Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Agenda packet 4.8.2021 Thursday April 8, 2021 5:30 p.m. Electronic Zoom Meeting Platform IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, April 8, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 5:30 p.m. Zoom Meeting Platform Agenda A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 721 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (demolition of addition and new addition) 2. 620 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (rear addition and new deck) E) Review of draft exception for Siding Guidelines per City Council request F) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review 1. 624 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (mini-split air-conditioning installation) 2. 530 Ronalds Street – Brown Street Historic District (siding and basement window repair, porch 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/tJMuce6qqzorHNYp4aoIUHCxSY8Ubrds5iJO 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 973 6725 1162when prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option. Minor Review –Staff review 1. 719 Bloomington Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (window replacement) 2. 117 North Linn Street – Local Historic Landmark (commercial sign installation) Intermediate Review –Chair and Staff review 1. 628 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (carport demolition) 2. 516 Fairchild Street- Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (minor change to prior COA) G) Consideration of Minutes for March 11, 2021 H) Commission Discussion 1. Historic Preservation Survey 2. Annual Awards I) Commission Information J) 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 March 31, 2021 Historic Review for 721 Grant Street District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Sarah and Andy Frank, are requesting approval for a proposed demolition and new addition project at 721 Grant Street, a Contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of the demolition of a 1960 rear addition and enclosed entry and the construction of a one-story rear addition and entry stoop with steps. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.3 Doors 4.5 Foundations 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.11 Siding 4.13 Windows 4.14 Wood 5.0 Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint Staff Comments This house, built in 1923, is a 1 ½ -story side-gabled Craftsman bungalow. The moderately pitched roof features full-length shed-roof dormers on the front a back. The wide eaves are supported by decorative purlins. The house, columns of the subsumed porch, and the solid balustrade are clad with lap siding mitered at the corners. The lap siding extends to the base of the wall which is supported on a stucco-coated foundation. The windows are 4-over-1 double hung windows with a simple flat casing topped by a simple crown, serving as a drip edge. The house has a one-story rear addition that was built about 1960. The applicant is proposing to remove the rear addition which was built about 1960 and a small enclosure around a rear door. A new one-story addition will be constructed in its place. The new addition is designed to appear similar to the dormer above. The side walls and window openings align with those in the dormer. The roof edge condition of the new addition will also appear similar to the dormer and at its lowest point, will align with the bottom edge of the main roof on the house. The new addition will have three windows in the rear wall and paired windows on each side wall. The north side will also have a door leading to an entry stoop. The window heads will align with existing first floor window heads. The windows on the rear and south walls will have higher sills than the other windows on the house to accommodate the kitchen counter in the new addition. Because of an existing mature tree, the addition will have a non-traditional foundation to minimize damage to the tree’s roots. The stucco-coated foundation on house will be mimicked with a similarly-textured cement-board panel installed around the base of the addition and painted to match the house’s foundation. The guidelines for new additions recommend that additions are designed so that they do not diminish the character of the existing building by being placed at the rear of the property, distinguished from the original by offsetting the walls or connecting with a breezeway, and using a palette of materials similar to that on the house. Key horizontal lines such as eave height and window head height should be matched. Doors and windows should match those on the house in style, size, patterning and trim. Additions should be constructed with massing and roofline consistent with the historic building so that wall areas and corners, roof pitches and spans all have a proportion similar to the existing building. Roof overhangs and eaves should also match. Foundations should appear similar to the historic foundation in color and texture. New balustrades and handrails on entry steps should match the simple balustrade in the guidelines and be painted. Staff finds, that this new addition will be an improvement from the unsympathetic 1960s addition. The roof line and window patterning on the addition matches the dormer above. Metal-clad wood windows with a simulated divided-lite pattern to match other windows on the house will be used. Windows on two sides will have higher sills to allow new kitchen counter to pass below them. This is a condition that is appropriate. The paired windows, however, should be separated with trim and not ganged directly together. The proposed smooth LP Smartside is an appropriate alternative to wood siding. The siding on the addition will otherwise align with the siding on the historic house and match the mitered corner condition. The application stated that the soffits and fascia would be metal. Since the guidelines recommend that they match the historic house, metal would not be appropriate, and staff recommends changing this as a condition for approval. The new entry door is shown as a full-lite door. Staff recommends that a half-lite door will meet the recommendations in the guidelines by matching other doors on the house but finds that a full-lite door could be approved if the applicant wants the additional lite from the north and if the full-lite door has a wide bottom stile to mimic historic doors. Staff recommends approving two exceptions for this project. While the guidelines recommend foundations on additions match the historic foundation, this project is attempting to preserve a valuable mature tree. The addition has been designed to be supported by drilled piers instead of a traditional foundation and was originally presented with skirting obscuring the structure on all sides. This use of skirting made the addition appear to be floating instead of fully supported. Skirting would only be appropriate under porches which are traditionally supported on masonry piers. The guidelines in section 5.1 allow for an exception for the new foundation to match the color of the original instead of the material. The addition will utilize a cement board product with a stucco-like texture to mimic the house’s stucco-coated foundation. It will be installed on all three sides between the addition floor structure and the ground. Staff finds this to be an appropriate solution to the need for the addition to sit lightly over the tree’s roots. Section 5.1 also includes an exception for wood that requires that “window trim, door trim, fascia…. on additions must be similar to those on the historic building. However, other details of the historic building may be omitted, simplified or enhanced on additions as long as they are compatible with the historic structure. The addition currently plans to omit the crown above the windows, and the exposed rafter tails and corner brackets found in the existing rear dormer. This exception applies to setback (or rear) additions in historic districts. Since this addition is located on the rear of the house, the Commission may use this exception to approve these simplifications from the historic details. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 727 Grant Street as presented in the staff report with the use of an exception for the foundation design and the simplified trim and the satisfaction of the following conditions :  Paired windows are separated by trim  Door and window product information is approved by staff  The soffits and fascia are constructed of wood  The entry stoop is revised to include a corner post above and below the floor deck, and railings to match the guidelines. 721 Grant Street Existing one-story rear addition to be removed (dormer above to remain) Photo showing rear existing rear addition, entry enclosure, and dormer (to remain) MARKDATE DESCRIPTIONPROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: COPYRIGHT DATE: SHEET TITLE A-1 SITE AND FLOOR PLANS #Pln MSN 3/31/2021721 Grant StreetIowa City, IA 52240C:\Users\miken\OneDrive - Horizon Architecture\My Drive\Horizon\McDonough\Frank Addition\Frank Addition and Renovation.plnADDITION AND RENOVATIONSFOR SARAH AND ANDY FRANKHISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCOPYRIGHT © 2015 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NEITHER ALL NOR ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE AMENDED, REPRODUCED, COPIED OR USED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER EXCEPT PURSUANT TO CONTRACT OR WITH THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OAK TREE HOMES, INC. THESE PLANS, DESIGNS AND SUBJECT MATTER ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF OAK TREE HOMES, INC. THIS DOCUMENT IS AN ARTICLE OF SERVICE AND THE COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE EXPRESSLY RESERVED BY OAK TREE HOMES, INC.MICHAEL@HORIZON-ARCHITECTURE.COMPH | (563) 506-4965WWW.HORIZON-ARCHITECTURE.COMCOPYRIGHT © 2018 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NEITHER ALL NOR ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE AMENDED, REPRODUCED, COPIED OR USED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER EXCEPT PURSUANT TO CONTRACT OR WITH THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF Horizon Architecture. THESE PLANS, DESIGNS AND SUBJECT MATTER ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF Horizon Architecture. THIS DOCUMENT IS AN ARTICLE OF SERVICE AND THE COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE EXPRESSLY RESERVED BY Horizon Architecture. SHEET INDEX ID A-1 A-2 A-3 Name SITE AND FLOOR PLANS ELEVATIONS SIGHT LINE STUDIES DOWNDOWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UP9 RISERS (8 7/64")123456UP6 RISERS (7 1/2") DOWN DOWN W05R5'-3" by5'W05R5'-3" by5'W02D01 W03 W03W03 W03W01 RE FDW3 1/2"15'-6 1/2"5 1/2"5 1/2"18'-8 1/4"5 1/2" 5 1/2"1'-8 3/4"3'-9 1/4"3'1'-2 1/4"5'-1 3/4"5'-6"BREAKFAST NOOK 018 A: 84 sq ftKITCHEN 019 A: 209 sq ft MUDROOM 020 A: 86 sq ftSTORAGE018A: 13 sq ft1 A-2 2A-23A-250' 5' SIDEYARD 15' FRONTYARD20' REAR YARD125'ESTABLISHED OAK NEW SHED ROOF OVER ADDITION APPROXIMATE DRIP LINE OF EXISTING OAK ADDITION ENTIRELY WITHIN DRIP LINE OF TREE - HELICAL PIER FOUNDATION PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE IMPACT. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION WOULD KILL TREE. DOWNDOWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UP9 RISERS (8 7/64")123456UP6 RISERS (7 1/2") DOWN REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF NON-HISTORIC SHED STRUCTURE. REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF NON- HISTORIC ADDITION AND FOUNDATION REMOVE AND RETAIN EXISTING WINDOW FOR REINSTALLATION IF FEASIBLE NSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 NEW FLOOR PLAN 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN 0 8'16'32'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN 0 4'8'12' NON-HISTORIC ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHED NON-HISTORIC ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHED INITIALS _______ MARKDATE DESCRIPTIONPROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: COPYRIGHT DATE: SHEET TITLE A-2 ELEVATIONS #Pln MSN 3/31/2021721 Grant StreetIowa City, IA 52240C:\Users\miken\OneDrive - Horizon Architecture\My Drive\Horizon\McDonough\Frank Addition\Frank Addition and Renovation.plnADDITION AND RENOVATIONSFOR SARAH AND ANDY FRANKHISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCOPYRIGHT © 2015 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NEITHER ALL NOR ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE AMENDED, REPRODUCED, COPIED OR USED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER EXCEPT PURSUANT TO CONTRACT OR WITH THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OAK TREE HOMES, INC. THESE PLANS, DESIGNS AND SUBJECT MATTER ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF OAK TREE HOMES, INC. THIS DOCUMENT IS AN ARTICLE OF SERVICE AND THE COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE EXPRESSLY RESERVED BY OAK TREE HOMES, INC.MICHAEL@HORIZON-ARCHITECTURE.COMPH | (563) 506-4965WWW.HORIZON-ARCHITECTURE.COMCOPYRIGHT © 2018 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NEITHER ALL NOR ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE AMENDED, REPRODUCED, COPIED OR USED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER EXCEPT PURSUANT TO CONTRACT OR WITH THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF Horizon Architecture. THESE PLANS, DESIGNS AND SUBJECT MATTER ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF Horizon Architecture. THIS DOCUMENT IS AN ARTICLE OF SERVICE AND THE COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE EXPRESSLY RESERVED BY Horizon Architecture. NEW STAIR AND LANDING FROM GRADE. RAILING AND BALUSTRADE PER HP GUIDELINES. NEW ROOF - TIE IN AT APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING ADDITION; MATCH PITCH OF UPPER SHED NEW DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW - 3/1 MULLION; CASING WIDTH TO MATCH EXISTING (NO CROWN DETAIL) STUCCO PATTERN FIBER CEMENT PANEL CONCEALING HELICAL PIER AND BEAM FOUNDATION - PAINT OR PREFINISHED WHITE ALIGN BOTTOM OF EAVE WITH EXISTING ADDITION SIDING - SMOOTH LP SMARTSIDE (MATCH EXISTING PROFILE) NEW STAIR AND LANDING FROM GRADE. RAILING AND BALUSTRADE PER HP GUIDELINES. NEW ROOF - TIE IN AS APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING ADDITION; MATCH PITCH OF UPPER SHED NEW DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW - 3/1 MULLION; CASING WIDTH TO MATCH EXISTING (NO CROWN DETAIL) STUCCO PATTERN FIBER CEMENT PANEL CONCEALING HELICAL PIER AND BEAM FOUNDATION - PAINT OR PREFINISHED WHITE SKIRTING UNDER LANDING TO MATCH PORCH . PAINT BLACK . ALIGN BOTTOM COURSE OF SIDING WITH EXISTING ALIGN BOTTOM OF EAVE WITH EXISTING NEW ROOF - TIE IN AS APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING ADDITION; MATCH PITCH OF UPPER SHED NEW DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW - 3/1 MULLION; CASING WIDTH TO MATCH EXISTING (NO CROWN DETAIL) STUCCO PATTERN FIBER CEMENT PANEL CONCEALING HELICAL PIER AND BEAM FOUNDATION - PAINT OR PREFINISHED WHITE ALIGN BOTTOM COURSE OF SIDING WITH EXISTING ALIGN BOTTOM OF EAVE WITH EXISTING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION 0 2'4'8' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SOUTH ELEVATION 0 2'4'8' Frank Addition and Renovation.pln; A-2 ELEVATIONS; 100%; 3/31/2021 6:32 AM MARKDATE DESCRIPTIONPROJECT NO: DRAWN BY: COPYRIGHT DATE: SHEET TITLE A-3 SIGHT LINE STUDIES #Pln MSN 3/31/2021721 Grant StreetIowa City, IA 52240C:\Users\miken\OneDrive - Horizon Architecture\My Drive\Horizon\McDonough\Frank Addition\Frank Addition and Renovation.plnADDITION AND RENOVATIONSFOR SARAH AND ANDY FRANKHISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONCOPYRIGHT © 2015 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NEITHER ALL NOR ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE AMENDED, REPRODUCED, COPIED OR USED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER EXCEPT PURSUANT TO CONTRACT OR WITH THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF OAK TREE HOMES, INC. THESE PLANS, DESIGNS AND SUBJECT MATTER ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF OAK TREE HOMES, INC. THIS DOCUMENT IS AN ARTICLE OF SERVICE AND THE COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE EXPRESSLY RESERVED BY OAK TREE HOMES, INC.MICHAEL@HORIZON-ARCHITECTURE.COMPH | (563) 506-4965WWW.HORIZON-ARCHITECTURE.COMCOPYRIGHT © 2018 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NEITHER ALL NOR ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE AMENDED, REPRODUCED, COPIED OR USED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER EXCEPT PURSUANT TO CONTRACT OR WITH THE SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF Horizon Architecture. THESE PLANS, DESIGNS AND SUBJECT MATTER ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF Horizon Architecture. THIS DOCUMENT IS AN ARTICLE OF SERVICE AND THE COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE EXPRESSLY RESERVED BY Horizon Architecture. EXISTING PRIMARY FACADE PHOTO PRIMARY FACADE RENDERING WITH ADDITION REAR FACADE RENDERING WITH ADDITION EXISTING PRIMARY FACADE PHOTO PRIMARY FACADE RENDERING WITH ADDITION Staff Report April 1, 2021 Historic Review for 620 Oakland Avenue District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Jillian Perry and Jay Borschel, are requesting approval for a proposed addition project at 620 Oakland Avenue, a Contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of a rear addition and a new deck. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.3 Doors 4.5 Foundations 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.11 Siding 4.13 Windows 4.14 Wood 5.0 Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint 5.2 Decks and Ramps Staff Comments This is a single-story Bungalow with clipped gables, also called a jerkin-head roof, and was built between 1921 and 1925. It is very similar to popular catalogue home designs of the period and may be a mail-order home. The entrance and porch are located in a front-facing gable on the south portion of the facade. The porch has heavy columns and diagonal eave braces. The house has 8-over-one double hung windows and narrow lap siding mitered at the corners. In 2013, Staff approved alterations to one of the outbuildings. In 2015, staff approved the location for the radon piping. Last year Staff and the Commission Chair approved the repairs following the August 2020 derecho. The applicant is proposing to add an addition and deck to the back of the house. The addition will have a roof with clipped gables and open soffits to match the house. The siding and trim are proposed to be smooth cement board matching the existing lap siding and trim profiles. The addition is proposed to align with the south wall of the house. In the El created by the new addition and the rear wall of the house, the applicants propose to build a deck. The deck will have a railing that matches the guidelines and is proposed to extend past the north wall of the house. The guidelines for new additions, Section 5.1, recommend that additions are designed so that they do not diminish the character of the existing building by being placed at the rear of the property, distinguished from the original by offsetting the walls or connecting with a breezeway, and using a palette of materials similar to that on the house. Key horizontal lines such as eave height, watertable, and window head height should be matched. Doors and windows should match those on the house in style, size, patterning and trim. Additions should be constructed with massing and roofline consistent with the historic building so that wall areas and corners, roof pitches and spans all have a proportion similar to the existing building. Roof overhangs and eaves should also match. It is disallowed by the guidelines to leave large expanses of wall surface uninterrupted by windows or doors. Section 5.2 Decks and Ramps of the guidelines recommend locating them on the back of the house and setting them in from the sidewalls of the existing house. Decks should also follow the guidelines in Section 4.1 Handrails. It is disallowed to leave balusters and railings unpainted if they are visible from the street. Staff finds that while the addition is proposed to align with the south wall of the house instead of being set in, it may be appropriate for this property because of the small size of the existing house and the rear yard space limited by the existing outbuildings. With the exposed rafter tails on this house, only the open eaves will project beyond the house. The transition from historic house to new addition can be marked in the siding by the installation of a vertical trim board. With the addition in this location, space is created for family use and for the relocated basement stairs. The addition also avoids the existing first floor window in the north half of the rear wall. While the drawings do not currently show the exposed rafter tails and brackets that exist on the house and therefore, doesn’t show them on the addition, staff does recommend that they are matched in the new addition because of its small size and lack of side setback from the south wall. Similarly, staff recommends that the divided-lite condition of the windows on the house are matched with the new windows. Staff has not reviewed the proposed window and door product information. The guidelines recommend a similar setback from the sidewalls for decks. The applicants propose to extend it beyond the north wall of the house to provide a stair connecting to a new walk-way they will create for their children to walk to school. A corresponding stair will extend the opposite direction to provide access to the rear yard and outbuildings. While the drawings do not currently show these details, staff finds that the deck, should have closed risers on the stairs, foundation posts that align with railing posts above with skirting spanning between them instead of in front, and a painted railing. Staff recommends allowing an exception for this project because of the size of the existing house and the lack of space in the rear yard. This exception would allow the Commission to approve the addition and the deck without setbacks from the side walls of the house. The Commission has not regularly approved cement board products as a replacement for wood trim on existing houses or additions. Often the siding is approved in a wood substitute and trim is constructed of wood so that it matches the existing. If the Commission approves a cement board trim, staff recommends that it matches the existing profiles. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 620 Oakland as presented in the staff report with the following conditions:  Window and door products are approved by staff  The deck is revised with posts, stairs, skirting and paint as described in the staff report  The roof details in the addition match the existing house  The trim is constructed of wood. Date: April 1, 2021 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Follow-up on Proposed Amendment to the Historic Preservation Handbook At your March 11, 2021 meeting I presented a recommendation for an amendment to the Io wa City Historic Preservation Handbook. A memo dated March 4, 2021 provided the background on that recommendation and that memo is attached to this document. That memo specifically recommended the following exception: Recommended Amendment 4.11 Siding - Exception The following exception provides flexibility to owners of eligible buildings with existing synthetic siding installed over original wood siding. The City recommends repair of original wood siding over replacement whenever feasible. Removal of the synthetic siding and repair of the original wood siding and trim is often the most sustainable and affordable solution. However, some property owners may have legitimate economic or technical concerns due to the deteriorated condition of the original wood siding or the impact rehabilitation may have on building performance, health or safety such as the potential for moisture damage due to the presence of modern insulation. Therefore, this exception encourages City staff and the Commission to consult with homeowners and/or their professional agents to assess applications involving the presence of synthetic siding and provide flexibility to situations where property owners wish to avoid economical and technical challenges such as moisture damage, remove the synthetic siding and the original siding, and replace it with an appropriate material as described in this handbook that matches in exposure, texture, and design. Applies to: Non-historic, noncontributing, and contributing properties, both primary structures and outbuildings, in historic and conservation districts Local historic landmarks and key contributing properties in historic and conservation districts are not eligible for this exception. This exception only applies to buildings with wood siding and not stucco, stone, or brick. Synthetic siding may be removed, and if original wood siding exists underneath it may be repaired or removed and replaced with wood or an approved alternative material, provided the following conditions: • Synthetic siding covers the original wood siding, • Evidence of technical or economic challenges is noted related to the deteriorated condition of the original wood siding or the impact that rehabilitation may have on building performance, health or safety, and • If original wood siding is removed, it must be replaced with an appropriate material that matches in exposure, texture, and design. March 30, 2021 Page 2 After taking public comment, Commissioners requested that we move ahead with plans to request input from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The Commission requested that staff return with those comments before a final recommendation from the Commission is made to the City Council. Staff sent the entire March 4, 2021 memo to SHPO. The following comments were received from SHPO on March 26, 2021: 1. For clarity you may want to refer to non historic siding. Non historic siding can include vinyl siding (synthetic), steel siding, aluminum siding, etc. Synthetic siding typically refers to vinyl siding only. 2. Second bullet point: "Evidence of technical or economic challenges is noted related to the deteriorated condition of the original wood siding or the impact that rehabilitation may have on building performance, health or safety, and" It would be important to describe somewhere how the evidence of technical or economic challenges will be documented. Without some specificity of what constitutes a technical or economic challenge and the documentation the applicant must provide to prove the claim, this clause may be more permissible than the city intends. 3. The issue of the external insulation is mentioned on page 1. It appears that insulation applied to the exterior will thicken the wall and change the relationship between the siding and the trim. There would probably need to be a jamb extension at the openings to provide a new surface where the trim can be mounted so that it is in its correct relationship with the siding. This is probably a complication that the city staff has already anticipated. Staff thanked SHPO for their comments and continued support of our preservation efforts in Iowa City. Regarding comment #1, staff believes that our guidelines are clear on this topic. Section 4.11 Siding under the ‘disallowed’ category specifically includes the phrase “applying synthetic siding such as aluminum, vinyl or false masonry siding.” We believe this offers sufficient clarity, but if the Commission wishes for greater clarity that can be proposed to the City Council along with this exception. Regarding comment #2, staff acknowledges that the language lacks specificity. However, this was intentional to provide the flexibility that the City Council was seeking with such an amendment. The myriad of variables associated with an individual house makes it difficult to anticipate all issues that may arise in the future. Additionally, the City should be cautious not to absolutely require a homeowner to have to hire professional assistance for such an evaluation. Such a requirement may be cost prohibitive for some households while professional expertise on City staff may be sufficient to make such determination. In short, it is requested that the existing language be maintained and that staff be given the opportunity to work cooperatively through these issues with property owners as they arise. As a reminder, staff found only two such requests in the last five years and continues to believe that most homeowners will find the reuse of historic siding the most economical and sustainable approach. Finally, comment #3 was intended as a helpful suggestion specific to the issue of insulation attached to the siding. We appreciate that comment and will consider it with COA applications received in the future. We appreciate the Commission’s consideration of this amendment as originally presented and request your feedback prior to taking this to the City Council for formal consideration. Date: March 4, 2021 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Proposed Amendment to the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook Introduction On February 16, 2021 the City Council concluded consideration of a Historic Preservation Commission appeal from the owners of 1133 East Court Street. The appeal spanned two City Council meetings and included considerable testimony from the property owners and their contractor and architect, as well as Commission Chairperson Boyd and City staff. Generally speaking, the City Council’s standard of review was limited to the reasonableness of the Commission’s decision, which should be noted was fully supported by City staff. The City Council unanimously concluded the Commission decision was soundly based on the existing guidelines and should be upheld. However, the City Council simultaneously expressed sympathy for the homeowner’s position and a desire to consider more flexibility in the local guidelines related to the replacement of existing synthetic siding. The City Manager’s Office was charged with pursuing such an amendment. This memo aims to lay out additional background information and concludes with a recommended amendment. We are seeking comments from the Historic Preservation Commission and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) before presenting the amendment to the City Council for final consideration. Background On December 10, 2020, the Historic Preservation Commission denied an application to replace or cover the original siding at 1133 East Court Street, which was already covered with synthetic aluminum siding. The application requested replacement of the original siding without an assessment of the condition of the original wood siding . 1133 East Court Street is located in the local Longfellow Historic District and the National Register listed Longfellow Historic District and is classified as contributing to the historic character of the neighborhood. At this meeting, the Commission also approved a Certificate of Appropriateness that allows for the removal of the aluminum siding and repair of the original siding and trim or replacement of deteriorated siding and trim following review and documentation by staff and the Commission Chair. The applicants appealed the Commission’s denial to the City Council. The applicants and their contractor and architect expressed concerns related to damage to the original siding and potential moisture issues due to previously installed modern insulation and the application of the existing synthetic aluminum siding. The homeowners also expressed health concerns related to lead paint that is present on the original siding. They further indicated a strong desire to install new home exterior wall insulation to improve energy efficiency in alignment with the City’s Climate Action goals. Finally, the applicants also expressed frustration with the lengthy historic review process. They originally submitted their application in April 2020 and expressed concerns with what they understood was the City’s requirement to remove all of the aluminum siding to assess the condition of the original wood siding with an inability to have assurance they could reinstall the aluminum siding after the assessment. On February 16, 2021 the City Council affirmed the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission, but also expressed concerns with the historic review process with this case and March 5, 2021 Page 2 lack of flexibility given some of the seemingly valid points raised by the homeowners and their professional representatives. The City Council was concerned with what appeared to be an onerous historic review process and directed staff to propose a modification to the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook that increases flexibility for property owners to replace non- original siding (e.g. aluminum, vinyl, etc.) with an approved wood substitute material that would honor the historic character of the neighborhood and that may provide one or more of the following benefits; energy efficiency, home safety and short or long-term affordability. City Council Appeal The City Council heard the initial appeal of the Commission’s denial on February 2, 2021. At that meeting, the City Council continued the public hearing to February 16 and requested staff to coordinate with the property owner on the temporary removal of some of the aluminum siding to evaluate the condition of the original wood siding underneath. The homeowners welcomed this opportunity as they previously understood the City’s requirement to remove all of the synthetic siding for the assessment. After the Council meeting staff 1) developed a plan that outlined targeted areas where the aluminum siding should be removed; 2) shared this plan with the homeowners and their contractor; 3) met the homeowner and contractor onsite to discuss and finalize the areas of removal; and 4) after the contractor removed portions of the aluminum, visually inspected the condition of the original wood siding with the homeowner and contractor. Members of the City’s planning staff and housing rehab staff assessed the condition of the siding. All staff agreed that the original wood siding was in good condition. Signs of moisture damage caused by insulation and covering the original siding with aluminum were not apparent. Staff used a moisture meter to determine the moisture content of the wood. The readings were very low. Any reading above 15% would indicate that the wood may not be able to salvaged and re-painted. The readings were well below that at around 6-7%. The readings were also taken on a very cold day, which is not the best time to test and could have resulted in an artificially low reading. A reading in the Spring may register higher. If requested by the applicant, staff has indicated a willingness to conduct another reading in warmer weather. If a Spring reading registered higher, staff’s recommendation regarding the condition of the siding could change. Based on the condition of the siding, staff recommended that the original wood siding be retained as contemplated in the Certificate of Appropriateness issued by the Historic Preservation Commission. Portions of the siding that are splintered or deteriorated may be removed through this process. The rear of the home has no original siding. Replacement siding may consist of wood, smooth cement board or smooth LP Smartside matching the original. The trim was not uncovered. If the trim is damaged it may be replaced. If it is not damaged it can be repaired. The trim should match the original trim and there are examples of the original trim in the porch, which can be copied to create any new trim. Details related to trim and the assessment of the condition of original materials would be coordinated with City staff. At the February 16 City Council meeting, staff presented the recom mendation outlined above. The applicants also presented information and provided visual evidence of holes in the wood from insulation and application of synthetic siding, missing trim details, and evidence of moisture damage in the house. It was clear the homeowners did not agree with staff’s assessment and they and their architect effectively outlined the basis for their position. Other Local Jurisdictions After receiving direction from the City Council to explore potential amendments to the City’s Historic Preservation Handbook, staff reached out to the cities of Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, March 5, 2021 Page 3 and Dubuque to see how similar applications would be treated in these jurisdictions. The following is a brief summary of those conversations. City of Des Moines City of Des Moines staff stated that in similar reviews where synthetic siding exists over original wood siding, they require the removal of the synthetic siding and an assessment of the condition of the original wood siding. If the original wood siding is in good condition, it must be repaired. If the condition of the wood is poor, it can be replaced with wood, fiber cement board, or LP Smartside. Des Moines staff, and on occasion Commission members, conduct the inspections and stated that they aim for incremental changes that slowly bring the property into conformance with design standards. City of Cedar Rapids Although Cedar Rapids does not have any recent examples of a historic review application requesting to replace synthetic siding, similar to Iowa City and Des Moines Cedar Rapids would require the removal of portions of the synthetic siding and an assessment of the condition of the original wood siding. If the original siding is in good condition it would need to be repaired. The City of Cedar Rapids does not allow alternative materials and would require that any replacement siding be wood. In the assessment of original materials, Cedar Rapids staff relies on contractors to assess the condition and report back to staff. This differs from Des Moines and Iowa City, which both rely on their staff’s assessment of the original wood siding. City of Dubuque The City of Dubuque approaches properties with synthetic siding differently. Building s are reviewed based on their existing conditions. If synthetic siding covers original wood siding and original siding is not visible, there is no assessment of the condition of the original wood siding. The owner could restore the original wood siding, replace it with wood, or replace it with an alternative approved material. More specifically, if no original wood siding is visible, due to the application of synthetic siding, staff would determine that guidelines related to maintaining and repairing original materials are not relevant since no original material is evident. Staff’s conversations with these other cities demonstrate that there are other local jurisdictions in the State that approach this type of situation a bit differently. Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, and Iowa City each require removal of the synthetic siding and an assessment of the condition of the original wood siding. Des Moines and Iowa City have staff who assess the condition while Cedar Rapids relies on the homeowner’s contractors for such assessment. There is a notable variation with Dubuque’s approach, which does not require an assessment of original materials when they are not already visible. Certified Local Government Status In 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) established a nationwide program to encourage preservation. The NHPA established national historic preservation policy, the National Register of Historic Places, and State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). In 1980, the Act was amended to create the Certified Local Government program. This program added local governments as another partner in preservation efforts. The National Park Service, Department of the Interior, administers the federal government’s historic preservation program. Iowa’s State Historic Preservation program is administered through the State Historic Preservation Office of Iowa. The local partner is the certified city or county government. The cities of Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Dubuque, and Iowa City are Certified Local Governments. Being a CLG means that the City is eligible for grants and technical assistance. March 5, 2021 Page 4 City staff works to maintain our status as a CLG, which means that we work to encourage historic preservation at the local level and follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards & Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation in developing and administering our preservation program. More specifically, this means that any proposed amendments to the City’s Historic Preservation Handbook must align with the Secretary of Interior Standards. The following amendment aims to align with such standards, as well as the more general neighborhood and community intent of preserving and enhancing the historic character of our cherished districts and individual properties within. Draft Amendment The following exception aims at responding to the City Council’s interest in amending the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook in order to increase flexibility for property owners to replace non-original siding (e.g. aluminum, vinyl, etc.) with an approved wood substitute material that may provide one or more of the following benefits; energy efficiency, home safety and short or long-term affordability. It is important to re-emphasize that the City Council wishes to do so in a manner that honors and respects the historic character of our many districts. The narrow focus of this exception is limited to situations where synthetic siding is covering original wood siding. The focus is also narrowed to non-historic, noncontributing and contributing properties. Importantly, it does not apply to key contributing properties or historic landmarks. Recommended Amendment 4.11 Siding - Exception The following exception provides flexibility to owners of eligible buildings with existing synthetic siding installed over original wood siding. The City recommends repair of original wood siding over replacement whenever feasible. Removal of the synthetic siding and repair of the original wood siding and trim is often the most sustainable and affordable solution. However, some property owners may have legitimate economic or technical concerns due to the deteriorated condition of the original wood siding or the impact rehabilitation may have on building performance, health or safety such as the potential for moisture damage due to the presence of modern insulation. Therefore, this exception encourages City staff and the Commission to consult with homeowners and/or their professional agents to assess applications involving the presence of synthetic siding and provide flexibility to situations where property owners wish to avoid economical and technical challenges such as moisture damage, remove the synthetic siding and the original siding, and replace it with an appropriate material as described in this handbook that matches in exposure, texture, and design. Applies to: Non-historic, noncontributing, and contributing properties, both primary structures and outbuildings, in historic and conservation districts Local historic landmarks and key contributing properties in historic and conservation districts are not eligible for this exception. This exception only applies to buildings with wood siding and not stucco, stone, or brick. Synthetic siding may be removed, and if original wood siding exists underneath it may be repaired or removed and replaced with wood or an approved alternative material, provided the following conditions: • Synthetic siding covers the original wood siding, • Evidence of technical or economic challenges is noted related to the deteriorated condition of the original wood siding or the impact that rehabilitation may have on building performance, health or safety, and • If original wood siding is removed, it must be replaced with an appropriate material that matches in exposure, texture, and design. March 5, 2021 Page 5 Improvements to the Preservation Program We recognize that the owners of 1133 E. Court Street did not have a good experience with the City’s historic review process. We are committed to making improvements in the process and offering simple solutions that provide flexibility, when warranted. Recently, we have made changes to our processes and are exploring others that will help to improve the historic preservation program: • Neighborhood and Development Services staff are working to create a team environment within the preservation program. This involves planning staff more closely collaborating with housing rehabilitation staff on site visits with property owners and contractors to collaboratively assess conditions of materials and discuss possible solutions. All staff will give strong consideration to professional opinions of local contractors and architects. • Additionally, it has been recommended that staff administer a survey to property owners and contractors within the historic districts to better assess our current process. A survey may also help identify potential amendments to the handbook that aim to be win/win solutions for everyone involved. Staff is also considering focus group discussions prior to issuing a survey to help inform the survey questions. We would like the Commission’s input on this greater survey effort. • Planning staff and the Chairperson Boyd have also scheduled a lunch and learn with local realtors in April. The focus on this meeting will be to inform realtors of the City’s historic preservation program and the location of local historic and conservation districts. Next Steps The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommends that proposed amendments to local guidelines be forwarded to them for their review. The City enjoys a great working relationship with SHPO and believes we should seek their comment on this narrow exception. SHPO typically requests 45 days to review and comment. Staff will forward this exception to SHPO after the Commission comments are received and prior to review by the City Council. Staff plans to present Council with the amendment in April assuming comments have been received by SHPO. Final Thoughts Iowa City has a rich history of historic preservation and remarkable progress has been made in recent years with numerous new landmark property designations, the downtown historic district study and pending National Register listing, creative partnerships to move historic homes, enhanced density bonuses to help preserve structures and millions of dollars of public investment and collaborative public/private partnerships to ensure that more buildings are locally landmarked and many of our community’s most beloved historic properties receive much needed investment in a historically appropriate manner. I am extremely proud of this work and credit the Commission and City staff for these many great successes here in Iowa City. It is in this collaborative spirit that we should take the opportunity to step back from the recent appeal case and consider how we can continue to build upon the enhancement of our community’s historic character while simultaneously providing some more flexibility for our residents to achieve varying goals they may have for their homes. I believe this amendment, while only applicable in very narrow situations, will not only help build goodwill and additional support and interest for future preservation efforts, but will also help us build upon the great progress we have made in enhancing the character and appeal of our historic neighborhoods. Thank you for your service to the Iowa City community and for your consideration of this amendment. 1 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL March 11, 2021 MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Carl Brown, Helen Burford, Sharon DeGraw, Cecile Kuenzli, Lyndi Kiple, Quentin Pitzen, Jordan Sellergren MEMBERS ABSENT: Austin Wu STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett, Geoff Fruin, OTHERS PRESENT: Karyl Bohnsack, Ben Fortune, Lauren Haldeman, GT Karr, Gregory Cilek, Michael Nolan, Jeremy Payton, Amy Seidel, Kevin Hanick 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: 404 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (rear porch addition) Bristow said that 404 Brown Street is a contributing property within the Brown Street Historic District. It has a large lot, multi-paned casement windows on the upper floor and in the middle, a decorative porch, and contains both Georgian and Colonial Revival details. She said that there have been several different additions to the house since 1996, including a side porch on the west side added in 2004. She said the current project proposes replacing the deck that runs along the back of the house with a porch matching the side and front porch. The porch will have a roof deck around the rear east corner (not intended for people to occupy – rather to use plants to help block the view into the bathroom area) and a bump-out for a sauna with a small roof deck around it. The project also proposes replacing the double hung window with a smaller one in the bathroom and adding a new one on the second floor. Bristow said that this porch addition meets all of the setback requirements and everything proposed is to be made of wood and/or wood windows, which Staff finds appropriate. Boyd opened the public hearing. 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 Gregory Cilek, the homeowner and a member of the public, said that he thinks the project looks great. He said that they will use wood windows just like everywhere else. Boyd closed the public hearing. MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 404 Brown Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: the rear single sash windows are revised to match the front attic windows or the other windows on the property and the door and window product information (including skylights) be approved by Staff. Pitzen seconded. Commission did not vote. MOTION: Burford moved to amend the first condition and moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 404 Brown Street as presented in the application with the condition that the door and window product information (including skylights) be approved by Staff. Kiple seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 445 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (window and door alterations) Bristow said that 445 Clark Street is a house with a mixture of Tudor revival and craftsman detailing that was built in the late 1920’s. She said that there is a proposal to remove the side entryway as well as a proposal to remove the door within the 1946 addition. The windows on the back of the house are to be replaced and a French door installed. The project proposed to replace two of the windows, and Bristow said that she has to clarify with the owner about whether it is to be replaced with a double hung or awning window. She said that awning windows are disallowed on historic houses. On the south side of the house, the smaller window in the 1946 addition is proposed to be removed. She said that Staff finds it appropriate to replace the pair of windows with shorter double hung windows so that a kitchen counter could pass underneath. Bristow said that the Staff recommended motion for this project includes a condition that the side entry remains because Staff finds it to be a significant architectural element to the side of the house and removing it would alter the opening patterning. She said that they also need to review the window and door product information. Boyd opened the public hearing. Kevin Hanick, the owner, said that “Steadfast Investments” in the agenda packet should be corrected with “Riverview West LLC”, as they are the proper owners of the property. Bristow said that that was how the online application was filled out. He said that the windows on the north and south of the addition on the back would both be double hung instead of awning windows. He said that the house has been a long-time duplex, and most of their proposed items have to do with converting the house back to single family use. As a result, they also have to relocate the main kitchen, which requires them to resize the double hung window on the south side of the house. He also said that they have no intention of changing the upstairs window configuration, and that was most likely a misdraw by the architect. He said that the only point of real discussion would be whether or not they retain the side entrance, which used to be the entry to the upstairs unit. Since they now have a main staircase, he said they no longer have any use for it and would prefer to remove and replace it with shingle siding. Kuenzli asked if there is a window to the left of the door. Hanick said that the window to the left of the door looks into the living room and the window to the right looks into a bathroom, and both would remain as is. Boyd asked if they know if the side door is original. Bristow said that they do not have a guaranteed way of knowing, but they are assuming that it is because of its trim, location, etc. Hanick said that a side door on older houses would typically articulate with an entry to a basement, but that was never the case with this house, so he thinks it was added as a way to access the upper level when it was added as a duplex. He said that the railing and steps 3 are probably from the 1950’s or 60’s. Hanick said that he was a former Commissioner, so he knows the challenges of trying to make things work, but he feels like this house really needs it removed in order to match with the evolving character of Clark Street. Boyd closed the public hearing. Kuenzli said that she is delighted with the project. Burford said that she agrees with the owner in that removing the door will help signify that it is a single-family residence, and she believes that is important. Sellergren said that she does not have any major issue with the removal of the side door. DeGraw said that she is also fine with the side door being removed. Boyd said that he is fine with losing the side door as long as they get some trim to clean the area up. MOTION: Kuenzli moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 445 Clark Street as presented with the following condition: that door and window product information is approved by Staff. DeGraw seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 711 Fairchild Street – Goosetown/ Horace Mann Conservation District (rear dormer) Bristow said that 711 Fairchild Street is a cross-gabled house located in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District that is clad is asbestos siding. The enclosed rear porch has lap siding, and the original siding is not evident. She said that the proposed project is a rear, through-wall dormer addition that would have a shed roof with a low slope. She said that most of the front of the house has double hung windows. Bristow said that, given the tight site and small house, Staff proposes allowing an exception that would allow the dormer to be closer to the roof edge than the three foot distance required by the guidelines. She said that Staff also recommends that the front and eve edge of the dormer match the existing condition of the house. Boyd opened the public hearing. Boyd closed the public hearing. MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 711 Fairchild Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: standard four-inch flat casing is used to trim the windows and the eve detail of the dormer matches the existing house. Kuenzli seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8- 0. REVIEW OF DRAFT EXCEPTION FOR SIDING GUIDELINES PER CITY COUNCIL REQUEST: Geoff Fruin, the City Manager for the City of Iowa City, introduced himself and thanked the Commission for their service to the city. He summarized the outcome of the appeal from the homeowners at 1133 East Court Street and said that the City Council found their decision on the Certificate of Appropriateness sound and based in good reasoning with the City’s existing guidelines. He said that the Council was moved by the arguments made by the homeowners and at the end of the appeals process asked Staff to develop a narrow exception to the guidelines that would give them more flexibility to accommodate future requests. He said that the repair of the wood siding is still the City’s preference, and they believe that this will also be most property owners’ preference as well, which is supported through their grant program. However, through the appeals process they realized that there could be some compelling reasons for the owner to wish to remove the original siding (such as the deteriorated condition of the wood, the impact rehabilitation could have on building performance or the health and safety of the occupants, etc.). He said that the heart of the draft exception is centered on recognizing unique circumstances that deserve some manner of flexibility. He said that this 4 amendment would not apply to landmark properties or key contributing properties, or stucco, stone, or brick exteriors; the exception would apply to non-historic, contributing, and non- contributing properties that have synthetic siding covering original wood siding. He said that this amendment would allow Staff to recognize the technical and economic challenges associated with the aforementioned circumstances. He said that, if it was determined that the original wood siding could be removed, it then must be replaced with an appropriate material that matches and improves the history character of the property. Fruin said that they are also making modifications to their internal review process in order to highlight historic preservation in the City and help homeowners achieve their individual goals. Boyd opened the public hearing. Michael Nolan, the President of Horizon Architecture and a member of the public, introduced himself and said that he is excited about the amendment and encourages the Commission to support it, as well as think of other ways in which they could be encouraging historic preservation within the City. Karyl Bohnsack, the Executive Officer of the Greater Iowa Area Home Builders Association and a member of the public, introduced herself and thanked the Commission for their time and for meeting with their members to talk about historic preservation, and she said that she thinks this draft exception is a wonderful step for homeowners who have gone through the process in the past. Lauren Haldeman, a member of the public, said that she supports the idea of updating the guidelines and thinks that it will improve the way that people buy houses as well as support and take care of the surrounding neighborhoods. Ben Fortune, a member of the public, said that he fully supports the updating of the guidelines in a way that is energy efficient and viable. He said he would also like to see a tax incentive of some sort built in to help encourage homeowners to comply. GT Karr, a member of the public, echoed the comments already made and said that he thinks the best outcome for historic preservation, as well as for the City and its neighborhoods, is having knowledgeable homeowners. Jeremy Payton, a member of the public, said that he is very glad that the City is looking at this, since one of the purposes of the guidelines is to enhance the value of the properties. Amy Seidel, a member of the public, said that she appreciates the forward thinking of the Commission and their willingness to make affordability and living in an area of historic preservation not mutually exclusive. Boyd closed the public hearing. Kuenzli addressed Fruin and said that, as a City liaison to other Historic Preservation Commissions in the past, he must understand the importance of clear guidelines of altering structures in a historic district. She said that anyone who buys a home in a historic district is aware of the special benefits of living there but is then also responsible for the special demands that come with being a steward of a historic home. She said that their guidelines were not drafted arbitrarily (they are in line with the guidelines suggested by the National Park Service and the Secretary of the Interior) and that they already have flexibility within the guidelines. She said the bottom line is, in order to have a historic district you need to have standards that keep it historic, otherwise there is no point. 5 Burford said that there is an implication with the change in guidelines that it will impact the City’s goals on climate change/energy efficiency, and she said she wanted to be sure that that was the intent. Boyd said that he is very open to this amendment but struggles to make comment to the Council without first hearing what the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has to say about it. He said that he would like to have their professional assessment before making official comments/recommendations to the City Council. Kuenzli agreed with Boyd and said that she thinks it is the best way to proceed. She said that they need to have consistent standards and enforce them consistently, and the minute they start making exceptions there are no standards anymore. Kiple asked, if this exception were to be put into place, that it could have only been utilized twice in the last five years. Boyd confirmed. Kuenzli said that every piece of literature that she has read regarding energy conservation suggests placing insulation in the attic. DeGraw said that, if they were to move forward with it, she would like to see it reevaluated in five or so years to see if it has become the norm or if it is upholding its original intent. She also agreed about checking in at the state level. Brown said that if it is not a position that the State would support, then it doesn’t make a lot of sense to pursue it. He said that he would be interested in looking further at the characteristics of past projects that would have utilized this exception. Boyd said that he thinks there is an opportunity for the Commission to take both small and large steps in following the goals of their work plan regarding providing resources for energy efficiency and climate change. He said that he is opposed to prioritizing the exception (and therefore utilizing already sparse Staff resources) over their work plan, which they drafted to align with the City Council’s priorities and goals. Kuenzli asked when SHPO might respond to their comments/questions. Fruin said that the general rule of thumb is that they might take up to 45 days. Boyd asked if it would be possible to get their feedback first and then come back to the Commission for their thoughts. Fruin said that it would be possible. DeGraw agreed. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review 529 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (screens for side porch) Bristow said that there is very strong evidence in remaining wood elements that the side portion of the wraparound porch was screened in at one point in time. She said the applicant proposed to screen it in again with a very simple wood frame that fits within the existing historic structure without harming it. She said that Chair & Staff approved this project. Minor Review – Staff Review 430 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (Radon mitigation system installation) Bristow said that their main purpose for reviewing Radon mitigation system installations is to make sure the piping itself does not go on the front or visible site of the property. She said that there is a rear addition on the back of the house that the piping was going to go through, which would not impact the historic structure of the house at all. 6 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 28, 2021: MOTION: Kiple moved to approve the minutes from the January 28, 2021 meeting. Brown seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2021: MOTION: Kiple moved the approve the minutes from the February 11, 2021 meeting. Pitzen seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Train Memorial Project Bristow said that they were asked to comment on a stone bridge in the northeast corner of the city in February of 2020. She said that there was a train line that ran through Iowa City, with stops in places like Elmira and Iowa City and information about it was presented in the 2020 meeting. Bristow said that the City now has had a request from an amateur historian who has a connection to a trainline engineer who was killed in an accident, and the historian wants to create a memorial to the deceased engineer. She said that the individual has proposed the use of his own money to create a plaque that would be installed on a metal post that would serve to memorialize the conductor who was killed. Bristow said that Staff is looking for the Commission’s input on all aspects of the proposal and see in what direction they want to go from here. Sellergren said, when it comes to placards commemorating the former railroad, the more the merrier. Kuenzli asked if the town of Elmira still exists. Boyd said that it is not really a town, but there is a cluster of houses that still exists where the Elmira train stop was. Burford said that Iowa City does have a history with the railroad, so if more information was put on the memorial about its connection with the City’s history, then it might be more appropriate. Boyd said he is hesitant when it comes to history being selected by private citizens who have the resources to commemorate it, which is a small consideration but a consideration, nonetheless. Sellergren suggested gathering a pool of public submissions and then reviewing them annually with public input. Kuenzli said that it would be interesting, like Burford said, if it was combined with more of the history of the City. Brown said that his first reaction was similar to the concern that Boyd voiced, and that it is a fair question to ask. Sellergren said that she is more concerned with marking the location of the railroad. Kiple asked if there is a City budget available if they wanted to expand the plaque to talk more about the history of Iowa City. Bristow said that she isn’t exactly sure, but she was more interested in hearing the Commission’s thoughts on marking the location of the trainline in general, and if they thought that it was needed as context if the accident is commemorated as well. COMMISSION INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Boyd moved to adjourn the meeting. Sellergren seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 7:33 p.m. 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2020-2021 NAME TERM EXP. 5/14 6/11 7/09 8/13 9/10 10/08 11/12 12/10 01/14 01/28 02/11 03/11 AGRAN, THOMAS 6/30/20 X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X X BROWN, CARL 6/30/23 -- -- X O/E X X X O/E X X X X BURFORD, HELEN 6/30/21 X X X X X X X O/E X X X X CLORE, GOSIA 6/30/20 X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/22 X X X X X O/E X X X X X X KUENZLI, CECILE 6/30/22 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 X X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X PITZEN, QUENTIN 6/30/21 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/22 X X X X X X X X X X X X WU, AUSTIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X O/E O/E