Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Agenda Packet 8.12.2021 Thursday August 12, 2021 5:30 p.m. Emma Harvat Hall City Hall IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, August 12, 2021 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma Harvat Hall Agenda A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. HPC21-0072: 114 North Gilbert Street – Jefferson Street Historic District (chimney removal and reconstruction as veneer) 2. HPC21-0072: 120 North Gilbert Street – Jefferson Street Historic District (chimney removal and roof replacement) E) Discussion of the Summit Street Monument Assessment & Conservation Options Plan F) Discussion of the Montgomery Butler House G) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review 1. HPC21-0057: 324 East Church Street – Northside Historic District (garage repairs) 2. HPC21-0052: 817 East Bloomington Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (front porch stair reconstruction) 3. HPC21-0059: 816 East College Street – College Green Historic District (roof shingle replacement) 4. HPC21-0063: 824 East College Street – College Green Historic District (roof shingle replacement) 5. HPC21-0065: 1022 East College Street – East College Street Historic District (replacement of deteriorated porch floor, column bases, siding, and trim) 6. HPC21-0066: 1036 Woodlawn Avenue – Woodlawn Historic District (replacement of deteriorated porch floor, column bases, and railing) 7. HPC21-0067: 935 East College Street – College Hill Conservation District and Local Landmark (roof shingle replacement) 8. HPC21-0069: 811 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (fascia repair and replacement, foundation stucco repair) 9. HPC21-0070: 704 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (modern porch column replacement) 10. HPC21-0073: 418 North Gilbert Street – Northside Historic District (newel post replacement) 11. HPC21-0077: 324 East Jefferson Street – Jefferson Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement) Minor Review –Staff review 1. HPC21-0050: 617 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (porch floor, stair and stair railing replacement) 2. HPC21-0061: 742 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (roof shingle replacement) 3. HPC21-0068: 1111 East Burlington Street – College Hill Conservation District (porch floor and floor structure replacement) Intermediate Review –Chair and Staff review 1. HPC21-0055: 435 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (minor change to previous pool COA) 2. HPC21-0058: 429 Ronalds Street – Goosetown/ Horace Mann Conservation District (non- historic outbuilding demolition) H) Consideration of Minutes for July 8, 2021 I) Commission Discussion 1. Providing Input for American Rescue Plan Act 2. Mid-year Work Plan Review J) Commission Information K) 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 August 4, 2021 Historic Review for HPC21-0072: 114 North Gilbert Street District: Jefferson Street Historic District Classification: Key The applicant, James Pinkerton, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition and reconstruction project at 114 North Gilbert Street, a key property in the Jefferson Street Historic District. The project consists of the demolition of the chimney and its reconstruction in a veneer material. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.2 Chimneys 4.8 Masonry 7.0 Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features Staff Comments This house, built ca. 1900, has a modified Gable-Front and Wing form with an open gable facing the front and a shallow closed gable section facing south. The front gable has cornice returns and modillions along the eaves with a round arched double-hung window in the gable peak. A porch extends across the front and wraps around the south facade filling the shallow ell. The porch has slender smooth columns extending to the deck, a solid paneled balustrade, and closely spaced modillions along the porch eaves. The porch skirting has a dense basketweave pattern. Fenestration includes original 4/4 double-hung sash of various sizes and shapes with a cottage window to the right of the entrance and a flat fanlight above the door. the house is set on a concrete block foundation with brick or brick veneer walls. The house has Colonial Revival detailing including the multi-light windows and modillioned cornice. In 2019, the porch, with the exception of the roof, was removed and rebuilt without approval. Earlier this year, staff approved the reconstruction of the porch to match the historic porch and reusing the original columns. This approval also includes the replacement of the main roof with new standing seam metal roofing. This approval has been revised for approval to remove the modern, unsympathetic dormers. The applicant is proposing to demolish the deteriorated chimney from the attic through the roof and to reconstruct it using frame construction and a cement board product that is made to look like brick. The chimney would remain unused and be capped. Section 4.2 Chimneys, states that Fireplace Chimneys are often a defining architectural feature of historic houses. Chimneys may have decorative brickwork and often are a distinguishing feature of the roof profile. Therefore, historic chimneys should be preserved. This section of the guidelines recommends repairing and capping unused historic chimneys. It is disallowed to remove prominent chimneys that are important to the historic architectural character of the building. Several other disallowed actions include plastering over a masonry chimney in place of proper repair, pointing with mortar that is too hard for historic, soft brick, and using synthetic sealants, adhesives and/or wraps to repair masonry chimneys. Section 7.1 Demolition also states that it is disallowed to remove any historic architectural feature (including chimneys) that is significant to the architectural character and style of the building. In Staff’s opinion, many of the “disallowed” actions regarding chimney repair have happened to this chimney over its history. The current chimney has a partial plaster covering, inappropriate pointing with inappropriate material as well as metal straps attempting to hold it together. This has resulted in a chimney that is extremely deteriorated. Many bricks are broken or damaged. There are many large cracks, and the applicant has stated that the chimney is also structurally unsound below the roof. For a chimney with this level of deterioration, repair typically involves removing and reconstructing the chimney to match the original configuration. In this case, the deterioration below the roof makes this reconstruction potentially either impossible or invasive to the interior of the building because more of the chimney would need to be dismantled and reconstructed. In staff’s opinion, this is an architecturally significant chimney. It is also visible from the street and is detailed with a stepped brick pattern. The structural condition of the chimney makes reconstruction in reclaimed or matching brick problematic. The applicant has suggested rebuilding the chimney with wood framing and a cement board product, an example of which has been installed in the entry at John’s Grocery nearby. Staff finds that the brick facsimile in this product does not share many similarities with the historic brick on this building, such as the tighter mortar joints, brick color and sharp edges. Staff also finds that it will be difficult to use this product to mimic the stepped profile of the top of the chimney. For some past projects, when historic chimneys needed to be altered or reconstructed, staff has recommended the use of thin brick veneer to recreate chimneys. This allows a better match for the brick color, texture and shape, as well as the mortar joints. This product may also be difficult to use in a stepped pattern but would be preferred to the sheet material. Staff recommends that the Commission approves a demolition and reconstruction in thin brick veneer with the bricks chosen to match the house and the stepped pattern mimicked as closely as possible. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the chimney demolition and reconstruction project at 114 North Gilbert Street as presented in the staff report with the following condition:  The thin brick match is confirmed by staff. 114 North Gilbert Street - 2012 Photo 114 North Gilbert Street - Current Photo 114 North Gilbert Street - chimney from rear 114 North gilbert Street - Chimney detail Fiber-cement panel with brick texture installed at John’s grocery Brick wall on north side of 114 North Gilbert Street Thin brick chimney at 436 Grant (no brick or mortar joints to match- just used typical pattern) Staff Report August 5, 2021 Historic Review for HPC21-0074: 120 North Gilbert Street District: Jefferson Street Historic District Classification: Key The applicant, James Pinkerton, is requesting approval for a proposed demolition project and a roof replacement project at 120 North Gilbert Street, a Key property in the Jefferson Street Historic District. The project consists of the demolition of the deteriorated, unused chimney and patching the opening with new roofing as part of a roof replacement project. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.2 Chimneys 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 7.0 Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features Staff Comments This house was built ca. 1908 with an American Foursquare form, a steeply pitched hipped roof, and a gable attic dormer centered on the front façade. The dormer gable has cornice returns and a single round arched window. A short projecting 2-story addition with canted walls on the first floor is located on the south façade. A flat roof porch extends across the front with the entrance steps set off-center. Tuscan columns extend to the porch deck and a low balustrade contains closely spaced 2’ x 2’ balusters. Porch skirting ahs a tightly spaced lattice pattern. Windows include original one-over one double-hung with a cottage window to the right of the entrance. The house is set on a concrete block foundation and is clad in narrow clapboard siding with corner board trim. The house has a standing seam metal roof. The ramp was added in 2011 and the vinyl siding and soffits were added between 1998 and 2012. The applicant is proposing is proposing to replace the metal roof with new flat panel standing seam metal roof. As part of the project, they propose to remove the chimney and patch the location with new roof material. Section 4.2 Chimneys, of the guidelines recommend repairing and capping unused historic chimneys. It is disallowed to remove prominent chimneys that are important to the historic architectural character of the building. Section 7.1 Demolition also states that it is disallowed to remove any historic architectural feature (including chimneys) that is significant to the architectural character and style of the building. In Staff’s opinion, this chimney, while visible, is a simple utilitarian chimney that is not architecturally significant and does not add to the historic character of the property. In addition, it is heavily deteriorated and unused. Staff recommends approval for demolition of the chimney and replacement of the roof material in a true flat panel standing seam metal roof. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 120 North Gilbert Street as presented in the application. 120 North Gilbert Street 120 North Gilbert Street – West facade 120 North Gilbert Street – NE corner 120 North Gilbert Street – Chimney detail Date: August 4, 2021 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood and Development Services Re: Summit Street Monument Assessment & Conservation Options Plan The City received a Certified Local Government (CLG) grant in the amount of $5,500 from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in late 2017. The purpose of the grant was to develop a plan to determine how to preserve the deteriorating Summit Street Monument; a historic obelisk that marks the original boundary of Iowa City. In late 2018, the City executed a contract agreement with Atlas Preservation, Inc. to prepare a report that provides guidance on ways to preserve the monument. The report was finalized in June 2019 [Attachment 1]. The report outlines conservation treatment options if the monument is left in its current location. It also provides advice on possible relocation options. At the Historic Preservation Commission’s August 12, 2021 meeting, the Commission will have an opportunity to discuss the findings in the report and options moving forward. Attachments: 1. Summit Street Monument Assessment & Conservation Options Plan, Prepared by Atlas Preservation Inc., June 2019 1 Atlas Preservation Inc.
 122 Spring Street B1 Southington, CT 06489 860‐558‐2785 June 1, 2019 Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356- 5243 Regarding: Historic Iowa City marker, which is located near the house at 331 S. Summit Street. The activity that is the subject of this project has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior. Summit Street Monument Assessment & Conservation Options Plan Historical Background: The Summit Street Monument is a six-foot tall limestone obelisk that acted as survey marker for the original 1839 town plat of Iowa City. The obelisk marks the southeast corner of the original boundaries of the city, as surveyed by Robert Ralston, John Ronalds, and Chauncey Swan, who were commissioned to select a site in Johnson County for the Territorial Capital of Iowa. In addition to its historical significance, the monument is an example of the early 19th century interest in ancient art and architecture. The monument’s architecture mirrors the form of ancient Egyptian obelisks, made up of a monolithic tapering rectangular shaft that ends in a pyramid. Though this monument predates residential development in this area, it is located within the Summit Street Historic District, the first historic district in Iowa City to be recognized by the National Register of Historic Places in 1973. This district is recognized for its architectural and historical significance, as it was home to many of Iowa City’s middle-class business and professional residents in the late 19th and early 20th century. The obelisk is one of the most significant historic resources in the district and is considered a key object. The monument was vandalized in the 1890s and restored in 1935 by the local chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Their restoration included the attachment of bronze plaques that carry the monument’s original inscription, which described the purpose and history of the monument. 2 The monument has deteriorated significantly, and the original inscription has been worn away. The stone itself shows many cracks, chips, and holes, and is discolored in many places. The areas behind the plaques show significant wear as well. There is an interest in preserving this historic monument in some manner. Due to the type of limestone it is composed from, over one hundred fifty years of outdoor weather exposure, and past vandalism, the monuments current condition is poor. The object and scope of this assessment is to document the marker’s current condition, and to provide the best possible options for conservation at its current location or preservation at an indoor climate-controlled location. If the monument is moved, possible replacement or duplication options will be considered. Figure 1. Photo of the monument from about 1900 when the inscription was still visible. Note- uneven edges & irregularities including holes from which aggregates had filled when the stone was formed geologically. Limestone is a carbonate- based stone which is formed under what were ancient sea beds. Limestones vary in durability but are adversely affected by acid deposition/ acid rain. 3 Figure 2. Southwest face of monument. July 2019. Figure 3. Southeast face of monument. July 2019. Figure 4. Northeast face of monument. July 2019. Figure 5. Northwest face of monument. July 2019. 4 Figure 6. Photo looking north along S. Summit Street. July 2019. Figure 7. Photo taken from E. Court Street looking west. July 2019. 5 Figure 8. Plaque added to monument by Daughters of the American Revolution in 1935. Photo shows copper staining, which has leached out from the bronze and deeply stained the limestone along the water runoff channel. June 2017. Figure 9. Missing chunk from the monument. June 2017. 6 Figure 10. The limestone of the monument is weathered and deteriorating. June 2017. Figure 11. Damage to monument where plaques were attached. June 2017. 7 Figure 12. Cracking located at the lower portion of the monument. June 2017. Figure 13. Uneven weathering and wear patterns attributed to the specific geology and formation of limestone which is composed of layers of compressed sand and shell fragments cemented together with mineral binders, primarily calcite crystals. June 2017. 8 Figure 14. Cracks and holes in the limestone. June 2017. Figure 15. Missing chunk from the monument. June 2017. 9 Site Visit: Visit monument, photograph, measure and excavate to research underground depth & condition. On the afternoon of May 12 of 2019 a site visit was conducted to assess and document the monument’s current condition and to suggest conservation treatments if it is to remain in its current location. An extensive number of still photos and a group of short videos were made. If desired additional photos and or videos can be added to complement this assessment report. The weather was overcast with occasional light drizzle. Conservation Treatment Options if Monument is Left at Its Current Location: 1) Cleaning. Biological Activity: Biological activity of lichens and molds are located on some portions of the monument to varying degrees. This can be cleaned and removed with a biological cleaning solution and is not to be considered a major issue. Copper Staining: When cast bronze is displayed in an outdoor environment, it should be protected and maintained periodically in some manner. Depending on when the plaque was first created, varying techniques have historically been incorporated into the final manufacturing and display of bronze plaques. A lacquer, wax, or combination of both is commonly applied as a sacrificial coating to protect from weathering as the final treatment prior to installation. After installation, ideally the waxing process is performed annually as a maintenance procedure. However, this rarely occurs under most circumstances. If untreated bronze is exposed to weather conditions for extended periods of time it will begin to oxidize, turn green, and leach out copper from within the bronze. Removing copper staining can be difficult as it will permeate under the surface and into the pores of the stone similar to the way a sponge will absorb soapy or dirty water. A poultice is a material similar to a mayonnaise or papier-mâché like substance and is applied to the surface for an extended period of time. When allowed to dry, it will in principle draw out the staining from the stone into the poultice. Once the poultice is completely dry it is carefully scraped away and then rinsed off with water. If successful, the staining would be diminished or entirely removed. Poultices can be bought in ready-made form or can be created by a conservator for a specific application like removal of copper staining. It can be especially tricky to clean metal staining from marbles and limestones because they are composed primarily of calcium carbonate, which is highly sensitive to many cleaner like acids which will cause degradation to the stone if applied in a high concentration. As part of the cleaning process, first, a small test area in an inconspicuous place should be employed in order to see if the cleaning procedure is effective before upscaling to the entire stained area. 10 2) Consolidation & Water Repellants. There is a long history of attempting to protect and to attempt to preserve monuments in an outdoor environment since ancient times. However, many treatments can trap moisture and in the long run might do more harm than good. A consolidation treatment is a stone strengthener, and if effective will re-bond the molecular structure filling the voids that have developed from weathering. A water repellant will act to reduce water infiltration, creating a sheeting effect which encourages water to run off instead of being absorbed. Any surface treatment must be breathable or water will become trapped within the stone and over the course of time do more harm than good. The most important thing to understand when considering the application of any surface treatment is that if properly selected they can help slow down erosion and general weathering for some time period, usually on longer than 10 years and would then need to be re-applied. The weathering can only be completely stopped in a climate controlled indoor environment such as a museum. 3) Raising and/or Re-grading of the Landscape Surrounding Monument The monument is currently set directly into the soil. Test excavation indicates approximately 12- 18 inches of the monument is underground with a somewhat irregular bottom. There are possibly some rocks placed underground in an attempt to help stabilize. It is currently leaning towards S. Summit Street. Interestingly, the historic photograph seems to indicate that the monument might have originally been closer to the city roadway. All stone and masonry absorbs moisture from capillary action that climbs up the stone from rising damp if in direct soil contact or in a wet area. Creating an above ground foundation or adding a stone base would greatly reduce the amount of rising damp getting into the stone from below. However, every time it rains it will still get wet from above. It should also be considered that adding a base stone would alter the monument visually and that logistics involved are unknown as its impossible to know exactly what the bottom looks like, unless it is completely unearthed. 4) Possible Interpretive Signage Due to the historical significance of the monument, the addition of some kind of signage is highly advisable. Signage could include the original inscription only and/or tell the basic story of the monument’s local history. There are many possible options ranging from bronze which is costly and unfortunately can be a target of theft to granite which is considered to be permanent and has no resale value. There are many other less enduring options. 11 Technical Advice on Possible Relocation Options, Indoor Conservation & Support The only way to entirely stop all additional erosion and the continued deterioration of the monument is to carefully move and relocate it into an indoor climate-controlled environment. Due to the regional historical significance this would be my professional recommendation. Since there has always been a monument occupying this location from before the region was largely settled, it would seem wise to create a replica monument to replace the original and place in the exact same location. Recommendation on Moving the Monument: The monument is highly weathered and has become gradually more fragile since it was initially installed. Great care needs to be exercised if it is to be relocated. First, it should be carefully excavated around the bottom until the entire monument is visible. Then, the monument should be carefully laid over onto a padded cradle and lifted onto a truck for transporting. Once delivered to its new location, it would then be lifted off while cradled, brought to its new location and raised back to a vertical position and placed into a custom made base or platform. Drawings: In order to display the obelisk in an upright position, a weighted base needs to be employed. A mortise and tenon or similar support mechanism means that the obelisk would fit into a recess, called a keyway. A keyway is a socket within a piece of stone or cast cement. Then, the small area between the obelisk and the keyway would be filled with a soft mortar or plaster to prevent movement. Figure 16. Scale drawing of the Summit Street Monument. 12 Possible Display Options if Monument is Moved to a Protected Location: The obelisk is monolithic, meaning it is a one-piece monument. The underground portion, holds up the visible above ground portion of the stone. It is impossible to know exactly how deep or how symmetrical the underground portion of the stone is until it is unearthed and removed from the ground. If the determination is made to move the monument indoors for protection, the final display plan will need to be created once it is completely out of the ground and can be accurately measured and assessed. At that time, the exact dimensions and shape of the lowermost portion will be understood. If the decision is made to move the monument to an indoor museum setting, a dialogue would ideally occur with that facility to collaborate and create a viable plan that fits their needs. A few different options for display are possible. Ultimately there needs to be something created at the lowest area acting as an anchor to stabilize, and to keep it upright, and make it safe for display purposes. A base should be created that has a recess in it to accommodate the entire lower portion of the stone. The most economical option would be to cast a base out of a modern concrete which could be pigmented. The exact width and height would need to be determined once the obelisk is completely visible out of the ground. A more desirable option would be to create a base out of natural stone. The process would be very similar whether it was created from concrete or natural stone. Once the base is created in the proper dimensions, a mortise within the base will allow the obelisk to fit into it and hold it upright structurally. Stability will be created from the weight at the very bottom, where it meets the ground, like an anchor. The mortise needs to have some extra tolerance, in other words a small space about ¼ - ½ inch, that should then be filled in with some material to completely lock it into place and prohibit movement. For indoor display this small space could be filled with a soft mortar, a plaster, or some other combination of materials because it does not need to withstand weathering conditions. Another option would be to create a simulated landscape feature in a museum display that would hide the lower portion. Ultimately it would still need a lower support of some kind but if it was completely hidden it could be made from many varying materials. It could possibly be created out of wood and propped up with sandbags to allow future movement more easily. Possible Bronze Plaque Removal from Obelisk for Indoor Display: The Monument was originally a one-piece limestone obelisk without any attachments. In the 1930’s, 2 bronze plaques were created and attached to opposite sides at approximately the center of the obelisk. The bronze plaques are in amazingly good condition for their age however, over the course of 80+ years a small amount of copper has leached out of the plaques and stained the obelisk. This stating is primarily cosmetic affecting the appearance. If the decision is made to move the obelisk to an indoor location for display and protection from the environment, the option should be considered to remove the plaques and to display the obelisk as it was originally created without any plaques. The removed plaques could then be cleaned, waxed, and reinstalled on a new replica monument or incorporated into new signage at the site of the original obelisk. However, if the plaques are to be removed there would be four 13 holes where each plaque is attached in addition to the previously mentioned copper staining located just below where the plaques are affixed to the obelisk. Recommendations on How to Mark This Location for the Future: There are many signage options. As previously stated, the residential neighborhood has grown around this monument, so it seems the most sensitive and practical solution is to have a replica monument created and placed in the exact location of the original. The new replica monument should then have inscribed into it attribution and replacement information. This should be clearly visible and stated to avoid any possible confusion to visitors and future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our historic preservation planning services. Regards, Jonathan Appell Jonathan Appell Monuments Conservator Date: August 4, 2021 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood and Development Services Re: Montgomery-Butler House The Montgomery-Butler House is a historic home that is owned by the City of Iowa City. It is located on N. Dubuque Street just south of the Iowa River in Waterworks Prairie Park. The City purchased the land and home in 1995 in order to facilitate construction of the Iowa City Water Treatment Plant. In 2001, Marlys Svendsen completed a feasibility study that examined options to preserve and reuse the building [Attachment 1]. The study analyzed the following options: 1. Reuse as a historic site and interpretive center; 2. Iowa River Trail amenity; 3. Iowa City visitor center; and 4. Do nothing. In May 2020, the Historic Preservation Commission Chair wrote a memo to the full Commission regarding the Montgomery-Butler House. In the memo the Chair requested City staff to help form a working group of relevant City departments and citizens to develop a path forward for the Montgomery-Butler House [Attachment 2]. In May 2021, staff from multiple City departments, including Parks and Recreation, Neighborhood and Development Services, and Public Work, conducted a site visit to the property. Photos from the site visit are in Attachment 3. The purpose of the site visit was to evaluate the property and discuss possible ways to re-use the building. Due to the location of the home, which is away from the main trail and not accessible via automobile, staff felt there is little use for the building in its current location. The site is additionally constrained since the home is not connected to City water and sewer. Staff discussed turning it into an amenity space for bicycle riders along the Iowa River Trail; however, there were concerns with this idea. Specifically, staff does not think there is enough bicycle traffic for it to be of interest to a vendor for operating. There was a suggestion that it may be feasible to include a portion of the house with interpretive signage as a shelter, art work, or other park amenity if it were re-located near the trail head adjacent to the parking lot. See Figure 1. August 4, 2021 Page 2 Figure 1. Aerial of the Montgomery Butler House and Waterworks Park At the Historic Preservation Commission’s August 12, 2021 meeting, the Commission will have an opportunity to discuss ways to move forward. Due to the number of different City Departments and Commissions involved, their ongoing workloads and existing priorities, requests from the Historic Preservation Commission may require direction from the City Council. Attachments: 1. Montgomery-Butler House Feasibility Study Report; September 2001 2. HPC Chair Memo to the Commission; April 28, 2020 3. Montgomery-Butler House Photos; May 2021 Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 MEMORANDUM Date: April 28, 2020 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Kevin Boyd, Chair, Historic Preservation Commission Re: Montgomery-Butler House Request: We ask City Staff to help form a working group of relevant city departments and citizens out a plan and recommendation for an adaptive reuse and path forward for the Montgomery-Butler House. Background: The City acquired this historic asset in the 1990s as part of the land acquisitions for the water plant site. Shortly after, the City received a grant to moth-ball the property to preserve it for future use. While it is located in Waterworks Prairie Park, the land surrounding the water treatment facility at the park is maintained by the Public Works Department. We likely need representatives of all relevant City Departments as well as citizens including someone from our commission, someone from Parks and Recreation Commission, perhaps some of the regular users of Waterworks park (many of whom recently engage the City Council over an unrelated issue). It’s our job to provide concrete direction and let the City Staff map out the details. Why find an adaptive reuse of the Montgomery-Butler House? 1. Previous City leaders made this commitment. The City acquired a historic asset in the late 1990s as part of the land acquisition for the water plant site. The City received a grant to moth-ball the property for future reuse. That moth-balling is showing signs of failure. We need to act. 2. The City has had recent success in adaptive reuse of historic properties. Public Space One’s new home at 225 and 229 N Gilbert is a great example of the City preserving historic resources and opening up discussions and ideas from the community about what the use for this historic asset might be. The group should invite a community discussion about how to use this historic asset. While the result might simply be a shelter or trail head, the creative minds of our community may result in a great idea. 3. It’s the right thing to do during the climate crisis. The structure already contains the embodied energy, the energy it used to construct the building - its materials, transport, and assembly. If the building is demolished because of neglect, that energy is lost. Let’s keep this city-owned resource out of the landfill and find another use for this structure. It’s an opportunity to lead by example - get the community thinking about how to reuse buildings instead of demolishing them and adding to our landfill. 4. It’s part of our shared history. Cultural continuity between generations, stitch together our past and our future. Walter and Elizabeth Butler were a little like the godparents of Iowa City. When the territorial legislature needed a place to meet in Iowa City, the Butlers built what came to be known as Butler’s Capitol. After Walter’s death, Elizabeth lived in this house and with her second husband, Martin Montgomery, they operated a ferry to cross the Iowa River at this point on Dubuque Road. This structure was likely built between 1856 and 1859. Finding an adaptive reuse is part of the Historic Preservation Commission’s Annual Work Plan and the City’s Historic Preservation Plan. ATTACHMENT 3 Montgomery-Butler House Photos May, 2021 1 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL July 8, 2021 MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Kevin Boyd, Carl Brown, Sharon DeGraw, Lyndi Kiple, Cecile Kuenzli, Kevin Larson, Jordan Sellergren, Noah Stork MEMBERS ABSENT: Deanna Thomann STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Andy Martin, Amy Pretorius 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. ROLL CALL: Beck said that she is an archeologist with research interests in Pre-Colombian North America at the University of Iowa, but has worked with several different interest areas as well as with the National Register. She said this was what made her more interested in the history of Iowa City, and she was delighted at the chance to join the Commission. Stork said he works at Pearson and has lived in Iowa City since 2005. He said he was interested in joining the Commission because he recently purchased a home in the College Green Park district and is in the process of fixing it up. Larson said he is an urban planning student with a background in architecture at the University of Iowa, which is what lead to his interest in historic preservation. Boyd welcomed the new Commission members and said he is excited to work together. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 525 Van Buren Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (deck and rear porch changes) Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff, and the public presented by COVID-19. 2 Bristow said this property is a Craftsman bungalow with a clipped gable roof, shingled lap siding in a staggered lap, a half-porch, and a high brick foundation. She said the north side of the building has a two-story porch with the enclosed lower portion containing storm windows and a storm door. She said the proposed project is to remove and replace the storm windows with a simple screen system. Bristow said that they would also replace the porch door with a storm door, which could be done without Commission review. She said the proposal also includes adding another storm door as well as a deck. She said the deck is 8 feet wide by 8 feet deep and protrudes a little bit from the side of the house, with railing that meets Commission guidelines. She said that this project approval would need to include an exception to allow the deck to extend beyond the side wall of the house. Boyd opened the public hearing. Boyd closed the public hearing. MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 525 North Van Buren Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: the railing is constructed to follow the guidelines, and any added stair is located on the west side of the deck. Kiple seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 716 Bloomington Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (side porch enclosure) Bristow said the owner of this property was approved a few years ago to restore some of the details of the front porch. She said the original porch had Gothic-Revival details, and that a previous owner had removed the columns completely and altered the rear porch to look how it does today (almost partially enclosed). Bristow said the guidelines disallow the enclosure of a porch that is either on the front of a house or highly visible from the street, but Staff feels that this porch has already been altered so that it no longer has the same details as the original, so they recommend approving the full enclosure. She said the project proposes to install Brighton Quaker windows and a custom door to fit the existing framework. Bristow said that a window on the back corner of the north side has a raised sill, and she wasn’t sure if it was an existing condition or alteration made by a previous owner. Boyd opened the public hearing. Andy Martin, the contractor for the proposed job, said that the idea is to replicate the existing trim on the windows as closely as to the imagined proportion, and that the proposed proportions are a best guess estimate as to what the homeowners would want. Kuenzli asked if the smaller window was shorter for a reason and why it wouldn’t be made to match the new screen depth that is coming in. Martin said that the homeowner had requested to leave it like it is, so he isn’t sure if there is a reason or not. Boyd closed the public hearing. Brown asked if the proposed side porch enclosure was previously an approved recreation of the side porch. Bristow said that the previous approval just had to do with the front porch and that there has never been a project on the side porch since the district became a historic district. DeGraw said that if the smaller window on the side was changed to match the neighboring windows then the project would look better, and she recommended that the homeowners consider that change. MOTION: Kuenzli moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 716 Bloomington Street as presented in the staff report with some encouragement to 3 consider making the shorter window match the neighboring windows. Sellergren seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 611 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (garage demolition and new construction) Bristow said this property is a craftsman bungalow with a front-facing gable and exposed purlins, a full porch, dormers on the side, exposed rafter tails, aluminum siding, and an historic attached garage. She said a previously approved project had altered the enclosed rear porch and improved the window condition. She said the roof of the garage is starting to deteriorate. Bristow said, typically with a detached garage, some of the damage could be fixed by lifting the garage, but since the garage itself is attached Staff recommends approving the demolition and its replacement. She said the applicant has designed a single car garage where the existing garage is located that protrudes just a bit further into the backyard. She said it is designed as a side-facing gable structure (which matches the house better than the current structure) with a door facing the screened porch addition and a window on the back wall. She said the current proposal is to see what the lap and trim details are underneath the current metal siding and match that in the new garage. They will also put in a new driveway. Kuenzli asked when the garage and house were originally built because it is the only house in the neighborhood with an attached garage, and she is wondering why the new constructed garage won’t be consistent with those of the other houses. Bristow said that the house was built between 1920-1925 and the garage shows up on the 1933 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, which is why they believe it is the only garage that has ever existed on the property. She said they are attaching the new garage because the current one is attached and the homeowners had no desire to have the new one in the rear corner of the yard, and that there also might be future consideration about adding an interior entrance onto the structure. Boyd opened the public hearing. Boyd closed the public hearing. Boyd said he believes their guidelines would tell them to approve what would help retain the historic structure of a property, even if it included something different or unique to the area. Brown said that the garage was already older than 50 years when the district was declared historic, which would make it part of the original historic structure. Sellergren said she believes this is a case where the historic nature of the garage is trumped by its aesthetics. MOTION: Sellergren moved to approve the 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 and the door and window product information is approved by Staff. Brown seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-1. Nay: Kuenzli. 324 Fairchild Street – Northside Historic District (demolition of addition and new addition) Bristow said this house is a key contributing property. She said it is a four square with narrow lap siding, a hip roof and hip dormers, specially detailed lap siding and soffits, large double- hung windows, a partially enclosed porch. She said the project proposes to remove the existing rear enclosed porch and to add a two-story addition. She said the addition will have a hip roof and be set in from the corners of the house and include paired windows separated by trim, individual windows, a side door, and a deck on the back with a French door. Bristow said that Staff recommends the special details found on the front of the house not be replicated with the new addition in order to emphasize the difference between the addition and the original structure. 4 Sellergren asked if the roofline on the new addition will match what is on the original structure. Bristow said that Staff will recommend the kick-out roofline instead of a straight slope. Beck asked if the rear out-building would be affected by the construction in any way. Bristow said that it is considered part of the property that the Commission would regulate, and she believes that the homeowners have gone through and met all of the zoning regulations regarding open space and property lines, and the construction shouldn’t impact the barn in any way. Boyd opened the public hearing. Amy Pretorius, a representative of Elevation Homebuilders, said that the goal of the homeowners and the construction company is to replicate the roofline on the new addition to tie the project together. Boyd closed the public hearing. MOTION: Brown moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 324 Fairchild as presented in the application, including the staff recommendations regarding siding, soffit, and paired windows with the following condition – window and door product information is approved by Staff. DeGraw seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 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) Bristow said this apartment building has a simple roof shingle replacement. Minor Review – Staff Review 930 East College Street – College Hill Conservation District (overhead door replacement) Bristow said the owners are removing a pressed steel door and temporarily installing a flat, smooth-paneled door. She said they plan to install carriage house doors once they are done with the house, which they will go through the approval process for. 515 East Davenport Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (roof shingle replacement) Bristow said that the house is getting its roof shingles replaced. 317 Fairchild Street – Northside Historic District (Radon mitigation system installation) Bristow said this house has had many past projects, including a rear addition, and the owners are installing a Radon mitigation system in this location with the rest of the equipment. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 10, 2021: MOTION: Kiple moved to approve the minutes from the June 10, 2021 meeting. Brown seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Outgoing Commissioner Thank You 5 Boyd said that this was Kiple’s last meeting. He said that Kiple was their first Commissioner from the Jefferson Street District, so he was initially excited to have her on the Commission. He said that he has appreciated Kiple’s contributions and has always been impressed with her dedication to the Commission’s professional development, her clarification of discussions and offering thoughtful solutions that helped to advance the conversation, and her reliability in making a motion or second. Kiple said it has been an honor and a privilege to serve the City with the rest of the Commission and she has learned a lot of great things that she is looking forward to utilizing in Williamsburg, Virginia. Return to in-person meetings Bristow said the Governor has allowed public meetings to continue over Zoom only through July 25, so any meetings after that date will be in person. She said they have typically met in Emma Harvat Hall and Staff is thinking of returning to meetings there. She said that all future meetings will also be recorded. Sellergren asked if the August 12 meeting will be at City Hall. Bristow said that it is safe to assume that as of now. Larson asked if the City would consider having an option for the public to join virtually. Bristow said she doesn’t think they are thinking about that at this moment, but that would be a better question for the City Clerk. Sellergren said she is excited to return to in- person meetings, but accessibility is a huge issue for both the Commissioners and the public and she hopes that the City will consider how accessible and successful the Zoom meetings have been for both parties over the past year. Larson echoed Sellergren’s statement. Boyd agreed and said that they should encourage the City to give them clarification on remote Commissioner participation as a useful tool for future meetings. Bristow said they have a note on the bottom of all of their agendas that says to reach out if anyone has issues with accessibility, so the City Clerk might be able to provide some general accommodations going forward. Ed (Unknown), a member of the public, thanked everyone from Iowa City. He said he is majoring in Journalism and Writing at New York University and he and his fellow journalists from Iowa University are doing a thesis on cities and historical landmarks. Brown said he lives in Iowa City but works in Muscatine, and said that it has been very helpful for him to join meetings via phone and he would really appreciate if there was a way in the future to let Commissioners call in if needed. Brown said he is excited for Ed and looks forward to reading his thesis. Ed said he is also writing a book about it. Boyd asked if everyone felt comfortable with meeting in Harvat Hall and/or if there were any concerns that they wanted Staff to address before their first meeting in-person. Kuenzli said it would be helpful to know if everyone was vaccinated or not because that would affect everyone’s comfort level in regard to the meeting venue. Boyd said they can reach out to him or Bristow individually if they have any concerns before their August meeting. Bristow said there are a few projects that she was unable to get ready in time for this current meeting, so she hopes that they can schedule a special meeting to discuss them. She proposed having the special meeting at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 21. Sellergren asked if they needed to meet about the Historic Preservation Awards. Bristow said she would reach out via email. COMMISSION INFORMATION: 6 None. ADJOURNMENT: Kiple moved to adjourn the meeting. Brown seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. 7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2020-2021 NAME TERM EXP. 9/10 10/08 11/12 12/10 01/14 01/28 02/11 03/11 04/08 05/13 06/10 7/08 BECK, MARGARET 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X X BROWN, CARL 6/30/23 X X X O/E X X X X X X O/E X BURFORD, HELEN 6/30/21 X X X O/E X X X X X X X -- DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/22 X O/E X X X X X X X X X X KUENZLI, CECILE 6/30/22 X X X X X X X X X X X X KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 O/E X X O/E X X X X X X X X LARSON, KEVIN 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X PITZEN, QUENTIN 6/30/21 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 O/E X STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X THOMANN, DEANNA 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- O/E WU, AUSTIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X O/E O/E O/E X X -- The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds provide a substantial infusion of resources to help turn the tide on the pandemic, address its economic fallout, and lay the foundation for a strong and equitable recovery. The American Rescue Plan will deliver $350 billion for state, local, territorial, and Tribal governments to respond to the COVID-19 emergency and bring back jobs. Eligible Jurisdictions & Allocations Direct Recipients •States and District of Columbia ($195.3 billion) •Counties ($65.1 billion) •Metropolitan cities ($45.6 billion) •Tribal governments ($20.0 billion) •Territories ($4.5 billion) Indirect Recipients •Non-entitlement units ($19.5 billion) Funding Objectives •Support urgent COVID-19 response efforts to continue to decrease spread of the virus and bring the pandemic under control •Replace lost public sector revenue to strengthen support for vital public services and help retain jobs •Support immediate economic stabilization for households and businesses •Address systemic public health and economic challenges that have contributed to the inequal impact of the pandemic Address Negative Economic Impacts Respond to economic harms to workers, families, small businesses, impacted industries, and the public sector Premium Pay for Essential Workers Offer additional support to those who have and will bear the greatest health risks because of their service in critical infrastructure sectors Replace Public Sector Revenue Loss Use funds to provide government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue experienced due to the pandemic Support Public Health Response Fund COVID-19 mitigation efforts, medical expenses, behavioral healthcare, and certain public health and safety staff Broadband Infrastructure Make necessary investments to provide unserved or underserved locations with new or expanded broadband access Water and Sewer Infrastructure Make necessary investments to improve access to clean drinking water and invest in wastewater and stormwater infrastructure Example Uses of Funds Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 2021 Historic Preservation Work Plan The Historic Preservation Commission annually updates its work plan. This year we aligned our work around the goals that the City Council outlined in the Strategic Plan. Advance Social Justice, Racial Equity, and Human Rights Recent Accomplishments Civil Rights Grant. This two-part project with grant funding from the National Park Service was completed with the successful listing in the National Register of Historic Places of both the Tate Arms and the Iowa Federation Home, two important sites in Iowa City’s Civil Rights History. Educational signage and digital online materials were also created. The research and information from the project will continue to be used in future presentations to educate and inform the public. Short Term Goals Get clarity from the City Council on staffing a subcommittee charged with telling the full history of Iowa City. Staff and the Commission should discuss the purpose and make-up of the subcommittee, as well as specific goals and actions of this endeavor. Online Heritage Map: Several local landmarks and historic resources within existing historic districts tell a story of Iowa City’s historic efforts to advance social justice, racial equality, and human rights. We should tell those stories and allow citizens to see the physical structures connected with the historic struggles for justice. Long Term Goal Partner with Parks and Recreation Commission, Public Art Commission, Lucas Farms Neighborhood, and other community organizations to make Oak Grove Park a public space that honors the site’s heritage. The park, originally owned by the railroad, was home to many Mexican immigrants who lived in company-owned housing, old boxcars. Many of those immigrants moved into the surrounding neighborhood. When the City sold Elm Grove Park, near the Johnson County Administration Building, it bought the land where Oak Grove Park now sits. The park is currently scheduled for major renovation in 2026 or 2027 which provides plenty of time for us to investigate outside funding sources and develop a community plan that makes it a public space both for the neighborhood but also the City. Demonstrate Leadership in Climate Action Good preservation is about using the least invasive measures first and then working up to removal and replacement only if necessary. This tactic values embodied energy and minimizes construction waste. Ongoing Work One of the fundamental principles of historic preservation is to preserve, reuse, and adapt rather than demolish and create waste. Our work and previous commission’s work has kept immeasurable tons out of landfills. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 Short Term Goals We need to continue to advocate that embodied energy is worth valuing. Currently the Climate Action Committee does not take this into consideration. We should continue to advocate to fix this. While what we’ve saved from landfills is immeasurable, embodied energy in existing materials is still measurable. Provide resources for energy efficiency, repair, and maintenance of older homes on the City’s website. Structures built before World War II, used different methods of construction compared to construction of today. Trying to modernize an old structure with modern technologies often isn’t the right approach. Sometimes it’s the wrong approach. There are significant ways to increase energy efficiency in older homes that are minimally invasive. There are ways to repair and maintain a home and keep resources out of the landfill. Other organizations have already documented these. We should just find a way to make them available for more citizens. Contribute to the discussion on demolition. As the Climate Action Commission considers how to deal with demolition, we should contribute. And so should other commissions. If we’re serious about climate change, we should be serious about demolition and the waste it produces. The cost to the environment, even considering dumping fees, doesn’t match the $50 fee. Some cities are discussing removing demolition by right. Rather than just paying for a demolition fee, citizens are given an opportunity to evaluate the new structure - and make sure the new structure aligns with our expressed values - do we get affordable housing, is it energy efficient, are there significant elements of history of the building that should be valued? Long Term Goal Develop a disaster preparedness guide for preservation. As the effects of climate change manifest themselves in more natural disasters, we need to be prepared. The 2020 derecho, followed the 2008 floods, and the 2006 tornado. The City earned national awards for its work around the 2006 tornado. The commission and city staff should develop a playbook for when a disaster hits (because one will again). The goal would be to more rapidly know how to provide support to those dealing with a disaster. Strengthen Community Engagement and Intergovernmental Relations The Commission, as a Certified Local Government, is the place for intergovernmental relations success. We work with SHPO and the National Parks Service, who oversees historic sites across the country. We also are trying to engage cross-departmentally with other commissions where our work overlaps. Ongoing work Annual Historic Preservation Awards: The annual awards program highlights successful preservation work within the community and the expertise of contractors and consultants. As one of the Commission’s main forms of community outreach, the awards are a high priority every year and attract an audience of about 100 people. The annual awards have been moved to May to coincide with Preservation Month activities. The awards will require Commission involvement for nominating properties and for work on the awards sub-committee producing the awards. We will continue to partner with Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 New Commissioner Recruitment: With three vacant positions, we should recruit new commissioners. Short Term Goals Meeting with Realtors: The first of perhaps an annual meeting with Realtors to help them understand the benefits of historic districts and what the trade-offs are. The Homebuilders often feel like they are the ones who have to tell new property owners about historic districts. Increased Digital online presence: The City has valuable resources and information on historic properties in several different formats. Currently the ability for the public to access this information is dependent upon the format of the information. Digitizing hardcopy information and combining it with existing digital information in a searchable online database would make this information about city history more available for property owners and researchers. The City is considering a revamp of its website, we should try to partner when this happens. Invest in Public Infrastructure, Facilities and Fiscal Reserves The city assets need care and occasionally reinvestment. Doing a little work along the way helps avoid urgent situations down the road. Recent Accomplishments Three City-owned assets on the National Historic Register became local landmarks: The Old Post Office (now the Senior Center); the Old Settler’s Cabins in City Park, and the Ned Ashton House. The Old Settler’s Cabins were also rehabilitated. Short Term Goals Follow-up on the commission’s request to City Staff on the Montgomery-Butler House. In May 2020 the Commission requested that staff from the Planning Department, Public Works, and Parks help develop a working group to map out the work of this city-owned historic asset. In 1998, as part of a Memorandum of Agreement for the development of the new water plant, the City mothballed the Montgomery/Butler House, a significant historic resource, for roughly $70,000. Summit Street Monument: In 2019 the consultant, Atlas Preservation, completed the “Summit Street Monument Assessment and Conservation Options Plan” that was financed in part through a Certified Local Government Grant. Given the ongoing deterioration of the monument, the Commission will review the options and recommend an appropriate action to City Council. Enhance Community Mobility for All Residents These are largely transit and transportation related goals. Many preservationists are sympathetic to these issues. Historic neighborhoods were designed to accommodate pedestrians, transit, and modes of transportation that aren’t car-reliant. The Commission should consider how we might engage on this when opportunities arise. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 Foster Healthy Neighborhood and Affordable Housing Throughout the City Many older neighborhoods, that are now historic districts, were designed with mobility, neighborhood commercial nodes, and a variety of housing types in one neighborhood. Ongoing work The core work is protecting healthy neighborhoods. Many of the districts were developed out of a response to unhealthy developments in these areas that motivated the neighborhoods to take action. We help provide stability and provide a platform for reinvestment. Historic Preservation Fund. With the implementation of the fund in FY 2018, the Fund has approved 28 grants or loans improving 25 properties. This is a popular program which has helped property owners maintain the historic character of their properties and has helped keep valuable material out of the landfill. Be ready to partner with neighborhoods interested in historic preservation. There’s been some interest in the past, particularly the Lucas Farms-Kirkwood Avenue area with reconnaissance surveys and our job is to be ready and willing partners. Short Term Goals Advocate for the continuation or growth of the UniverCity Program. The success of the program has helped stabilize historic neighborhoods and provide affordable housing. Long Term Goal Work to get form-based code for areas that are adjacent to or are surrounded by historic districts. The exchange between the public and developers in form-based code is that the code would allow for different uses which the public would need to accommodate, but in turn they would get more certainty about community values such as walkability, affordability, and the look and feel of the neighborhood. Developers get more flexibility in use in exchange for requirements in form. The areas that are adjacent to, or surrounded by, historic districts often are areas where development disagreements happen. Form-based code in these areas would help reduce some of that friction and would align with goals set by council and staff. Promote an Inclusive and Resilient Economy Throughout the City Preserving our physical heritage is an asset to an inclusive and resilient economy. Preservation is a tool for economic growth. The preservation work done in our districts is often done by smaller local businesses, and potential for growth opportunities exist in smart deconstruction and trade development for contractors who have specific skills related to older homes. Recent Successes The Tailwinds development on College St. This development is an exciting mix of the historic and new. We have several historic commercial buildings saved and new development. The Highlander is making an old structure vibrant by reviving its history. Their efforts to become a local landmark as part of these efforts should be supported. They intend to take advantage of tax credits. Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 Short Term Goals Downtown National Register Historic District. This is scheduled to be reviewed by the State Nomination Committee in February. This has been a long-sought goal. For consideration Revolving loans for tax credits: In talking to Downtown property owners, some of them expressed concern about the timeline of tax credits. They are available on the backend, but often cash is needed up front. The idea would be to create a 12-18 month loan option to bridge the immediate construction needs until project completion when the tax credits are available. Transfer of Development Rights Revisit: The previous council opted to not consider a specific TDR proposal that was developed on a tight timeline. We have had two (or maybe three) new council members since then. A new TDR proposal could be developed without the constraints of making them work for a specific property so they could benefit the whole community. Opt in incentives for local landmarks in commercial zones. One of the challenges I have heard about local landmarks or historic districts with primarily commercial buildings is that the needs of the building may be different than residential properties. Often, more flexibility is needed to make old buildings work. As a city, we can incentivize all kinds of things we value, there’s no reason why commercial landmark properties can’t be part of that mix. Long Term Goals Consider partners on a historic trades mentorship program. Dubuque’s HEART program is a model example of this - training high school students in trades related to preservation, while transforming blighted neighborhoods (largely historic) back into livable and walkable neighborhoods and helping young people achieve goals of graduation and career training. Those who have been through the program often start small businesses in the trades they have learned. Ongoing Administration of Our Work Short Term Goals Update of the College Green Historic District: In 2016, the Commission approved the relocation of the Houser-Metzger House from 422 Iowa Avenue to 623 College Street where the contributing structure had been damaged beyond repair by fire and water. In order for the relocated house to be considered contributing to the Historic District, an amendment to the National Register-listed district is required as a first step. This amendment will be reviewed by the Commission following revision by staff and the District representative. Update of the Iowa City Preservation Handbook (Maps): The most recent version of the handbook was updated in 2010 and does not include several recent changes and needs to be reviewed for accuracy. Since many properties have changed status (for example, a non- contributing property has become contributing because of siding removal and porch rehabilitation) in the past ten years, the maps, which are the basis for review-type, application Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240 of exceptions, and in some cases eligibility of the Historic Preservation Fund, are outdated. The full Commission would review and approve updated maps. Long-term goal One of the at-large positions of the commission is reserved for a professional in the industry. In a recent meeting between the Home Builder Association, your chair, and several city staff members, they suggested that one of the at-large positions be designated for a professional builder, tradesperson, or architect (or perhaps preservationist). Frank Wagner served three terms. Quentin Pitzen currently does this work. We could define this at-large position for someone who does this work professionally. Preserve our Heritage Our history belongs to all of us. We owe it to ourselves and future generations of Iowa Citians that we preserve the physical aspects of this history and make sure our shared history isn’t forgotten. This work often encompasses multiple areas of the priorities set by Council. Our shared heritage is worth preserving as its own goal. Recent Successes: Sanxay-Gilmore House. The University has a plan to move, restore, and use this house. Cochran-Dennis House is a local landmark. The compromise proposal has been approved by council. Self-starting landmarks: We’ve had several that we’ve helped shepherd through the process. We should continue conversations with interested property owners. And be mindful of opportunities that present themselves. Short Term Goal 2040 Waterfront Drive Intensive Survey: Funded in part through a Certified Local Government Grant, an intensive survey of the property at 2040 Waterfront Drive was completed. The final document will be provided to the Commission and the property owner for their review in the coming months. Long Term Goals Evaluation of Mid-century Modern Housing Stock: Since these properties have reached historic status, Commissions across the country are developing plans for how to evaluate them. In Iowa City, many of the areas where they are concentrated have not been reviewed but could begin with reconnaissance-level surveys in future years.