HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Agenda Packet 3.10.22
Thursday
March 10, 2022
5:30 p.m.
Emma Harvat Hall
City Hall
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Thursday, March 10, 2022
City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street
Emma J. Harvat Hall
5:30 p.m.
Agenda
A) Call to Order
B) Roll Call
C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda
D) Certificate of Appropriateness
HPC22-0005: 810 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (solar array installation)
E) Report on Historic Preservation Fund Projects FY 2017-2022
F) Consideration of Minutes for February 15, 2022
G) Commission Discussion
1. Annual Historic Preservation Awards
2. Commissioner Terms
H) 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 March 2, 2022
Historic Review for HPC22-0005: 810 North Johnson Street
District: Brown Street Historic District
Classification: Contributing
The applicants, Laura Stunz and Thomas Mittman, are requesting approval for a proposed alteration project
at 810 North Johnson Street, a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. The project
consists of the installation of a solar array on the south-facing roof slope.
Applicable Regulations and Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations
4.4 Energy Efficiency
4.7 Mass and Rooflines
10 .0 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
Staff Comments
This house was built in 1918 as a west-facing gable front house with a side (north) facing crossing gable. The
house has several Craftsman details such as the clipped gables, shingle siding, and exposed rafter tails in the
bottom of the eaves. Several details seem to be inspired by a Colonial Revival style such as the steep roof and
full-length shed-roof dormers which give the house a Dutch Colonial appearance. Many of the double-hung
windows on the house have a multi-paned upper sash over a single-paned lower sash and are considered
original.
This house may have had multiple additions. One addition in the 1960s added a first-floor addition and a
lower-level greenhouse. In 1999, a remodel project for a kitchen and laundry room was approved by the
Commission and changed some of the openings on the north and west side. In 2016 the owners were
approved to replace storm window sashes that were used in five second floor windows, with more
appropriate metal-clad wood sashes. In 2020, the Commission approved the removal of the solarium on the
south side of the 1960’s addition and its replacement with a screen porch addition.
The applicants are proposing to install a solar array on along the lower edge of the south-facing upper
(dormer) roof surface. The location for the additional equipment is unknown. The electrical meter is located
on the south wall of the house under the west-most pair of windows. The solar array will have dark frames to
blend in with the roof edge.
Section 4.7 Mass and Rooflines recommends against installing antennas, vents, solar collectors, skylights,
satellite dishes, or other mechanical devices on prominent street elevations. Standard #9 of the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation states that new additions, exterior alterations, or related new
construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to
protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
In 2020, the Commission approved skylight installation as a staff review if specific conditions are met. A copy
of that Certificate of Appropriateness is attached. The current application is not eligible for staff review
because of the proposed location of the solar array and likely because of the proposed location of the
additional equipment.
In 2011, the National Park Service (NPS) published illustrated guidelines on sustainability for rehabilitating
historic buildings. Since our local guidelines include very little information on this type of project the section
of these guidelines on solar technology is attached. This section recommends installing a solar device in a
compatible location such as a non-historic building or free-standing and only installing on the historic
building if other options are infeasible. When mounted on the historic building, it is recommended to install
solar devices so that they are not visible or only minimally visible from the public right-of-way. It is also
recommended that the installation does not damage historic roofing material or negatively impact the
building’s historic character and is reversible.
In Staff’s opinion, many elements of this project were eligible for staff review including the installation close
to the roof surface and the frame (and possibly the brackets) being a color that blends with the roof surface.
The location made it necessary for the Commission to review the application. The proposed location is on
the side of the house but since the house is located on a corner lot, the roof slope faces the main street,
Brown Street. The location for the remainder of the equipment is not known at this time, often they are
located near the main fuse or breaker box which is also located near the electric meter. On this house, the
electric meter is on the south side but has been painted to blend with the house, so it is not highly visible
from the street.
In evaluating the location for the solar panels, staff requested that the applicant include photos of the house
from Brown Street. The photos show that the panels would be visible from Brown Street and that the house
is set back far on the lot from Brown Street. The proposed location is the upper, lower-sloped roof over the
south-facing shed dormer. The height and slope of this roof helps to minimize the visibility of the panels.
During seasons where trees are leafed-out, they would be less visible. While the roof of the new screened
porch and the rear addition would be preferred locations for solar panels, it does not appear that they have
enough roof area for an array of this size. It is not known whether the applicants investigated free-standing
solar panels. Any location between the house and either street would not be considered an appropriate
location for that, leaving only the north edge of the lot which has a heavy tree cover. For the equipment, the
preferred location is inside, the back of the house, or the north side. If the equipment is minimal and can be
masked like the electric meter a south side location may not impact the historic character of the house.
Otherwise, it is not recommended for the equipment to be installed on the exterior of the south side of the
house.
Recommended Motion
Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 810 North Johnson Street as presented in
the application.
810 North Johnson Street- NW corner from Johnson Street. The front of the house is to the right.
810 North Johnson- south elevation taken from yard
Iowa City
Historic Preservation Commission
City Hall, 410 E Washington Street, Iowa City. IA. 52240
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Solar Panel Installation
A meeting of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission was held in an electronic meeting platform
because of the dangers of COVID-19 on August 13, 2020 at 5:30 pm. The following members were present:
Kevin Boyd, Helen Burford, Sharon DeGraw, Lyndi Kiple, Jordan Sellergren, and Austin Wu.
By a vote of 6-0, the Commission approved Solar Panel installation as a pre-approved item eligible for a
Minor Review if the following conditions are met:
• The solar panels are installed on:
o an outbuilding roof, or
o the rear-facing roof of a primary building, or
o a non-street facing side elevation, not impacting the street view of the house, if the preferred
locations are not possible
• The solar panels are installed close to the roof surface and at an angle that is similar to the roof
surface
• The frame and brackets for the panels are a color that blends with the building roof material
• Any equipment is located away from a street-facing elevation, preferably on the back of the structure.
Pre-approved items may be approved by a Minor Review conducted by Staff if all conditions are met.
The project is approved subject to the conditions specified in this certificate, notations in the application, and
the discussion by the Commission as provided in City Code Section 14-8E-2. All work is to meet the
specifications of the guidelines unless otherwise noted. Any additional work that falls under the purview of
the Historic Preservation Commission that is not specified in this certificate will need a separate review.
Approval by the Historic Preservation Commission does not constitute final approval for a project. Contact
the Building Department to determine if a building permit is required to carry out the project. The Historic
Preservation Commission does not review applications for compliance with zoning ordinance and building
code.
__________________________________
Kevin Boyd, Chair
Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission
___________________________________
Jessica Bristow, Historic Preservation Planner
Department of Development Services
_____________________8/18/2020______
Date
1
The SecreTary
of The InTerIor’S
STandardS for
rehabIlITaTIon &
IlluSTraTed
GuIdelIneS on
SuStainability
for
rehabIlITaTInG
hISTorIc
buIldInGS
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Technical Preservation Services
i
The SecreTary of The InTerIor’S STandardS for rehabIlITaTIon &
IlluSTraTed GuIdelIneS on SuSTaInabIlIT y for rehabIlITaTInG hISTorIc buIldInGS
Anne E. Grimmer with Jo Ellen Hensley | Liz Petrella | Audrey T. Tepper
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Technical Preservation Services
Washington, D.C.
2011
iii
Contents
iv Acknowledgements
v Foreword
vi The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
Introduction to the Standards
viii Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
Introduction to the Guidelines
xi Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
1 Sustainability
2 Planning
3 Maintenance
4 Windows
8 Weatherization and Insulation
10 Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
and Air Circulation
14 Solar Technology
16 Wind Power –Wind Turbines and Windmills
18 Roofs – Cool Roofs and Green Roofs
20 Site Features and Water Efficiency
22 Daylighting
iv
Acknowledgements
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation &
Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings was
produced by Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks, first
published in 1992 and reprinted in 1997. The Illustrated
Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Build-
ings, which are presented in the same format, replace the
chapter on “Energy Conservation” in the 1992 publication.
They have been developed with the guidance and support
of numerous public agencies, professional organizations
and individuals.
All photographs and drawings included here not individually credited have
been selected from National Park Service files.
14
SoLAr TEcHnoLoGy
recommended not recommended
considering on-site, solar technology only
after implementing all appropriate treatments
to improve energy efficiency of the building,
which often have greater life-cycle cost ben-
efit than on-site renewable energy.
Installing on-site, solar technology without
first implementing all appropriate treat-
ments to the building to improve its energy
efficiency.
Analyzing whether solar technology can be
used successfully and will benefit a historic
building without compromising its character
or the character of the site or the surrounding
historic district.
Installing a solar device without first
analyzing its potential benefit or whether it
will negatively impact the character of the
historic building or site or the surrounding
historic district.
Installing a solar device in a compatible loca-
tion on the site or on a non-historic building
or addition where it will have minimal impact
on the historic building and its site.
Placing a solar device in a highly-visible
location where it will negatively impact the
historic building and its site.
Installing a solar device on the historic
building only after other locations have been
investigated and determined infeasible.
Installing a solar device on the historic
building without first considering other
locations.
Recommended: [74] Free-standing solar panels have
been installed here that are visible but appropriately
located at the rear of the property and compatible with
the character of this industrial site.
Not Recommended: [75] Solar roof panels have been
installed at the rear, but because the house is situated
on a corner, they are highly visible and negatively
impact the character of the historic property.
Recommended: [72-73] Solar panels were
installed appropriately on the rear portion of
the roof on this historic row house that are not
visible from the primary elevation.
72
73
74 75
15
SoLAr TEcHnoLoGy
recommended not recommended
Installing a low-profile solar device on the
historic building so that it is not visible or
only minimally visible from the public right of
way: for example, on a flat roof and set back
to take advantage of a parapet or other roof
feature to screen solar panels from view; or on
a secondary slope of a roof, out of view from
the public right of way.
Installing a solar device in a prominent
location on the building where it will nega-
tively impact its historic character.
Installing a solar device on the historic build-
ing in a manner that does not damage historic
roofing material or negatively impact the
building’s historic character and is reversible.
Installing a solar device on the historic
building in a manner that damages historic
roofing material or replaces it with an in-
compatible material and is not reversible.
removing historic roof features to install
solar panels.
Altering a historic, character-defining roof
slope to install solar panels.
Installing solar devices that are not
reversible.
Installing solar roof panels horizontally -- flat
or parallel to the roof—to reduce visibility.
Placing solar roof panels vertically where
they are highly visible and will negatively
impact the historic character of the
building.
77
78
79
Recommended: [76-77] Solar panels, which also serve as awnings,
were installed in secondary locations on the side and rear of this
historic post office and cannot be seen from the front of the building.
[78] Solar panels placed horizontally on the roof of this historic
building are not visible from below.
Not Recommended: [79] Although installing solar panels behind a
rear parking lot might be a suitable location in many cases, here the
panels negatively impact the historic property on which they are
located.
76
Attachments
1. Eagle Point Solar plan. On page 4, aerial view of optimal solar panel location on the upper south
roof from a drone.
2. Photo of house from the Brown St. sidewalk, north side of the street, showing the height of the
roof from the street level.
3. Photo of house from the sidewalk on the south side of Brown St.
4. Photo of house from Brown St.
The project doesn’t fit into the minor review category for the following reasons.
1. The only panel location suitable is the one selected (attachment 1).
2. There are no outbuildings, and putting panels on the north side of the roof would not allow for
optimal power generation.
However, the panels will be high on the roof up a slope, at an angle that is similar to the roof surface,
and the frame and brackets will not stand out in contrast to the panels.
Thanks for your consideration!
Laura Stunz
Thomas Mittman
810 N Johnson
Prepared For
Tom & Laurie Mittman & Stunz
810 N Johnson St
Iowa City, IA 52245
(319) 325-9027
tommittman@gmail.com
Post Assessment
Max Fit - 58% kWh Offset
Prepared By
Drew Wagenhoffer
Solar Energy Consultant
(563) 582-4044
dwagenhoffer@eaglepointsolar.com
2/11/2022
**Offer expires 14 days from proposal date**
Pre-Solar Bill
Rate Schedule: MAE-IA - RS.
Current Blended Cost of Electricity: $0.113/kWh
Time Periods Energy Use (kWh)Charges
Bill Ranges & Seasons Total Other Energy Total
1/1/2021 - 2/1/2021 W 801 $9 $71 $79
2/1/2021 - 3/1/2021 W 638 $9 $56 $65
3/1/2021 - 4/1/2021 W 429 $9 $38 $46
4/1/2021 - 5/1/2021 W 371 $9 $33 $41
5/1/2021 - 6/1/2021 W 343 $9 $30 $39
6/1/2021 - 7/1/2021 S 1,350 $9 $153 $162
7/1/2021 - 8/1/2021 S 1,261 $9 $143 $152
8/1/2021 - 9/1/2021 S 1,336 $9 $152 $160
9/1/2021 - 10/1/2021 S 1,146 $9 $130 $139
10/1/2021 - 11/1/2021 W 517 $9 $46 $54
11/1/2021 - 12/1/2021 W 554 $9 $49 $57
12/1/2020 - 1/1/2021 W 654 $9 $58 $66
Total 9,400 $102 $959 $1,061
Post-Solar Bill
1st Year Estimated Electricity Savings: $537
Rate Schedule: MAE-IA - RS
Time Periods Solar PV (kWh)Energy Use (kWh)Charges
Bill Ranges & Seasons Total Total Other Energy Total
1/1/2021 - 2/1/2021 W 318 483 $9 $43 $51
2/1/2021 - 3/1/2021 W 284 354 $9 $31 $40
3/1/2021 - 4/1/2021 W 405 24 $9 $2 $11
4/1/2021 - 5/1/2021 W 592 -221 $9 $20 $11
5/1/2021 - 6/1/2021 W 582 -239 $9 $21 $13
6/1/2021 - 7/1/2021 S 599 751 $9 $85 $94
7/1/2021 - 8/1/2021 S 639 622 $9 $71 $79
8/1/2021 - 9/1/2021 S 562 774 $9 $88 $96
9/1/2021 - 10/1/2021 S 521 625 $9 $71 $80
10/1/2021 - 11/1/2021 W 342 175 $9 $15 $24
11/1/2021 - 12/1/2021 W 340 214 $9 $19 $27
12/1/2020 - 1/1/2021 W 235 419 $9 $37 $46
Total 5,419 3,981 $102 $422 $524
Financing
Payment Options Total Project Cost 20 Year Loan
Total Project Costs $14,252 -
Monthly Payment -$102
Interest Rate -5.99%
Loan Term -20 Years
Estimated Incentives $3,706 -
Net Cost After Incentives $10,546 -
Estimated 25-Year Electric Bill Savings $20,272 -
Estimated 25-Year IRR 4.9%-
Estimated Payback Period 15.4 Years -
Estimated % of Bill Offset 50.6%-
Loan calculations are estimates and based on best available terms and credit, and assume a 0.250% discount for automatic payments. Also based on loan issuance on date listed, with an optional
deferred payment and/or re-amortization. This matrix is intended as an informational tool and does not constitute a guarantee of approval nor a guarantee of all terms for all applications. RATES AND
TERMS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.
Monthly Energy Use vs Solar Generation
1/01 - 2/012/01 - 3/013/01 - 4/014/01 - 5/015/01 - 6/016/01 - 7/017/01 - 8/018/01 - 9/019/01 - 10/0110/01 - 11/0111/01 - 12/0112/01 - 1/010
500
1,000
1,500
Energy (kWh)Energy Use (kWh)Solar Generation (kWh)
1.1 Mittman & Stunz ResidencePV System Details
General Information
Facility:Mittman & Stunz Residence
Address:810 N Johnson St Iowa City IA 52245
Solar PV System Description
kW DC:4.44 kW-DC
Solar Panels:(12) VSUN VSUN370-120BMH
Inverters:(6) Hoymiles HM-600NT (240V)
Tilt(s):30
Azimuth(s):180
Solar PV System Cost and Incentives
Solar PV System Cost $14,252
Federal Tax Credit -$3,706
Net Solar PV System Cost $10,546
Incentives are estimates and are subject to eligibility and funding.
Annual Consumption:9,400 kWh
Shade Reduces Production:4%
Estimated 1st Year Production
Utility 3,981 kWh (42.35%)
Solar PV 5,419 kWh (57.65%)
Incentives
Incentives are estimates and are subject to eligibility and funding. Eagle Point Solar does not provide any
tax advice, please consult your tax professional to see how these incentives will affect you.
Federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) - *26%*
PV systems are eligible to receive a tax credit in the amount of 26% of the total PV system cost. Unlike tax
deductions, this tax credit can be used to directly offset your tax liability dollar for dollar. If your tax credit exceeds
your tax liability you can roll the credit into future tax periods for 20 years.
Total Incentive Value: $3,706
Environmental Impacts
Solar will greatly reduce your carbon footprint. Over the lifetime of your system, it is estimated that you will offset
102.7 tons of CO2. This is the equivalent of...
2,580.36 Trees planted.
11,297.1 Gallons of gas consumed.
359.45 Tons of waste recycled instead of land-filled.
107,835.93 Pounds of coal burned.
11,575,673.84 Smart phones charged.
Total Project Cost
Assumptions and Key Financial Metrics
IRR - Term 4.9%Net Present Value ($175)Payback Period 15.4 Years
ROI 68.2%Energy Cost Escalation Rate 3.8%Total Project Costs $14,252
Years Project Costs Electric Bill Savings Federal Tax Effect Total Cash Flow Cumulative Cash Flow
Upfront -$14,252 ---$14,252 -$14,252
1 -$537 $3,706 $4,243 -$10,009
2 -$555 -$555 -$9,454
3 -$573 -$573 -$8,881
4 -$592 -$592 -$8,289
5 -$611 -$611 -$7,677
6 -$631 -$631 -$7,046
7 -$652 -$652 -$6,394
8 -$673 -$673 -$5,721
9 -$695 -$695 -$5,025
10 -$718 -$718 -$4,307
11 -$741 -$741 -$3,566
12 -$765 -$765 -$2,801
13 -$790 -$790 -$2,010
14 -$816 -$816 -$1,194
15 -$842 -$842 -$352
16 -$870 -$870 $518
17 -$898 -$898 $1,416
18 -$927 -$927 $2,343
19 -$957 -$957 $3,300
20 -$988 -$988 $4,288
21 -$1,020 -$1,020 $5,307
22 -$1,053 -$1,053 $6,360
23 -$1,087 -$1,087 $7,447
24 -$1,121 -$1,121 $8,568
25 -$1,158 -$1,158 $9,726
Totals:-$14,252 $20,272 $3,706 $9,726 -
20 Year Loan
Assumptions and Key Financial Metrics
Energy Cost Escalation Rate 3.8%Interest Rate 5.99%Total Project Cost $14,252
Upfront Payment $0 Loan Term 20 Years
Years Loan Electric Bill Savings Federal Tax Effect Total Cash Flow Cumulative Cash Flow
Upfront -----
1 -$1,224 $537 $3,706 $3,019 $3,019
2 -$1,224 $555 --$669 $2,349
3 -$1,224 $573 --$651 $1,698
4 -$1,224 $592 --$632 $1,066
5 -$1,224 $611 --$613 $453
6 -$1,224 $631 --$593 -$140
7 -$1,224 $652 --$572 -$712
8 -$1,224 $673 --$551 -$1,263
9 -$1,224 $695 --$529 -$1,792
10 -$1,224 $718 --$506 -$2,298
11 -$1,224 $741 --$483 -$2,781
12 -$1,224 $765 --$459 -$3,240
13 -$1,224 $790 --$434 -$3,674
14 -$1,224 $816 --$408 -$4,082
15 -$1,224 $842 --$382 -$4,464
16 -$1,224 $870 --$355 -$4,819
17 -$1,224 $898 --$326 -$5,145
18 -$1,224 $927 --$297 -$5,442
19 -$1,224 $957 --$267 -$5,710
20 -$1,224 $988 --$236 -$5,946
21 -$1,020 -$1,020 -$4,926
22 -$1,053 -$1,053 -$3,874
23 -$1,087 -$1,087 -$2,787
24 -$1,121 -$1,121 -$1,666
25 -$1,158 -$1,158 -$508
Totals:-$24,486 $20,272 $3,706 -$508 -
Cut Sheet
FlashVue
v1.0
1
ꢀ
ꢁ
ꢂ
.ꢃ1
ꢄꢅ1ꢃꢆ ꢇeaꢈ
ꢂ.ꢀꢉ
.ꢀꢃ ꢉꢅ1ꢃ ꢊꢇꢋ
1ꢌ ꢍꢎꢏꢊꢐ ꢏꢑꢒ ꢉꢅ1ꢃ ꢓ ꢂ.ꢀꢉꢆ
ꢀꢁꢂSꢃꢄꢅꢆ
ꢇꢈꢆꢉ ꢊꢋꢌꢆSCꢍꢇꢎꢈꢇꢋꢊꢏꢈꢐ ꢇꢊ ꢑꢇꢈ
1 ꢍꢎꢏꢊꢐ ꢏꢑꢒ ꢉꢅ1ꢃ ꢔ ꢂ.ꢀꢉꢆ1
ꢀ ꢕꢑꢖꢇꢗꢘꢐ ꢗꢙꢋꢚ ꢍꢑꢛꢜꢗꢋ1
ꢁFꢚ Fꢏꢑꢖꢇꢝꢞꢒꢐ ꢚꢝꢏꢏ ꢎꢘ ꢍꢏꢑꢛꢜ1
ꢂꢒꢘꢝꢙ ꢛꢑꢙꢐ ꢚꢝꢏꢏ ꢎꢘ ꢍꢏꢑꢛꢜ1
ꢎꢂꢍꢈ ꢊꢅꢉꢒꢆꢍꢌꢆSCꢍꢇꢎꢈꢇꢋꢊ
FVꢟ01ꢟꢚ1 Fꢏꢑꢖꢇꢝꢞꢒꢐ FꢏꢑꢖꢇFꢎꢎꢊꢐ ꢚꢝꢏꢏ
FVꢟ01ꢟꢍ1 Fꢏꢑꢖꢇꢝꢞꢒꢐ FꢏꢑꢖꢇFꢎꢎꢊꢐ ꢍꢏꢑꢛꢜ
ꢎꢓꢔꢕeꢓtꢖꢄꢗꢘue
ꢚaꢠeꢡꢢal ꢁ00 ꢖeꢡꢢes ꢖꢠaꢢꢣless ꢖꢠeel
Fꢢꢣꢢsh ꢛleaꢡ
Cut Sheet
v1.0
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL
February 15, 2022
MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Sharon DeGraw, Kevin Larson, Jordan Sellergren,
Noah Stork, Deanna Thomann, Frank Wagner
MEMBERS ABSENT: Cecile Kuenzli, Carl Brown, Kevin Boyd
STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow
OTHERS PRESENT: Andy Martin
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action)
CALL TO ORDER: Sellergren called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS:
HPC22-0004: 623 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District
Bristow said this property is a Foursquare with narrow lap siding that’s mitered at the corners.
There’s a wide frieze band along the porch and up under the main roof edge. There are bead
board soffits mitered at the corner, one over one double hung windows in singles and pairs.
Originally, the front porch was open, and the north portion was enclosed by the 1970’s. There’s
no corner board, there’s a flat casing or flat trim, and a projecting sill, a little crown along the
head of the windows and doors. She points out that the head of the windows on the upper floor
reaches the frieze board so there’s not a separate piece of trim that goes across the head of the
windows. Then there’s the horizontal window in the dormer. The house has a hip roof.
Bristow said that the back of this house had a two-story bump out early on, it even shows up on
the Sanborn Fire insurance maps. This lower portion was an open porch at one time, and we
can tell because we have skirting around the corner. One can see faint outlines where there’s
some butt joints in the siding. That’s because there was a window at one time. On the south
side you can clearly see where the siding ends aligned with that pier. This would have been the
rear corner of the house at one point.
Bristow said a few things are going to happen with this project. A window has been deteriorated
from being in a bathroom, so right now the proposal is to change this to a shorter fixed sash
window so the head will align with all of the window heads, but the sill will be higher, and it will
be a different type of window.
Bristow said the existing pair of windows on the south side will be split up. She points out the
dormer window that the original proposal was to match. The staff recommendation is basically
that a horizontal window could potentially be used there but the proportions should be more like
some of the windows you see at a first-floor landing on houses of this age.
Bristow showed an image of the existing plan. She said you can see the open and closed part of
the porch. She shows the back of the house where they proposed to add on a screened porch.
The original bump out on the rear of the house is set in from the north side, but it extends to the
south side because this is the corner that used to be an open porch.
Bristow showed an image of the new proposed plan and pointed out previously detailed
changes. They have an almost 11-foot by 14-foot screen porch that will have a hipped roof. The
roof overhangs in an approved new addition typically match the original house. This house has
a really wide overhang. Even though the front porch also has that wide overhang, staff
recommends a shorter overhang partly to differentiate between existing house and new porch.
Staff recommends a traditional screen door instead of a solid door. Each column would have a
pier and straight skirting to match house. The original piers submitted on the application were
24”x24”. Staff recommends 16”x16”. The columns will be wider capital and base. The railing
should span between the columns not on the outside.
Bristow showed an image from north side and rear view. It will be a tongue-and-groove porch
floor. For the bathroom, staff recommends something that is more proportionally similar to some
of the other windows. Bristow showed some examples images of windows on other houses.
Bristow said the plans were originally submitted with a multipaned new rear door. She showed
image of the existing side door. Staff recommends that the rear door either match the side door
or is a simple full light.
MOTION: Beck moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for 623 Oakland Ave as
presented in the staff report with the following conditions: the new bathroom window is
the same width as existing windows and slightly shorter than one sash height with three
or four simulated divided lights. The west door matches the existing south door or is a
full or half-light door with no divided lights and that the column piers are reduced to 16”
for an 8” column and that there is a central column in each run. Wagner seconded.
Thomann asked if they know where the window that was on the side of the house will be moved
to as there are no pictures.
Stork said he would like to see images of the window as it is now and how it will be changed.
Andy Martin said he believes that it is an awning window now that was put in within the last 25-
30 years. It is in the bathroom. Bristow once again showed images to clarify.
The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
REVIEW OF CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ANNUAL REPORT
Bristow said she would go through the annual report. First for section 2, last year they looked at
Kirkwood Ave, Keokuk St, Clark St, Walnut St, Webster St. An intern did some research on the
area but because they were not technically a qualified professional and they did not do state
paperwork, it is not included in the annual report but is a good basis for moving forward with an
official study of the area.
Bristow said the State requires us to make account for any properties listed in the National
Register that were altered moved or demolished. We only keep track of ones that are under our
jurisdiction. But for instance, 21 S Linn was considered contributing to our downtown district
which is listed in the National Register now and it has come down. Because it is not in a local
district staff doesn’t track that type of project, but this one has been included in the report simply
because staff was aware of it.
New local designations: 410, 412 Clinton, the strip of buildings on College St, 109-123, and the
Highlander Supper Club.
Altered locally designated properties: Bristow said we only include those which are in our
conservation districts or local landmarks without a National landmark component. For example,
20 N Dodge was approved for addition of screen porch.
Historic Preservation Fund: Bristow showed an image and said this is a before and after project.
We started with a window repair that became a window replacement and went on to removing
all synthetic siding. This will be a good example of things we can do with our historic
preservation fund.
Public outreach and education: Examples of work include the Historic Preservation Awards.
Bristow said staff presented to the association of realtors and the homebuilders association,
worked with Friends on videos that won an award, and presented at Preservation Summit.
For challenges and successes: Our downtown was listed in the National Register of Historic
Places. Sanxay-Gilmore house was saved but now we are not sure what will happen. It is
owned by the University and they do not have an existing plan for it.
Bristow said the report lists what websites and social media we have, the dates of all meetings,
budget details, commissioner training information. There are a couple city ordinances that affect
historic districts that are included but not commented on in the report.
Beck asked why there are properties within city limits that are a national landmark but not within
our jurisdiction. Bristow said we only have regulatory approval on things that are locally
designated. Most cities do not locally designate. Therefore, we can only regulate (plan review,
etc.) those that are locally designated. We also can’t regulate county or University buildings.
MOTION: Larson moved to approve the Certified Local Government Annual Report as
finalized by staff and chair. DeGraw seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
DISCUSSION OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN PRIORITIES AND WORK PLAN
Bristow said there was a study of a barrio that existed in the Oak Park area where Mexican
immigrant workers had housing provided by the railroad and it was boxcars. She shows an
image from the Sanborn maps to show where this was. One of the items in their work plan is to
include this story when this park goes through its master planning or upgrade process.
Bristow said they have talked a lot about reducing waste in demolition. In some communities
they are doing this through deconstruction so that the material is reused and not wasted.
Another option is to increase the fee for demolition permits.
Bristow said under Invest in Public Infrastructure includes coming up with a plan for the
Montgomery-Butler house.
Bristow said under Preserving Our Heritage we have the house at 2040 Waterfront Dr. We had
a grant to study this house that originally thought to be the house of Cyrus Sanders. It was
actually his brother Richard’s house. We did learn that this house could be eligible for the
National Register and would be a goal to make it a local landmark as well. We also have some
mid-century modern housing stock. An example is up on Knollwood Lane. This neighborhood
was studied as a part of the flood mitigation and a potential National Register district is
indicated. There’s a good mid-century modern neighborhood near City High as well. There are
always areas that have potential for the future.
MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve the Work Plan of Historic Preservation for the year
2022. Beck seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF:
Minor Review – Staff Review
HPC22-0001: 803 Roosevelt Street – Longfellow Historic District
Bristow said this house is getting a new front stoop and step. They did this work before they had
a permit, and they will have to change the railing.
HPC22-0002: 121 and 123 East College Street – Local Historic Landmark
Bristow said there will be some signs in the sign band. They will also be projecting signs.
HPC22-0003: 706 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District
Bristow showed an image of the house. The second-floor windows are being replaced. They are
now vinyl and will be replaced with metal-clad wood. The first floor has original windows.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 13, 2022
DeGraw said that she was not listed as present in the minutes. Bristow said she will update.
MOTION: Wagner moved to approve a Minutes for January 13, 2022 as amended. DeGraw
seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
COMMISSION INFORMATION:
Bristow said she included an email from Anne Russett in the packet. It included the notice about
demolition of 724 Ronalds St. Boyd wanted it included in the agenda in case anyone from the
public wanted to make a comment. The commission had reviewed its status a few years ago
and changed it to non-contributing because of the alterations, making it able to be approved for
demolition without being considered structurally unsound and irretrievable.
Wagner asked if the owners are tearing it down. Bristow said it is owned by the City. Larson
asked if it will be sold or go to the University. Bristow said the goal is to have it redeveloped,
possibly into two lots to increase the density. The new design would come through the
commission for approval. The city would not retain ownership.
DeGraw asked if the commission would have requirements for the new construction. Bristow
said that they would, because, while it is new, it is still in a national register-listed and local
historic district. The house would be required to fit in with the neighborhood. The normal
process would’ve been to approve the demolition and new construction at the same time.
Thomann asked if the house was from the early 1900’s. Bristow said she does not remember
but it was researched before changing it to non-contributing was approved. Wagner said there
were so many additions and alterations it’s hard to know.
ADJOURNMENT:
Wagner moved to adjourn the meeting. Thomann seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 6:29
pm.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
NAME
TERM
EXP. 04/08 05/13 06/10 7/08 7/21 8/12 9/09 10/14 11/18 12/9 01/13 2/15
BECK,
MARGARET 6/30/24 -- -- -- X X X X X X X X X
BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X O/E
BROWN, CARL 6/30/23 X X O/E X O/E X X O/E O/E X O/E O/E
BURFORD,
HELEN 6/30/21 X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
DEGRAW,
SHARON 6/30/22 X X X O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X
KUENZLI,
CECILE 6/30/22 X X X X X O/E X X X X X O/E
KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 X X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
LARSON,
KEVIN
6/30/24 -- -- -- X X O/E X O/E X X O X
PITZEN,
QUENTIN 6/30/21 O/E X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
SELLERGREN,
JORDAN 6/30/22 X X O/E X X X X X O/E X X X
STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 -- -- -- X X X O/E X X X X X
THOMANN,
DEANNA 6/30/23 -- -- -- O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E X X
WAGNER,
FRANK -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X
WU, AUSTIN 6/30/23 O/E X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member