Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Agenda Packet 7.8.2021 IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, July 8, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 5:30 p.m. Zoom Meeting Platform Agenda A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. 525 Van Buren Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (deck and rear porch changes) 2. 716 Bloomington Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (side porch enclosure) 3. 611 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (garage demolition and new construction) 4. 324 Fairchild Street – Northside Historic District (demolition of addition and new addition) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review 430 East Jefferson Street – Jefferson Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement) Minor Review –Staff review 1. 930 East College Street – College Hill Conservation District (overhead door replacement) 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 this link https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZAuf- ippzIjE9UboDM_s87Us4WRNCRIvom_ 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 843 8119 9991 when prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option. 2. 515 East Davenport Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (roof shingle replacement) 3. 317 Fairchild Street – Northside Historic District (Radon mitigation system installation) F) Consideration of Minutes for June 10, 2021 G) Commission Discussion Outgoing Commissioner Thank you Return to in-person meetings H) Commission Information I) Adjournment If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Jessica Bristow, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5243 or at jessica-bristow@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Staff Report June 15, 2021 Historic Review for 525 Van Buren Street District: Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Julie Leonard, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 525 Van Buren Street, a Contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. The project consists of the screening of the rear porch, the addition of a screen door on the south wall, and the construction of a deck on the SW corner of the house. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.3 Doors 4.10 Porches 5.0 Guidelines for Additions 5.2 Decks and Ramps Staff Comments This two-story Craftsman Bungalow was built ca 1922. Craftsman details include the exposed purlins and rafter tails, battered porch columns and a jerkinhead roof. The roof is a side-facing gable. The front facade has a gable-front half porch. The house sits on a brick-clad foundation that extends up to the window sills. The siding is a wood shingle with an alternating lap spacing. A rear projection includes a sleeping porch on the second floor with a first-floor open porch enclosed with storm windows. It appears that the original windows on the house have been replaced. The front door is original. This house may be a catalog house. The applicant is proposing to remove the storm windows and storm door from the first-floor rear porch and screen in the porch. On the north side, the door will be replaced with a new storm door (storm doors do not require review if they are replaced). The storm window location on the north and west sides will be replaced the Screen-eze screen system which installs without alterations to the house. On the south side, the two storm windows will be replaced with screening in the west bay and a screen door next to the house. The applicant also proposes to add an 8-foot by 8-foot deck to the SW corner of the house. The deck access will be provided by the new screen door in the south wall of the porch. The deck will protrude about 3 feet beyond the south wall of the house. The deck will have a railing that follows the guidelines with corner posts and one middle post in each run. A top and bottom rail will span between posts (this is not shown in the drawings), and square spindles will be attached between the rails. The deck will have support posts beneath the deck that will align with the railing posts above. The space between support posts will be enclosed with porch skirting matching the adjacent porch. The railing will be painted. The applicant may add stairs to the back yard on the yard side (west) of the deck. In Section 4.10 Porches, the guidelines disallow the enclosure of front porches or other porches that are highly visible from the street with permanent windows and/or walls. Section 4.3 Doors, recommends that new door openings are added that are trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building. Section 5.2 Decks and Ramps recommends locating a new deck on the back of a primary building, opposite the street-facing façade and set in from the side walls at least 8 inches. Decks should be designed so that the size, scale and location do not detract from the character of the district’s rear yards. Decks should be attached in a manner that will not damage a historic exterior wall. It is disallowed to leave balusters and railings unpainted if they are highly visible from the street. Staff finds that the small lot on which this house is located constrains the applicant’s ability to add a deck to the back of the house while also setting it in from the side walls. For this reason, staff recommends utilizing an exception for this property, due to the small lot, to allow the deck to be built as proposed, extending beyond the side wall of the house about three feet. The proposed deck will be small in scale with the house and lot. The railings will follow the guidelines as described above. The railing will be painted to match the house. The applicant may want to add stairs to the yard from the deck instead of needing to enter the yard from the north porch door. If stairs are added, they would be located on the west side. Since this is located on the back, staff would find that acceptable. The changes to the rear, originally open porch will remove the metal storm windows and storm door and replace them with a simple screen system and wood screen doors. Staff finds this appropriate. The changes to the south wall in order to install the new screen door will be minimal. The lower half of the wall will be removed and wall framing and trim, matching the north wall will be installed. Staff finds this alteration appropriate. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 525 North Van Buren Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: ▪ The railing is constructed to follow the guidelines ▪ Any added stair is located on the west side of the deck 525 North Van Buren (south is the left side) 525 Van Buren – south side- deck to be located on the far side of the door with the entrance canopy 525 Van Buren- south face of rear porch (screen door location indicated by arrow) 525 Van Buren- storm windows to be removed and screen installed 638 Van Buren- north side door replaced and storm window replaced with screening 525 Van Buren- proposed deck plan. North is to the left. 525 Van Buren Street- changes to south wall shown (ignore door and window product information) deck shown but railing partially obscured to show wall 525 Van Buren- west elevation railing posts will extend above top rail not as shown Staff Report June 23, 2021 Historic Review for 716 Bloomington Street District: Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Spencer Kuhl, is requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 716 Bloomington Street, a Contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. The project consists of the enclosure of the side porch. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.10 Porches 4.13 Windows 4.14 Wood Staff Comments This house, built ca 1890, is an example of a vernacular house form common to Iowa City's Bohemian Goosetown neighborhood, the Gable Front and Wing. The house has a hipped roof porch in the ell formed by the front-gable section and east wing. The porch has which were recently recreated. The spindled frieze, slender turned porch posts and Carpenter Gothic brackets have been removed but were approved to be recreated in 2019. A rear one-story wing has a second porch at the east end that originally had similar columns and brackets to the front porch but has been altered with square columns and a solid paneled balustrade. The house's windows are one-over-one double-hung of various sizes with a cottage window in the front facade. The house is set on a low stone foundation and is clad in narrow clapboard siding with corner board trim. Decorative shingles fill the gable ends. At the time of the survey, the house had a standing seam metal roof which has since been replaced with red asphalt shingles. The applicant is proposing to permanently enclose the existing side porch. Working with the current porch design and configuration, the enclosure will retain the existing eave, frieze board, columns, and appearance of a paneled balustrade. The space between columns on the east side will be filled with paired windows separated by trim. On the south, a single window and door will be installed. On the north side two individual windows, one shorter than the rest to fit the existing configuration will be installed. The windows will be Quaker Brighton double-hung windows in white to match the other windows on the house. The door will be a custom wood door to mimic the front door but with a ¼-lite, which will be constructed by Warren Hanlin. Wood exterior trim will match the existing in dimension and profile. All trim will be painted. In Section 4.10 Porches, the guidelines disallow enclosing front porches or other porches that are highly visible from the street with permanent windows or walls. Section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint, expands on this statement, “adding space to a structure by enclosing a historic front or side porch” is disallowed. In section 4.13 Windows, the guidelines recommend that if new windows are added, they match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. It is also recommended to add new windows in a location that is consistent with the window pattern of the historic building. It is disallowed to install metal, vinyl-clad, or vinyl windows on primary structures when they were not original to the building. Wood and metal-clad wood windows are considered appropriate. In Section 4.3 Doors, new door openings should be trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building. Staff finds that while this porch is visible from the street it is a side porch, not a front porch, and has been altered so that it no longer has original columns or a porch design that matches the rest of the house. This work was completed by a previous owner, prior to the formation of the conservation district in 2014. Since the porch is designed to be similar to a sunroom, enclosure will only require the installation of windows and a door. The columns and paneled wall cladding will remain. The submitted windows and a custom wood door would be considered appropriate for this property. While the house historically had a side porch, it has been altered so that none of the original materials are retained. Staff finds that the proposed project will have a minimal impact on the historic character of the house and recommends approval through the use of an exception. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 716 Bloomington Street as presented in the staff report. 716 Bloomington Street 716 Bloomington Street – 1998 image 716 Bloomington Street – side porch on right 716 Bloomington Street -2021 photo side porch Rendering of south with door and window in existing openings 716 Bloomington Street- rendering of east wall with new windows 716 Bloomington Street – rendering of north wall with new windows. Staff Report June 23, 2021 Historic Review for 611 Oakland Avenue District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Betsy Fischer, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition and new addition project at 611 Oakland Avenue, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of the demolition of the deteriorated, historic attached garage and the addition of a new attached garage. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.11 Siding 4.12 Site and Landscaping 5.0 Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint 6.0 Guidelines for New Construction 6.2 New Outbuildings 7.0 Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features Staff Comments This house, built ca 1920-25 is a 1 ½ story Craftsman Bungalow with decorative purlins, exposed rafter tails, battered columns and heavy rock-faced block porch piers. The house has a shed dormer on the north side. Synthetic siding was added prior to 1973. The attached garage was in place by 1933. In 2005, the Commission approved the demolition of the garage and the construction of a new garage off the alley which was never built. In 2011, the Commission approved the addition of windows in the enclosed rear porch. In 2012, sash kits were approved for replacing sashes in 8 existing windows. In 2012, the Commission approved further alteration to the rear enclosed porch and the addition of a new screened porch. In 2019, roof shingle replacement was approved. The applicant is proposing to demolish the historic attached garage and build a new single stall attached garage in its place. The existing garage is heavily deteriorated. The new garage will have a concrete foundation with two rows of large block to mimic the house foundation above grade. The garage will have asphalt shingles to match the house and an aluminum-clad wood window. Once the existing garage is removed, it may be possible to see the original siding on the house and match that in a wood or smooth cement board lap siding. A half-lite steel passage door to the back yard is proposed. The overhead door has not been proposed. The driveway will be removed and re-poured at the existing location and dimension as part of the project. Section 7.1 Demolition of Whole or Significant Features has several recommendations relevant to this project: it is recommended to remove additions or alterations that are not historic and that significantly detract from the building’s historic character or that are structurally unsound and are a safety hazard. It is also recommended to remove non-historic buildings and structures that detract from the historic character of a district. Such buildings should be replaced with buildings that are more compatible with the district. It is also recommended to retain historic garages. Replacement garages should be compatible in design with the primary structure and/or other outbuildings in the neighborhood. Section 6.2 New Outbuildings, recommends that new garages are placed at the rear of the primary building. Garages should be constructed that are clearly subordinate in size and ornamentation to the primary structure but reflect its style. Garage doors should be simple in design, either smooth or a simple panel style. Windows should be small and rectangular. Openings will have door and window trim. It is not recommended to construct garage attached to the primary building. It is disallowed to use synthetic siding for an outbuilding in a historic district. Section 5.1 Expansion of the Building footprint includes guidelines relevant for additions. Since the proposal is for an attached garage, the project could be considered an addition to the historic house. This section recommends placing building additions at the rear of a property if possible ad using a palette of materials that is similar to that used on the historic structure. Foundations, siding, trim conditions, and roof types should all match the historic property. Key horizontal lines on the existing building such as the eave and window head heights should be matched in an addition. While the existing garage design is not aesthetically pleasing or architecturally significant, it is the original historic garage for the property and for that reason, should generally be preserved according to the guidelines. In Staff’s opinion, the existing garage has a history of deterioration and insect and water damage and was considered deteriorated enough for the Commission to approve the demolition in 2005 and is still evident now. Staff finds that the garage continues to be deteriorated and recommends that the Commission approve the demolition if they can approve the new garage proposal. The guidelines recommend that garages are located at the rear of the lot or at least behind the house. It is not recommended to construct attached garages. When looking at a map of the neighborhood (see below) the rhythm of houses at the street and garages on the alley is broken only with this property. The applicant wishes to retain the attached garage and only needs to demolish and reconstruct it because of the deterioration. In staff’s opinion, the attached garage is a historic condition at this property and the garage is deteriorated and needs to be rebuilt. For that reason, staff recommends approval of an attached garage in order to retain the historic configuration. The proposed garage is designed as a single-car side gabled garage that includes some of the same Craftsman details found on the house including the moderately low pitched roof, exposed rafter tails and lap siding. It will include a small window on the back and a passage door to the south into the yard. Staff recommends matching the original siding on the house instead of the existing synthetic siding and the contractor has proposed to investigate the original siding when the existing garage is removed. An overhead door design has not been selected. Staff would recommend a smooth flat panel door or a door that appears similar to the door shown in the drawing with composite overlays to create the framed panel appearance. In Staff’s opinion, the design of the garage works well with the house, removes a deteriorated garage and retains the historic configuration of the garage/house relationship, therefore approval is recommended. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 611 Oakland Avenue as presented in the application with the following conditions:  The siding and trim configuration is reviewed by staff  Door and window product information is approved by staff 611 Oakland Avenue 611 Oakland Avenue- garage front 611 Oakland Avenue- rear of garage 611 Oakland Avenue- current garage connection Johnson County PIV map image showing houses and outbuldings Staff Report June 24, 2021 Historic Review for 324 Fairchild Street District: Northside Historic District Classification: Key Contributing The applicants, Becky and Jason Vardaman, are requesting approval for a proposed demolition and addition project at 324 Fairchild Street, a Key Contributing property in the Northside Historic District. The project consists of the demolition of the single-story rear bump out and the construction of a new two-story rear addition with an attached deck. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.5 Foundations 4.6 Gutters and Downspouts 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 5.2 Decks and Ramps Staff Comments This house was built in 1915 as a two-story hipped-roof Foursquare. The house has front and rear-facing hipped roof dormers and one-over-one double-hung windows. Narrow lap siding is mitered at the corners and projects outward at the base of the wall, forming a drip edge over the watertable. the main soffits and front porch soffits are detailed with a Stick Style pattern of framing over the beadboard. The full-width front porch has been partially enclosed. The house originally had a full-width rear open porch that was enclosed and part of it became a pantry. At the alley a two-story barn still exists and likely pre-dates the house. The applicant is proposing to remove the rear bump out which was a former open porch and add a two-story rear addition. The addition will have a hip roof with architectural asphalt shingles and narrow lap siding mitered at the corners to match the existing house. The windows will be one-over-one double hung windows to match the house. These windows will be individual and in pairs as shown in the drawings. On the second floor, the windows around the rear portion will mimic the window configuration of a sleeping porch. The foundation will be poured smooth textured concrete. The applicant also proposes to construct a rear deck out of Cedar that will be set in from the corners of the addition. A pair of French Doors will provide access to the deck. It will be built low enough that a handrail is not required by code. The guidelines for new additions. Section 5.1, recommend that additions are designed so that they do not diminish the character of the existing building by being placed at the rear of the property, distinguished from the original by offsetting the walls or connecting with a breezeway, and using a palette of materials similar to that on the house. Key horizontal lines such as eave height 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. Section 5.2 Decks and Ramps recommends locating a new deck on the back of a primary building, opposite the street-facing façade and set in from the side walls at least 8 inches. Decks should be designed so that the size, scale and location do not detract from the character of the district’s rear yards. Decks should be attached in a manner that will not damage a historic exterior wall. In Staff’s opinion, a rear addition to this house with the current configuration could be considered appropriate. Staff has requested elevation drawings at the time of the writing of the staff report to further review the window patterning and the continuation of horizontal lines found in the building. Staff recommends that the siding is wood or smooth cement board matching the existing siding without the detail at the watertable and that a traditional drip edge is installed instead. Staff also recommends that the soffit on the addition mimic the plain beadboard soffit on the dormers instead of the Stick Style soffit on the rest of the house to help differentiate between the addition and historic house. Staff recommends that all paired and ganged windows are separated by a stud-pocket and full width trim in the traditional style. If drawings are submitted that show the appropriateness of the window patterning, staff could recommend approval dependent upon what is shown. The recommended motion anticipates that but should be revised based on the meeting review. If elevation drawings are not submitted, staff recommends deferring the project decision until the next meeting. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 324 Fairchild as presented in the application, including the staff recommendations with the following condition:  Window and door product information is approved by staff. 324 Fairchild Street 324 Fairchild Street- rear elevation 324 Fairchild Street- rear outbuilding Proposed addition Main floor plan Second floor plan 1 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL June 10, 2021 MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Helen Burford, Sharon DeGraw, Cecile Kuenzli, Lyndi Kiple, Quentin Pitzen, Austin Wu MEMBERS ABSENT: Carl Brown, Jordan Sellergren STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Olga Badovinac, Horacio Bustos, Karen Eldridge 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: 120 North Dodge Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (screened porch addition) Bristow said that this house is a contributing property, with both Gothic Revival and Greek Revival detailing, built in the 1850’s (with an addition built in the 1870’s) located in the alley of the district. The proposed screen porch will be attached to the flat brick one-story addition, extending a bit past the brick in order to make the space more usable. She said it will be a continuation of the roofline minus the detailing, and it will stop short of the north edge of the house so that the roofline can terminate. She said that one of the windows in the new addition will be replaced with a door to the house. Bristow said, due to the age and particular importance of the property, Staff would not recommend using Azek material for the construction of the addition but would recommend any tongue-and-groove flooring (using either wood materials or an Azek product) for the porch floor. Pitzen said that he was concerned if they were to use tongue-and-groove wood flooring because he didn’t see any detail on how rainwater and blowing snow would get out. He said the Azek would be more forgiving if it got wet but using the wood could cause potential rot Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff, and the public presented by COVID-19. 2 problems. Bristow said that they would recommend sloping the floor away from the long side and provide some way to set the framing for the screen so that water could get out. Boyd opened the public hearing. Olga Badovinac, the architect for the project, said that they are going to slope the floor and use Douglas Fir (to match the front porch) and use a clear stain with possible pigment to seal it. She said the floor will be sloped the shorter way due to the way the boards will be installed, and they will either create small openings in the screen at the end or finish the boards away from the wall as potential ways to allow water to escape. Badovinac said that those are just options right now, but if the Commission needs the details she will work on that. She said they were planning on using wood for the trim but asked if the Commission would allow them to have Azek as an option due to the market and availability. Bristow said when she was talking about sloping the floor she was referring to the wood being perpendicular to the brick kitchen addition. Badovinac said that is what her plan was as well. Pitzen said he would recommend getting vertical-grain Douglas Fir because it wears a lot better and holds paint and finish a lot better. Karen Eldridge, the property owner, said that she would like whatever is written by the Commission to provide them with some flexibility due to availability and cost of materials. She said she is not sure if she would not like to go forward with the project if she cannot afford wood for the trim. Boyd closed the public hearing. DeGraw said she thinks the project looks fine and they should just prepare the wording to allow for flexibility on the materials. Boyd, Burford, and Pitzen agreed. MOTION: Kiple moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 120 North Dodge Street as presented in the Staff report with the following conditions: the drawings are updated with tongue-and-groove floor and wood trim, and the option to use wood or Azek is approved. DeGraw seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 815 Bloomington Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (internal gutter removal) Bristow said this house is a bungalow with Neo-Classical details, clad in aluminum siding with a standing seam metal roof in very poor condition. She said the roof would need to be replaced as it cannot be repaired and normally the owners would not need approval to do this because it is in a Conservation District, but since there is the internal roof gutter that needs removed they need the Commission’s approval to remove that. She said this is an issue that will most likely come up in the future with other projects as well. With the current metal roof construction, Bristow said it is not possible to reconstruct the internal gutter with the new materials. She said the metal roof will be replaced with an asphalt architectural shingle, which is similar to the original wood roof underneath the shingle. She said the house already has external gutters, and said Staff recommends the Commission allow the internal gutter to be removed permanently and not be reconstructed. Boyd asked if there were different kinds of internal gutter situations that the Commission would potentially want to look at differently based on their construction. Bristow said that the internal gutters on this project would be considered as kind of a retrofit because the house would have originally had the normal slope of the roof for water drain off. She said the other kind of internal gutters is typically with Italianate or Greek Revival homes which have a wide pan at the eave of the roof slope and can be repaired or rebuilt. 3 Boyd opened the public hearing. Horacio Bustos, the owner of the house, said that they are extremely happy with the property. He said that they are doing restorations, but they want to keep the house and its details as original as possible. He said that they also want to talk about removing the metal siding, but that will most likely be a project for the future. Bustos said he really appreciates all the work the Commission is doing to try and keep the neighborhood as original as possible. Boyd closed the public hearing. MOTION: Kuenzli moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 815 Bloomington Street as presented in the Staff report. Kiple seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 638 South Governor Street – Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (window and door changes) Bristow said this house is a two-story property with a one-story kitchen addition. She said the house is fairly intact with its original windows, siding, and trim. She said the owner is an architect and has proposed adding a pair of French doors to the rear of the one-story addition and replacing the double-hung window on the side with a new double-hung window with a raised sill. She said Staff would work with the owners to find an appropriate window for that replacement. Boyd opened the public hearing. Boyd closed the public hearing. MOTION: Burford moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 638 South Governor Street as presented in the Staff report with the following condition: the window product information is approved by Staff. Pitzen seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. REVIEW PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION OF 721 DEARBORN STREET (DEARBORN STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT) Bristow said the owner of this house inquired about using their Historic Preservation Fund for painting and other repairs, and it was determined that the house is considered non-historic which makes it ineligible for the funds. She said the house a one-story Minimal Traditional house with a wood frame built between 1948-1950. She said because it is older than 50 years the Commission would consider it to be historic, and Staff recommends changing it to a “non- contributing” structure at this point in time. Kuenzli asked if the house had siding on it. Bristow said it has its original wood siding along with original windows and the original entry canopy. DeGraw asked if there were other similar houses that were also seeking declassification. Bristow said that it is always possible and when they go to review this district they might consider changing the period of significance, but for now this house is the only one that has come to their attention. Burford asked if they re-classify this property if the Commission will be reviewing their request for funding. Bristow said that she believes they will submit an application for funding for painting. Boyd said that updating their city maps was previously recommended by the city attorney and it is also in their work plan, and that it makes sense for the Commission to review and clean up 3 or 4 districts over the next few years and then get on a regular schedule of doing so. MOTION: Wu moved to approve the re-classification of the house at 721 Dearborn Street as “non-contributing” to the Dearborn Street Conservation District. DeGraw seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 4 REVIEW OF DRAFT EXCEPTION FOR SIDING GUIDELINES PER CITY COUNCIL REQUEST Russett said she wanted to go through Staff’s revised draft amendment, as recommended by the Commission per their last meeting. She said that Staff added notes about modern siding potentially causing moisture issues within historic buildings, the exception including information on energy efficiency in historic homes and a reference to the existing section on energy efficiency, and additional language on what is meant by technical and economic challenges. She said the technical challenges really speak to situations where property owners have both synthetic siding over original wood siding and there is evidence of modern insulation within the exterior wall of the historic home, which could lead to moisture problems. She said the economic challenges talk about the most sustainable and affordable way to make an improvement on a home with synthetic siding, which is to repair the original wood siding. Russett said that they also added proposed language around submitting a case to the Commission stating that there is a reasonable and more affordable solution than complying with the guidelines. She said there is also a statement that says the Commission and Staff could evaluate other technical and economic challenges on a case-by-case basis. Boyd said he liked the changes that were made, and the usage of the word “could” under the technical and economic challenges section implies that the examples given are just that, and that the Commission could evaluate each situation further if needed. Kuenzli said she really appreciated the efforts of the Staff to clarify what is meant by economic and technical challenges, but she is concerned that the technical explanation pertaining to insulation gives enough of a reason to remove and replace a house’s original wood siding in the absence of moisture problems. She said that this definition weakens their guidelines and leads to an inability of the Commission to rely on their preservation guidelines. Kuenzli said that the Commission bends over backwards to satisfy homeowners and approves more projects than they deny, so she is cautious to weigh every case that comes up against different standards instead of just following the guidelines. DeGraw said she hopes this issue won’t come up frequently, but she is still in favor of reviewing the issue again in five years to see how many people actually take advantage of prematurely removing their home’s original wood siding. Kiple said the draft is definitely an improvement, a great middle ground, that gives more specificity to the Commission and homeowners of what is and is not allowed. Burford said she doesn’t understand why the community doesn’t want to encourage people to make this kind of choice. Although removing and replacing the siding is expensive, she said that the work that is done will be reflected on the homeowner’s tax assessment, which could serve as a progressive encouragement. Burford said that Russett did a fantastic job on the draft. Wu said he doesn’t have a lot of experience with this kind of issue, which is why he declined to comment. Boyd said that the technical challenges could be more specific about including moisture damage, which could help narrow the scope and address some of the concern voiced about the section. Pitzen said he doesn’t quite understand the cause of moisture problems and isn’t sure how removing or not removing original wood siding helps with that. Kuenzli said, in terms of flexibility, they also offer a grant program to help those encountering economic challenges with their project. Russett said that evaluating for the presence of moisture damage is already part of the process they undergo when receiving an application. Pitzen asked if “moisture damage” included peeling paint and mold in the wall. Russett said that a recent property had peeling paint, but it didn’t seem to be due to moisture damage based on Staff’s evaluation. Boyd asked how they could reword the paragraph about technical challenges to include something that does exist instead of something that could exist. Russett said that one option could be to require the applicant to provide detail about the modern insulation and concerns related to moisture. Kuenzli asked how replacing one form of siding with another solves the moisture problem. Pitzen said that one solution could be to install a vapor barrier, but that wouldn’t be guaranteed to solve the problem. 5 Boyd said that, since technical challenges often feed into economic challenges, they could eliminate the technical challenge portion and just include the economic for non-contributing properties with synthetic siding. Kuenzli said that that might make it more objective, but there would be a significant amount of justification on paper for the homeowner to take, which could be unpleasant. Kiple said incorporating the technical challenges into the economic challenges would be sufficient because of previous wording about negative impact on building performance/health. Burford asked why they have to specifically define technical challenges instead of listing possible examples and thus putting the burden of proof on the applicant. Boyd said he was proposing to remove the paragraph about technical challenges entirely and instead have the Commission evaluate based solely on economic challenges. MOTION: Boyd moved to approve the proposed draft amendment with the paragraph beginning with “technical challenges” and ends with “synthetic siding installation” be removed. Kiple seconded. Motion carried on a vote of 6-0 with 1 abstention. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Minor Review – Staff Review 203 North Linn Street – Local Historic Landmark (Commercial Signage Installation) Bristow said this property, the historic Union Bakery, is getting a new sign for the restaurant there now. 614 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (Radon System Installation) Bristow said that this property is installing a radon mitigation system on the back of the house, facing the garage and the alley. 810 Roosevelt Street – Clark Street Conservation District (aluminum siding removal and original siding repair) Bristow said the metal siding on this property was damaged in the derecho, so the owner is going to remove the aluminum siding and repair the original. She said they originally thought this house was from the 1930’s, but they found out that it is actually from the 1890’s. She said they have consulted with a historian, and Staff thinks that they can date the house earlier than that. Intermediate Review – Chair and Staff Review 114 North Gilbert Street – Jefferson Street Historic District (roof replacement and front porch reconstruction) Bristow said that the original porch was removed and replaced with inappropriate structures in August of 2019, and they have been speaking with the owner about this. She said that the standing seam metal roof was damaged in the derecho, so that will be replaced with a new standing seam and the porch and internal gutters will be reconstructed properly. Since this building is an income property (it serves as the office for John’s Grocery), Bristow said that she has been talking to the owners about doing this project for tax credits, which they are considering. 727 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (non-historic door removal, deck reconstruction, front stoop reconstruction, site stair reconstruction) 6 Bristow said that this property has had multiple pieces of work done. She said that they approved removing the awkward door on the addition, the reconstruction of a slightly larger deck, the reconstruction of the front stoop, as well as the reconstruction of the site stairs. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MAY 13, 2021: MOTION: Kuenzli moved to approve the minutes from the May 13, 2021 meeting as amended. Burford seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Lead Paint letter from Mike Oliveira Bristow said the letter was emailed to Staff and they wanted to send it to the Commission for any questions, concerns, or discussion. Kuenzli asked if the infrared heater developed in Sweden for lead paint removal produces less toxicity in the environment than an electric hot plate, a propane tank, or an electric paint remover. Bristow said that it doesn’t turn the lead paint into a gas or create dust like some of the heat guns do, but rather it heats the paint to the point where it is almost melted and can be scraped off. Kuenzli suggested the Commission make some sort of a statement endorsing the use of that product to satisfy people’s concerns about safety. Bristow said that Staff just always assumes that all of their historic properties have lead paint, which is why they point people in that direction. Wu asked how frequently the documents about lead paint given to the Commissioners are shared with the homeowners. Bristow said she will look at those documents and find out, but that they don’t tend to share that with the public in a specific way. Outgoing Commissioner Thank You Boyd said, from his time on the Commission, that he has been most surprised by how much he has learned from his other Commissioners. He said that Pitzen knows more about historic houses inside and out more so than anyone Boyd knows, and that Pitzen has worked on his personal house, so he can attest to Pitzen’s incredible craftsmanship up close. He said Pitzen’s expertise has been invaluable to the Commission during his time as a Commissioner. Boyd said that Burford has been a part of the preservation community for a long time, and he knew her name even before she joined the Commission. He said Burford has been someone he has sought out to make sure he’s on the right track, and he has always appreciated her honesty and candor. Boyd said he did not know Wu in person before he joined the Commission, but had already followed Wu on Instagram and was really enjoyed the content he was posting. Boyd said he has really appreciated Wu’s voice pushing the Commission to make progress on solar and making things easy for the historic houses to work in conjunction with sustainability. He also said that he has appreciated Wu’s perspective and his dedication to making sure that the Commission gives a full account of history. Boyd said he appreciated Pitzen, Burford, and Wu, and thanked them for their work and time on the Commission. Pitzen said thanks and that it has been and honor to be a part of the Commission. Burford said that it has also been a privilege and she wanted to thank each member for being thoughtful, proactive, and open to new ideas, as well as for encouraging historic preservation in Iowa City. Wu said he has enjoyed his time serving and he would love to see the Commission continue to look at preservation as part of a wider system, whether that be sustainability, equity, how neighborhoods function with each other, etc. He also said that he would love to see the 7 Commission be more accessible to the community and to see more younger people brought into preservation because the energy and interest is there. He wished the best to the incoming Commissioners. COMMISSION INFORMATION: Bristow said that the Iowa City Downtown is now officially listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Bristow said that she will be sharing bits about what she learned at the Preserve Iowa Summit in future meetings. She said the survey questionnaire will go out to the owners and contractors, and that the awards letters for the Awards Committee are also being sent out now. Russett said that a fellow from the University of Iowa Planning Program will be working with them this summer and helping with investigation and research into the area around Kirkwood that they hope will be helpful with a future reconnaissance survey. Boyd said that they neighborhood association there would be a great resource. ADJOURNMENT: Pitzen moved to adjourn the meeting. DeGraw seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. 8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2020-2021 NAME TERM EXP. 8/13 9/10 10/08 11/12 12/10 01/14 01/28 02/11 03/11 04/08 05/13 06/10 BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X X BROWN, CARL 6/30/23 O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E BURFORD, HELEN 6/30/21 X X X X O/E X X X X X X X DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/22 X X O/E X X X X X X X X X KUENZLI, CECILE 6/30/22 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 X O/E X X O/E X X X X X X X PITZEN, QUENTIN 6/30/21 O/E X X X X X X X X O/E X X SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/22 X X X X X X X X X X X O/E WU, AUSTIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X X O/E O/E O/E X X