HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Agenda Packet 9.9.2021
Thursday
September 9, 2021
5:30 p.m.
Emma Harvat Hall
City Hall
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, September 9, 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. HPC21-0071: 1133 East Court Street – Longfellow Historic District (demolition of original
siding and sheathing and installation of new sheathing, cement board siding, vapor barrier, and
new wood trim)
2. HPC21-0081: 508 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (rear demolition and
new rear addition)
E) Opt-In Incentives for Local Landmarks
F) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff
Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review
1. HPC21-0078: 320 East Jefferson Street – Jefferson Street Historic District (roof shingle
replacement)
2. HPC21-0079: 328 East Jefferson Street – Jefferson Street Historic District (roof shingle
replacement)
Minor Review –Staff review
1. HPC21-0076: 604 Ronalds Street – Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement)
2. HPC21-0085: 1107 Clark Court – Clark Street Conservation District (solar installation)
Intermediate Review –Chair and Staff review
1. HPC21-0075: 701 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (basement window replacement)
2. HPC21-0082: 1132 Burlington Street – College Hill Conservation District (minor change to
prior COA)
G) Consideration of Minutes for July 21, 2021
H) Consideration of Minutes for August 12, 2021
I) Commission Information
2021 Historic Preservation Survey
J) Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Jessica
Bristow, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5243 or at jessica-bristow@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged
to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Staff Report September 2, 2021
Historic Review for HPC21-0071: 1133 East Court Street
District: Longfellow Historic District
Classification: Contributing
The applicants, Adam and Gosia Clore, are requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 1133 East
Court Street, a Contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project consists of the addition
of three windows to the west wall of the rear addition and the removal of the original siding and original trim
for the installation of a vapor barrier and the installation of new LP Smartside and new wood trim.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
44.0 I ow a Ci ty H i s tori c P re s e rva t i on Gu i d e l i n e s for Alte ra ti on s
4.4 Energy Efficiency
4.11 Siding
4.13 Windows
4.14 Wood
St a ff C om m e n ts
Property History
This house was built ca. 1910-1924 as a Foursquare with a low-pitched hip roof, flared eaves, and dormers.
The dormers have paired windows. The windows in the main floors of the house appear to be one-over-one
individual double hung windows. The porch was enclosed with combination storm windows about 1972. A 2-
story rear addition was added in 1998. The house is clad in aluminum siding which was likely installed during
one of these projects.
In 2005, the Commission approved changes to the rear deck built in 1998. In 2013, the Commission
approved the installation of skylights in the south (rear) portion of the hip roof and the replacement of the
vinyl deck railing with wood. Earlier in 2020, staff approved the replacement of the roof shingles, the
replacement of the porch roof membranes, the installation of a railing on the second-floor rear porch and the
removal of the aluminum siding at the front porch. Replacement and repair of deteriorated material to match
the existing was included while the porch redesign would need to be approved by the full Commission.
In December 2020, the Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of any
missing porch columns, balustrade, and flooring in wood using 1152 Court Street as a reference for porch
elements that do not remain. The Commission also approved the removal of the aluminum siding on the
house and the repair of the historic siding and trim, replacing individual pieces with matching wood, cement
board or LP Smartside if they are deteriorated beyond repair. The Commission denied the applicants’
application to install new aluminum or cement board over the historic siding or to replace that historic siding
with new material regardless of the condition of the historic material. The applicants appealed and the
Commission’s denial was upheld by City Council. In July 2021 a new exception to the guidelines for siding
was approved by City Council following development by the Commission and staff at Council’s request.
Current Project Description
The applicant is proposing to add three new windows to the west wall of the rear addition. A sketch of the
location is included in the staff report. The applicant proposes to use windows from the Andersen Windows
400 series which includes awning and casement windows with exterior vinyl cladding (and wood interior,
which is standard).
The applicant is also proposing to remove the aluminum siding on the entire house and the historic wood
siding and trim on the historic portion of the house, with the exception of the siding and trim at the front
porch, which will remain. The original siding will be replaced with smooth LP Smartside with the narrowest
lap exposure available. Wood trim will be used that matches the historic trim. All new trim will match the
trim in the front porch area.
The applicants have submitted, as part of their application, a memo from their architect that is dated February
15, 2021 and was originally submitted to City Council as part of their appeal of the Commission’s denial. This
memo includes the applicant’s explanation of the technical difficulties in their situation. The memo provides a
discussion of the difference between the historic breathable wall assembly and the modern assembly and how
this house now exhibits elements of each. This discussion does appear to assume that the historic wall
assembly will by nature of its assembly, always cause exterior paint to fail with the addition of modern
insulation exacerbating that situation. This memo also includes information about insulation and wall
assembly retrofit as described by the Building Science Corporation and Preservation Brief 39. The memo is
attached to the staff report.
Historic Preservation Guidelines
Section 4.13 Windows of the guidelines recommends that new windows are added that match the type, size,
sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. New windows should
be added in a location that is consistent with the window pattern of the historic building. It is disallowed to
install modern types of windows including sliding, awning, casement, and bay windows when they were not
original to the building. It is also disallowed to install metal, vinyl clad, or vinyl windows on primary
structures.
Section 4.11 Siding recommends “replacing deteriorated sections of wood siding with new or salvaged wood
siding that matches the historic wood siding.” It is also recommended to remove “synthetic siding and repair
historic wood siding and trim.” It is disallowed to “remove historic trim pieces such as door and window
trim, skirt and frieze boards, and corner boards.” “Matching synthetic siding may be used to repair damage to
small sections of existing synthetic siding.” Fiber cement board with a smooth finish is often an appropriate
substitute for wood. This section also begins with an opening statement:
“Wood siding along with the trim details and a variety of paint colors combine to make one of the
most important defining characteristics of historic districts. This display of detail and color is
essential to the character of the older neighborhoods, and therefore siding is protected by the design
guidelines.
The primary threat to the traditional appearance of older neighborhoods has been the application of
synthetic siding. This has been installed in an effort to avoid periodic painting. While synthetic siding
may last longer than an application of paint, it does deteriorate over time and does need to be
replaced when it fades, cracks, dents, or deteriorates. The application of synthetic siding covers many
architectural details of a building, damages the historic siding and trim, traps moisture within the
walls, and in some cases, necessitates the removal of historic elements altogether. For all of these
reasons the covering of historic properties with synthetic siding is not allowed.”
The new exception for siding that could apply to this project reads:
“The following exception provides flexibility to owners of eligible buildings with existing synthetic
siding installed over original wood siding. The City recommends repair of original wood siding over
replacement whenever feasible. Removal of the synthetic siding and repair of the original wood
siding and trim is often the most sustainable and affordable solution. However, some property
owners may have legitimate economic or technical concerns due to the deteriorated condition of the
original wood siding or the impact rehabilitation may have on building performance, health or safety
such as the potential for moisture damage due to the presence of modern insulation. Therefore, this
exception encourages City staff and the Commission to consult with homeowners and/or their
professional agents to assess applications involving the presence of synthetic siding and provide
flexibility to situations where property owners wish to avoid economical and technical challenges
such as moisture damage, remove the synthetic siding and the original siding, and replace it with an
appropriate material as described in this handbook that matches in exposure, texture, and design….
Synthetic siding may be removed, and if original wood siding exists underneath it may be repaired or
removed and replaced with wood or an approved alternative material, provided the following
conditions:
x Synthetic siding covers the original wood siding;
x Evidence of technical or economic challenges is noted related to the deteriorated condition
of the original wood siding or the impact that rehabilitation may have on building
performance, health or safety.; and
x If original wood siding is removed, it must be replaced with an appropriate material that
matches in exposure, texture, and design.
Economic challenges could exist in situations where compliance with the guidelines results in costs
that are exorbitant. In order to demonstrate an economic challenge, applicants must submit detailed
cost estimates. Staff and the Commission can evaluate if the added costs to comply with the
guidelines is necessary or if there is another less costly solution.”
Section 4.14 Wood says it is disallowed to “cover original wood siding, soffits, and eave boards with another
material...”
Historic Review
In Staff’s opinion, the existing group of three windows on the west side of the house are likely a modern
alteration during an earlier kitchen remodel. With the exception of the bay on the east side and the paired
windows in the dormer, all historic windows on the house are single individual windows. Grouped windows
are otherwise only newer installations such as that found in the addition which was added prior to the
designation of the historic district. Even so, staff finds that adding a group of windows in this area would not
impact the historic character of the house as long as the windows are separated by framing and appropriate
trim, match the head height of the historic windows and the sill height of either the existing west side group
of windows or the sill height on other first floor windows in the historic house.
Staff finds that Anderson Windows 400 series is not an appropriate window for this house. First, awning and
casement windows would not be appropriate on a Foursquare and are disallowed by the guidelines. Also,
while they are wood windows on the interior (as are most windows) they are vinyl clad on the exterior. While
this may match the addition, vinyl-clad windows are disallowed by the guidelines and matching a modern
addition that was not reviewed by the Commission is not recommended by the guidelines. Instead, staff
recommends that the new windows are one-over-one double hung wood (inside and outside) or metal-clad
wood (with wood interior and metal clad exterior) windows that follow the guidelines. In the future when the
windows in the addition are replaced, the appropriate window that would be approved would also follow this
recommendation.
During an inspection of the siding, earlier this year, multiple staff were able to view the historic siding in
specific areas with the aluminum removed. It was found that the siding underneath was in good condition.
The paint showed evidence of both multiple dried layers of old, hardened peeling paint and areas of fewer
layers of paint that was intact. Holes from the installation of insulation aligned in single rows with a hole at
each space between studs with an additional row running under the windows. Staff did not witness existing
moisture damage to the wood.
It was evident at the front corner near the porch that the house has narrow lap siding mitered at the corner
without corner boards. In the area reviewed by staff, there was no watertable or drip edge, which is not
typical. Additional inspection of the remaining wall base would be recommended once the aluminum is
removed to determine this detail. The wall may have terminated with the lap siding running all the way to the
foundation. The frieze board and any other details beyond those evident in the porch were not visible and
would also require further investigation to determine the trim configuration. It was also evident that the
siding at the connection to the addition was simply cut off.
The applicants have proposed to use “smooth LP siding with the narrowest exposure available, which will
closely mimic the original wood siding.” Since the siding on the house has mitered corners and a portion of
the historic siding will remain, ensuring that the new siding follows the guidelines by matching the “exposure,
texture, and design” of the historic siding will ensure that the new siding may blend in with the old where
they meet. It is expected that any material would be trimmed as necessary to fit. LP Smartside or cement
board are approvable if they can meet these conditions in the guidelines.
The Commission must determine whether or not the applicants have met the conditions for an exception to
the siding guidelines based on technical difficulties. The exception states that synthetic siding and original
wood siding may be removed if the following conditions exist:
x Synthetic siding covers the original wood siding;
x Evidence of technical or economic challenges is noted related to the deteriorated condition
of the original wood siding or the impact that rehabilitation may have on building
performance, health or safety.; and
x If original wood siding is removed, it must be replaced with an appropriate material that
matches in exposure, texture, and design.
Synthetic aluminum siding covers the original wood siding.
The applicant’s architect outlined the technical challenges in the attached memo. The following is an excerpt
of the memo, which speaks to the technical challenges:
“The house a system is fundamentally different now than it was in 1924. The walls have clearly been
insulated, the original trim has been removed and the wood is now a swiss cheese amalgamation of
insulation access points and nail penetrations from the aluminum siding. The challenge of properly
repairing this system is immense and likely technically infeasible. The removal of the original trims
(likely because they failed) causes a challenge to properly flash and ensure water tightness around the
penetrations and openings which will ultimately lead to water infiltration into the wall and insulation
and a long term mold issue.”
Regarding the exposure, texture, and design of the siding, staff recommends that the original siding and trim
is fully documented by staff in photos as a part of the historic record of this house. Staff also recommends
that the trim details that are currently unknown are also reviewed and final configuration are approved by
Staff and the Commission Chair. Staff would also recommend that the addition would match the historic
siding and trim condition of the house as it would have if it had been reviewed when constructed, including
all window, door, frieze board, lack of corner boards and the bottom of the wall condition.
RR e c om m e n d e d M oti on
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1133 East Court Street through an
exception for siding based on technical difficulties in the current configuration as presented in the staff report
with the following conditions:
The historic exterior is fully documented in photographs by staff once it is exposed
The trim details are reviewed and approved by staff and Commission Chair and the trim on the
addition is installed to match the historic house
The three new windows are separated by framing and trim and match the head and sill height of
existing historic windows on the house, are double hung windows, and are constructed of wood or
metal-clad wood.
1133 East Court Street
1133 E Court – older photo from SE (rear corner)
1133 East Court- older photo from SW (rear) corner
New window location
1133 East Court- west side No watertable or drip edge
mitered corner
visible under corner
piece
New window location
1133 East Court Street -sketch of proposed new windows west side
1133 East court porch interior
existing historic siding,
trim, ceiling, and frieze
boardfrieze board
1133 East Court Street- porch interior
frieze board
1133 East Court – west side near porch
1133 East Court Street- east side bay window
1133 East Court Street- east side bay window detail
insulation hole
wood in good condition
weathered
wood
1133 East Court Street- west side detail
"newer" adhered paint
historic paint becomes brittle over time with many layers
all visible wood in good condition
no watertable and drip edge
1133 East Court Street- west side addition connection detail
historic house
newer addition
1133 East Court- west wall insulation holes
insulation holes
trim not uncovered but may be missing or cut back
Staff Report September 1, 2021
Historic Review for HPC21-0081: 508 South Summit Street
District: Summit Street Historic District
Classification: Contributing
The applicant, Modern Roots Design Build, is requesting approval for a demolition and addition project at
508 South Summit Street, a Contributing property in the Summit Street Historic District. The project consists
of the demolition of the existing rear bump out and the construction of a rear addition and entry porch.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.1 Balustrades and Handrails
4.11 Siding
4.14 Wood
5.0 Guidelines for Additions
5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint
Staff Comments
This house was built between 1910 and 1920 and is a two-story hipped-roof Foursquare. It had hipped
dormers and wide eaves with a bell-cast roof edge. The porch features heavy square paneled columns
supporting a thin arched frieze board and a matching paneled balustrade. The house is clad in narrow lap
siding mitered at the corners. The foundation is stucco coated. The soffits are bead board or paneled bead
board. The house has single and paired one-over-one double hung windows except in the dormers where
they are 4-lite fixed sash or awning/hopper windows. The house has a historic hipped-roof two-car garage on
the lot that was in place by 1926. The attic has been finished and the house was insulated in 1977 according
to the appraisal reports.
In 1997 a Certificate of No Material Effect was approved for the replacement of the roof shingles. In 2014
the Commission denied an application to replace the original tongue-and-groove beadboard soffits and fascia
with aluminum. Since this work was partially completed without a permit, this denial was followed up a few
months later with approval to repair the original wood soffits, using bead board or plywood beadboard to
replace the damaged sections provided the soffit corners were mitered.
The applicant is proposing to remove the rear screened porch with sleeping porch above and construct a
larger 15 foot by 23 foot two-story addition in its place. The new addition will include an expanded kitchen
and family room on the first floor with a new rear porch and a master bedroom and bath on the second floor.
The addition will have lapped siding matching the house, a hip roof, Quaker Brighton double-hung windows
in singles and in pairs (separated by framing and trim), and a French Door opening onto the porch. The
applicant proposes that the foundation will be concrete with a stucco-coating to match the existing
foundation, the siding will be fiber cement board or wood to match the existing, the soffits will be painted
wood panel, and the roof will match the existing. The applicant also proposes that the porch has square
columns and a square spindled balustrade. The porch skirting will be a simple framed vertical skirting. The
applicant also proposes to use a mixture of wood and Azek for trim. They propose a Trex deck boards for
the porch flooring and stair treads.
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. French Doors, or
doors of a similar type should be used in additions where a large opening is desired. 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, soffits and eaves
should also match. Care should be taken to assure that the two eaves align properly and that the trim details
of the new eave match the existing building. Foundations should appear similar to the historic foundation in
color and texture.
New porches should be constructed that are consistent with the historic building or are similar to porches of
the same architectural style. New porches that are more than 18 inches above grade should be constructed
using traditional porch construction with wood joists and wood flooring. The space between the porch floor
and grade should be enclosed with skirting that is constructed between the porch piers. New balustrades and
handrails should follow the guidelines in section 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails.
On Summit Street, unique setback guidelines exist. On this street, the rear wall of the primary structures must
not extend deeper than 125 feet from the front street to preserve the openness of rear yards. It should be
noted that the Zoning Code also includes open space requirements. The applicant sought and received a
Minor Modification from the Zoning requirement that no dimension in the required open space is less than
20 feet. The Minor Modification is attached.
An exception exists for rear additions in Historic Districts that would allow the Commission to approve the
use of pretreated porch decking on the new rear porch provided the gaps between the floorboards do not
exceed 1/8 inch. Section 4.14 Wood includes a statement on wood substitutes that state that composite
materials such as Trex are appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Both this section and section 4.11 siding state
that materials substituted in the place of wood must retain the appearance and function of the original wood.
The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation
Commission.
Two inconsistencies between the drawings and the existing house were noted by staff. The drawings currently
show both house and addition with corner trim boards, but the house siding has mitered corners instead. The
existing condition, mitered corners, would be matched instead of introducing corner boards. The existing
hipped roof has a bell-cast eave condition which would be matched instead of the straight slope drawn.
In Staff’s opinion, a rear addition to this house with the current configuration could be considered
appropriate. The new addition is set in from the two rear corners of the house for the distance of the existing
eave overhang as recommended. The window patterning includes single windows reflecting the pattern in
some of the existing windows. While the second-floor windows in the addition show a higher sill than the
existing windows on the house, staff finds this acceptable. Staff finds that the proposal meets the goal of the
Summit Street setback requirement in that the rear wall of the addition will be at about 120 feet back from the
street with the open porch adding six feet, just one foot deeper than allowed. The Quaker Brighton double-
hung windows and the submitted front door would be appropriate for this project.
The applicant’s proposal includes a request for some flexibility in materials. The siding would be wood or
smooth cement board (which is considered an appropriate substitute) with the applicant saying they may
defer to wood because of the mitered corners. For trim, they request the flexibility to use trim or Azek. Azek
is a PVC product that has not been widely approved. It has been approved in some Conservation Districts in
locations in contact with the ground or where moisture is a problem. Because of the composition of the
material and the fact that this is a contributing property in a Historic District without moisture issues, staff
recommends wood trim. For the new porch floor, the applicant has requested the flexibility to use either
treated deck boards or Trex deck boards instead of traditional tongue-and groove porch floor. On a porch in
a Historic District, staff recommends a tongue-and-groove porch floor. The existing exception to allow
treated deck boards installed with 1/8 inch or smaller gaps could be applied to this project. Given the fact
that this is a porch and not a deck and is located in a Historic District but is also on the back of the house,
staff would recommend allowing the treated wood deck boards, or a composite tongue-and-groove floor but
not Trex deck boards.
Recommended Motion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 508 South Summit as presented in the
staff report with the following conditions:
The addition repeats the existing conditions of the bell-cast eaves and mitered corners at the siding
The applicant has flexibility to use traditional porch floor, treated deck boards with 1/8 inch gaps, or
a composite tongue-and-groove porch floor.
Photos of 508 S. Summit Street
Front View
Back View
Garage
Detail
Detail
Detail
Quote Name:Modern Roots- Kivlighan Residence Quote #:SQBTA026211_1
Printed On: 8/16/2021 7:14 AM Page 2 of 4
Line Label Quantity UOM Part Number Unit Extended
1 Family/Mudroom 5 EA Quaker Unit
11
** Viewed From Exterior **
Series: Brighton
Exact Size: 32 X 60 Rough Opening: 32 3/4 X 60 1/2
Color:Black,Paint Type:2604,Interior Finish:Pre Painted White,Fill Nail Holes:Yes,
Glass:EnergyBasic (Dual Silver),Argon Filled,
Hardware:White,Sash:Sweep Lock,
Jamb Liner:Beige,Jamb Liner Cover Exterior:Yes,
Screen:Full Screen,Material:BetterVue (TM),Ship:Ship Screen Separate,
Install Acc:Hinged Nailing Fin,Depth:6 9/16" Jamb Depth,
Unit:1-Double Hung No Plough Exact Size: 32 X 60,NOT Egress,
NFRC - U-Factor:0.31SHGC:0.29VT:0.49AL:≤0.3CR:55
Rating: R-50
Top Glass:Cardinal LowE 272 - DSB / Clear - DSB,Strength:Annealed Glass
Bottom Glass:Cardinal LowE 272 - DSB / Clear - DSB,Strength:Annealed Glass
Overall Rating: DP-50
2 Master/WIC/Bathrm 5 EA Quaker Unit
11
** Viewed From Exterior **
Series: Brighton
Exact Size: 32 X 48 Rough Opening: 32 3/4 X 48 1/2
Color:Black,Paint Type:2604,Interior Finish:Pre Painted White,Fill Nail Holes:Yes,
Glass:EnergyBasic (Dual Silver),Argon Filled,
Hardware:White,Sash:Sweep Lock,
Jamb Liner:Beige,Jamb Liner Cover Exterior:Yes,
Screen:Full Screen,Material:BetterVue (TM),Ship:Ship Screen Separate,
Install Acc:Hinged Nailing Fin,Depth:6 9/16" Jamb Depth,
Unit:1-Double Hung No Plough Exact Size: 32 X 48,NOT Egress,
NFRC - U-Factor:0.31SHGC:0.29VT:0.49AL:≤0.3CR:55
Rating: R-50
Top Glass:Cardinal LowE 272 - DSB / Clear - DSB,Strength:Annealed Glass
Bottom Glass:Cardinal LowE 272 - DSB / Clear - DSB,Strength:Annealed Glass
Overall Rating: DP-50
3 Master Bedrm 1 EA Quaker Unit
11
** Viewed From Exterior **
Series: Brighton
Exact Size: 32 X 48 Rough Opening: 32 3/4 X 48 1/2
Color:Black,Paint Type:2604,Interior Finish:Pre Painted White,Fill Nail Holes:Yes,
Glass:EnergyBasic (Dual Silver),Argon Filled,
Muntin:TwoTone 5/8",
Simulated Meeting Rail, Exterior: 14001 2" Raised (Brighton Stnd) Interior: 5142 2" Raised 3/8" Thick Wood Permanent
Hardware:White,Vent:Turn Handle Crank,Vent:Turn Handle Crank,Ship Hardware:With Product,
Screen:Full Screen,Screen Color:White,Material:BetterVue (TM),Ship:Ship Screen Separate,
Install Acc:Hinged Nailing Fin,Depth:6 9/16" Jamb Depth,
! " #! # $% &'
(" $%$ ) *+ ,+$ +"
%- ./0 #! . 1 % # . $%+ 2 % '/ +"3 $%4
" / 5 ' $%+ 0 5 ' $%# ! (67 %-88 ' 1( 9
0 5 3 0 5 '
) . . +" ./0 6 /0 * +"
./0 ( + : $%5 # ,+
7%
;! $%:$+
+
< 1('' 3 $%13./0 6 /0 ( 9! 4 + 0 5 1)
/0 + # !3
:' + & '
<# ) + :' ( 9 4 + $%#0 :'
5=,6,*> 5 + # 5+
4
.(:? 5 + # 5+ ,+ 4
&*,< 14/ # " ,+ 3 @ 5 + ,+ ) %=!! +A 4
&*,<
B + C> -D
%2% B + # >
# ! !A>
7
-2
? E "+ = +/
4 + =
%
%
7 40
+ ,( 2
!"
#!
$
%&!
%&!
5+ >
( >
) 5"
'
(#
!)
* )#"#)
#!
F# G -%
2% @ =D G - 2%
D4 )
< G 22%
%
% !#++A .+
+
< > /0 $%5 + ' $0 +" A
!
)
=D6< !
)#*
#!%#)
,-
!
Iowa City
Historic Preser vation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA.52240
To Historic Preser vation Commission
From Kevin Boyd, Chair
RE Opt-In Incentives for Local Landmarks
Date September 1, 2021
The City and the Historic Preser vation Commission had been working on exploring a National
Register Nomination since 2017. It hired Alexa McDowell of AKAY Consulting. In late October
2018, AKAY Consulting presented their findings and made a series of recommendations, some of
which have been accomplished, like the National Historic Register Listing. At the October 23, 2018,
work session, the City Council encouraged us to move forward and work through these
recommendations. It directed us to include more conversions,particularly those who have an
interest in Downtown Iowa City.
The Iowa City Downtown District (ICDD) invited me on their board for a year, where I see
up-close all the great work they do and all that they are trying to navigate. ICDD Executive Director
Nancy Bird helped set up several conversations. We’ve had ongoing discussions about preser ving
historic buildings and providing more assets for the stewards of those buildings. Our commission
work plan includes “developing opt-in incentives for local landmarks in commercial zones” as part
of our work.
Recently representatives of the ICDD and I worked together to develop a package of opt-in
incentives that a commercial property owner might receive from the City if they become a local
landmark. It’s a framework, not a complete policy.It’s on the following pages. The Iowa City
Downtown District’s Board voted to support this policy framework (Its advocacy document related
to these issues is also attached). We want the City Council to direct staff to put this framework into
policy that can be looked at and explored with g reater detail. Perhaps in those efforts, they might
discover other programs that exist in other places.
The goal is to create a marketable, easy-to-understand package for commercial local landmarks to
provide resources for the stewards of these historic buildings and give their owners more tools to
preser ve them and make them workable for several generations more.
Iowa City
Historic Preser vation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA.52240
While this was created in partnership with ICDD, this would apply to any commercial local
landmark, not just those Downtown. We have heritage businesses throughout the community that
are part of the fabric of this community.
Anyone who spends time in areas with historic buildings benefits from them - they provide
character, a sense of place, a connection to our shared history. Our heritage businesses are places we
go back to because they mean something to us. This package offers economic incentives to the
stewards of these properties and businesses. But the beneficiaries are the entire community - we get
to help cherished businesses stay open. We help make buildings, some of which have been around
since Iowa City was the State Capitol, last for more generations.
In addition to the ICDD, Friends of Historic Preser vation also supports us in exploring this
framework. This framework is the work of lots of conversationsto create something positive for our
community - celebrating the things we value and share.We’re asking for the City Council to direct
staff to develop these into more specific policies that could and should be reviewed with a stricter
scr utiny than the framework. But we need those details developed by professional staff.
Recommended Motion:
Move to ask the City Council to direct staff to research the attached framework; explore other opt-in
incentives that align with these proposals and goals;and turn them into policy proposals that
appropriate City Commissions and City Council could later review.
Framework for opt-in strategies to preserve local landmarks
Iowa City Downtown District recently did a survey of property owners about historic preservation
- a significant number of respondents wanted additional opt-in incentives as part of downtown
preservation. The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission also recently updated their work
plan that includes “developing opt-in incentives for local landmarks in commercial zones.”
The organizations are working together to meet these goals. Allowing the stewards of historic
buildings more financial incentives in exchange for preserving their buildings. The following
framework was developed in partnership by the Chair and representatives of ICDD.
The City values it’s heritage buildings - let’s incentivize owners to opt-into preserving these
buildings. The community gets to preserve its history.The stewards of these buildings get
resources to make them more workable, profitable,and help preserve them.
Predictability in regulations for those opting-in
Current IC Historic Preservation Guidelines don’t adequately address commercial buildings - the
default is the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines.The City should develop with the Historic
Preservation Commission and Downtown District, develop clear easy to understand guidelines
about what is or isn’t allowed to a local landmark building.
Questions/things to be considered
●What era of the building needs to be preserved?
●Let’s address developments like the College St development
●Signage
●Usability of the buildings, particularly as it relates to climate change.
Guidelines would be for current and new landmark buildings also zoned commercial. The City
should provide adequate staff time and third-party consultant support to ensure they can
reasonably be available to address applications.
Third Party Review
The City should hire a consultant approved by the HPC and ICDD, and reviewed annually, to
approve the historic review of commercial landmark buildings, based on the guidelines
developed by the city and approved by HPC. The consultant allows for more consistency and
predictability and faster turnaround time. The consultant should provide regular updates on
projects its approved to the HPC. Similar to the process the city uses for Tax Increment
Financing projects that undergo third-party review by the National Development Council.
Additional support for existing tax credit opportunities
●Support for state and federal tax credit applications (shared cost)
●Revolving loan for approved tax credits
○Tax credits are realized months after they are approved,in the City should
allocate resources
Property Tax Relief
●Tax freeze to 2018 levels for period of time (10 years perhaps, maybe step increases
during years 8-10)
It should consider other tools to make historic buildings work better today
●Allow smaller elevator footprints in local landmarked buildings, residential sized elevators
still allow accessibility but are more cost effective than commercial elevators
●Preserving existing buildings alone is good for climate change, but we need to make
sure the buildings have the tools to make their buildings more workable. Establish clear
guidelines that prioritize City goals related to sustainability and preservation, especially
where increased levels of natural light meet data-driven social, environmental, and
economic sustainability goals
Incentivize Preservation of Heritage Businesses
●Preservation is about more than buildings. Our heritage businesses are part of what
makes Iowa City a special place. We should find incentives to help support heritage
businesses if owners need support to continue their business for future generations.
September 1, 2021
Kevin Boyd, Chair of Historic Preservation Commission
Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
RE:Advocacy for New Commercial Guidance and Opt-In Incentives for Local Landmarks
Dear Kevin and Jessica,
The Iowa City Downtown District Board of Directors recently updated the official advocacy
statement for the organization and I thought it would be helpful to pass this on to the City’s
Historic Preservation Commission for consideration.The following section associated with
historic preservation is included here:
2.7 Historic Preservation:
In 2017, the City of Iowa City commissioned a Downtown HIstoric Survey to document the
history of the buildings, the people, and the downtown area and to gain recommendations for its
preservation. The ICDD supported one of the Survey’s key accomplishments, which was the City
of Iowa City’s 2021 listing of downtown Iowa City as a National Register of Historic Places. The
survey has many other recommendations that are more complex and could require regulatory
changes related to zoning.
The vitality of properties and their tenant businesses are crucial to the success of downtown,
and achieving a common ground between what is appropriate for the contemporary retail
environment and what contributes historically should be considered. The public process for
establishing next steps for historic preservation downtown should include the ICDD and these
stakeholders. Those who steward these properties currently have valuable information to share
and exchange that will help support a robust conversation about preservation and how to best
achieve it.
The goals of the ICDD will be to explore ways to achieve balance between incentives provided by
the City and any possible requirements of owners with historic properties. The ICDD advocates
for public financial support (such as tax relief) to ensure the costs of historic preservation and
its importance to the entire community is shared.
2.7.1 Incentivize Historic Preservation
In April, 2021, the Iowa City Downtown District conducted a survey of property owners on
historic preservation that demonstrated that downtown stewards are interested in and would be
very motivated by additional opt-in incentives as part of downtown preservation. The Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission also recently updated their work plan that includes
“developing opt-in incentives for local landmarks in commercial zones.”
New Guidelines and Supportive Process
Current Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines don’t adequately address commercial
buildings but utilize the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines as a default. The City should develop
with the Historic Preservation Commission and Downtown District clear and easy to understand
guidelines about what is or isn’t allowed to a local landmark building in commercial areas.
For consideration:
●Allow discretion and flexibility of which historic era of the building should be preserved;
●Establish a framework that encourages preservation as an incentive for collaborative
development processes, with the new College Street development as a leading example;
●Provide clear guidance for mitigation and signage and other educational opportunities
that celebrate the history of the site or preserved building;
●Establish clear guidelines that prioritize City goals related to sustainability and
preservation, especially where increased levels of natural light meet data-driven social,
environmental, and economic sustainability goals.
The program could also consider other tools to support accessibility and make historic
buildings work better today, such as the allowance of smaller elevator shafts in local
landmarked buildings with small footprints.
These guidelines should be directed at current and new landmark buildings also zoned
commercial. In tandem, the City should provide adequate staff time or third-party consultant
support to ensure they can reasonably be available to address applications.
Third Par ty Review
The City should hire a third-party consultant approved by the HPC and ICDD to approve the
historic review of commercial landmark buildings,based on the guidelines developed by the City
and approved by HPC. This use of a consultant in this manner would be similar to the current
process the City uses for Tax Increment Financing projects that undergo third-party review by
the National Development Council.
2
The third party consultant would support a more consistent, predictable, and expedited time
frame - which would address one of the primary reasons stewards of historic buildings are not
interested in officially listing properties. The consultant could also provide regular updates on
projects approved by the HPC.
Opt-In Incentives
Similarly, consider the following financial incentivization for those that Opt-In to local listing:
●Provide professional suppor t for state and federal tax credit applications (shared cost)
●Establish a revolving loan for approved tax credit projects whereby the City allocates
funds early that get paid back by the owner when tax credits eventually are realized from
the state; and
●Freeze property tax levels on newly listed historic properties to 2018 levels for a period
of time (e.g. 10 years or a phased tax increase to assessed market level during years
later years.)
Preserve Heritage Businesses
Preservation is about more than buildings. The City’s heritage businesses are part of what
makes Iowa City a special place. We advocate for the following:
●Create a Heritage Building program that would certify,recognize and suppor t businesses
over 25 years old that are unique to our community to stay viable over time (e.g. Prairie
Lights Book Store).
●Similar to landmark buildings, establish financial programs to help support heritage
businesses continue for future generations.
___ ___ ___
We aspire to work with you and the HPC on these endeavors in the near future and appreciate
your consideration of these opportunities.
Sincerely,
Nancy Bird,
Iowa City Downtown District
3
1
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
July 21, 2021
MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Kevin Boyd, Cecile Kuenzli, Kevin Larson, Jordan
Sellergren, Noah Stork, Deanna Thomann
MEMBERS ABSENT: Carl Brown, Sharon DeGraw
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow
OTHERS PRESENT: Ben Anderson, Mary Kaiser
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the electronic meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. utilizing
Zoom.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
HPC21-0056: 424 Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (multiple exterior alterations)
Bristow said this house has been owned by the same family since the 1940’s and had not been
occupied for a long time. She said it is one of the few Shingle-style houses in town and it has
both shingle and lap-siding, many bay projections, an exaggerated front-facing gable, and
multiple side-facing gables. Bristow said the first part of this application is the demolition and
reconstruction of the rear one-story porch. She said the applicant’s proposal is to reuse the
screen door and stairs, and to turn the addition into a screened porch instead of an enclosed
porch. She said the addition would be set into the corners of the house and have a balustrade,
solid lap-siding, simple square columns, a very low overhang, and piers that would sit under the
rim joist. She said the rear of the house does the 125-foot limit from the street and the addition
extends several feet beyond that, but since it is a reconstruction of an existing historic structure,
Bristow said Staff would recommend making this exception to their guidelines.
Bristow said the second part of this project is the cellar door removal. She said it is a modern
structure and is no longer needed, and the foundation and other structures would be patched to
match the existing.
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 another part of this project is the window opening changes. She said there were
two small windows that were originally in the rear stair and the applicant has agreed to keep the
double hung window as long as it was moved down to align with the head of the adjacent
window. She also said the applicants want to replace the EPDM on the porch roof to match
shingles on the main roof as well as repair the internal gutter. Bristow said Staff recommends
approval of these.
Bristow said some of the windows will have their sashes replaced, which Staff has deemed
appropriate.
Kuenzli asked if the three window sashes and the front gable will retain their same division of
windows. Bristow said they will use wood to rebuild anything that needs to be rebuilt and it will
match the existing. Kuenzli asked if the middle window has a fixed sash. Bristow said she
believes that all of the windows are casement windows, but the applicant could give more
information. Kuenzli asked if the rear window that will be lowered will be a functioning window or
if it will have black glass installed. Bristow said she believes it will be a functional window.
Boyd opened the public hearing.
Ben Anderson, the applicant, said that the middle window is a fixed window and that they will fix
the upper sash on the rear double hung window and lower it so that it will be functional.
Mary Kaiser, a representative of the applicant’s roofer, said that they might run into problems
with trying to match the existing paint color and asked if they wanted to stick with the same color
line or if they were willing to change it. Bristow said the Commission does not regulate paint so
they can paint the house any color, but they do not allow the painting of masonry (the front
porch piers, the foundation, etc.). Kaiser said they have had some difficulty with getting
materials for gutters. Sellergren said she has good information regarding the gutters on her
house and she would be happy to pass along any recommendations or contractor information.
Kuenzli said she also has good information from her home’s interior gutter project that she
would be willing to pass on.
Boyd closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Beck moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 424
South Summit Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions:
framed porch skirting is installed between the rear porch piers and window product
material is approved by Staff. Kuenzli seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
HPC21-0060: 718 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (chimney demolition)
Bristow said this property is a standard two-story side-gabled house with a defined belt course
at the sill line, a small porch, and a modern metal chimney. She said the applicant would like to
remove the standard chimney on the back half of the property because it is not used anymore, it
is not a significant part of the architecture of the home, and it is damaged to the point of needing
a full repair. She said Staff recommends approval to remove the chimney.
Boyd opened the public hearing. Boyd closed the public hearing.
Thomann asked if the chimney would be taken down below the roofline and shingled over.
Bristow said it would temporarily, and that the new owner is planning on re-roofing the entire
house next month. Thomann said she did this same project at her own home due to concerns
over water damage, and they are still having moisture issues within the house today so that is
3
definitely something the applicants would want to take into consideration. Bristow said she
would talk to the owner about that.
MOTION: Stork moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 718
Oakland Avenue as presented in the staff report. Sellergren seconded. The motion
carried on a vote of 7-0.
COMMISSION INFORMATION:
Bristow said they will be transitioning to in-person meetings in August and they will be video
recorded and posted online as part of the new Council directive. She said their plan is to return
to Emma Harvat Hall with the seating provided, but anyone is welcome to wear a mask if it
would make them more comfortable.
Bristow said the Historic Preservation Awards will take place tomorrow night and it will be
available on the City’s Facebook page as well on City Channel 4’s YouTube channel. She said
those who are on the committee should connect to the Zoom meeting a little before 7 p.m., and
also be prepared to introduce themselves live as opposed to having a pre-recorded video.
ADJOURNMENT:
Sellergren moved to adjourn the meeting. Kuenzli seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 7:20
p.m.
4
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
NAME
TERM
EXP. 11/12 12/10 01/14 01/28 02/11 03/11 04/08 05/13 06/10 7/08 7/21
BECK,
MARGARET 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X
BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X
BROWN,
CARL
6/30/23 X O/E X X X X X X O/E X --
BURFORD,
HELEN 6/30/21 X O/E X X X X X X X -- --
DEGRAW,
SHARON 6/30/22 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
KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 X O/E X X X X X X X X --
LARSON,
KEVIN
6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X
PITZEN,
QUENTIN 6/30/21 X X X X X X O/E X X -- --
SELLERGREN,
JORDAN 6/30/22 X X X X X X X X O/E X X
STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X
THOMANN,
DEANNA 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- O/E X
WU, AUSTIN 6/30/23 X X X X O/E O/E O/E X X -- --
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
August 12, 2021
MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Kevin Boyd, Carl Brown, Sharon DeGraw, Jordan
Sellergren, Noah Stork, Deanna Thomann, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Cecile Kuenzli, Kevin Larson
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Develin Matthews, James (Jim) Pinkerton
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
HPC21-0072: 114 North Gilbert Street – Jefferson Street Historic District (chimney removal and
reconstruction as veneer)
Bristow said this brick house is a Front gable and wing house and was constructed just before
1900. She said the porch was mostly rebuilt (without a permit) and most of the columns and
rails were taken away. She said there is an approval to reinstall the original columns and rebuild
the railings. Bristow said the project also includes rebuilding all of the internal gutter pans and
installing a new standing seam metal roof as well as removing the modern dormers. She said
the current project is the deteriorated chimney, which needs to be rebuilt in order to be retained,
which she said is an extremely difficult process. She said the applicant put in a request to take it
down to the roofline and rebuild it with a cement-board product to make it look like brick. She
said the applicants also brought in samples of the potential material and colors to show the
Commission. Bristow said the other option would be to use thin brick and mortar, which the
applicant has calculated will weigh more than using the cement-board product.
Boyd opened the public hearing.
Jim Pinkerton, the applicant, said that the chimney is actually dangerous because it is split down
the roofline and has both vertical and horizontal cracks. He said the plaster coating and mortar
broke the brick apart and putting anything too heavy onto the aged roof would require the
reinforcement of rafters, which is why he prefers the cement-board material over the thin brick.
Wagner asked if the chimney was currently being used. Pinkerton said the chimney hasn’t been
used in 10-15 years and everything inside the house is modernized (including the hot water
heater and furnace).
Develin Matthews, the maintenance technician at John’s Grocery and a colleague of
Pinkerton’s, said they saw extensive damage surrounding where the chimney meets the roof
2
cap during inspection, and there are concerns about using the thin brick due to the added
weight, plus the reinforcements that would be needed for the aged house.
Boyd closed the public hearing.
Sellergren said she does not think that a non-functional chimney needs to be rebuilt, so she
would be in favor of entirely removing it or rebuilding it so that it would match the authenticity of
the house. Thomann said she was in agreement with Sellergren. DeGraw and Boyd agreed.
MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the chimney
demolition at 114 North Gilbert Street. DeGraw seconded. The motion carried on a vote of
8-0.
HPC21-0072: 120 North Gilbert Street – Jefferson Street Historic District (chimney removal and
roof replacement)
Bristow said this house is a Foursquare with a gabled wing to the south and is a key contributing
property. A ramp has been added. She said the chimney is an unused, deteriorated, utilitarian
chimney, and Staff does not feel that it is architecturally significant in any way and recommends
removing it.
Boyd opened the public hearing. Boyd closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Sellergren moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the
demolition project at 120 North Gilbert Street as presented in the application. Beck
seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
DISCUSSION OF THE SUMMIT STREET MONUMENT ASSESSMENT & CONSERVATION
OPTION PLAN:
Anne Russet, with Neighborhood and Development Services, said this agenda item was an
opportunity for the Commission to discuss the next steps for the Summit Street Monument. She
said they consulted with Atlas Preservation last year, and they gave options for restoration
although they do recommend relocating it indoors to a climate-controlled environment. Boyd
asked why there was a two-year gap between when the report was dated and its current
presentation to the Commission. Russett said that they had planned to reach out to potential
museums or places that could house the monument. She said they have yet to do that but
decided to move it forward regardless. Boyd asked about cost estimates for the project and how
they could get them. Russett said they currently do not have cost estimates, and they would
have to hire another consultant to put together those estimates. Boyd asked if they could apply
for grants to help with that. Russett said there were a few applicable grants that they could
pursue.
Beck asked how time-sensitive the project is and if they waited another couple of years if there
would be visible deterioration on the monument. Russett said she didn’t know if she could
answer that, but they did hire Atlas Preservation because it was already in bad condition.
Bristow said she thinks it will continue to get exponentially worse once as the surface continues
to degrade.
Boyd said that one of the things the Commission is trying to do in accordance with their work
plan is to invest in public infrastructure and facilities. Bristow said the DAR wants to be involved
if anything happens, since they put the plaque on the structure.
3
Thomann asked if adding a shelter would help preserve the monument if moisture was the main
issue. Sellergren said it could be a lovely addition but she doesn’t know how practical it would
be.
Boyd said they could talk to Kuenzli (who represents the Summit Street District) and reach out
to the DAR about a partnership for the grant/potential costs and then revisit the status of the
monument in a few months.
DISCUSSION OF THE MONTGOMERY BUTLER HOUSE:
Russett said this agenda item was an opportunity for the Commission to discuss next steps for
the Montgomery Butler House. She said the City purchased this property in 1995 when they
expanded their water treatment plan, and in 2001 a study was completed on how to preserve
the building. She said the main option/preference from the study was to reuse the property as a
historic site and interpretative center for the public. She said last year the chair of the
Commission wrote a memo to the Commission requesting that Staff help them form a working
group to develop a path forward. She said staff members from multiple departments went out to
the site earlier this year and noted that there are some constraints: the building is accessible
from the trail but not the parking lot and it is not connected to sanitary/sewer water. She said
one of the solutions discussed by Staff was recommissioning a part of the house as an
interpretive art project closer to the trailhead, like a shelter or park amenity.
Boyd said that he wrote the memo, but it was requested by and had the backing of the entire
Commission as well. He said that there was also another working group that met in 1996 to
discuss options for the Montgomery Butler House, and the City Council agreed in 1997 to
accept an agreement of stabilizing the house in the short term and later renovating it.
Russett said they could work together to craft a memo to the City Council requesting the
formation of a working group with representatives from different departments for this project.
Sellergren said she thinks the house could be a wonderful public space and is all in favor of
moving forward and gathering public input to support it. Beck asked if there was any more
information about the archeological resources at the site. Bristow said she would look into that
and see what she could find. Beck said the University of Iowa Department of Anthropology is
always looking for local field study opportunities for students, and she thinks the department
would be very interested in collaborating on that. Thomann said she thinks there is also some
worth to this site regarding farming history. DeGraw said they should craft a timeline so that
primary priority projects are clear, and so Council does not make them choose between one or
the other. Boyd said he thinks they should keep pushing the City Council on all fronts, since the
Montgomery Butler House is a city-owned property.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review
HPC21-0057: 324 East Church Street – Northside Historic District (garage repairs)
Bristow said that windows on the garage needed repair and some soffits needed repaired.
HPC21-0052: 817 East Bloomington Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District
(front porch stair reconstruction)
Bristow said the applicants are replacing the steps partially with a handrail on one side.
HPC21-0059: 816 East College Street – College Green Historic District (roof shingle
replacement)
4
Bristow said this house just needed its roof shingles replaced.
HPC21-0063: 824 East College Street – College Green Historic District (roof shingle
replacement)
Bristow said this house also needed its roof shingles replaced.
HPC21-0065: 1022 East College Street – East College Street Historic District (replacement of
deteriorated porch floor, column bases, siding, and trim)
Bristow said the wood trim and porch floor of this house is being repaired, and it will potentially
be repainted in the fall.
HPC21-0066: 1036 Woodlawn Avenue – Woodlawn Historic District (replacement of
deteriorated porch floor, column bases, and railing)
Bristow said the porch boards in the curved portion need to be replaced and that they will match
the existing which radiate from the corner.
HPC21-0067: 935 East College Street – College Hill Conservation District and Local Landmark
(roof shingle replacement)
Bristow said the roof shingles needed to be replaced. She said they included in the approval to
retain and reinstall any of the metal ornaments that they can.
HPC21-0069: 811 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (fascia repair and replacement,
foundation stucco repair)
Bristow said the rake boards on the front of the gable are heavily deteriorated at the ends, so
the ends will most likely be cut off back further from the end and new ones put on to match.
HPC21-0070: 704 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (modern porch column
replacement)
Bristow said this is potentially one of the oldest houses in the area, but two of the modern porch
columns are deteriorating and will be replaced with new modern columns.
HPC21-0073: 418 North Gilbert Street – Northside Historic District (newel post replacement)
Bristow said the newel post for the steps will be replaced to match.
HPC21-0077: 324 East Jefferson Street – Jefferson Street Historic District (roof shingle
replacement)
Bristow said this is one of several houses that will be re-roofed.
Minor Review – Staff Review
HPC21-0050: 617 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (porch floor, stair and stair railing
replacement)
Bristow said the porch steps and the floor were replaced on this house.
HPC21-0061: 742 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (roof shingle replacement)
Bristow said the roof shingles were replaced on part of this house.
HPC21-0068: 1111 East Burlington Street – College Hill Conservation District (porch floor and
floor structure replacement)
5
Bristow said they are replacing the entire porch floor and floor structure due to rotting, but they
are retaining the columns and the railing.
Intermediate Review – Chair and Staff Review
HPC21-0055: 435 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (minor change to previous pool
COA)
Bristow said this house got approval for a picket fence and an above-ground pool long ago, and
now they are looking at putting in an in-ground pool using the same fence.
HPC21-0058: 429 Ronalds Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (non-
historic outbuilding demolition)
Bristow said this was a university partnership house and the previous owner got approval to
rebuild the porch. They also built a two-story outbuilding structure without a permit. It was
eventually approved by the Commission, and the new owner wants to take it down.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JULY 8, 2021:
MOTION: Sellergren moved to approve the minutes from July 8, 2021. DeGraw seconded.
The motion carried on a vote of 8-0.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
The Commission formally introduced themselves to each other because there were so many
new members and this was the first in-person meeting for more than a year.
Providing Input for American Rescue Plan Act
Boyd said he looked at their work plan and listed out the projects that are in need of more funds
and resources, such as: increased staff time for the Historic Preservation Commission, the
Historic Preservation Fund, investing in digitized resources, using City resources to stabilize and
protect historic resources, using form-based code for transition areas surrounded by historic
districts, adding more resources to the university-home partnership, and incentivizing opt-ins for
the public. The Commission supported Boyd’s proposed ideas.
Mid-year Work Plan Review
Boyd said he wanted to include this item in the agenda for the new commissioners to look at as
well as if there was any more discussion to be had regarding the work plan.
COMMISSION INFORMATION:
Bristow said that because of the work of a summer intern, they now have preliminary
information regarding the Kirkwood Avenue area if they ever want to do a more intensive survey
of the future. Boyd asked her to share that with the Neighborhood Association.
ADJOURNMENT:
Sellergren moved to adjourn the meeting. DeGraw seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 6:45
p.m.
6
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
NAME
TERM
EXP. 12/10 01/14 01/28 02/11 03/11 04/08 05/13 06/10 7/08 7/21 8/12
BECK,
MARGARET 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X
BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X
BROWN,
CARL
6/30/23 O/E X X X X X X O/E X O/E X
BURFORD,
HELEN 6/30/21 O/E X X X X X X X -- -- --
DEGRAW,
SHARON 6/30/22 X X X X X X X X O/E O/E X
KUENZLI,
CECILE 6/30/22 X X X X X X X X X X O/E
KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 O/E X X X X X X X X -- --
LARSON,
KEVIN
6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X O/E
PITZEN,
QUENTIN 6/30/21 X X X X X O/E X X -- -- --
SELLERGREN,
JORDAN 6/30/22 X X X X X X X O/E X X X
STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X
THOMANN,
DEANNA 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- O/E X X
WAGNER,
FRANK 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
WU, AUSTIN 6/30/23 X X X O/E O/E O/E X X -- -- --
Date: August 30, 2021
To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
From: Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director
Re: Historic Preservation Survey
Management staff of the Neighborhood and Development Services (NDS) department conducted
an informal survey this summer for those who own property in Iowa City’s historic or conservation
districts and those who own a designated landmark as well as the contractors who provide
construction services for these properties. To staff’s knowledge, the City has never surveyed or
asked for feedback after a district’s designation to provide input about the benefits or issues that
property owners may experience. Various concerns have been voiced to City management over
the years by contractors and those living in the districts about difficulties experienced when trying
to complete exterior renovations or why they did not pursue renovations. The surveys gave an
opportunity for property owners to provide feedback about the historic preservation review and
approval process.
At the April 8, 2021 Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting a subgroup of members,
including the HPC Chair, volunteered to review the survey before distribution. The HPC members
who reviewed the draft surveys requested that the surveys be written in a neutral way to try not
to influence the results. Due to this, most of the questions are open-ended. The questions and
the responses received are attached for your review.
Over 1,200 surveys were mailed to property owners and over 90 contractors were contacted by
email. The City received 134 owner and 24 contractor responses. The surveys were not intended
to be scientific, but rather aimed to help staff gain insight into what property owners and
contractors felt worked well and what elements of the historic review and approval process could
be improved. Staff noted the following takeaways from the responses received:
• Realtors were most frequently cited as the source for learning their home is in a
historic/conservation district.
• Many cited preservation of the character of the homes and neighborhood as the best part
of living in a district.
• Common themes for those who reported issues include the need for more staff time to
reduce review times/provide faster responses, more flexibility with material selection and
the cost of proposed improvements. Many respondents also indicated difficulty finding
qualified, responsive contractors.
• Contractors most frequently identified affordability and energy efficiency as home
improvement goals that have proven to be difficult to achieve due to historic preservation
requirements.
Based on the responses received, staff plans to make the following administrative changes to the
historic review process. The majority of changes will allow the Historic Preservation Planner more
time to focus on the reviews that are more technical, complicated and/or larger in scope and will
incorporate other NDS staff to assist with limited reviews under the guidance of Urban Planning
(our historic preservation staff).
1. Routine re-roofing requests in historic districts will no longer be processed by the Historic
Preservation Planner. Re-roofing projects are largely straightforward reviews that can be
processed by other staff trained by the Historic Preservation Planner.
September 2, 2021
Page 2
2. Housing Inspection/Rehabilitation staff, as requested by the Historic Preservation Planner,
will assist by completing site visits to make determinations on level of deterioration for
applications requesting the replacement of exterior features such as windows and siding.
3. The Planning Intern will provide more assistance with photo documentation of buildings,
as requested by Planning staff.
4. Staff will improve how Certificates of Appropriateness (COA) are written to include more
specific detail on what is approved (e.g. materials) to provide more clarification to the
applicant and reduce additional coordination after approval.
All of the above actions will help address concerns noted in the survey about the review time. The
changes will allow the Historic Preservation Planner additional time to focus on more complex
applications by having other professional staff absorb routine requests and conduct some of the
site visits.
Other actions that will be initiated by staff based on the survey responses include ongoing efforts
to work with the Iowa City Area Realtors Association to educate realtors on the location of the
City’s historic and conversation districts, as well as their benefits and requirements. Staff will also
continue updating our list of contractors who work on historic properties as new ones are
identified.
If City Council or HPC want staff to initiate a further review of any section(s) of the Historic
Preservation Guidelines, staff will incorporate this item in our workplan. As review of a section(s)
of the Historic Preservation Guidelines can be time intensive, staff will not initiate a review unless
there is interest to review and possibly adopt new guidelines by City Council and/or the Historic
Preservation Commission.
cc: Historic Preservation Commission
Historic Preservation Property Owner Survey - July 2021
Q1.
When you purchased your home were you aware it was in an Iowa City Historic or Conservation District or designated as an Iowa City Historic Landmark?
134 Answered, 0 Skipped
Yes, 57.46%
No, 42.54%
Q2.How were you made aware of your property's designation? 76 Answered, 58 Skipped
City's Annual Notification Letter to Owner, 6.58%
City's Website, 6.58%
Contractor, 0%
Neighbor, 11.84%
Realtor, 39.47%
Other, 35.53%
If other, repsonses included previous owner, signs/placards, lived in prior home in district, family, city staff, news articles, don't remember
Q3.
Property owners are encouraged to use Iowa City's Historic Preservation Handbook for guidelines and requirments before making exterior repairs or
renovations. Have you (or a contractor working for you) consulted the Historic Preservation Handbook or contact Preservation staff to discuss a project before
making repairs to your home?
129 Answered, 5 Skipped
Yes 80.62%
No 19.38%
Q4.
Have you ever applied for a building permit or contacted City staff to discuss a project that needed historic review in order to complete exterior renovations
(siding, window, doors, porch, etc.)
130 Answered, 4 Skipped
Yes, 61.54%
No, 38.46%
Q5. Please explain what worked well. 70 Answered, 64 Skipped
1 Easy to reach out via email for answers to questions about projects.
2 Talking ahead of time with HPC staff; working with the contractor to make sure he was staying in touch with the HPC about the plans; presenting the plans to the HPC board.
3 The representative was available by phone so that helped to speak with someone
4 It was all pretty easy.
5 All of it.
6 It was pretty easy to navigate. Commission was great. Staff was helpful.
7
The historic committee representative responded to questions in a timely manner. We received interesting information about the original appearance of our home. The end
result is beautiful. We were able to achieve most of our goals.
8 The guidelines are clear. Staff was knowledgeable to help us figure things out.
9 Excellent advice and contacts for contractors!
10 Both parties worked to find an agreement.
11 Not a lot, really.
12 Being able to submit photos and documents electronically was helpful.
13
It was much easier to make historically appropriate modification after the guidelines were in place. We have owned the home before the district. My partner knows a lot about
historic preservation and has been able to shepherd the process so we have been able to get some thing approved by staff, but I am unsure if everyone can do that as easily
since they are not as knowledgeable about the process.
14 The request for permission was eventually accepted.
15 Honestly the process was so convoluted and difficult that we almost gave up and we almost decided not to do any improvements at all. Terrible process
16 skylight installation in rear of house, approximately 2013
17 We were able to come to some consensus about the overall plan and look.
18
Nothing. I find the whole process to be burdensome, frustrating, and pointless. I had to replace the rotted wood soffits with WOOD - which, no surprise here, is now rotting
again. No one walking past our house stops to admire the "historically accurate" wood soffits. The Historic Preservation Commission imposes unnecessary and expensive
burdens on property owners. I will never buy another house in a "historic preservation" district based on my experience here.
19
The project didn't rise to the level of Commission review, only staff review was required. The entire process went smoothly and without a hitch due to staff's extensive
knowledge and professionalism. The manual produced by the City/Commission is also very useful.
20 The handbook was helpful and the staff were responsive
21 It seemed easy. The woman we worked with was so helpful. Made the process easy to understand.
22 All of it really - Jessie was great to work with. She helped me a ton. Overall - easy
23 In general, rules were clarified which was useful.
24 Explanation of what needed to be done
25 Speaking directly to the person in charge of the HPC (Jennifer?). Her explanations were helpful, and she was pleasant to speak with.
26
I owned my home prior to it becoming part of the "conservation" district. It's not historic and yet I must get permission/permits to change anything on the home. For example -
I wanted to replace the 60 year old wood windows. When I called your office several years ago they said I could ask permission to put on vinyl windows but your office
preferred I keep the wood window (which are energy inefficient). I could find no one who wanted to deal with the 19 windows I needed to replace at a cost of approx. $1000 +
dollars a window. It's cost prohibitive for a single mom, working half time, which I was at the time. And then try to find a carpenter. Every project becomes a burden, and
though I like my neighborhood, when I explained to a gentleman in your office at the time, that I was unable to afford what refurbishing wood windows he said, and i quote -
"maybe it's time for you to sell your house". So in general I've had no great interactions with those who are supposed to be helpful.
27 Received good advice and help with plans. Commission was reasonable and flexible. Inspectors were knowledgeable.
28 Honestly, the preservation commission members (in 2003?)did not impress me as very qualified, or confident in their decisions
29 We were told we could not put siding on. Had to maintain paint. Sort of disappointing.
30
All of it really. Easy to understand, staff was great to work with. I’ve gotten approval multiple times. My only complaint was the most recent when I had to use a city permitting
system - it was not user friendly and hard to navigate.
31 It's a relatively easy process if what you are doing is conservative.
32
We had an outside stairs that was in disrepair, the really cold winter previously had damaged it more than anticipated. Primarily we had used a lot of salt on the steps and they
were rusting away very quickly. We had to replace them and it was a pretty seamless process. It didn’t take long to get the approval. We were really grateful for the
partnership in making it happen so we could make the steps safe again for our tenants.
33 Communicating with preservation staff. Review by commission. Clear info in handbook and via staff.
34 Staff is helpful.
35 The Historic Preservation Commission was very helpful in ensuring a kitchen addition reflected the original Arts and Crafts style of our home.
36
The Planner had some good design suggestions for our addition and assisted our contractor in drawings and the historic review process. The Planner provided a letter for our
insurance company outlining the City requirements for siding replacement that was hail damaged.
37 ability to submit email attachments. ability to meet face to face with city staff to finalize acceptable options
38
Received direction from Historic Preservation Planner on how to proceed and was given some ideas for maintaining historic nature of property in line with the improvements
we were seeking to make
39 I had no problem working with the Historic Preservation Committee. Things got done one a timely basis even though it was during Covid.
40 City employee, Jann Ream, was very helpful.
41 because requested change was not historically significant, the response came back quickly.
42 Not much.
43 Jessica is very helpful and pointed out what to do and how.
44 Very little.
45 We replaced our windows. The person we contacted at that time was easy to work with.
46 the on line material is easy to access (but not being required to do this extra step would be simpler)
47 so long agoI don't remember details
48
Nothing. Historic Preservation Staff was condescending, and unhelpful, and basically told us we could not replace the ancient, damaged windows on our home. I received a
lecture about the "imbedded energy" in old windows, and how landfilling them would be a travesty. It should be noted that I have worked in solid waste management and
environmental science for over 3 decades. I was also told that our windows should be repaired and doing so would be the energy conservation equivalent of installing new,
custom period-appropriate windows. The staff person I spoke to, Jessica, indicated that she was familiar with our home, and knew the contractor who had flipped it. She also
indicated that the Historic Preservation Board had a member who did window restoration, the inference being that repair would be given preference. We ended up replacing
only the windows on the 1970s circa addition of our home, after our contractor told us it wasn't worth the fight to replace the windows in the original structure even though we
were willing to pay for the best custom windows available. We pulled the appropriate permit from the City , paid the fees ,and had the allowed work done. The DAY AFTER the
job was done, the tax assessor was on our porch, wanting to inspect. Thus, our taxes went up and we still have leaky, damaged, ancient windows throughout the original part
of our home. We have noticed since that both Longfellow and Horace Mann Schools have BRAND NEW windows as part of their recent renovations. This sort of municipal
hypocrisy makes us deeply regret our decision to return to Iowa City to retire. We paid over $350,000 for our home, and realize now that being in a conservation district is a
detriment to both our attempts to save energy, and be held as equal to other entities in City government. Epic fail.
49
Staff was very helpful explaining the guidelines and point out how to best achieve our project. The advice provided actually saved us some money and resulted in a better
repair project.
50 Received good guidance on how to proceed and what parameters we needed to work within. Staff was very knowledgeable.
51
We investigated applying for some of the grants that were available possibly for replacing the windows and exterior siding which are all well worn. The staff was very helpful
and informative but we havent had a chance yet to revisit the idea but may do so again in the future.
52 Sorry, I don't remember.
53 I don't really remember. I guess our questions got answered...
54 builder was acquainted with the process.
55 Jessica Bristow is very helpful and responsive, and the process is simple and straightforward.
56 Staff were very helpful working through the process.
57 it was a simple replacement of a porch footing so it could be done with a Certificate of No Material Effect
58
Not much: regulations seemed again and again to push us to pay more for less energy-efficient solutions, even in situations where no one would see the renovations from the
outside.
59 It was pretty straight forward. Filling out the form online and being able to check the progress was great.
60
We built a deck on the rear of house. Following review, we were asked to modify several design aspects. Outside of having additional time added to completion, the process
seemed to work okay
61 Design options were shared with myself and contractor and final choice approved in advance of work.
62 Took time to complete.
63 Everything worked well. Jessica has been very helpful on several occasions. The permit application process was easy.
64 I contacted the HPC about adding a handrail to my front steps; they gave me contractor suggestions and approved our design. All happened quickly and smoothly.
65
Whenever we have a project, we call Jessica Bristow. She comes over, we talk, and then we submit a plan. Consulting with historic preservation people BEFORE contracting
work is the key.
66 The streamlined process for minor modifications works very well. The HPC was considerate and even affirming on a major project we did.
67 Eventually my deck and screen porch project was approved because my contractor knew how to navigate the rules amd meetings.
68 Prompt response to our request to install skylights
69 I appreciate living in this neighborhood and am hoping that these letters I'm getting and this survey indicate that the City intends to start enforcing these policies.
70 Having all information online.
Q6. Please provide your suggestions for improving the historic review process. 65 Answered, 69 Skipped
1
The handbook is overwhelming, kind of technical, and not especially helpful as a basic starting point when considering projects. Would be helpful to have a simplified "cheat
sheet" with some really basic information about what to consider, what is fitting, what isn't, what to ask contractors, etc.
2
I would like the HPC to be a tad more flexible about allowing certain kinds of renovations that will keep the area vital while not radically impacting the historic authenticity of the
residences. For example, I've heard that requests to remodel garages (while preserving the look of the building) have been turned down. I think this is problematic, because
cars — and sometimes larger vehicles like SUVs — are a fact of contemporary life, and remodeling a garage while keeping its exterior in conformity with the house will only
increase the resale value of the house and make the neighborhood more attractive to future residents. Similarly, newer roof materials ought to be approved if they don't
radically alter the look of the house. I would strongly urge a more pragmatic approach to requests from homeowners, with a view to preserving not only the historic architecture
of the area but also the ongoing vitality of the neighborhood. I'm not saying that the HPC should allow everything — far from it. I do think that historic preservation is really
important. I'm just asking for a reasonable degree of flexibility, especially regarding outbuildings like garages.
3 Maybe an if/then flowchart or infographic but simplified to illustrate what HP property owners need to consult for and why
4 More staff time. My neighbor told me you all are cutting staff. Please don’t.
5 The city website to apply is awful - get rid of that.
6 More staff time. Help with tax credits.
7
I have owned my home in the Longfellow Neighborhood for 15 years. It was purchased as a starter home, and eventually could not accommodate my growing family. We
considered moving to a larger home in a newer development, but these all lacked the historic character, proximity to services, and walkable neighborhoods which we had
come to love. Instead, I undertook an extensive renovation project on my home, bringing it up to current building standards and expanding the living space. This experience
lends me perspective on this issue, and I would make the following suggestions: First, make the process more accessible and transparent. Prior to my remodel, I personally
informed all my neighbors as a courtesy. Many expressed their surprise that such a project was possible, and shared stories of projects postponed or abandoned due to
concerns about conforming to the historic preservation guidelines. I had an excellent team of architect and contractors with experience working within the historic parameters.
However, not all homeowners need or can afford a team for their project. The perception that the guidelines are limiting or non-inclusive deserves to be improved. Second,
update the guidelines to fit this progressive community and to encourage diversity in our neighborhoods. The character of old homes is a drawing feature, and worth
preserving. However, our homes should be allowed to move into the modern era in terms of technology and energy efficiency. For example, the guidelines initially limited
replacing our broken, rotting windows with contemporary insulated windows. The guidelines should be adapted to reflect our responsibility to reduce energy consumption, and
to support a stable climate. In another instance, my elderly father-in-law who lives in the same neighborhood requested permission to install a wheelchair ramp due to his
declining mobility. The guidelines limited his options to an extremely long ramp which would not allow him to transfer from his vehicle to the house in a feasible manner.
Guidelines like this would appear to discriminate against the differently-abled. In many cases, homeowners want to tackle small projects, but discover that completing them
within the guidelines requires much more work than expected. The cost can rapidly outpace the long-term financial gain for homeowners, which leads families away from these
neighborhoods. I am extremely happy with my home, and thrilled to remain in the neighborhood I love. I would like to see other families be able to do the same, and to see
these homes adapt to keep our neighborhoods beautiful for another 100 years.
8 It's been a long time since I've used the historic review process. From what I remember, things went smoothly.
9
I think some people are frustrated because they don't understand what can/cant be done and how to get help from the city on this. The city seems to lack sufficient staff with
sufficient knowledge to be able to help.
10 Faster responses. Sometimes we’d email staff and they were out of office.
11
Do not require such detailed drawings before approval. Many of us don’t have the money, time, or connections to get the level of details that are asked for to gain approval, yet
we are asked to invest money and time in something that may not be approved. Makes it very difficult to move forward on a project.
12
I support the goal of historic preservation but question why changes that are obvious improvements are rejected for being non-conforming. I think the process could be
improved by weighing the goals of preservation with the necessity of making non-conforming property improvements. For example, my next door neighbor has not allowed to
install a parking pad on the alley behind his house. As a result, he keeps multiple vehicles in his driveway. In order to take one of the vehicles out of his garage, he has to use
my driveway or move two to three cars out of his driveway.
13
I'm not sure which house it is that I own that's currently (apparently?) in a HP district? But I used to own a house that was in a HP district, a house that was in no way, shape or
form historic. However because of the district I was held to a historic standard that placed undue financial stress on my ownership, despite it having no relevance whatsoever
to the house itself. That, I found, was totally unnecessary and not useful to the overall goal of the HP goals.
14
Update the code / guidebook to reflect modern times. There are so many new options for things and the guidebook is super outdated. And please give us more point people at
the City. We only had one person we were working with, and so many things got stopped or discouraged and we felt like there was no one to turn to, because we were given
no options for next steps.
15
There is a lack of professional construction knowledge within the commission. Rulings made without consulting experts and licensed architects and in several cases go against
expert onion and best building practices. Reviews for even replacement with like materials require fees and lengthily reviews. Recommendations by staff and commission
often go well beyond the scope and wishes of the applicant, and in most cases cost, time, and basic feasibility are not considered. All of this makes us wish we had never
purchased a home in a historic district.
16 I didn't find a good way to appeal for exceptions, or a pathway to influencing/lobbying for changes.
17
Review entire process to allow owners to make improvements for sustainability, energy efficiency and to tear down, if needed. Many homes have outlived their usefulness and
need to be replaced. We are currently looking at moving because we are middle aged and planning ahead to age in place. We would love to stay, but current ordinances will
not allow us to adapt our home. The City should encourage the tear down of certain homes to allow for redevelopment and reinvestment in close in neighborhoods
18 The staff rarely answer the phone or respond to email/questions posted on website.
19 It might be nice if you didn't have to wait so long to get approval from the board. Some projects might just need singular approval.
20
See my comments to the prior question. Be realistic. Allow people to make renovations that are energy efficient (i.e., replacing windows, having solar panels) and that do
nothing to "detract" from the historical nature of the neighborhood (i.e., using a material other than wood for soffits).
21 No suggestions for improvement whatsoever. Based on our household's experience as well as the experiences of our neighbors, the review process works well.
22 None.
23 More access to the woman I worked with. Her email had her hours on it and we should have more of her.
24 More Jessie!
25
The directions and the form DO NOT MATCH one another. The directions tell you to look for headers that don't exist. There are no instructions for what is meant by or
required for "a plan." Clearly, no one who creates or manages these webpages and documents has ever user-tested them!
26
Provide someone to guide a remodel process, so the homeowner or contractor isn't required to be aware of all your rules and work w/ the homeowner's budget. I understand
the that Iowa City is a wealthy city, but not all of us are wealthy, and able to afford the remodelers who want deal with all the historical preservation rules. I was in this
neighborhood prior to the implementation of historical preservation rules and it would be helpful if your office could provide names of contractors who understand the rules you
have implemented and want to work in historical neighborhoods.
27
Zoning should be form based as this recognizes heights and features of historic structures. List of qualified contractors/skilled craftsmen and painters should be made
available. Recommendations for climate friendly preservation repairs or updates should be sent as part of annual letter
28 Interview prospective commission members to find out what their approval range is
29 More staff time - the Historic Preservation Commission is leading and the city staff isn’t there to support its work. Please allocate more staff time to preservation work.
30
I am not convinced that the guidelines at this point do enough good to warrant how restrictive they can be for new additions or ADUs for instance. We want to preserve what
we have but we do not want to live in a museum. The HPC overlays cover most of the core neighborhoods at this point, which puts it at odds with other important City goals
related to density/missing middle/etc. We need to figure out how we honor the integrity history and particular scale and massing of the neighborhoods while also allowing them
to evolve. I'd rather see additions that fit with the scale of the neighborhood but maybe even contrast in material than to see faux attempts. Let the new chapters of the
neighborhood be written in either the older language of materials, sure, OR newer ones to. These things can coexist, beautifully sometimes.
31
My greatest challenge is the notion that an original picture of the property must exist before an alteration is allowed. We have a building that was altered from it’s original state
many years ago, and it’s ugly. I’d like to find a similar building- built around the same year and the same architectural type, and partner with the historical society to agree on
changes. There are not always old pictures and just leaving it ugly because there are no original photos doesn’t make sense to me. I think we should be able to consider
similar buildings that currently exist that have not been altered and would be representative of what it might have looked like, and use it as an example.
32 Increase hours for preservation staff person
33
Provide options that are clear, easy to understand, and won't take an attorney and several experts to understand what can and can't be done. If any changes take on an
element of hassle or more work than deemed valuable, it won't get done. and improvements will be put on a "back burner"
34
Resources for new property owners would be very helpful--it's not easy to find contractors who do good work on historic properties, especially if you're new to town. Even a list
of all the contractors who did work on the homes that won awards in the past year would be helpful.
35 Many, Many, Many more staff members. Provide Design Assistance, Provide Cost Estimation Help, Provide Contractor help, Provide Coordination with State Preservation.
36 I thought all went well, so I am happy with how the historic review process currently stands.
37
The Planner seemed to have great discretion in determining the smallest details of our project. While these were presented as required elements, it was later apparent that
they were only suggestions.
38 make contractors more aware of HP guidelines.
39 Increase turnaround time
40 I didn't have any problems or issues with the process.
41 Guidelines are too restrictive, e.g., roofing.
42
I appreciate the intent behind the historic review process, and I understand it's potential value. But in practice, the process is unnecessarily complicated, onerous, and
expensive. Often, it was more important to appease the Historic Preservation Planner (HPP), rather than follow the guidelines as outlined in the handbook. On several
occasions, I proposed something that fit within the handbook and even at times proposed something that was suggested earlier by the HPP, and then was met with resistance
by the HPP who had a different (and much broader) interpretation of the handbook or had changed her mind about a previous suggestion. Our goal with our home renovation
has always been to improve the quality of our home in keeping with its original design, which included bringing a non-compliant part of the home back into compliance. But the
HPP insisted on several changes that reflected a personal preference rather than a handbook requirement, adding thousands of dollars to our project. Fortunately, I am in a
financial position to absorb these costs, but I know there are many others who are not able to do so. For a city as racially and economically segregated as Iowa City, the city
needs to rethink whether and how the historic preservation district system (as constituted and as practiced) fits within the city's larger goals of equity and social justice. Our
city's values should be measured in the outcome of its policies and practices. Looking at the demographic makeup of our historic districts, it is clear that we are failing that
test.
43 Website is not very user friendly. It would be really helpful to have a list of suggested contractors by skill area.
44
The process was incredibly hazy and overbearing. I'm an expert in construction and design so I understand how things work in this realm... probably better than the City staff I
was dealing with. Very little was explained to me and reasoned out. When I did try to go through the channels that were required, it still seemed like rules changed, much was
merely conjecture or opinion, and that many of the decisions made were not based on sound building science. The historic review process needs to be incentivized and
treated like a partnership. Instead it feels bloated and like a pigeon-holing into the preconceived notions of a few individuals who fancy themselves historic experts but are not.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION SHOULD BE ABOUT FORM AND FUNCTION NOT ABOUT PRESERVATION OF DATED AND INEFFICIENT/INEFFECTURAL MATERIALS.
45
get rid of it! It's the opposite of an incentive to maintain my house. The rebates or grants are a nice attempt, but the amounts (potentially,) available are almost laughable
compared to the actual cost of work.
46 Keep up the good work.
47
Staff needs to learn to LISTEN, and not lecture or presume. The City should not hold homeowners to historic rules or requirements that the School District, City, County,
University or commercial developers are not held to. Historic preservation should not trump energy conservation. There should be NO member of a city board or commission
that has a direct financial relationship with the entities being regulated. Board members with conflicts of interest should be required to recuse themselves on those votes where
they have commercial interests involved.
48 Keep up the good work. Knowing that our neighborhood will be preserved overtime has encourage us to invest in our property.
49 There was nothing problematic for us during the process any of the times we needed a review.
50
The process seems fine but when we last checked the number of times per year that applications were review were only a couple so if that has not changed, adding more
dates for review might aid in the timeline for projects. Also, we live in a neighborhood with many rentals and many of the landlords really do not keep up their property at all so
it does seem strange that there is a more involved review process if someone wants to improve their property but very little pressure from the city when itinerant landlords are
more than delinquent on maintaining their property. Our neighbor's house is 18 feet from ours and we have never met the actual owner in the 8 years we have lived there and
the property is very much an eyesore (poison ivy in the bushes, tree limbs on the roof left for years, eves that are non-existent or unconnected to drainage systems and pour
directly onto the adjoining property causing more water in the basement, and a constant inflow of new tenants with a constant outflow of cannabis smoke making the kids in the
neighborhood think there is an infestation of skunks). Thanks for letting me rant even if any of this is beyond the control of those who are reading it.
51 I have no suggestions. I think it works very well right now.
52 Online form?
53 rewrite the guidelines so they could allow for modern technologies but still preserve historic design.
54 Guidelines should be reviewed every two years with new energy efficient materials considered for use in older homes to improve their longevity.
55 I felt I had to repeat myself in the form about what was needed to be done. It was took a long time time get approved!
56
We have other work on the house we would like to have done, but finding someone to do small to medium sized repairs within the framework of the guidelines has so far been
elusive. I suspect this may be the reason why remodeling project in the neighborhood were not always submitted for board review.
57 Contractor expressed concern over work stoppages and delays (on other projects, not mine) due to awaiting approval from HP.
58 Of course, it would be nice for home-owners if you needed less information, because it takes time to collect it and provide it. But your requests seemed reasonable to me.
59 None
60 Encourage people to consult with historic preservation BEFORE doing a project.
61
Make the historic preservation guidelines and building permits process easier to locate on the website. Possibly do a segment on one of the weekly video updates explaining
the process to new homeowners. Make sure realtors are telling people they are moving into a historic district or at least explaining the fact that some neighborhoods have
more requirements that also provide substantial benefits to property owners.
62 I’m not sure what’s been done since I went through the process 8 years ago. At the time the wait time was really long for approval.
63 None needed
64 Make sure everyone uses the process and follows the rules
65
We had to take the plans, drawing, materials list, etc. physically down to the City admin bldg. This must not have been available to submit online? And then the person it was
given to forgot to pass it along, so we had to call and follow up for approval. Thankfully, it wasn't anything that had to be reviewed by a committee, so after we did all that, the
final approval was quick. But it did temporarily hold up the project and seemed more trouble than necessary.
Q7.
Did you need the additional assistance of a professional (building contractor, architect, etc.) to help you through the historic review process (selection of
materials, design of improvements, etc.)? 77 Answered, 57 Skipped
Yes, 59.74%
No, 40.26%
Q8. What type of professional did you use? 42 Answered, 92 Skipped
Answers included: Contractor, architect, repairmen and historic preservation consultant
Q9. Have you considered, but delayed making exterior repairs or improvements to your home? 126 Answered, 8 Skipped
Yes, 63.49%
No, 36.51 %
Q10.Please explain the reason for waiting to have the work done. 77 Answered, 57 Skipped
1
Hard to know what to priortitize, needed to get money from the bank, needed realtor's input, painters didn't want to take on the job, then it all just takes time to coordinate and
get folks lined up for the work (storm windows, roof, exterior paint job).
2 I need new windows because they are rotting. I know that it must meet guidelines and they will be quite expensive.
3 The work is not imperative, and the cost is prohibitive. So we're waiting until we absolutely have to do it.
4
The guidelines are very strict as is the expense for following the guidelines. We cannot change the front door to a more energy efficient as the cost is very high when following
the guidelines. An ordinary front door cannot be used. One would have to be special ordered, etc. There are many other outside repairs that should be done but cannot due
to strict guidelines and costs. Therefore we 'band-aid' the repairs for now.
5 Supply and demand
6 You miserable autocrats won’t let me.
7 Money, extra expense of the Historic Landmark designation.
8 Covid
9
There aren’t enough quality contractors in Iowa City - too many don’t return calls or emails. Or don’t turn around estimates. And only a few truly I’d trust to work on my historic
house.
10 Too many Iowa City area contractors are hostile to work with. They do not have an understanding of how to repair historic houses.
11 City staff were no help in finding contractors who knew how to do the work.
12
Inability to use alternative materials that mimic approved in appearance. The inability to create desired outcome due to amount of area owned by city and Historic property
regulations, despite other properties in same HP area having same. Etc
13 I have several storm windows I need to repair. I know how to do this work, but finding the time is difficult.
14 Finding quality and responsive contractors in Iowa City is a challenge. And several seemed sexist and not friendly to historical homes.
15 Money!
16
Conservation rules seemingly increase the cost of repairs (ex: wooden window replacement) , limit ability to make the house more green (ex: solar panels, roof insulation, etc)
and the permitting process is daunting.
17 Money.
18 Prohibitive cost of “historical” repairs
19 It’s insanely expensive
20 Literally can’t move forward without hiring someone, don’t know who, or for what, really. Drawings?
21 $
22 My contractor has let me know that he is not willing to go through the preservation process again because it was too time consuming.
23
The whole process was so confusing, and we felt we were being actively discouraged along the way. The guidebook and the committee seemed to be in place to stop us from
doing anything, honestly.
24 We did not make improvement to the house due to lengthy HPC process and limited options.
25
We have had put off most of the maintenance and repairs on our home because HPCs demands are in opposition to the best practices and recommendations from
professional builders and architects
26 It was for storm windows and I waited to understand all my options, including replacing the windows with high-efficiency windows.
27 See previous answer
28
See response to my prior questions. I find the review process to be frustrating, cumbersome, annoying, and unnecessary to the preservation of anything remotely resembling
history.
29 Contractors here are unreliable. I can’t believe it! No one returns calls or meets appointments.
30 Thinking about it.
31 1) Because I've heard horror stories of how unreasonable the Commission is, and 2) I couldn't complete the forms.
32 See answers to prior questions.
33 Budget
34 Not because of the commission, mostly for not being sure how to deal with a bad choice the previous owner was allowed to make
35 Cost.
36
Too many Iowa City contractors don’t understand historic homes. There aren’t enough preservation-friendly contractors. I’ve had to wait to find one. Or I’ve spent too much
time meeting folks who tell me things that aren’t good for my historic home.
37
It is expensive to build to historic standards. It's what I want to do, to honor the past (rebuilding a demolished front porch, for instaance) but especially if you need to hire the
work done, there just aren't a lot of skilled people around anymore capable of doing things to historic standards, which means the remaining folks that are doing it are quite
high end. It means it is a challenge for those lower on the income spectrum to live in these neighborhoods. I do the work myself for this reason but clearly not an option to
most folks.
38
Sometimes is the conflict between wanting to make improvements and then dealing with my perception of a lack of common sense and frustration in going through the
approval process. It is a hindrance, it adds layers to the process, and it can be very exhausting. I know that’s not always the perception of the Historical staff but it is the
perception of many of the residents who own a building in the area. And the difference in the cost of a window that’s has 1 1/4” trim from a 1 1/2” trim is $15,000 per window.
So easier just to keep the old windows and deal with leaks- but then there’s rotting and decay- honestly it’s a lose- lose when common sense doesn’t apply and it’s all about
what was original. I think there needs to be balance with affordability and will anyone really care that the trim is 1/4” different? It’s still beautiful and it isn’t rotting away.
39 cost. finding qualified contractor.
40
Combination of things. Right now, all tradesmen/women are super swamped. Also, it is kind of a hassle to know what is required for approval and what is not. I can read and I
think I can read well, but there are times I can't make out what the handbook means. When this confusion happens, I then have asked via email before and I always get a
quick answer--but the hassle sometimes makes me put off work
41 COVID-19
42 Too much "red tape" is involved to get a project off the ground.
43
Covid-19; uncertainty about who to contact for what for specific repairs to a historic property (we'd like to do it well and not have to pay someone to do a poor job a second
time).
44 Cost
45
Because I didn't want to get in trouble with the city for doing what I wanted to my house. Don't like the fact that some person at the city can dictate what I want to do to MY
house.
46 I need to paint the south side of our home, but it's on a steep hillside, so I'm dragging my feet somewhat.
47 Financial
48 Cost, having to develop a plan an put it thorough the commission,
49 Wood is rotted through on porch. Need to submit information to the Historic Preservation Committee and wait until contractor has time to repair.
50 Not in Iowa City Area to jump through all the hoops necessary to have projects considered.
51 my property is nonconforming
52 Just recently purchased home. Delayed rear porch improvements knowing it would take a review and probably some extra time.
53 Because working through the historic review process is so onerous.
54 no funds
55
My windows (vinyl from 1998) are broken beyond repair. The extra step of needing to get approval from the Historic Preservation committee has kept me from replacing the
upper story windows.
56 Expense of historic items
57 Unnecessary cost to do silly things and the lengthy and bloated review process.
58 cost
59 Hassle. Regulations that punish those with the best of intentions.
60 Just moved in, I needed to understand how the space flows. I contacted one contractor but I haven’t got a reply yet.
61 No one available to do the work
62
Very expensive to have new windows put in since they are costly in the first place but it would require copletely removing the existing windows and surrounding wall and then
much more work to replace the wall so as to set in new windows. The current original windows are extreemly inefficient but we have considered just adding updated storm
windows to help with that. Until then we have just put plastic on the inside and outside (at least for the windows not facing the street). If we did have the money we would hope
that there is a calendar of review session at least 4 times a year (there may be that many now but when we did it last I think there were only 2 review sessions).
63
There are rental properties all around us and they are in terrible condition. If we spent $30,000-$50,000 on the improvements we'd like to do, we are afraid we would never be
able to get that money back in a sale because the houses around us are so trashy. Can anything be done about the terrible rental properties around us?
64 have thought about solar panels but wondered if that would be possible. Not far enough along to test the application
65 $'s
66 When presented to historic district the requirements for replacing windows were extremely costly.
67
Worrying about having to get quotes and then knowing I had to wait until approve or if there are suggestions of what might not be approved, which can take months before we
can agree to actually do the repairs
68 Old double hung windows. Enough said?
69 Complying with some of the historic requirements is quite expensive which prohibits project completion.
70
Cost is a factor. Contractors are backed up due to the derecho. The application process for the preservation funds takes extra effort and I want to be certain I have everything
in order. I needed to wait until the next funding window to apply for monies. Plus I need to prioritize areas of focus.
71 Cost
72 Cost, availability of people who could do the work according to historic preservation guidelines.
73 Locating contractors
74 Unclear about process and pessimistic about long wait time and cost of materials I would have to use to meet the requirements
75 Procrastination & lack of desire to jump thru the hoops
76 Cannot afford the windows required by historic preservation, though house had aluminum siding installed before that designation
77
Mostly due to finances, but there is also the consideration of whether materials/choices will be limited and how much additional work it will be to file the historic documents and
how much that will impact the project schedule.
Q11. Please indicate what type of work was considered. 74 Answered, 60 Skipped
Answers included: Siding, windows, including storm windows, paint, roof, exterior doors, garage, new addition, porch restoration, fencing, solar panels, foundation repairs,
deck, shed, handrails, accessibility remodel, steps, breezeway, ADU, landscaping, driveway, gutters, masonry, general repair.
Q12. What do you believe is the greatest benefit of living in a historic or conservation district? 113 Answered, 21 Skipped
1 The beauty and charm of the neighborhood and that the people around you find value in it as well.
2 A collective belief in well-maintained properties.
3
First, the beauty of the homes — you just don't see lovely, regal architecture like this in newer areas. Second, the history of each residence — it's wonderful to learn about who
lived there in the past, especially in this City of Literature. Third, a very special type of person buys a house in a historic district, so we're forged a close-knit community of like-
minded people.
4 None
5
None. I will never do it again. At least not in Iowa City. You put them in a known historic bldg (Horace Mann elementary) but the gestapo will not let me put them in mine. My
participation in this community ended with that arbitrary and capricious decision.
6 The quality craftsmanship and character
7
The protection of the district means I know what types of buildings will be built in my area. For decades Iowa City let those with money destroy my neighborhood and built
subpar buildings. Now my neighborhood is protected from the developers who don’t care about the quality of the neighborhood.
8 It's a unique piece of information to share with friends and family. It also makes me feel a little more connected to my neighborhood.
9 Unlike other parts of Iowa City where the City encourages wasteful demolition and development on natural lands, these neighborhoods are Green and full of character.
10 Theoretically, the benefit should be that new buildings aren't overly out of place where they're built.
11 I don't know what the benefits are? That the individual houses can't get torn down so a sky rise will be built, I guess?
12
The greatest benefit to me is the overall feeling of being a part of my community. My children and I can walk the well-planned neighborhoods under the shade of old trees, and
can easily walk downtown, to school, to a shopping center, etc. Additionally, we are close to emergency services, 24-hour pharmacy, groceries, and other services.
13 The neighborhoods feel authentic!
14
the variety of homes, built at a small scale, from old materials (i.e. maintaining buildings), with established trees. The paint colors are far more varied than siding. The
neighborhoods were designed for people, not cars.
15 As if there’s just one! Iowa City tears things down. Living with neighbors who are mindful about the environment and not adding to the landfills. The quality of life is better.
16 Preservation of history, sense of place, beauty!
17
Theoretically if protects the character of a neighborhood (especially in a college town). I can't necessarily agree that newer housing built in the last 10-15 years adheres to the
neighborhoods character or ascetics.
18 Home value.
19 Location, otherwise not sure there is one
20 More negatives rather than positives.
21 None
22 The property holds its value
23 Preservation of character
24
It is wonderful to live here, but there are many instances where structures or rules have been approved around us. Now that we have a project, it seems that we won’t be able
to do the same things others have.
25 none
26 I appreciate seeing the houses around me and the feeling of the historic nature of my neighborhood.
27 The character of the homes and the walkability to downtown and schools.
28
We live here for the community, the people, and the proximity to downtown. We do not live here for the houses, and especially not for whether or not they meet some set of
"historic" guidelines
29 Character! Plus local history
30 None. We purchased the house based on its proximity to schools and downtown, not because of it being in the district.
31 Retaining the character of the neighborhood
32 Prestige
33 Overall consistency with history, attention to detail, thoughtfulness.
34 The neighborhoods are walkable and close to downtown and UI.
35 Preservation of properties.
36 The character of the neighborhood is the greatest benefit.
37 We have great neighbors. But I'm not sure that has anything to do with this being a historic district.
38
The certainty that our neighborhood will not be transformed into the incoherent wasteland of housing that is exemplified by the past 45 years on Dodge, Johnson, and Van
Buren streets south of Burlington. I define "incoherent wasteland" to mean the widespread use of inappropriate building materials, additions to buildings that are out of scale to
the original structure (aka Frankenstein houses), poorly done construction, lack of design standards on new construction, etc. Historic and conservation districts provide a
level of confidence and predictability about the exterior character and condition of the structures within those zones.
39 Well-kept homes and consistency of quality and pride in home ownership
40 Iowa City tears down too much and I like living where they don’t.
41 The character! We love it. Please keep them.
42 Can't use a design out of style with neighborhood.
43
Not sure. I like being close to downtown. But I cannot see that the commission has dealt with the fact that neighboring houses have made changes (like a brand new deck)
that do not preserve the sense that the house was built in the 1800s, but rather looks like a 1950s house.
44 Preserving my home and possible help with home repairs.
45 proximity to downtown and diversity of house style.
46 Contributing to the history of the community by maintaining an historic structure.
47 Keeping people from wrecking the character of an older house by ruining it with cheap modern materials
48 Fantastic neighborhood, very eclectic, big trees.
49
Keep areas from teardowns and replacements with structures that do not fit the neighborhood. Security knowing your neighborhood is protected from development not in
keeping with residential neighborhood
50
I know I can invest in my property with certainty about what is going to happen with my neighbors’ properties. I know they won’t be demolished for buildings that don’t fit the
neighborhood. I know they won’t be allowed to remove original siding. I’ve seen the guidelines work to make my neighborhood more livable and protect my investment.
51 Neighborhood / community. An architecture (front porches, proximity of houses, green space, etc) that promotes walking and conversation between neighbors and strangers.
52 No benefit other than historical homes are expensive to maintain so it’s not economically diverse.
53 preserving the original architectural features and charm
54 Allowing an introvert like myself to have sometime to talk about when new people stop by and look at the historical sign out front.
55
Knowing my investment, sense of beauty, quality of life, historic appreciation are protected and buttressed by neighboring homes in district, and thus my stewardship,
supported by district requirements, adds much to Iowa City.
56 maintaining some history in buildings...
57 It has encouraged family ownership
58 Neighbors can't tear down/renovate w/out review. Better looking neighborhood. Higher property values. Access to tax credits.
59 It's not a benefit its a nightmare.
60 Being surrounded by, and taking part in the preservation of, historic and beautiful homes.
61 Protection of older homes from being torn down and replaced by McMansions
62 sense of time (history), diversity yet cohesiveness, sense of neighborhood
63 Character
64 I enjoy the unique old housing styles and the neighborhood character in historic districts
65 A unique sense of place that isn't cookie-cutter suburbs, a connection to the both the historical and local community.
66 The charming beautiful old houses.
67 I am a lone house on the street. I truly find it difficult to have to deal with all the rules and regulations that other houses in the neighborhood don't have to deal with.
68 no benefit for me
69 Maintaining the beauty of the homes and neighborhood.
70 consistently cared-for houses
71 Love old Iowa City. Maintaining a part of it.
72 I love the neighborhood feel -- old trees, schools and shops within walking distance, proximity to downtown.
73 seems to build equity
74 Never getting around to fixing anything because you miss the deadline for the approval meetings.
75 Preserving high quality and interesting homes. Make our city unique and provide a sense of history.
76 The beauty of the neighborhood.
77 The beauty and unique nature of old houses.
78 none
79 walkable, and proximity (close to downtown)
80 Consistency, stability, value of ownership, consensus
81
Theoretically, preserving historic structures. But given that the University and School district seem to be exempt from these rules, the only benefit i see is that our homes can
enrich those members of the Historic Resources committee that profit from forcing citizens to use their services.
82
I don’t like tan houses that all look the same. I also like walking the dog down alleys. I grew up in a historic house surrounded by boring 1970’s houses. (East Davenport st) it
always took away from the house. So although I didn’t seek this neighborhood for being historic it’s looks appealed to me.
83 Sustainable neighborhoods that will stand up overtime and will pass on quality materials, craftsmanship and historic beauty on to future generations.
84 integrity of beautiful old homes is maintained
85 location to work. lots of shade trees.
86 Well, I would think historic, well-taken-care-of homes, but that is not true, unfortunately.
87 Just the knowledge that just not anything can be slapped up on a house, etc
88 The character of the neighborhood
89 home upkeep is generally good. Before there was a historic district many houses were torn down to build apartment buildings that don't age well.
90 It keeps the neighborhood esthetically pleasing and maintains stability and strength in property values. It maintains the character and uniqueness of Iowa City's history.
91 no development
92
This is a really complicated question for me. When we bought our home in 1987, the Longfellow neighborhood was not a historic district. All of the exterior changes we made
were done before it was designated. I know some of the changes (like the new casement windows we put in would not be allowed under the current guidelines. I went to the
neighborhood meeting when designation was being proposed and I feel much was glossed over. The horrible apartment building on Iowa Ave had just been built and it was
presented to us that designation would prevent something like that being built in our neighborhood. The reality was, of course, that the general zoning designation - RS-8 - was
enough to prevent that from happening. I honestly do not see the benefit of living in a historic district. In many ways, the guidelines contradict stated goals of the City . We
require contractors build to Leeds certifications but property owners in Historic districts are not allowed to replace the original inefficient single pane windows with modern
efficient windows even if they are wood and architecturally historic design. Original windows have be so rotted that they are deemed beyond repair before approval is given for
replacement. I do not think that is fair to homeowners who are willing to put in high quality historically designed windows (at much extra expense) . All they want is an energy
efficient home. Other guidelines are also problematic and really do nothing to protect the historic streetscape. I have watched my neighbors grapple with these issues ever
since the district was put in place.
93 The obvious: the maintenance of some sense of community history and architectural history.
94 Maintenance of property by most owners.
95 There is not one, it makes it difficult for homeowners who would like to maintain and keep up their home.
96 That all the houses in the neighborhood is held to the same standard to help with my house value and overall appeal of the neighborhood.
97 I like the stability. I like the feel of the neighborhood. I like knowing great dislocation and a high rise apartment house will not be built on the block. I like preserving older things.
98 I appreciate the older architecture and old growth trees.
99 Preservation of styles not found in modern building
100 Beauty of the area, pride in ownership. and support from city
101 Aesthetic, contributing to value of the property
102 The charm that comes from retaining some historical aspects of houses
103
Beauty, value, and stability of the housing stock, and the fact that being in a district tends to discourage rentals and/or other occupants who don't care about upkeep and
maintenance.
104 The pleasure of beholding the architectural qualities of the surrounding homes and the surrounding trees.
105 it's a wonderful neighborhood
106 beauty
107 Neighborhood stabilization and preservation of existing small house building stock.
108 Preserving existing homes
109 Character of the neighborhood
110 If it were enforced, I believe it would help keep the neighborhood looking nice and increase property values
111 Well maintained homes. Now, large houses being bought by families with younger kids to fill them up.
112
It is a lovely community, and by definition, is close to downtown, of course. So it's convenient for tenants. (Our duplex is not original to the neighborhood, nor do we live
there.)
113 I have more confidence that unbridled development will be limited and any significant changes to the neighborhood will have an additional level of oversight
Q13. Is there anything you would like to add, suggest, or further explain? 87 Answered, 47 Skipped
1 I'd just like to enter a second plea for a little more pragmatic allowance of necessary updates so that people who live in these districts can have easier lives in the 21st century!
2
Loosen the strict policies so we can afford to make the improvements. We love that these houses cannot be torn down in order to make way for large, ugly, new apartment
buildings and the quaint neighborhoods, but new windows, rather they be vinyl or wooden, new siding whether vinyl or wooden....shouldn't matter as long as the houses are
well taken care of .
3
You will kill the soul of what was a vibrant college town by hiring untrained and uneducated people to mandate arbitrary decisions about how home owners ( my house is NOT
historic, only the neighborhood) can improve their houses while allowing sleazy modern high rises to replace the entire heart of the city. Not one person with an ounce of
education , intellect or authority has ever come to my home to listen to my plans or explain their view. I hope you have a similar experience at a home you also had hoped to
be your last. Now I have to move to Wisconsin when I retire.
4 Protect more building from the landfill.
5 How many historic buildings downtown are we going to lose before you all decide to do something?
6 I wanted to clarify that I haven't talked to the city about approving any projects because I haven't attempted to start an projects.
7 More staff time for preservation staff.
8
The point of historic preservation should be to preserve the architecture and character of a neighborhood, not to fix it in amber. There's nothing wrong with new building
materials or techniques if they don't significantly change a building's visual character. Also, accessibility and environmental needs should override historic preservation
guidelines--more homes should have solar panels and energy efficient windows, and if someone needs a ramp to their front door they should get it, no matter how it looks.
9
I wish I felt certain things would have a better chance of being considered if brought up. Bamboo, instead of chain link fencing. Composite decking, that looks like painted
wood. Community gardens. Etc
10 I wonder if a window glazing workshop might take off. Neighbors could get together to learn or help others with putty work on old storm windows.
11
Historica preservation should be used for historic neighborhoods but not as an all purpose tool to try to stabilize neighborhoods which have many rentals. Historic preservation
needs to be promoted for everyday houses as a way to conserve resources and having something that can be fixed. I want a wide variety of history preserved - not only rich
white people. We need to make sure historic districts have a variety of people living in them - which includes renters. We need to make sure there is flexibility to ensure large
houses could be divided to be multi-family if needed, while retaining the character of the exterior. And please make sure people know this is not about paint colors, interiors, a
tidy yard patrol, or a home owners association for the privileged.
12
Yeah. Stop pretending Iowa City cares about climate change when you all allow demotion of buildings-particularly historic ones. New “green” buildings aren’t as green as the
ones already built. If you care about climate, you must care about preservation.
13
It will be increasingly difficult to attract younger and new hone owners to the neighborhood as the historical homes become less desirable due to efficiency, home layout, and
prohibitive rules
14
Strange survey. What is the point. How about questions like this: “Has the historic preservation made it prohibitively difficult for you to make basic improvements?” “How easy
is it to work though the historic preservation approval process…” ETC
15 No
16 No
17
I don't understand the process for additions to property clearly. A neighbor has a single car garage on an alleyway (cannot be seen from the street) that is falling apart. When
asking if he could tear it down and replace he was told no, he had to "restore it"--a cost that is much more than rebuilding a new single car garage. However, a house on the
corner of Summit and Benton just built a HUGE eyesore of a double care garage with what looks like an apt above it right on Summit street (one of IC's most beautiful historic
streets). It looks terrible and detracts from the historic neighborhood designation of Longfellow. How on earth does that get approved and my neighbor's garage replacement
not approved? It seems that the approval process is subject to a "who you know and how much money you have" instead of what is reasonable for a home owner and what
truly maintains the character of an historic neighborhood..
18
If you want the neighborhood to thrive, you need to let homeowners make sensible decisions for improving their property. If it is too hard -- and we believe it is, because of the
historic preservation committee -- homeowners will not bother to go through the process and the home will become dilapidated. A thriving neighborhood depends on ease of
repair and improvement. We feel the strict rules actually harm the neighborhood.
19 Stop tearing down downtown.
20
Homeowners should have the ability to opt out of being in the district. The commissioners are not knowledgable about the subject matter. The process is subjective and not-
transparent.
21
We would like to see more acceptance of professional contractors and architects recommendations. We would like HPC to use the leeway provided within the existing
guidelines to accept the use of modern building materials that capture the character of homes but allow them to be affordably maintained. We would like to see the
commission and staff consider affordability and efficiency with the same importance as preservation. Finally, we would like a streamline the review process so that routine
repairs and maintenance (roofing, window replacement, repair of railings etc.) are approved in a fast and automated way when identical materials are used so applicants do
not have to wait weeks to months for approval.
22
I believe some of the standards should take in to account more modern materials which are better for the environment. Specifically, windows. I would love to see the rules
written in a way that hold a certain standard for aesthetics while allowing for newer materials, Here's an example: I renovated a house and had to keep the original single-pane
glass windows. I know it would have been possible to exactly match the look of the original windows while using modern double-pane insulated windows. The benefit would be
a much more energy efficient house. I believe if the owner is willing to bear the cost of this then it should be allowed.
23 The historic neighborhoods seem to have become segregated by race and income. They seem to only attract white upper middle class owners. Why is that?
24 My neighbor did not Asher to guidelines. Evidently there is no penalty for not doing so?
25
I feel most people that choose to live in a historic district do so because they appreciate the overall cohesiveness and charm of the neighborhood. I think many would choose
to do work to their house that reflect that appreciation - not necessarily needing approval or guidance from a historic preservation commission. I also think that the
neighborhood should be able to evolve with the times. Houses may need to be modified in a way that allows them to function in today's world.
26
I think there is an unfortunate element of "classism" (I'd hate to say racism, but maybe that, too) that is truly at the root of these types of property designations. In this age of
inequity and injustice, it might be time to stop "preserving" all this history.
27
I think that we as a city should be very proud of the fact that we have a highly-functioning Historic Preservation Commission and well-trained and committed staff who assist
property owners with meeting our historic preservation standards. Should the cost of maintaining these standards be a concern, the City of Iowa City could provide financial
assistance (for example, tax incentives or grants) to promote preservation efforts.
28 More resources about history online.
29 My IC historic neighborhood is the best. Please keep it.
30
Yes. There should be a greater distinctions between historic and conservation neighborhoods. We considered buying a house in a conservation neighborhood that was a fixer
upper or a complete tear down. We didn't because the burden of dealing with how the city said we'd have to deal with it was too costly even though we would have improved
the neighborhood and assessed value. The neighborhood north of downtown has a lot of dumpy houses that buyers might fix up more or replace with more viable homes if
people had more reasonably costs options for maintaining the character of the neighborhood. There should also be more accommodations made to renovate homes to be age
in place homes and to use reasonable cost effective replacement window options. It is not friendly to people with physical mobility issues to demand an unattached garage
away from the house with Iowa winters and all ages should be welcome in all neighborhoods. I also do NOT want form based zoning in the Goosetown or neighborhoods
downtown and do NOT want triplexes and quad plexes popping up on corners.
31 NO
32 see prior answers.
33
To encourage major work on the exterior of historic homes, the Neighborhood & Development Services Department should work with the City Assessor to provide property tax
relief
34 I would like the city to volunteer to remove metal or vinyl replacement siding of off homes in the historic districts. And have the siding underneath repaired and painted
35
There should be the ability to make property changes that increase the value and aesthetic but not necessarily replicate the existing structure historically. For example, a
century old house should get approval for a contemporary addition that is good design and works with the existing elements of the structure but not recreate it to replicate the
exact original. It does however need to be reviewed and approved that it meets good design and integration with the original.
36
More staff time. It seems like the city is trying to choke preservation by limiting staff time. I’ve heard neighbors say how much like like working with city staff, they just need
responses faster.
37 would appreciate resources for finding qualified contractors who are knowledgeable about historical preservation.
38
I don't appreciate the spies who live among me and surreptitiously watch me and pass on notes to the historic preservation society. I did something as simple as put some
little marker flags in my yard once to mark the underground fiber cable and I could not believe the questions I got about just what I had planned to do at those flags!? One lady
came clean that her neighbor was a spy for the preservation and then all the questions made sense.
39
Like many good things, preservation is not about immediate, short-term gain. Preservation and sustainability go hand-in-hand; think embodied energy, everybody. And imagine
Iowa City without districts! The loss of character, link to the past, and of homes built with quality materials is unfathomable.
40
Common Sense should rule. Consideration for the project and if it would have any effect on the history of the area...some projects should be allowed to be done, with out the
burden of extra paperwork, forms, documentations, etc
41 I would like to see solar panels excluded from need for approval or facilitated for approval by the city.
42 More HP staff. More City Engagement. More City Investment.
43 Yes, stay out of other peoples business and let them do what is right for them not for some people who don't even live in the house.
44 Thank you for helping preserve the beauty of our historic neighborhoods.
45
Our home is in a Conservation District and our property has been designated as "non-contributing". Yet the Planner seemed overzealous in requiring things like the method for
siding corners which added doubled the original estimate for labor and added significant expense to our project. Near the end of the project we were told that we needed to
dye the foundation materials so as to "age" them to a similar color of the original foundation, When I questioned how to accomplish that I was referred to another contractor
who had the same requirement in the past. When I protested that we were already well over budget & could't afford additional expense, she stated that she had no ability to
inspect our project upon completion and wouldn't know if we had done it or not. At times the goal of the "requirements" was to highlight that our project was an addition. For
other elements the goal of the "requirements" was to smoothly blend the addition into the existing home. This was confusing, seemed capricious and conflicted with our use of
the addition interior. I felt at times that the Planner wielded too much discretionary power over the homeowner, but there was no one to whom to appeal. I also felt that I
couldn't afford to contradict the planner mid-project and just needed to be as compliant as possible. I feel that there needs to be a clear distinction between "suggested" and
"required".
46 moved into house before established as a historic district, but we supported historic district designation
47 Would be nice if we could replace old rotted windows with more energy efficient windows.
48
Just because a house is old, it doesn't mean it is of historical value. This property has no gingerbread moldings, beautiful porchs, leaded windows.... It is a small two
bedroom 1900 nondescript cottage type house. Being held to strict historical rules limits renovations that would improve the appearance of the home, rid it of asbestos
shingles and it of unused addition. The house across the street that too is a lone wolf can't change the exterior tar paper type fake brick to something that would be much more
appealing because it never looked like that in the past. Ridiculous. Ugly is ugly. Let owners have some leeway and discretion on making changes as long as they are period
appropriate and made with acceptable materials.
49 less regulation on non conforming propertirs
50 No.
51
Please exercise caution in sharing responses with the HPP and the commission. I worry that I could be identified and that would have an adverse effect on my ability to get
approval for future projects.
52 I love this old house. With a little hard work it could really be something.
53
I have found this process difficult. A better online system, or person to contact, or something more efficient would be helpful. I respect and understand the thinking behind the
rules. However, I have trouble with not being able to make repairs to elements of the house that are not original to the house. It does not make sense to me that newer parts of
the house (i.e. late-1990's windows on a midcentury house) cannot just be replaced with current windows.
54
A homeowner should be held to the standard that is in place when a property is purchased. If a more restrictive standard is put in place then there may need to be a financial
grant to help the homeowner meet the higher standard.
55 Would like relators to have to disclose a district to s possible homeowner.
56
This process HAS to change and HAS to get better. As it currently exists the HPC process in Iowa City is a discriminatory process that allows wealthy white folks to control
the housing stock through their own, often misinformed desires. Housing preservation needs to be about keeping the form and function of historic properties not about
preserving old, worthless, and ineffectual materials because it makes some people happy. Preserving old windows that don't function well doesn't make sense. Keeping 100+
year old siding that has served it's functional use doesn't make sense. These things aren't reducing carbon footprint, they are increasing it by utilizing TONS of materials,
labor to repair things that barely work and maintaining low efficiencies on houses energy use. If we're going to go by the City's new climate action plan AND preserve old
housing stock this MUST change. People can't afford to do much of what is in the rules and even if they can, those rules are worthless. Allowing people to do historic homes
in the way that they look, and fill a need, is far more important. People should be able to gut homes and created net-zero versions of the old look while replacing all of the
materials that have served their useful lives.
57
I live in the Northside. The following is for all of the Historic Districts, but the Northside specifically. I am also a remodeling contractor that works on historic homes. I
was excited to hear a Historic Preservation survey would be conducted by the city, but I am disappointed how it is being conducted! Your letter begins with "Great news!" and
then proceeds with four bullet points touting the benefits of the Historic District. This results in “response bias.” I’m guessing feedback will be low. And I’m guessing many
people won’t waste their time responding to something they know will not change. Seeking accurate responses from homeowners should start with a well-designed survey that
does not include framing the survey in a leading way. In addition, the correspondence should be an opportunity to educate homeowners about what owning a home in the
historic district means. Currently having a home in the historic district comes with a set of challenges that outweigh the advantages. These include financial challenges to
homeowners as well as sustainability challenges to the materials and homes themselves. Neither of these make sense if the goal is to preserve a valuable neighborhood in
Iowa City. I do not live in a historic district only because of the historic character of the houses. I live here because it is a well-designed, walkable neighborhood with many
advantages for sustainable small city living; close to amenities including services, a public school and the University of Iowa. Yes, it would be a shame to see widespread
disregard for the historic value of the houses in the neighborhood. Some have good design and have been well maintained. Others have simply served their time and require a
level of maintenance and/or renovation that are not feasible for homeowners. To maintain our historic districts long term and make them inviting for homeowners, guidelines
and procedures should be able to be updated to accommodate important considerations that are not included now. Considerations should be allowed for energy efficient
components in existing homes and tear down of homes that are beyond realistic repair. If a historic district is established to preserve a neighborhood, ours needs to be
updated to include the flexibility to see this district into the next century. Most of the homes in the historic district were kit homes, shipped from companies like Sears and
Roebuck. This was the most affordable way to build at the time. From a remodeling/building contractor viewpoint, I know some of the homes are in desperate need of major
repair that is simply not feasible for most people. At some point almost every foundation will need either major repair or total replacement. Looking at housing patterns for our
community at large, we know it is far less expensive to live in a newer house farther from downtown and the University. The diversity of the historic district is going to continue
to be less accessible to young families, first time homeowners, and even dual income-middle aged homeowners like myself, as well as continue to contain big rental houses
with no major upgrades. For these reasons I do not see the Northside staying sustainable while under the Historic Preservation requirements. While I do not have hard data on
building permits and projects that have been approved/denied, I know what I see in my own neighborhood and from working with many clients here through my profession. I
do not see progress in this neighborhood that upholds the original intention of the historic district. New apartments have not been built - if that was one goal, that part has
58 Protect more neighborhoods
59
Please hold the university and the school district to the same rules as home owners. Please adhere to the climate change goals of the city and don't punish people for trying to
replace windows.
60
Iowa City should continue to be leader in historic preservation - it will make our older neighborhoods desirable. We have seen older neighborhoods in other towns that we
have lived deteriorate due she lack good upkeep. Cheap fixes like vinyl siding have are a sign of disinvestment.
61 I was a member of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission for a number of years.
62
The city crack down on deadbeat landlords who show no interest in improving their property while running it almost like an uncertified youth hostel. If there was a requirement
that the owners physically visited their property at least once a year and let the neighbors who who they are so they can call them if there are problems (rather than, say,
calling the police or animal control) that might be good. Historic preservation is great but if the city does not pressure the landlords to keep their property up, then all the
maintenance of historic beauty in the neighborhood is negated. Sorry again for the rant;-)
63 Force slum lords to clean up their trashy rental properties!
64 I live in a beautiful neighborhood. I hope it is preserved.
65 no
66 I would like to see a rejuvenation of UniverCity program or some equivalent way to incentivize the return of families to the neighborhood, rather than student rentals.
67 Could be a little more flexibility in guidlines.
68
I have a unique perspective as a former city employee in the building department. When I was a city employee, I had to temper my opinions but I no longer have to do that.
Over the years, I saw that how the guidelines were administrated fluctuated according to who was on the HPC board and who the was in the position of Preservation Planner.
Interpretations varied from year to year. And again, there are guidelines that just don't make sense to me. Let's be clear - Iowa city's historic guidelines are all about
preserving the streetscape. If we were truly concerned about historic preservation, the guidelines would cover interior alterations as well. Right now, some could buy a pristine
Craftsman bungalow in Longfellow and completely gut the interior - take out every piece of historic trim and built-ins. So it's all about the streetscape. Why would we care
about minute exterior details - like vinyl clad wood windows (not allowed) versus metal clad wood windows (allowed). No one can tell the difference from street.
Preservationists would tell you that is because vinyl can't be painted. That may have true when the guidelines were first proposed but modern paint technologies have changed
and vinyl can absolutely be painted. Over the years, I have seen neighbors have to spend thousands of more dollars on their additions and exterior projects because of
requirements that make no sense - like fake rafter tails on a flat roof. I have had many discussions with neighbors who are very frustrated with the process. These houses are
not museums - they are family homes. Families today live a very different lifestyle from families a 100 years ago. I'll end with a quote from a former preservation planner at
the city, Christina Keuker who I felt embodied how the districts should be administered. She told me that "she wasn't here to tell people what they could or couldn't do with their
homes. Her job was to help them do it in an historically sensitive manner."
69 No
70
We bought our house and did renovations before rules went into effect. Since then, it's only been repairs. I am aware of one property owner who cannot find someone to do
major repairs right now because too few contractors are interested in taking on a project in our neighborhood. The one estimate they got was so expensive they had to say
no.
71 I would discourage people from buying homes in a historic district, not a positive experience for middle/lower income families.
72 It gets so fuzzy on what needs a full review and what needs a no material change review. I wish there was a quick and easy hand out explaining the differences.
73 A more thorough referral system for contractors, etc., who understand the historic designation and are willing to take on smaller jobs
74 Do not understand the lack of sidewalks in some areas of my district creating safety hazards on Sheridan Ave. I, and others, have expressed concerns over years to no avail.
75
The process is cumbersome and very imposing on homeowners. Cost seems to be a frequent issue so necessary repairs to homes in historic districts to maintain modern
functionality seem to be frequently put off.
76
Additional grant opportunities for structural, cosmetic, and foundation preservation and repair. Consideration of expanding support to interior of homes so that people are
maintaining the entire health of the house not just what passersby can see. For owners that have similar home styles, building a network of owners who can share
tips/hacks/tricks and solid contractors experienced in supporting the specific style of home in question.
77 I wish that we could replace our garage.
78 Keep up the good work, including the UniverCity Program!
79 NO
80 no
81
We lived in our home prior to the district being created, so I said, "No" to, "Did you know this was a district before we moved in?" A suggestion: publicize districts as an
asset, not a burden. Some of my neighbors think it is the thumb of government on their choices but they haven't though about towns where tear downs or even grouping of lots
and rezoning for multifamily housing happen routinely.
82
We could maintain the tree canopy better. Trees are cut down by the city, but they are not replaced. At least, there could be a workshop or person to inform owners on trees,
which trees are recommended, and service providers. I would attend such a workshop or go on a walking tour with a guide.
83 I am concerned the cost of keeping my home up to the standards will price me out of living here
84 No
85
I think I've made it clear in other comments that I do not believe the guidelines are followed by all residence and when I have contacted the City about it, I was told that I
needed to be patient. I do get, and review, the notices of the HP meetings - it sure seems like those who go thru the process have to jump thru a LOT of hoops and additional
expense. There just needs to be a happy medium.
86
Our house at 621 Brown St. was never an elegant one and twice had liens placed against it because of being in bad shape. I had the cracked maroon stucco removed , and
while it is lthe most simple house on the. street, it fits in well enough, I believe, and is kept in good repair. I would never replace the front windows that suit its age with their
narrow panes, but I think it reasonable to replace the bedroom windows on the inconspicuous sides of the house with less than high quality windows that will syill correct the air
leakage problems. There is really nothing about the house that is first quality, love it though I do! I wish the narrow aluminum siding had been available when I changed the
exterior appearance, but I have learned to live with it, and we keep the trim nicely painted so it's a pleasant looking house--but it doesn't need first-class windows, only well-
working ones!
87 Thank you for the annual reminders that this property is in an historic district. And also thanks for wanting to improve your process, starting with this survey.
Historic Preservation Contractor Survey - July 2021
Q1. How many exterior renovations on homes in historic or conservation districts in Iowa City have you completed in the last five years?
24 Answered, 0 Skipped
None, 4.17%
1-5, 54.17%
6-10, 8.33%
More than 10, 33.33%
Q2. Out of the number completed, what percentage of these homes required a building permit and/or historic review and approval?
20 Answered, 4 Skipped
1 Just the one
2 Most of them usually do
3 About half
4 Most of them
5 They probably did but not sure we got them
6 100%
7 100%
8 10%
9 all of them
10 One
11 4
12 Unsure - we require the homeowners to secure permits and approvals.
13 75-90%
14 all of them
15 all
16 80%
17 80
18 5
19 1
20 45%
Q3. What types of exterior work were completed? 19 Answered, 5 Skipped
1 Garage construction.
2 Porch and deck work, some siding repair
3 Roof, siding, porch repair
4 Restoration and repair
5 Siding and window repair
6 Window Work, roofing, siding
7 Addition and replacement of siding on existing. Window and door replacement.
8 egress window, siding, roof, window, porch, stairs, small repairs
9 stairs, windows, siding, doors, trimwork.
10 Porch restoration, doors, windows, painting
11 everything associated with an addition. roofing, siding, windows, foundation, etc
12 Windows and doors
13 Windows, doors, porches, siding, roofing, railings, additions
14 siding, trim, storm damage repairs
15 Screen porches, garage rebuild, railing additions, window sash replacements
16 Foundation repair-replacement, egress windows, siding and windows, additions and remodels.
17 Window restoration
18 siding replacement
19 Painting, gutters, stuff
Q4.
Do you routinely consult the Historic Preservation Handbook or contact City Preservation staff to discuss a project before applying for a building permit
for exterior renovations in historic or conservation districts? 21 Answered, 3 Skipped
Yes, 76.19%
No, 23.81%
Q5. Based on renovations that required historic review, what worked well? 18 Answered, 6 Skipped
1 It’s all pretty easy.
2 Staff support was great. She helped navigate how the guidelines work
3 Jessica is great. Helps make it easy to navigate the written guidelines.
4 Jessica is great to work with but her limited staff time slows down the process.
5 Just not asking
6 We were fortunate to not have to go through board review which takes extra time. It was approved in house within a few days.
7 Staff provided lots of input and interpretation to the HP guidelines. Communication was generally prompt. HPC process was clear.
8 jobs requiring minimal regulation, small repairs or certificate of no material effect
9 talking to staff, Jessica is the best. I had no idea you had a handbook.
10
The process worked well overall, tedious though. I would be hesitant to do another historic home as all of the regulations. It was difficult to find contractors who
could do the work, and it was a tedious process to keep in communication to confirm our renovations would pass historic review. For example, when we needed a
new door, it took approximately 15 email exchanges as the staff could not tell us what type of door to buy, they could Only tell us what would not work with the doors
we kept tying to purchase even tho they looked like the ones in the book that were suggested. We also spent about $18k restoring old windows that are not efficient
and new windows that look like old windows would have been more cost efficient in the short and long term with installation and energy savings.
11
This is tough to answer. the whole process is a layer of logistics that isn't needed for "non-historic" houses. But It's not that it doesn't work well. It just takes more
time and money to design and navigate.
12 NA
13
The process is smooth as long as we stick with products and techniques that had been approved in the past. It also went smoothly when we accepted staff
recommendations.
14 Walking in and talking thru things, flexibility!
15 The historic review is time consuming trying to get approval and waiting for approvals meeting times is not contractor friendly
16 When a home is being sold, prospective buyers are made aware of the requirements of home renovation within a historic district
17 building department is knowledgeable about what the steps are and what is required
18 I could call someonkjfolajfas' dsa adfiaorejajlfj
Q6. Please provide any suggestions to improve the historic review process. 16 Answered, 8 Skipped
1 More staff time for faster responses please.
2 More staff time - delays so things down. Faster responses please - I know her time is limited, so give her some more.
3 More staff time for preservation staff. My customers want to move quickly. And I can’t when I have to wait.
4 More staff time. Faster reviews
5 lol
6 Anything that shortens the review time.
7
The guidelines are overly broad and focus almost exclusively on material preservation to the detriment of character and form. While the standards appear to be
"comprehensive" they are written in a manner that places a great deal of judgment and discretion in the hands of Staff and the HPC with little or no recourse for the
homeowner, builder or design professional. A lack of subjective standard in many cases causes confusion and non-standard application of the standards. More
weight should be allowed to consider alternative approaches and materials that preserve form and character. Additionally, energy efficiency and budget should
receive a higher level of consideration - much of the information (particularly pertaining to costs and availability of vendors) provided by staff and the HPC is
outdated or not consistent with current market conditions. An alternate appeal process needs to be added between the HPC and the city council. Consideration
should be given to either the Board of Adjustments or Board of Appeals to discuss decisions based on content rather than the pure process appeal provided by the
city council. The disposition and makeup of the HPC disproportionately represents the interest of those interested in preserving the status quo and creates a
potentially unfair situation for homeowners navigating the process.
8
Stop imposing exorbitant costs on homeowners in historic districts, then discussing "affordable housing" out of the other side of your mouth. Neighborhood stability
can be maintained without removal of such a huge chunk of personal property rights. Historic guidelines stem from, and are zealously defended by, a narrow special
interest group, and this is not in the greater public interest. Back off a few notches.
9 Skip using the new portal. It sucks.
10 It would be nice if the whole process didn't take as long as it does, but I don't have any suggestions on how that could be possible.
11 NA
12
Our clients and staff feel that the process is out of their hands. Basically we are required to ask city staff what is allowed, and then the client must decide if that is
close enough to their vision that the project is still appealing. The process would be more appealing if the homeowner felt more in control of the process.
13
Flexibility,….the intention of preserving the feel of an historic neighborhood is good. But we live in a modern age and climate change and energy conservation are
real and important issues that need to be considered when repairs or improvements are being made to older homes. I have many customers who don’t want to seek
out input from historic review because they feel they are too restrictive and not sensitive to costs of maintaining a home to the standards required. I know that the
review process and the micro managing of details encourages people to go around the rules. These are peoples homes….not just an investment in IOWA CITY’s
charm.
14
Not having to wait so long for approval meetings. Less strict restrictions, homeowners are always complaining about how much more the project cost be cause of
the requirements that the historic review implement.
15 Don't hesitate to reach out to qualified contractors if there are questions about the construction or historical significance during the review process
16 Staff and the commission should recognize that they do not own the property and that somebody has to pay for work being required.
Q7.Were the guidelines for the work clear and easy to understand? 18 Answered, 6 Skipped
Yes, 61.11%
No, 38.89%
Q8.What part of the guidelines are easy to understand? 6 Answered, 18 Skipped
1 The part about not reading them
2 On the surface, the guidelines appear to be reasonably organized.
3 materials that are pre-approved
4 The idea that a historic district is supposed to more or less look like it did when built.
5 Repair vs replacement….under the roof….outside the roof
6 Very few
Q9. Which part of the guidelines are more difficult? 4 Answered, 20 Skipped
1 The part about government overreach
2
Reading into the guidelines, however, becomes a maze of subjective requirements, judgment and contradiction. There are not "waivers" but there are "exceptions"
which further add to confusion. Catch all statements at the beginning of each section essentially put the final say back with the staff and HPC decision maker with
little or no recourse to the applicant should their petition be denied. The rules within each district further complicate the guidelines as does determining what applies
to each individual property. The designation of "contributing" vs. "non-contributing" property appears to be an arbitrary judgment call and not in accordance or
correlation with the designation of the district. There is no recourse to the homeowner to "opt out' of the additional requirements and costs levied by the
requirements. There is frequent citation of the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation but a closer look at the individual preservation briefs reveals
a great deal of contradiction or at the very least interpretation favorable to the goal of the current guidelines to preserve material at nearly all costs. As a professional
familiar with these types of regulations and the underlying documents, it is difficult to understand how an homeowner could navigate the system and guidelines
without professional assistance. This seems patently unfair and adds an additional cost burden to the process, particularly for small or limited scope projects.
3 anything/everything outside of the pre-approved lists
4
The boundaries of the historic preservation commission. Is it the entire exterior of the home? is it the view from the street? Why are some materials accepted and
others rejected? Is the difference between 1/2" thick lap siding and 3/8" thick smooth engineered siding relevant? Why is the difference between an aluminum clad
window and a fiberglass window important? Why is a painted smooth PVC or engineered lumber trim board not allowed? I understand the need to maintain the
character of the neighborhood, but why do we need to use substandard materials to do that? Modern wood doesn't last like old-growth wood. Modern materials are
better in every way, but are not allowed.
Q10.If your client considered exterior improvements, but deferred the improvements, do you know the reason? 9 Answered, 15 Skipped
Yes, 55.56%
No, 44.44%
Q11. Please identify the reason(s) for deferring? 5 Answered, 19 Skipped
1
Certain improvements had to be modified or altered due to historic preservation requirements. Others were deferred due to excessive cost. Some requests were
denied so the client chose to forego improvements rather than compromise to meet the current requirements.
2 The overall cost is almost always the reason
3
Cost is the major driver. Using historical materials increases cost by 20-50% on any given project, and the completed project will have much higher maintenance
costs than a similar project with modern materials. There are times that the process is considered too daunting, but unless the client is unwilling or unable to pay for
it, we can circumvent that by doing the historical work. Drafty windows or doors are not allowed to be replaced until they are rotted away. The homeowner will often
wait until they are rotten because the cost of repair is prohibitive- often more than the cost of replacement- and the repaired window or door is still poorly insulated,
single pane glass, and an exterior that is 90% of the way through its life cycle and requires a lot of maintenance for the remaining 10%.
4 Cost of complying
5 Typically the cost and did like the materials the historic review requested.
Q12. Please indicate what type of improvement was being considered. 5 Answered, 19 Skipped
1 Home addition, porch addition, siding replacement, window replacement.
2 additions, garages, siding, windows, steps, porches, etc.
3 Windows and doors, porches, additions.
4 Windows sash - want to replace but urged to repair.
5 Siding, foundation, egress windows-wells
Q13.
Are there home improvement goals from homeowners that have proven to be difficult to achieve as a result of local historic preservation requirements?
Check all that apply and provide detail as requested below. 18 Answered, 6 Skipped
None, 33.33%
Accessibility, 33.33%
Affordabilty, 72.22%
Energy Efficiency, 44.44%
Health & Safety, 5.56%
Other Comments:
Just let people do what they want
Adaptive Resuse
This is a loaded question.
Existing poor design. For example, flat or low sloping roofs are problematic in our climate. We should not have to honor poor design.
Staying in their home when they'd like to have more space. Also aging in place.
Availability of materials
This question is trying to get users to say preservation is in conflict with these and it isn’t.
Q14. Please provide specific details and share ideas on possible solutions. 10 Answered, 14 Skipped
1 More staff time
2 I don't see any area's where historic preservation of neighborhoods is desired that renovations on homes in those neighborhoods can happen in a cost effective way.
3
First and foremost, add a level of appeal between HPC and city council. A full review and rewrite of the HPC Guidelines would be amazing to focus on form and
character versus material preservation. Our city is more than an collection of sticks and bricks - it is about the composition of our neighborhoods and vitality and
willingness of homeowners to maintain their homes as our society changes and morphs. The homes that served a society a century ago may not work well to meet
the needs of modern families - we must be willing to allow our dwellings to grow with our evolving needs. The costs to maintain a home will also create increasing
socio-economic division in our community or, in the worst case, a deterioration of older housing stock. Systems created a century ago were not in any sense energy
conscious and it is a demonstrable fact that aging buildings consume a disproportionate amount of energy to maintain and condition. Materials that were once
plentiful may no longer be available or may have such dire impacts to source that it is nearly unconscionable to compel their continued use. It is also important to
keep in mind that the homes covered by the historic district were not intended to last hundreds of years - they were the affordable housing of their time and it will take
novel solutions to preserve the character of these structures while also meeting the responsibility of lowering energy demand to attempt to forestall environmental
calamity. A revamp of the guidelines to allow flexibility and shift from material based requirements is the only sustainable path forward.
4
The "historical value" of most structures in historic districts has been overrated. Ardent preservationists have not been very been interested in compromise or
property rights, but if rigorous standards designed for truly historic buildings remain in place while conflicting with other more important goals such as housing
affordability and energy efficiency, will increasingly come under attack in the future. A very vocal minority of financially secure residents, who obviously revel in the
elevated social status they imagine comes with residing in an historic district, will scream bloody murder if historic standards are relaxed. You can expect a
disproportionate response from such people. Ardent preservationists have always pretended that there's no downside, even to the point of deception. We can no
longer afford to allow this narrow perspective to dominate the narrative and wield most of the control over historic guidelines. You can craft a regulatory framework
that protects neighborhood stability without being more concerned with the architectural purity of a house than with the people who live in it.
5 There is none, it will cost you more to be historically correct.
6
Not only do I work on historic homes, I also live in the Brown St. District. In my opinion, the Historic Preservation program is doing the opposite of it's goal. Many
houses (specifically in the Northside,) are being neglected because they are too big and too costly to repair. Make no mistake, navigating the hist. prez. process
increases costs. In other words - Historic Preservation requirements are the opposite of an incentive. The grants and zero interest loans are a nice try, but not very
helpful. The only way I can see historic preservation being a long term plan is to really help out financially. Perhaps not increase property taxes if a major remodel
is done? But again, some of the houses are so big and require so much work - it's just not practical. I honestly think the best solution is to end the program.
7
Allow modern materials that retain historic character- engineered siding, fiberglass windows, engineered and solid PVC trim boards, and fiberglass columns. Allow
aging in place options- ramps or lifts. Give up the idea that a window or door can be infinitely repaired, or that it can ever perform as well as a modern window or
door, on both an energy efficiency and a comfort basis. Storm windows are not excellent solutions in most cases- they are usually just better than the existing
windows. They can be cost effective stop gap solutions but they are not good long term.
8
If you want to replace a window (double hung) in a bath over a tub so that it can be made into a shower….there are two ways to modify that window without removing
the light and symmetry of window placement: 1) you can replace it with a short window that stylistically matches the house 2) you can modify the existing double
hung so that it still looks like a double hung window that is just frosted on the bottom half…but tile over it on the inside. In kitchens where window are too low to run
countertop underneath them…allow to replace with similar new windows that are shorter. Complying storm windows are prohibitively expensive, conforming sash
replacements should be allowed and if you want historic sashes to be maintained that needs to be incentivized.
9 Don't require concrete or CMU wells for egress windows. It doubles the cost and you cant see the wells anyway.
10 Gap financing may be helpful.
Q15.Is there anything you would like to add, suggest, or further explain? If so, please explain. 13 Answered, 11 Skipped
1 Stop tearing down historic buildings! They can be reused.
2 Most of my customers want to be good neighbors and follow the guidelines.
3 The City should support more preservation efforts.
4 Why even do this survey?
5 no
6 Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.
7 no
8
Most of the houses in the historic districts were kit houses bought through companies like Sears and Roebuck. They were shipped here via rail and assembled on
site. This was the most affordable way to build at the time. Yes, they have great character, but they are no longer the most affordable. In my opinion, the only way
to maintain these houses as “original,” is to offer realistic incentives to remodel. Otherwise, they are going to continue in disrepair. Since the City has photos of
every house in the districts, do an investigation now to find out if most houses are in better or worse shape since starting the program. This might be hard to
measure, but simple “curb appeal” should be obvious. A final thought… Manville heights is a similar neighborhood. It seems to be doing fine without the historic
guidelines. My company remodeled the original Manville House using historic guidelines. My point is – some historic preservation will continue even if it is not
required. And in cases where the design was poor to start with - change is ok.
9
The process usually feels like the homeowner is begging for permission from the powers that be. In contrast, the housing and building departments feel like
resources to make sure the job gets done right. There is accountability, to be sure, but the process is not adversarial.
10 It is hard to charge customers for all the time it takes to get the HP process done!
11 The website is terrible ….and an added and an added deterrant
12 Faster turn around time from historic review on projects.
13 historic preservation is useful for neighborhood stabilization. not all building owners value the character of neighborhoods, which negatively impacts those who do.