Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-2021 Historic Preservation CommissionCO (96 w 41 r ti Iowa City Historic preservation Commission Thursday May 13, 2021 n 5030 POMO n • �S Electronic O O `moo �4 e F1 i .4 T-T, ! J 1 1 Ir- - L M ff� - L ................ pp dadm/HPC-5taffCov erForm.doc t� I F, luff i�a�a i F�• k'• �� IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, May 13, 2021 Electronic Meeting — 5:30 p.m. Zoom Meeting Platform Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 2 1.8) 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/tlAtd-vorTwjHteBI QL11,J iyWB-xku0jxS1k 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. 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 windowsill 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) t� I Ila ...� I- 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 Preserva t7on Guidelines for Altera dons 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 forAdditrons 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint 7. 0 Guidelines for Dem oEtron 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features staff Comm ents 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 South side toward rear (showing porch and window replaced in proposed project) a Ll ��k4+ _ rL'� f• � Y � ' .'*,'1� .+F=,� }a * � - � ,T � M1r �• ..' M � � � - �i � � a' � r '-• ^ - � .' ' to M1 '+• �. � iF *r.,V .. ,t _ fi a - � , - - +a r. y. a � v �3�i r•�� ..�rv,r� - - i`.-air-' �t _a• „''�k y r i } y _;_L� k ' #_�': - -' �r�__"ija�+ f. •— F .1 41 i ' � �. 'C . _ its_ Eo oU �Z 00 ~ V U 0��`Noi1on2J1sNoO W QG� 13g�l15NOSNHOr NNOO }N�MjiO qjnHmApe9jC)oW =a-�> H1�!oN9N:552�1aaY mco00 co LO w cooco W NOGNHCr ,�2Na,�S v �onq 2Nn7 Ga :A9 UMpio 1Z-5-5 LU :01pa UOISIAa'al lU9JJn, IZ-S-S LU } :91oc on55i jsji� o r N 44 0 2jw= "Z �p�F-VO OOmU- -S} �-Q�=OZ1Z oa0w'< wWw�= a0 C, =ui D a0w LO 0 g a- cn=cc w °r ZQO `pro 0a.w �r LU < m ¢�O oW02 Ua=C) Z LL LLI -Z Ij Lu CL ,O p W = «= Z = � U U <F-w O Z U}} W LL o < = Z M a- p d < w W > Y W C)fOONZF N =wOOcl�OU �F-�SzwL o�'��gQ� J - < T W < J CO Z) Z CO � Z I— �—�WC7(n N t� a w =�Ofzw0u r00=oZ2E EO 8U CZ 00 0��`NOIlof12�1SN0� � U U W QG� NNOO 1gg'�I15 NOSNHor qjnHmApe9jC)oW }N�MjiO =a-�} Hl�oN 9z9 C� mcoUp v W �_ @)W 0 NOGNHOr .CNN G v �onq 2v7 is uosuyor •N Ga :A9 uMpio N 1Z-5-S z ■ :01pa UOIGIAaaj juaujn,) N 0 :aqaQ an55i l5ji� � z 0 7:DU, F-0L�Uo OOmu.�} F-�=O -z Lu10 a0 I- of ~ W(nw 0 x co wu5¢3:=> a0�o cno— ��n. z<0 o-jm OcLw: u �- W J Q UCL T-UOz U. UJ 5 to UWZ ( a W pI= G�QF- Z=F-1_ 0 aF-w �u O w m U ZU}wtL o g=gCoa- U w �� WO>,. �OmNZ� WILZOOW< o =wOOU� �F- F=xZwL o�'��gQ� -�—a�g > ��aLUID w — � cn U =ofOfZWOU F-OOOOZ2 EO OBI NOiion1 J1SNOO 8z -t o W QG5 N N M N 0 12l�15 NOSNHor :A8 UMpjo 1z-5-5 m M . qlnljmApeejooW t Q < _ =a� Hi�ON 9z9 �ss��aa :21pa UOISIAa� ;U2Ln� 1 Z o N a C� N�Up _ ��Ew M�Ir W mU NOGNHor )GMa 5 V 2a�9 2�in 1 �z-�-� a�aQ an55� �5�i� ` WT W in lL CO Z Z Z = x O O � vtTi� _ �S�i�uS �O ►�i Q� � V CO O < m Q - j- ZS XJ UA OL �a V as mwo o �� ZAP Z�-FK ►L- Z 0 ` f `Q W W fF- f^ V+ Q W Z 0 =mow= "Z F-0�F-U0 00m9LL �Q�=O�z oa0w�< w w-Wn (110 C, cno? 9�a V)X� °rw ZQO `pro On.w Nw< ¢nfO Ua=� z �wZLu)Z< adz -a 0}o 11QF-_ ow= �« Z=F- O:E <� W U1�0 U,_2fr U}} W LL o Z < = Z m w p d Q wo w W z Y W I)fOONZ� N < =wOOcl��U �F-�SzwL o�'� --<g<� J T W < J COO � Z CO � Z F- � �—a-W(jw N t� a =�Ofzw0u r00=oZ2E 2 EO �U CZ 00 0��'NOiion JiSNOO / � U U W QG' N N W qjnHmApe9jC)oW }N�MjiO W T= 0 mrn �ULLJ LLJ 110 V� �_ 0 12g�15 NosNHor Hl�!oN Qz9 �55��aa� NOGNHOr ,�2Na,�S v 2anq 2�r 9 z O Q W J W 2 H O :A9 uMpio w Z-S-s :01pa z o ■ N uoi5inaaj juaujn,) aZ-G-S f`T'xm :agpQ an55i jsji� w z _O Q W J W 2 I- O z Z 0 =Dw=�Z F- L i- O0L"LLi 1-tr=O -Z on -on. ao UWafaT 4,- (n� i 4� Uj Z wW¢�=> 0 � -of T6o ��a ZOO o�m OtLw: w} P. W J Q U�8UO2 LLW�ytn Z UWZ �ma 10>- aIL �_ 0 12 a) Q H Z=HUU� Q1-W �o ZU}}wtL o �=Q1�oww U 4'�}WO> U)OmNZ=� WLWL OQ� o =wOOcnOU �r-1==ZwL o�'��gQ� -�—a�g > U)�aLU ID a W — --j U =Of1YZW0 U HOOOOZ2 Staff Report Historic Review for 502 Grant Street District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing May 6, 2021 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 Preserva t7on Guidelines for Alters dons 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 forAdditrons 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint 7. o Guidelines for Dem oEt7on 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features Staff Comm ents 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 roo�. 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 1/4 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 NA IN YYY I ql..L IP is Pella 'LI r.urn clac � entry r) 7.., k Ret to mate h existing porches - — — I spryer, 5" facia. ;8* lrieze- 314' carter round- LL Pella alu minorn clad pailo doors. � double 1511te In swing wood. The thre.e exist ing windows will bg reusiI CorneId wd rear.h exisring house, 3 314" wide 5e p.atated by 3140 quarter rGund. F-. [] ro SketchUp r� r� The (ourdati'er) of the L-xiS( ing porch cunyersion i� crkJMbling and is not 5UStainable- The prvp05ed addit ion will replace she existing 5' by 131 structure with a 6' by 21' addition - The height will remain the same and all trim elements wdt match the exrstirI porch orr iltic- front and sid-- The ord Cxriic ks wikl be rPpurpcised to [aver th! exposiI rwi2w4 fouridatio rf. The existing window$ will be re uWd. A ra'ling t hat matches t#h-e other t ve flat roofed add It Ions will be Irj,;�alled and paInRei;j White. The south deck. facing the driveway) O ftlrI ally had a dear to access tie deck from the master bedroom.'The-4+rrwrs vw.I to en ove spat access tti the rear of the house to ut Illze the deck o+rn�-r the riew ad-ditlon- Drawing of new addition 502 Grant Street Grant StreE!It Site plan- north is to the left r CITY OF IOWA CITY �-Edit ���� MEMORANDUM 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 annually 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 =r � CITY OF IOWA CITY CA4� MEMORANDUM Date: April 13, 2021 To: City Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Follow-up on Changes to the City's Historic Preservation Handbook t your February 16, 2021 meeting, the City Council directed staff to pursue a narrow amendment to the City's Historic Preservation Handbook. The request came after the conclusion of a two -meeting appeal hearing reading a homeowner's request to replace existing non -historic aluminum siding. Staff drafted a memo dated March 4 to to the Historic Preservation Commission with background on the City Council's request, an analysis of the issue, and a recommendation for a narrow exemption. That merino is attached to this document. At the Historic Preservation Commission's (larch 111h meeting, the Commission took public comment and indicated their desire to hear feedback from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) prior to deliberating on staffs recommendation. staff requested such feedback from SHPO and presented it in a memo dated April 1st, 2021 that is also attached to this document. t their April 8 meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission expressed concerns that the exception is written too broadly and may be difficult for staff and or Corr mision to apply consistently with the absence of very clear guidelines. It felt the State Historic Preservation ffice's concern that the guidelines have a way to document evidence of technical or economic challenges should be considered. There's general openness to reviewing the guidelines but some commissioners expressed concern about the commission felt we were being asked to rewrite the guidelines to address one property owner rather than looking at situations where the guidelines might need improvement. Concern was also expressed that such an amendment would lead to similar amendment requests in other sections of the Iowa City Handbook. The Commission requested a few more months to review this issue. They would like to discuss other alternative approaches and have staff do more research than was represented in the Mauch 411 memo. They also indicated that if the City Council felt an urgency to move forward now to assist the homeowner that was the subject of the recent appeal, that you limit the exemption to homeowners and landlords who provide affordable housing. A commissioner also suggested that if the amendment were pursued that the Historic Preservation Commission sion receive an updated on its usage every few gears to better understand its impact. In the last five years, staff found two cases (including the recent appeal) where this amendment may have been able to be applied. Tracking how it is utilized in the future would be a prudent idea and staff could easily present such information to the Commission in the future. Such pertinent information may include a narrative on how the property qualified for the exemption as well as before and after photos that show the impact on the property and the surrounding neighborhood. Staff is requesting City Council direction on (now the City Council gourd like to proceed. Options include: Move forward with the staff recommendation and report usage of the exception annually to the Historic Preservation Commission for monitoring purposes. April 1, 2021 Page 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. . Take no action and leave the current guidelines in place. Staff encouragesthe city Council to fully review the two attached memos that were previously provided to the Historic Preservation Commission. r �_-I CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 4, 2021 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fie; 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 ouncil's standard of review ►+vacs 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 homeowners 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. Baokaround On December 10, 2020, the Historic Preservation Commission ion denied an application to replace or cover the original siding at 1133 East Court Street, which wa s 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. 11East 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 ion' denial to the city Council, The applicants and their contractor aind 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 good 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 good 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 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 1 % 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 very cold day, which is not the best time to test and could have resulted in an artificially lover 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, staffs 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 recommendation outlined above. The applicants also presented information and provided visual evidence of holes in the good 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 staffs 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 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. Buildings 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 daces, 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 CILG means that the City is eligible for grants and technical assistance. March 5, 2021 Page 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 tree 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 -terra 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 orr mended Imadmen . 11 Sidings - 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 ofthe 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. 111 n-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 are appropriate material that matches in exposure, texture, and design. March 5, 2021 Page Imiw vements to the Preservation Pr prar 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 charges to our processes and are ecploring 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 contactors 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 foes on this meeting will be to inform realtors of the Cit '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 gears 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 are 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, bile 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. CITY OF IOWA CITY ��'��` MEMORANDUM Date: April 1: 2021 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fie; Follow-up on Proposed Amendment to the Historic Preservation Handbook t your March 11, 2021 meeting I presented a recommendation for an amendment to the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. A memo dated March 4, 2021 provided the background on that recommendation and than memo is attached to this document. That memo specifically recommended the following exception: Recommended Amendment . 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 properly 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 andlor their professional agents to assess applications involving ing the presence of synthetic siding and provide flexibility to situations where properly 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 fo. 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., store., 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 corers 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 After taking public comment, Commissioners requested that we move ahead with plans to request input from the State Historic Preservation Office SHP . 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 SHP . The following comments were received from S H PO on Ma rch 2, 2 021: . For clarity you may want to refer to non historic siding. Non historic siding can include vinyl siding (synthetic), steel sidings umi um 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 t ome 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. . 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 world 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 are 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 fire 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 CA applications rce i ed 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. MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION E M MA 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 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. 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. 1 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: 2 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 4t" memo states that the owners of 1133 E Court Street did not have a good experience with the City 3s 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 3 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. 4 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 amini-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 5 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 (38 th 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 13t" 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 28t" - July 5t", so the agenda packet will either come out very early or a few days before the meeting. ADJOURNMENT: X0 Sellergren moved to adjourn the meeting. DeGraw seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 7:33 P. M. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2020-2021 TERM 6/11 7/09 8/13 9/10 10/08 11 /12 12/10 01 /14 01 /28 02/11 03/11 04/08 NAME EXP. AGRAN, 6/30/20 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- THOMAS BOYD, KEVI N 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X X BROWN, 6/30/23 __ X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X CARL B U RFO RD, 6/30/21 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X HELEN CLORE, 6/30/20 X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- GOSIA DEGRAW, 6/30/22 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X S HARO N KUENZLI, 6/30/22 X X O/E X X X X X X X X X CECI LE KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X X PITZEN, 6/30/21 X X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E QUENTIN SELLERGREN, 6/30/22 X X X X X X X X X X X X JORDAN WU, AUSTI N 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X O/E O/E O/E Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City. Hall, 410 E Washington Strect, Cit : IA. 52240 To I storic Preservation Commission From Kevin Boyd, Chair E LGBTQ History Markers Date May. 61, 2021 few creeks ago, I connected with Iowa City Pride and the LGBTQ Iowa Archives & Library. The organizations are exploring the idea of historical markers at significant spots in local LGBTQ history. Both organizations are potentially seeking grants and may fandraise specifically for the research, selection, and creation of the historical markers. I thought it was an excellent opportunity to tic in with our efforts to tell the full history, which is a goal ofour work plan. Here's a proposed letter that I'd like to sign on bchalf f the commissionto support the fund-raising efforts. I'd also like the commission's flexibility to change to fit their specific fundraising goals if needed. Proposed clrczft of the Letter in Support DATE Dear ORGANIZATION, The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission is are enthusiastic supporter of Iowa City Pride and 1,GI TQ Iowa Archives & Library fundraising efforts/grant application for LGBTQ History Markers. Part of the Commission's 2021 fork Flan is to tell a more complete history of. Iowa City. Too many of these stories have not been told, shared, and celebrated. \Ve support efforts to research, identify, select potential sites, and create the markers. We plan on being able to partner on this effort as it develops. On Behalf of the entire commission, we hope Fou'llcontribute to these efforts. Thank you, Kevin Boyd Chair, Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission