HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Agenda packet 5.13.2021
Thursday
May 13, 2021
5:30 p.m.
Electronic
Zoom Meeting Platform
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, May 13, 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. 628 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (rear demolition and new addition)
2. 502 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (rear demolition and new addition)
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. 621 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (siding and window sill replacement)
2. 422 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (chimney repair and new cap)
Minor Review –Staff review
1. 727 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (window replacement)
2. 603 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement with metal shingle)
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/tJAtd-yorTwjHteBI_QL1KiyWB-xkuOjxSlk 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 940 0503 7943when prompted. Providing comment in
person is not an option.
3. 834 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (window replacement)
4. 505 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (basement window replacement and egress
window and window well installation)
5. 811 Church Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (window replacement and
soffit repair)
Intermediate Review –Chair and Staff review
1. 630 Iowa Avenue – College Hill Conservation District (pergola construction)
2. 814 Rundell Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (rear deck removal and new
screened porch addition)
3. 614 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (window, door and siding replacement)
4. 741 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (front porch reconstruction)
G) Consideration of Minutes for April 8, 2021
H) Commission Discussion
1. Letter in support of LGBTQ history markers
2. Sanxay-Gilmore House update
3. Historic Preservation 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 May 6, 2021
Historic Review for 628 North Johnson Street
District: Brown Street Historic District
Classification: Key Contributing
The applicant, Luke Gude, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition and addition project at 628
North Johnson Street, a Key property in the Brown Street Historic District. The project consists of the
demolition of the historic rear porch and its replacement with a new kitchen and bath addition.
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
4.8 Masonry
4.11 Siding
4.13 Windows
4.14 Wood
5.0 Guidelines for Additions
5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint
7.0 Guidelines for Demolition
7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features
Staff Comments
This house, built in 1922 is a 20th Century Vernacular Gable-front cottage with Craftsmen style influences,
evident in the knee braces, and Colonial Revival style, evident in the six-over-one windows found on most of
the first-floor windows. The house also has narrow lap siding, with corner boards, watertable and other
traditional trim. The front porch features heavy columns and a solid balustrade, both also clad in lap siding,
with mitered corners, unlike the rest of the house. The rear open porch was added between 1926 and 1933
and screened in at a later date. This house is likely a catalogue house.
In 2006, the Commission approved the construction of the rear storage shed. In 2015, staff approved the
replacement of the side door, the front door and the railings at both porches. It is not known when some of
the original six-over-one windows were replaced with one-over-one windows.
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing, historic rear open porch and replace it with a 16-foot by
10-foot kitchen addition. The new addition will be flush with the south side wall. It will have a low hipped
roof to match the north-side bump out and existing rear porch. The foundation, lap siding, window and door
trim, soffit and eave condition, and other trim will all match the house. The existing first-floor south window
in the kitchen will be replaced with one that has a raised sill to accommodate the kitchen counter and moved
slightly east to accommodate the kitchen design. The new addition will include a pair of windows (separated
by trim) and a nine-lite door on the east side, single window on the south and a transom window on the
north. A new entry stoop at the rear door will have a balustrade to meet the guidelines and closed stair risers.
All windows will be Quaker Brighton Series and the new door will be a ThermaTru Smoothe Star Fiberglass
door. The applicant also proposes to replace the remaining windows over time.
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.
Staff finds, that removing the rear porch for the new addition is appropriate. The guidelines recommend
setting additions in from the corner of the house and past approvals have also included that condition unless
there were conditions that made it necessary to set them flush. The applicant has proposed that the addition
continues the south wall of the house so that the kitchen counter can flow from original house into new
addition with-out interruption. The house currently has both a north bump-out and a front porch that each
extend as continuations of the adjacent walls. Given the fact that this detail is an existing element of the
architectural language of the historic house, staff find that it could be appropriate to approve this addition as
a continuation of the north wall, without a setback. Because this house has corner boards, staff recommends
including a vertical trim board to separate the house from the addition and to appear as an extension of the
corner board above. Staff finds that the window and door product information submitted is appropriate.
Staff has not reviewed the existing windows in the house. Through photos, it appears that original windows
exist at the first floor on the north, east and west sides of the house. The second-floor windows, first-floor
front window on the south side, and the mid-flight stair window all appear to have been replaced. Staff finds
it appropriate to replace the modern windows, as described here, with new windows that match the six-over-
one double-hung configuration of the original windows. Staff does not recommend approval of the
replacement of any remaining six-over-one original windows without documentation of their deterioration
and need for replacement by staff review. Staff recommends that all six-over-one windows not impacted by
the addition to remain.
Recommended Motion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 628 North Johnson Street as presented in
the application with the following condition:
Existing six-over-one double hung windows not impacted by the addition shall remain unless
reviewed and approved by staff for replacement
628 North Johnson Street
Rear porch
South side toward rear (showing porch and window replaced in proposed project)
Rear photo (north bump-out is on the right)
North side
Staff Report May 6, 2021
Historic Review for 502 Grant Street
District: Longfellow Historic District
Classification: Contributing
The applicant, Stephen Matics, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition and addition project at 502
Grant Street, a Contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of the
demolition of the rear bump out and the construction of a larger one-story addition in its place.
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
4.8 Masonry
4.10 Porches
4.11 Siding
4.13 Windows
4.14 Wood
5.0 Guidelines for Additions
5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint
7.0 Guidelines for Demolition
7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features
Staff Comments
This side-gabled Colonial Revival cottage was built by Moffitt and Blakesly in 1929 for $6,000. The house has
a symmetrical facade with a Neo-Classical porch (classical columns and a balustraded roof). There is a single-
story solarium with a balustrade on the south side. The house has 6-over-1 double-hung windows and
shingled siding with a chimney in one gable end.
In 2006, the Commission approve a Certificate of No Material Effect for the reconstruction of the front
concrete stoop with facing-brick on the sides. In 2007, the Commission approved a project that replaced the
roofing and balustrade on the solarium and replaced the access-door to that roof with an egress window. At
the time of the 2007 project, the house apparently had original wood windows because the egress window
was recommended to also be wood. The house currently has all vinyl replacement windows with no record of
approval. In 2019, Staff approved the replacement of the rear stoop.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the 5-foot by 13-foot rear bump-out on the house. This bump-out
originally may have been an open porch but was enclosed by 1933. The applicant’s contractor says the
foundation of the bump-out is deteriorated. It also has modern windows that do not match the other
openings on the house.
The applicant proposes to construct a new slightly larger, 6-foot by 21-foot, rear kitchen addition. The
addition would extend the north wall of the house east instead of being set in from the corner of the house.
The addition would reuse the existing windows, add a pair of 15-lite French Doors, and have a balustraded
roof deck (not shown in drawing) to match the others on the front and south side of the house. The roofline
and eave condition on the new addition would also match the others. The addition would be clad in matching
shingled siding and the windows and door would have trim to match the existing trim on the house. The new
foundation would be clad in salvaged brick to match the rest of the foundation. The project also proposes to
replace the second-floor center window with a door to provide access to the new roof deck, similar to the
original condition at the solarium roof deck. This addition will also use a rear stoop that will match the one
approved for them in 2019.
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 existing but balustrades on rear porches need not replicate historic
details.
Staff finds, that removing the bump-out for the new addition is appropriate. The guidelines recommend
setting additions in from the corner of the house and past approvals have also included that condition unless
there were conditions that made it necessary to set them flush. The applicant has proposed that the addition
continues the north wall of the house so that the kitchen counter can flow from original house into new
addition with-out interruption. The house currently has both a north bump-out and a south solarium that
each extend as continuations of the front wall of the house. Given the fact that this detail is an existing
element of the architectural language of the historic house, staff find that it could be appropriate to approve
this addition as a continuation of the north wall, without a setback.
The current drawings include window and door information that staff recommends revising. Staff
recommends that the second-floor door is a half-lite door with a nine-lite simulated divided-lite condition.
Staff finds the 15-lite French Door proposal appropriate but also finds that both doors should be wood or
fiberglass. The addition proposes to reuse the existing windows in the bump out which do not match the size,
type, and configuration of divided-lites found in the rest of the house. Staff recommends using six-over-one
double-hung windows to match the rest of the house. The window widths and head locations should match
the rest of the house. The sills should also align except where the new addition requires a higher sill to
accommodate a kitchen counter.
Staff would recommend that the new windows are metal-clad wood windows since the original windows in
the house were changed to vinyl without approval, though that was done by a previous owner. The guidelines
include an exception to approve vinyl windows if the existing windows are vinyl, but this exception only
applies to properties in Conservation Districts or properties that are noncontributing or non-historic in
Historic Districts. This property does not meet these conditions. The Commission could approve matching
the other vinyl windows by applying an exception because of the existing conditions.
Staff also recommends that the corner posts for the new balustrade are slightly narrower that the existing
posts on the front porch and solarium. Since this new balustrade will be taller to meet code-required height
conditions, staff finds that matching the existing posts’ width may make the new posts out of scale with the
rest of the building. Staff recommends that they are ¼ to 1/3 smaller in proportion.
Recommended Motion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 502 Grant Street as presented in the
application with the following conditions:
The addition windows match the rest of the house as described in the staff report and materials are
approved by staff
The doors are wood or fiberglass and approved by staff
The width of the new balustrade is reduced as described in the staff report
502 Grant Street- Street View
Rear View
Drawing of new addition
Site plan- north is to the left
Date: May 3, 2021
To: Historic Preservation Commission
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Re: Proposed Amendment to the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook
At the City Council’s April 20, 2021 work session, staff requested direction on how the City
Council would like to proceed with the proposed amendment to the Iowa City Historic
Preservation Handbook. Options included:
1. Move forward with the staff recommendation and report usage of the exception annua lly
to the Historic Preservation Commission for monitoring purposes.
2. Provide the Commission two to three more months to review this situation and allow
them the opportunity to formulate their own recommendation.
3. Move forward with the staff recommendation but further limit its applicability to
homeowners and landlords providing affordable housing. As with option number one
staff would report on its usage annually for monitoring purposes.
4. Take no action and leave the current guidelines in place.
At the work session, the City Council selected option 2.
The Commission can discuss next steps at its May 13, 2021 meeting.
Attachments:
1. Memo to City Council from the City Manager; April 13, 2021
2. Memo to the HPC from the City Manager; March 4, 2021
3. Memo to the HPC from the City Manager; April 1, 2021
1
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
April 8, 2021
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Carl Brown, Helen Burford, Sharon DeGraw, Lyndi
Kiple, Cecile Kuenzli, Jordan Sellergren
MEMBERS ABSENT: Quentin Pitzen, Austin Wu
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett, Geoff Fruin
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Nolan
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:
721 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (demolition of addition and new addition)
Bristow said that 721 Grant Street is a contributing, 1923 craftsman bungalow located in the
Longfellow Historic District. It has lap siding with mitered corners, brackets supporting the
eaves, exposed rafter tails, etc. It has a one story shed roof addition with a sliding door and a
full roof-shed dormer on the front and back. Bristow said the proposed project is to remove the
existing addition and add another addition on the back, while retaining the established oak tree
in a more innovative foundation. The new addition will have a shed roof that matches the above
dormer, paired windows, a new entry stoop with customary posts, and space that allows for a
kitchen counter. Bristow said that the new addition plans do not show the supporting brackets,
but there is an exception that can be made to not replicate every detail of the house. Since they
are trying to avoid the tree, the foundation will also not match exactly. Bristow said that an
exception can be made in this case that would allow them to just paint the foundation so it
matches in color. She said that Staff approves their proposed stucco-textured cement board to
match.
Boyd opened the public hearing.
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.
2
Mike Nolan from Horizon Architecture, a member of the public speaking on behalf of the
applicant, said that they have been consulting with the client’s arborist, who advised against
using a traditional foundation. Nolan said the foundation there is past its service life, which
poses an energy issue on top of not serving the general needs of the house. He said that they
are asking for those few aforementioned exceptions in order to preserve the landscape and
trees, which they feel are an important part of the historical character of the house.
Kuenzli asked if there was a reason that they were not repeating the decorative brackets under
the eaves on the new addition. Nolan said that the overhands on the new addition will be a bit
shallower, and adding the brackets seemed repetitive and unnecessary for that part of the
addition.
Boyd closed the public hearing.
MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
721 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, and the entry stoop
is revised to include a corner post above and below the floor deck and railing to match
the guidelines. Kuenzli seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
620 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (rear addition and new deck)
Bristow said that 620 Oakland Avenue is a little bungalow with clipped gables, and it is likely a
catalog home although they don’t know for sure. She said the house has no additions on it but
there are several structures in the backyard, and they are proposing to build an addition on the
house that is not set back from the south side wall. This will allow them to move the interior
basement stair out into the addition, have extra space, and keep an existing rear window on the
house. She said they are also proposing a new deck and to extend it past the side of the house
in order to create a sidewalk connection for children to get to school. Bristow said the new
addition would be behind the projecting bay and only show the roof edge from the front view.
The windows, clipped gables, and foundation would match the existing, and they would install a
vertical trim to mark the change from the existing house to the new addition. She said this house
also has exposed brackets and rafter tails, so the same exception would be available for this
house as the previous. Bristow said Staff did not propose to use the exception due to the small
size and the way that the addition will fit in to the existing house. She said this project would
also utilize an exception that allows them to not set the addition in from the side of the house
and given the small lot size, Staff thinks it would be more viable if it was not set back from the
south wall. She said Staff recommends that any railings on decks visible from the street or that
project past the side of the house be painted to match the house.
Kuenzli said that the lot behind the house is very small with large existing structures, and the
proposed addition seems to take up most of the space in the backyard, so she is wondering if
there are any sort of regulations regarding the amount of lot that can be covered by structure for
residential buildings. Bristow said the architect and the building official confirmed that they can
do the addition and still meet any zoning requirements for open space in the backyard. Kuenzli
said that she likes the addition, but it just looks like it is overcrowding the lot.
Boyd opened the public hearing. Boyd closed the public hearing.
MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at
620 Oakland Avenue as presented in the Staff report with the following conditions:
3
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, and the trim is constructed of wood. Sellergren seconded. The
motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
REVIEW OF DRAFT EXCEPTION FOR SIDING GUIDELINES PER CITY COUNCIL
REQUEST:
Geoff Fruin, City Manager of Iowa City and a member of the public, said that the City Council
appreciated the work the Commission had put into their work plan and the annual Certified
Local Government Report. Fruin said he contacted the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) for their feedback and recommendations – they wanted clarification on the definition of
what “non-historic siding” really means and they noted that there is not a lot of specificity in the
language being proposed, which could present problems for future certificates of
appropriateness. Fruin said he responded by saying that they are hesitant to get into very
specific language because of the number of variables that could come into play in an individual
project, but they have faith in the Commission to make judgement calls when the language
presented is vague.
Boyd opened the public hearing. Boyd closed the public hearing.
Boyd said he drafted a statement that would help to unify the voices of the Commission and
public in order to better give clear recommendations to the City Council. His statement said:
“While the original direction from the Council was for the Commission to review our signing
guidelines due to climate change, the proposed changes are largely not related to climate
change goals and at a minimum they would create more construction waste. It’s concerning and
disappointing that the proposal has been drafted with almost no Commission engagement. That
said, we want to find a resolution. The Commission supports a simple solution – the guidelines
already have an exception for economic feasibility. We could add a narrowly crafted wood siding
exception for logistical and technical feasibility, with specific definitions. That would meet the
needs of the property owners who are in similar situations as the ones that prompted this
discussion. However, if a majority of the Council feels inclined to follow the original
recommendation of Staff over the recommendation of the Commission, the Commission would
ask that this proposal start with a narrow focus and be allowed for owner-occupied properties
and for those landlords providing affordable housing. It incentivizes City goals and allows us to
test the usage before we open it up more broadly. Either proposal should follow the
recommendation of the State Historic Preservation Office and have specific definitions for
economic and technical/logistical challenges.”
Kuenzli said that Fruin’s March 4th memo states that the owners of 1133 E Court Street did not
have a good experience with the City’s historic review process, and she reiterated that the
Commission does not make these types of decisions lightly and they do not like to turn people
down. She said that this issue has arisen because the applicants did not get what they wanted,
but she does not see why the Commission should rewrite their guidelines solely because the
applicants are displeased with the Commission’s decision. Kuenzli said she feels strongly if they
weaken their guidelines, they are weakening the Historic Preservation Commission itself.
DeGraw said she is open to the modification, but she most wishes for a review of how often the
exception is used in a 2-year and 5-year timeframe. She said if many people would take
advantage of it and it starts to change the nature of historic districts, then they would need to
reassess if it is happening too frequently. She said she also agrees that the economic status is
too vague and that she is uncomfortable with that language. DeGraw said when an exception is
4
made in different city things it sort of becomes the golden ticket for other exceptions to be made,
and she wants to be very cautious doing that with historic preservation.
Burford said she agrees with DeGraw that it is like a golden ticket to pursue exceptions, even
though she doesn’t think that was the intent. She said she feels that it is the Commission’s
responsibility to enforce the Historic Preservation guidelines, and that this sort of weakens their
position as the Historic Preservation Commission.
Brown said his concern with the economic and technical feasibility mentioned is how they would
measure it. He said it seems like it is too subjective and not really feasible for the Commission
to enforce. He asked how often in the past an applicant has gone to the City Council to address
concerns from the Commission’s decision which have led to the Council recommending
changes to the Commission’s guidelines. Bristow said, in the history of the Commission, there
has maybe been five or six appeals ever. She said that none of those have resulted in someone
going to the Council and then asking to change the guidelines.
Kuenzli said that this house is located on Court Street almost across from the Grant Wood
House, which is the star of their historic district. She said that it just does not seem to fit the
character of the neighborhood if they were to make an exception.
Brown said that he does not object to changing how they look at the guidelines or how they
entertain potential exceptions, but his concern rather is in regard to how they will define it so
narrowly so that it does not become a channel for abuse. Boyd said that he does not object to
change either, but he has been frustrated by this particular process. Fruin asked Boyd what his
preference would have been for communication with Staff and the presentation process for the
amendment under consideration. Boyd said that he let Staff know that he thought they should
put it on the agenda to get folks’ consideration and have Commission discussion before drafting
the amendment. He said that there is hesitance in approaching this now because both the
Commission and SHPO aren’t sure how to implement it in a clear way with such vague
definitions.
Kiple said she seconds everything Boyd wrote in his proposed statement, and she agrees that
they need clear definitions so that subjectivity is not taken advantage of. She said she also
agrees with Boyd’s initial narrow approach, and believes it is a good compromise.
Sellergren said that she has major hesitations of making changes at all, given that she believes
people are prone to take advantage of opportunities. She said she believes the Commission
exists to preserve the historic integrity of these neighborhoods, so they should do as much as
they can to uphold that. However, she said flexibility and fairness is important, so if they can be
narrow and controlled in moving forward, then those are small steps that they can start taking.
Fruin asked if the Commission would like to recommend to the Council to take a period of time
where the Commission could craft their own amendment. Boyd said that he feels like they are
providing many of their suggestions now (clearly defined, narrow scope, etc.), but they would be
happy to have a work session around this particular topic at a different time. Fruin said that he
thinks this is already a pretty narrow exception, in his view, and he struggles to see how they
could narrow it down further.
Burford asked if there was a way to just recognize this one exception without having an
ordinance that is incorporated into the Historic Preservation Guidelines. Kuenzli said that, either
way, that becomes a model for the next applicant who is dissatisfied. Burford said that there is a
big difference in that it does not become law as part of the handbook. Boyd said he thinks it
would be more difficult to grant just this one exception outside of the guidelines.
5
Boyd said that he is trying to get a unified recommendation from the Commission in order to
pass on to Council. Brown said he is open to changing the amendment with the suggestions
already presented, which might be agreed upon in a working session with the Commission and
Staff. Kuenzli said that continuing to narrow it down would make it more difficult because every
case is different and each Commission would interpret it differently, and she doesn’t think that
they can make it so narrow that it only fits this case and no other. Brown said that his openness
in looking at a change is not tailored to this case specifically. Kiple said she would be open to
looking at a revision of this amendment.
DeGraw asked Fruin what a reasonable amount of time would be to ask Council to give them for
further discussion. She said that it would be interesting to check in with other university towns
that have historic districts that have allowed fiber cement board and ask about the advantages
and disadvantages that they have experienced. Fruin said he thinks a couple of months would
be fine. He said he will inform Council that there is some hesitancy from the Commission and
that they would like more time, and he will see how they would like to proceed from there. Boyd
asked, if the Council were to move forward with the amendment, if there were three more
Commissioners who would support his proposed statement of starting with a narrower scope.
Kiple, Brown, and DeGraw agreed.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review
624 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (mini-split air-conditioning installation)
Bristow said that this house is getting a mini-split air-conditioning system. It will have three units
inside the house along the north side, so the piping will come out of the house above the
windows near the roof edge. She said that the owners also know that they can paint the pipes to
match the house.
530 Ronalds Street – Brown Street Historic District (siding and basement window repair, porch)
Bristow said that this house is doing basic repair work for damaged boards and damaged
windows, and she said they want to put a leaded glass insert into the transom storm window as
well.
Minor Review – Staff Review
719 Bloomington Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (window replacement)
Bristow said there is one window on the front that had been replaced with a vinyl window, so
they will be replacing it with one that matches the originals.
117 North Linn Street – Local Historic Landmark (commercial sign installation)
Bristow said that this is a sign location that the Commission has previously approved, and they
are putting the sign on the north side of the building to match the one on the south side.
Intermediate Review – Chair and Staff Review
628 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (carport demolition)
Bristow said that this is a demolition of the carport on the side of the house.
516 Fairchild Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (minor change to prior
COA)
6
Bristow said that the owners were working on a project that was approved by the Commission
when the entire overhang on part of the house fell off. She said that everyone wanted it
removed anyway, but the owners did have to create a roof over the entryway.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 11, 2021:
MOTION: Kiple moved to approve the minutes from the March 11, 2021 meeting. Burford
seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Historic Preservation Survey
Russett said that they have been asked by a group of individuals from the Homebuilders
Association to consider sending out a survey to property owners in their local historic,
conservation, and landmark districts as well as to local contractors who do work in historic
districts in order to just get some feedback from those groups of people. She said they have
already drafted a survey and they are looking for one or two Commission members to review it
before they send it out at the end of the month. DeGraw and Brown volunteered. Boyd said that
he would love to see it too.
Annual Awards
Bristow said that they were going to vote and approve the awards, but they can’t due to time
constraints and inaction. She said that they now need to decide whether they are postponing or
cancelling the (38th annual) awards. She said it is no longer possible for Staff to take the lead or
do even 25% of the work that it takes to do the awards, and that it needs to be done by the
Commission. Sellergren said she is definitely on board to do the photography, but there will just
be a slight delay due to recent health reasons. Boyd said he thinks they should postpone the
awards and have a meeting with the subcommittee to get back on track. Burford said that the
awards are a lot of work and it may be to the benefit of the Commission to establish a PR
committee that is working towards this throughout the year. Kuenzli said that it would be best to
defer or cancel the awards this year. DeGraw asked if waiting until September would be a
possibility. Bristow said that they could postpone for now, have the subcommittee meeting, and
then reevaluate after that.
Boyd said he felt it was important to point out that a request from an outside group got
accomplished (the Survey), but they are struggling to find time to accomplish one of their annual
events.
COMMISSION INFORMATION:
Burford said she wanted to remind everyone that there is going to be a lecture at the Senior
Center on April 13th about Lustron Steel Homes in Iowa City. She said that they have all
received emails about the legislation on historic tax credits, and it still does not address
incentivizing work that would forward changes needed to address climate change. Burford said
she encourages the Commission to go find that email and write to the representatives about
adding this to their current legislation.
Bristow said she sent out an email about the Preserve Iowa Summit in June and anyone from
the Commission is welcome to attend, they just need to let her know so that she can register
them. She said that she will also be taking a week vacation June 28th - July 5th, so the agenda
packet will either come out very early or a few days before the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
7
Sellergren moved to adjourn the meeting. DeGraw seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 7:33
p.m.
8
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
NAME
TERM
EXP. 6/11 7/09 8/13 9/10 10/08 11/12 12/10 01/14 01/28 02/11 03/11 04/08
AGRAN,
THOMAS 6/30/20 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 X
BURFORD,
HELEN 6/30/21 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X
CLORE,
GOSIA 6/30/20 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
DEGRAW,
SHARON 6/30/22 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X
KUENZLI,
CECILE 6/30/22 X X O/E X X X X X X X X X
KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X X
PITZEN,
QUENTIN 6/30/21 X X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E
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 O/E O/E O/E