Proposed NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 E COLLEGE PED MALL View from West View from East Viiew from South NEW BUILDINGS CLINTONS DUBUQUE1 2 1 2 3 3 EXISTING - FROM SOUTH NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 Montgomery Ward 1929 construction EXISTING - FROM SOUTH CRESCENT BLOCK1894 COLLEGE BLOCK1883SEARSBUILDING1929 DOOLEY BLOCK1895 DOOLEY BLOCK1895 DOOLEY BLOCK ADDITION (TO REMAIN) DEMOLISH Sears, Roebuck, & Co. 1929 construction Opera House Block The Graduate NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 EXISTING - GROUND FLOOR DIAGRAM NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 PROPOSED - GROUND FLOOR DIAGRAM NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 Iowa City 41.6611 N, 91.5302 WSECTION STUDY 150’ 110’ 49’ +/-35’ Graduate Hotel Height Max Height per FAA 0’ Dec 20 Solstice 24.9 o PED MALL | COLLEGE ST March 20 / Sept 23 Equinox 48.16 June 20 Solstice 71.7o o L01 L02 L03 L04 L05 L06 L07 L08 L09 L10 L11 CRESCENT BLOCK DOOLEY BLOCK & COLLEGE BLOCK HEIGHT NEW BUILDING RESIDENTIAL PARKING RESIDENTIAL UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS RESIDENTIAL UNITS RESIDENTIAL PARKING NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 A 1 5 6 7 D B 432 C CL 1089 7'-6" FRAMED GYP CEILING BELOW FLOOR ASSEMBLY, TYP FLOOR ASSEMBLY 20x60 ACT SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME PROJECT NO. OWNER PROJECT NAME CONSULTANTS © NEUMANN MONSON INC.Unauthorized copying, disclosure or construction without written permission by Neumann Monson Inc. is prohibited. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY ARCHITECT OF RECORD Neumann Monson Architects 221 East College Street | Suite 303 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319.338.7878 111 E Grand Ave Des Moines, Iowa 50309 515.339.7800 ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION MODUS ENGINEERING MEP DESIGN ASSIST 118 E COLLEGE ST IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 319.248.4600 M2B STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS STRUCTURAL ENGINERING 422 2ND AVE SE SUITE B CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 52401 319.364.0666 MMS CONSULTANTS CIVIL ENGINEERING 1917 S GILBERT ST IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 319.351.8282 A-103 LEVELS 3-4 FLOOR PLAN 18.114 TAILWIND GROUP 530 S Front St #100 E. COLLEGE ST. DEVELOPMENT NEW BUILDING Mankato, MN 56001 507.322.1200 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT09.04.2020 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (3-4) 1/8" = 1'-0"C1 THIRD LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN (3-4) D SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME PROJECT NO. OWNER PROJECT NAME © NEUMANN MONSON INC.Unauthorized copying, disclosure or construction without written permission by Neumann Monson Inc. is prohibited. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION A-104 LEVELS 5-10 FLOOR PLAN 18.114 TAILWIND GROUP 530 S Front St #100 E. COLLEGE ST. DEVELOPMENT NEW BUILDING Mankato, MN 56001 507.322.1200 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT09.04.2020 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 TENTH LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (SIM. 5-10) 1/8" = 1'-0"C1 TENTH LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLAN (SIM. 5-10) D A-404 C3 A-405 C2 A-405 C4 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 ELEVENTH LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"C1 ELEVENTH LEVEL REFLECTED CEILING PLANS FLOOR PLANS60’-0”27’-6”27’-6”5’-0”180’-0” 30’-0” L01PARKING PARKING L02 L03 L04 L05 L06 L07 L08 L09 L10 L11 Levels 3-4 60’-0”27’-6”27’-6”5’-0”20’-0” Levels 5-10 Level 11 40’-0” 2-Bed Unit A 760-sf 2-Bed Unit F 1015-sf 2-Bed Unit C 1170-sf 2-Bed Unit D 810-sf 2-Bed Unit B 1100-sf 1-Bed Unit A 540-sf 2-Bed Unit E 620-sf 3-Bed Unit 1015-sf NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 E COLLEGE PED MALL View from Weatherdance Plaza New building shown for massing purposes only View from across E College New building shown for massing purposes only View from intersection with S Clinton New building shown for massing purposes only NEW BUILDINGS CLINTONS DUBUQUEVIEWS FROM PED MALL 123 1 2 3 NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 E COLLEGE PED MALL View from S. Clinton concept render View from Graduate Hotel entry concept render Viiew from Graduate Hotel entry concept render NEW BUILDINGS CLINTONS DUBUQUEVIEWS FROM THE SOUTH 1 2 3 1 2 3 NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS TAILWIND | EAST COLLEGE STREET DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER, 2020 18.114 South East West NEW BUILDING110’-0”ParkingResidentialWeathering steel Dark metal Dark metal Windows with dark trim Tinted concrete North HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION PRELIMINARY September 10, 2020 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL September 10, 2020 MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Carl Brown, Helen Burford, Sharon DeGraw, Cecile Kuenzli, Quentin Pitzen, Jordan Sellergren, Austin Wu MEMBERS ABSENT: Lyndi Kiple STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Ginalie Swaim RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the electronic meeting to order at 5:30p.m. utilizing Zoom. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: None CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 720 N Van Buren (Chimney Removal) Bristow noted that 720 North Van Buren is in the Brown Street Historic District. It is a Foursquare with elaborate square columns and a siding treatment with narrow lap siding and corner boards that changes to mitered siding corners at the sill line for the second floor and the head of the stair window. It has a pretty heavy dormer and probably a second-generation standing seam metal roof. There have also been some additions on the back. Bristow said the current project is to remove the chimney. The chimney has been leaking for quite a while. Bristow says that she has been working with the property owner to get it repaired. They have spoken with several masons but are having some difficulty lining up a mason to do the repairs. Bristow believes that this is due to the combination of working over the standing seam metal roof without damaging it further (because the intent is to repair any issues with that roof), coupled with the fact that it does have stucco coating, so the coating would have to be removed, the chimney repaired, and the stucco coating probably reapplied.. 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. 2 Bristow stated that, on a Foursquare, while the chimney obviously sticks far above the roof, it is not the most prominent architectural feature. It is also not a decorative chimney. It is not currently used by any of the house systems. Due to multiple issues like the leakage, the prevalence of other repairs, and the fact that the hole itself can be repaired along with the rest of the roof so that it won’t be visible, staff does recommend approving this chimney for demolition. Kuenzli asks, if the chimney has stucco on it to keep from having to re-tuck point it. If it were removed and the chimney tuck pointed, then it wouldn’t need the stucco. Bristow says she thinks that it was probably done for multiple reasons. The chimney was leaking and tuck pointing the chimney just became difficult, so the stucco was added partly to try to create a slightly more impermeable layer on that chimney. Bristow does not know when the stucco coating was put on, but notes that it could be problematic removing it permanently Bristow thinks that it could be flashed up underneath the stucco and it could be the repair area where the water is getting past the stucco. Bristow says that the main problem is getting people to do the actual work. A roofer who would repair the roof might be able to take it down, whereas they would actually need a mason to repair it. Boyd asks if there are any other clarifying questions. Hearing none, he opens the public hearing and after no discussion, closes it. MOTION: Degraw moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 720 North Van Buren as presented in the application. Burford seconded the motion. The motion carries with a vote of 8-0. NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION - IOWA CITY CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT: Bristow said the 2016 study of the Iowa City Downtown Historic District was a review of a 2001 study completed by historian, Marlys Svendsen. In the years between the two studies, many things had changed. Alexa McDowell of McKay Consulting from the Minneapolis area was hired to complete the new study. The result was that she was a potential historic district, including a discussion of Iowa City’s urban renewal history. Bristow said the issue was that, in a commercial district, the street has a relationship to the sidewalk and pedestrian travel, and likewise the curb line to automobile travel. So, in Iowa City’s Downtown, when the Pedestrian Mall was created and those relationships removed, it essentially made that part of the Pedestrian Mall ineligible for listing on the National Register due to the fact that it did not have the same integrity of place and feeling. The change disrupted how people and automobiles interacted with the buildings. Bristow said that urban renewal was not only controversial in Iowa City but also nationally. Out of the 200 pedestrian malls that were created nationally, only 11 were considered successful enough to continue to exist, and ours is the only one in the state of Iowa. Bristow said that for that reason, there was the potential to use a Criterion consideration G National Register eligibility because it includes the Pedestrian Mall and the buildings of that era which are less than 50 years old. Bristow explained what the nomination has in it, since it is a federal form. She said that there is a section of the nomination that is a narrative story and would be good for the commission to consider as part of their Education and Outreach in the form of a presentation for the public about the history of their Downtown. 3 Bristow said the goal with the review of the National Register Nomination is to discuss the fact that, as a community, they feel there is significance to make it eligible and that it also possesses the integrity to make it eligible for listing in the National Register. Bristow said the National Register Format is a form prescribed by the National Park Service that includes formal descriptions. Bristow said in 2001 and 2016, the area was called the Central Business District. Now it is the Iowa City Downtown Historic District. The form includes the location, as well as space for certifications from both the state and federal officials. Bristow said the National Register considers a “property” as something that could be just one house, or a house and its garage on a lot, or it could also be an area such as Downtown. So, it is considered one “property” since it would be listed on the National Register as “The Downtown,” and all of the buildings that one would normally consider as properties are instead considered “resources”. Bristow said the narrative description of a downtown that has many resources is very lengthy, as opposed to a National Register nomination for a house, which might only contain one paragraph for each of the things it describes. Bristow said the Nomination describes the area in question, and includes a map that provides the boundaries. For the National Register, large blocks are included. Often both sides of the street are included. Bristow pointed to the boundary through the alley between College and Burlington Streets. The street along Burlington is not included, since there is not significant integrity or enough remaining historic buildings to include. Bristow said that the 2016 study had not included the old Carnegie Library within the boundary but there was some discussion in the community about the idea of including it. Similarly, at the time when McDowell wrote the nomination, the B.P.O.E Hall was still in place and it was considered a contributing resource, but since it came down earlier this year, it is just a blank space within the district. Bristow explained that the map shows the district boundary in green, and all of the contributing structures (meaning that they have a recognizable style and/or fit within a certain period) are highlighted in black. They contribute to the story/ narrative that McDowell develops about Downtown, which is really about the history of commerce in Iowa City. Bristow notes the importance of the University being adjacent to the Downtown, since they have developed together since Iowa City started as the capital of the state. Bristow said the capital was moved to Des Moines and the capital building became part of the University, which contributed to Downtown development. Bristow said this ties into the story of the Pedestrian Mall because its success is also partly due to the location of the University, being that students, faculty, and other people use the Pedestrian Mall so much for congregating and other activities. Bristow continued that the black buildings are considered contributing resources, and the blue highlighted buildings are all of the buildings that are already listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Bristow said this is actually a fairly significant number for a community like Iowa City. The National Register Nomination does not consider buildings that are local landmarks (which some are), so that is not indicated on the map. For instance, there are few buildings that are local landmarks that are not listed on the National Register, such as the Hohenschuh Mortuary building, or the Yacht Club being one of them. Bristow continued by saying the buildings in gray are not contributing, which means that they were either built too recently, such as the 201 building, Plaza Towers, and Ecumenical Towers. These buildings just don’t fit architecturally within the time period that is being referenced in the Nomination. Some of them, like the big white corrugated building that is now a big black corrugated building on 4 Washington Street, is not contributing because it has been altered and is not recognizable in its current form. Bristow said that in the nomination, McDowell discusses how the Holiday Inn building was really a huge part of urban renewal because it stopped the progress of Dubuque Street through downtown, but it was built outside of the time period for the development of the Pedestrian Mall, so it does not fit as a contributing building. As it approaches its own 50-year age, McDowell suggests looking at it again to see if it could be considered a contributing resource. Bristow stated that the Pedestrian Mall is listed in as a contributing resource. She says that part of the issue with the Pedestrian Mallis the fact that it is not 50 years old. If it was 50 years old. McDowell had to use a special Criterion Consideration G, for resources that are less than 50 years old, in order to include it, and she talks about that in the nomination. Bristow showed a picture of the Pedestrian Mall, specifically Black Hawk Mini Park, and pointed out the locations of both Washington and Dubuque Street as well as the Holiday Inn (now The Graduate). She said this image serves to illustrate the fact that we do not have a street, curbs, or a typical sidewalk, so this type of relationship is not like what one would see on the north end of Dubuque Street where these elements are still intact. Bristow said that the Nomination does note two criteria of significance: Criteria A and Criteria C. Criteria A is about an event that is a broad pattern of history that really helped to shape the community, such as the development of commerce in downtown and the relationship with the University, as previously mentioned. Criteria C has to do with the materials and architecture and the workmanship of the buildings, which is where we get into all of the contributing buildings. Bristow speculates that, out of the 103 resources and 94 buildings, around 73 of them are considered contributing. The other criteria and significance are Criteria G for the Pedestrian Mall, so they must discuss whether or not those criteria are accurate. Bristow explained that Section 7, a discussion about the integrity of the area. Bristow says that the National Parks Service wants every nomination to comment on seven different types of integrity for each nomination that they receive, whether it is an individual building, an object, a cemetery, a downtown, etc. So, the Nomination must discuss how it has integrity in each of those areas. Bristow said the integrity of location is very basic, and it refers to the fact that it exists where it originally was built. The relationship between the Pentacrest and Downtown is maintained, so the Iowa City Downtown is not going to lack the integrity of location because it was not moved. The integrity of setting is related mostly to the streets, which is where the setting of the Pedestrian Mall also comes into play. Bristow said McDowell also talks about the importance of association - the fact that Downtown has a relationship to the University which has contributed to its success. The integrity of design, materials, workmanship all relate to Criteria C having to do with architecture. Bristow explains that the city has regular blocks that were part of the original plat of Iowa City, as well as buildings that were constructed in recognizable styles and materials, and a good level of workmanship. It has to do with the fact that they have retained their style and all of the things that McDowell refers to when she talks about each individual building in the 40 pages of description. The integrity of feeling is taking all of these things in conjunction and noticing how it creates a feeling where one can recognize the historic character of the Downtown as they walk through the space. They can also then recognize the reason why the Pedestrian Mall was created and why it has been successful, and McDowell lays out how Downtown meets each of these different areas of integrity. Bristow said that there is a period of time covered in the Nomination, which is called a period of significance, that extends from 1856 when the first building that still exists today was built (the Franklin Printing House on the Pedestrian Mall on the alley between College and Washington), through 1979, 5 which is what criteria consideration G allows us to do. Bristow said the date of 1979 is the date when the Pedestrian Mall was completed, so it ends with that and includes all of the urban renewal buildings that were built within that same period of time and excludes (as non-contributing) all of the buildings that were constructed after. Likewise, it also includes most of the alterations that were done to historic buildings within that time. Bristow said that McDowell does discuss each building individually; which Bristow noted is good information for the owners of those buildings to have as well. In Section A, McDowell lists the architects and builders who were involved, and includes a statement of significance paragraph as well as the longer narrative that really captures the story of how downtown developed. Bristow also included a few images in her presentation that McDowell had in her nomination such as the 1839 original plat of Iowa City with the Pentacrest, which was Capitol Square. Bristow said Iowa Avenue lined up with what was going to be Governor Square, which is Governor Street, and is not quite in the area of Woodlawn. Since the capital moved, there was never a governor’s mansion that was built, so it was turned into a residential area. Bristow showed another image of the downtown district, which showed that there was originally a park that was taken over by the University at one point in time. She showed another photo from 1854, taken by Wetherby, whose studio has been taken down but was once where Old Capitol Mall was. that includes some of the original wood frame buildings that were aligned along Clinton Street, with the Pentacrest off to the side. Some of the buildings in the photo are starting to become brick buildings. Bristow showed a photo from 1880 with a view looking down Iowa Avenue from the East, including Dubuque Street, and what is the Dulcinea building today. The image shows buildings that can be easily recognized today. Bristow showed another image from a slightly later time, which looks North on Dubuque Street and shows an area that was heavily altered from urban renewal. She said that this is one of the, at the time, many mansard roof buildings that were in Iowa City, but was taken down and replaced with the very large brick building that actually ended up replacing eight buildings, located on the northwest corner of College and Dubuque. Bristow said that the Nomination includes a National Register-level discussion of urban renewal, which is pretty much the antithesis of historic preservation. This written discussion must be at a level that could be accepted and approved by the National Park Service Bristow summarized McDowell’s outline of the history of urban renewal. She said it began between World War I and II as a kind of “slum clearance,” so it is heavily tied into systemic racial segregation basically because, post-World War II, in some of the large communities like New York and Chicago there was recognizable downtown crisis. Because of this, they wanted to focus on the white middle class and drawing them into downtown, on top of what was already happening with suburbanization. The first major redevelopment happened pretty early in 1950 in Pittsburgh, which was basically an attempt to take down what was seen as urban blight, and so many black neighborhoods were destroyed as a result of urban renewal. Bristow said a couple of things that McDowell points to in the Nomination are the 1954 ruling of Berman v. Parker, which ruled that the government could seize private property not just for public use but also for public good. This was just one of controversial things that happened as a part or urban renewal and thus allowed for the destruction of some of the historically black neighborhoods that were developed up in and around some of the other larger downtowns. Then in 1956 there was the Federal Highway Act that tended to destroy a lot of historic black neighborhoods in order to create roads through many of the larger cities. 6 Bristow mentioned McDowell’s reference to the 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs, which had been very controversial in urban planning as well as in architecture. Bristow said that in her book, Jacobs was talking about a kind of urban renewal, not by razing a bunch of things and destroying things, but rather from the ground up and propping up communities and helping from a completely different point of view. This all ended up leading into the Historic Preservation Movement that has happened across the United States. Bristow said it is interesting that the Nomination includes urban renewal and success within Iowa City’s Downtown. Bristow said that McDowell also includes the history of our specific urban renewal and the fact that it was titled the “Better Iowa City project” in order to market it to the public. Bristow shows another image from 1974 that depicts the destruction of the west side of Clinton for the Old Capital Mall. Bristow said that because the community is very politically active, the urban renewal project in Iowa City almost stopped. McDowell notes that urban renewal happened pretty slowly because there were “tribes” of people who were very good at getting their point across to one another. There was even a point were HUD was going to pull all of the funding for urban renewal if the city did not do anything, which is when the demolitions really started in 1974. Bristow noted that McDowell then wraps up her discussion of urban renewal with a history of pedestrian malls because it was not something that was used in all urban renewal projects, but is key to ours. Bristow said the nomination includes a bibliography for further research and notes all of the technical geographical data such as maps, a table of resources that includes each building. Bristow said she wanted to make clear the difference between National Register and the local designation process that the Commission has been through more recently, and she thought that going through the format of the National Register nomination would help with that. Bristow said that the National Register, at least for individual properties that are considered eligible for listing, tends to consider interiors as well. McDowell does not mention is buildings are individually eligible as she did in the study. Instead, she talks about them as contributing to the historic district. Bristow said that the next step is to see if the commission has any questions, then to discuss whether or not McDowell makes a good cohesive argument for the notion that the Downtown has significance as an event related to Iowa City’s commerce and community development, as well as for the architecture of the Downtown, the validity of talking about the Pedestrian Mall, and integrity that McDowell mentions. Boyd asked a clarifying question about whether it is important or not for the commission to include a comment. Bristow responds by saying that, because the nomination originated from the commission and they secured the services of Akay Consulting to write the nomination, it is less important than if someone from the public had hired an outside historian for their own property, but including a comment from the commission shows that it is important to them and that they understand and appreciate the nomination for the honorary title, which would help with community with the work they need to do in the form of tax credits and potential grants. Bristow encourages the commission to include a comment if they should so desire. Boyd asked if there are any other clarifying questions. Hearing none, he opens the public hearing. Swaim introduced herself as the board president of Friends Historic Preservation as well as the representative of that board at the current meeting. She stated that this has been a long time coming and that she is excited that the commission has reached this point and looks forward to the acceptance of this nomination by SHPO and by the National Park Service. Swaim knows that it can benefit the owners of some of the aforementioned buildings in terms of tax credits and grants, just as Bristow mentioned. Swaim stated that it will also benefit the entire community, and referenced the Elks Building 7 (or rather the space where the Elks Building used to be on Washington and Gilbert) to see that we really need to preserve the best of a downtown. Swaim said she believes that this district that has been delineated does include that best as well as the sense of scale, the similar architecture in materials, and the feeling of a true sense of space that makes the community unique. Swaim said that the urban renewal and the Pedestrian Mall components of this are important, and she is very grateful to McDowell for fleshing that out because she thinks of that as a new history - it is an important history and the fact that we are contributing to the National History of that by getting it into the Record is laudable. She, once again, appreciates all of the work that has been done, and states the Friends supports this wholly and completely. Boyd thanked Swaim and asked if there are other members of the public who would like to speak up. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing and proceeded with discussion among the commission. Burford agreed with Swaim, and stated that there is a real import of recognizing the historic fabric of the downtown, and that it is important almost psychologically for the community because the history which has been covered in this nomination is a perfect example of how there were many vying sides on what was important to the community, how different groups had the opportunity to speak and take action, and how the community came together. DeGraw said that she liked the relationship between the Pentacrest and the Historic Downtown, and as long as the Pentacrest maintains its historic character, she believes that it is really important that the Downtown maintain its part too, which is so much of the character of Iowa City. Kuenzli said that she has put a few words together to start off the statement. She said, “We as the historic preservation commission approve and support the carefully considered and researched work that Alexa McDowell’s firm has conducted in the creation of a nomination for a historic downtown district.” Boyd mentions that he would want to include how much the nomination tells the story of the full history of the city through the lens of Downtown, and that the original oldest building there was built for the Capital. One of the original newspapers’ covering the capital was a print house from the time Iowa City was the Capital all the way through the Pedestrian Mall fight. Boyd believes that this illustrates Downtown as the heart of the community and wants to include something about that in the comment from the commission. Bristow said that McDowell will present the nomination when the State Nomination Review Committee meets on October 9th. They will then discuss and decide whether or not the state will promote the nomination to the National Park Service, but they could also come up with some suggestions for changes as well. Since the time when the nomination was sent to the commission, there has also been a discussion about the attribution of the design of part of the Jefferson Hotel, so there could be some minor changes that are made between the review committee meeting at the state level and its submittal to the National Park Service. MOTION: Boyd moves that the commission recommend that the nomination move forward with the following comment: The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission believes that this nomination tells the full history of downtown and our city from the Capital days through our urban renewal fight, and the Commission approves and supports the carefully considered and researched work that the firm of Akay Consulting conducted to create the nomination form for the Nomination of an Iowa City Downtown Historic District. The Commission believes that we have met Criterions A, C, and with careful consideration, Criterion G, has been fully developed. Sellergren seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND APPLICATION AND INFORMATION SHEET REVIEW AND UPDATE: Bristow stated that they have already had some internal discussion about historic preservation fund application and just wanted to update the commission. She showed the information side of their flyer for the Historic Preservation Fund and explained that it discusses the fact that they have grants and loans. Each year, they get new information about the median income, and they use 140% of the median income for their income limit for grants. Bristow said a discussion arose because, when this was developed, it was apparently written into the information sheet that no one could have more than one grant or loan for a fiscal year. Bristow clarified that it had never been the intent to limit it in that way unless they had to limit it due to the number of applications and the number of projects that came up. She explained that, all along, even from the very first year where it was implemented, they had actually approved more than one loan for eligible properties. These tend to have big projects that do a lot of extensive work, and where they can figure out a way to divide the work into two discrete projects. Bristow recalled the first one was overall prepping and painting, but then it also included reshingling with cedar shingles on the roof of a house. So, they have always allowed two, even though the information sheet did not accurately reflect that. Bristow said they have updated this section to include the fact that, if the proposed work is extensive and/or multiple projects are deemed necessary, two projects may be approved by the Historic Preservation Staff. The phrase “no more than one” was substituted with “no more than two” in regard to how many grants one applicant may receive, and that was the extent of the changes. Bristow further clarified that she is just making the Commission more aware of what they have been doing all along, but now the flyer has been updated to match the practices for the purpose of being transparent with the public about what they are doing. Bristow also mentioned that they might actually meet their cap of applicants this year for this Fall already due to the significant number of applicants last year who were just not able to get contractors to respond in time to get approved within the fiscal year. Some of those projects might not utilize the full $5,000, which could allow the acceptance of another applicant in the Spring. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect - Chair and Staff Review. 917 Bowery Street - Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (foundation repair and reconstruction) Bristow described the house at 917 Bowery Street as a Gothic Revival located on the huge lot on the corner of Bowery and Governor. She stated that she has been working with the owner for years, and they have done a few different projects in that time. Currently, the original limestone foundation is crumbling. In fact, there is a pile of rubble inside the basement. It is going to be repaired, and they hope to salvage enough stone so that everything above-grade will still be stone, but below-grade will be replaced with concrete block. 1110 East College Street - East College Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement) Bristow stated that this was approved right after the storm, but the house did not have storm damage. Rather, it is just a basic roof shingle replacement. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUES BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Minor Review - Staff Review. 9 331 South Summit Street - Summit Street Historic District (storm damaged attic window replacement) Bristow said this was storm damage that warranted a window replacement. They had spoken to the owners about the attic window in question before the storm, and whether they would use it for egress or not. It was two in-swinging casement windows that were comprised of 20 littles panes surrounding one larger pane. During the storm, it was destroyed by a tree, and Bristow concedes that it is beyond repair. It will be replaced as two individual casements like it was, so they will swing out instead of in. 904 Bowery - Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (removal of non-historic Cedar Siding and repair of original siding and trim) Bristow said that 904 Bowery is clad in cedar shingles, even though it did not have cedar shingles as its original siding - the shingles are covering a lap siding. They hope that the lap siding is repairable, but they will just replace it to match if it is not. They know what the lap siding looks like because there is a three-season partially enclosed porch on the north side of the house that has its original lap siding inside. Kuenzli asked about the location of the original front door and mentions that this house is a real mystery. Bristow says that even from the fire insurance plans it is hard to tell what has been altered. Brown asked about what will be done with the windows during and after this process. Bristow replied by saying that are going to remove the cedar shingles and then remove a small piece of trim that projects forward to expose the size of the window and the width of the trim underneath, which might be the original width. Bristow said that they will have some damaged things to repair, and they will most likely have to reinstall that crown molding at the top of each window, which involves hiring a carpenter. This would make it a part of the staff approval process. There are a few other issues yet to be determined, such as if there is a trim board present and if there is the existence of a drip edge and/or a watertable. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 13, 2020: No discussion. MOTION: Kuenzli moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission’s August 13, 2020 meeting. Burford seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Burford informed the Commission about the community’s loss of Carolyn Dyer, who was a long-serving member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Dyer had strongly supported historic preservation and was well known in the community as the “Nancy Drew Queen” because, in the late 90’s, she started having conferences about the Nancy Drew books. Burford claimed that Dyer really practiced what she preached, and that the last project that she was involved in was when she was on the board of managers for Iowa City Cohousing, who built Prairie Hill, which was Iowa City’s first cohousing community. In addition to all of this, Dyer was very supportive of historic preservation, and Burford really enjoyed learning from her. Russett shared that the Art-Planning Travel Budget has been significantly reduced, and as a result the training opportunities for commissioners might not be happening this year. ADJOURNMENT: Brown moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Kuenzli. The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Minutes submitted by Lauren Ralls. 10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2019-2020 NAME TERM EXP. 9/12 10/1 0 11/14 12/12 1/09 2/13 3/12 4/09 5//14 6/11 7/09 8/13 9/10 AGRAN, THOMAS 6/30/20 X X X X X O/E X X X X -- -- -- BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X X BROWN, CARL 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X O/E X BURFORD, HELEN 6/30/21 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X CLORE, GOSIA 6/30/20 X X X O/E X X X X X X -- -- -- DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/22 O/E O/E X O/E X X O/E X X X X X X KARR, G. T. 6/30/20 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- KUENZLI, CECILE 6/30/22 O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X X O/E PITZEN, QUENTIN 6/30/21 X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/22 X X X X O/E O/E X X X X X X X WU, AUSTIN 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- O/E X X O/E X X X X X