Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.11.2024 HPC agenda packet (Meeting Canceled) Thursday April 11, 2024 5:30 p.m. Emma J. Harvat Hall City Hall IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, April 11, 2024 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30 p.m. Agenda MEETING CANCELLED (lack of quorum) A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. HPC24-0011: 430 Church Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (window change) 2. HPC24-0012: 602 Dearborn Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (rear addition) 3. HPC24-0015: 515 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (rear window to door alteration) 4. HPC24-0019: 812 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (permanent accessibility ramp) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review HPC24-0018: 728 East College Street – College Green Historic District (porch wall reconstruction) Minor Review –Staff review HPC24-0002: 804 Iowa Avenue – College Hill Conservation District (replacement of deteriorated French Doors) Intermediate Review –Chair and Staff review 1. HPC24-0014: 515 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (non-historic rear entry canopy demolition. 2. HPC24-0016: 1047 Woodlawn Avenue – Woodlawn Historic District (minor change to a previous COA) F) Consideration of Minutes for March 21, 2024 G) Commission Information 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 April 4, 2024 Historic Review for HPC24-0011: 430 Church Street General Information: Applicant/Owner: William Nixon, will.lewis.nixon@gmail.com Jared Newman, jarednewman96@gmail.com District: Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District Classification: Contributing Project Scope: Resize and replace window in east-facing dormer Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.11 Siding 4.13 Windows Property History: This front gabled house, built in 1926, is likely a ready-cut catalog house with Craftsman influences. The house is 1 1/2 stories with a front facing gable, an east-facing wall dormer, and a full width front porch with a gable roof. The square, battered porch columns sit on high piers constructed of rock-faced concrete block matching the foundation. The front facade features a cottage window and a 3/4-light Craftsman door on the first floor. Three ganged windows, four-over-one double hung sash, are centered on the second floor with a small square window in the attic above and a three-light square window on each side of the ganged window. The east side has the wall dormer and a square, one-story bump out with a horizontal fixed-sash, six-light window in the wall. The second floor of the rear, north facade, matches the front facade. At the first floor is a single-story sunroom with a hipped roof and ganged windows on all three sides. The house has aluminum siding over the historic siding but the window and door trim remains exposed. Detailed Project Description: This project proposes to reduce the overall height of the window in the east-facing wall dormer. The existing window, a four-over-one double hung sash would be reduced to only the four-light sash with the head in the existing location and the sill raised. The glass will be changed to tempered privacy glass. This change will accommodate the reconfiguration of the bathroom as the raise sill will provide additional privacy and safety with the tub/shower relocated to this wall. The owner proposes to salvage the upper sash and reinstall it with new glass in a reconfigured frame as a fixed sash window similar to the one in the projecting bay below. If the sash is beyond repair, they propose to have a carpenter reconstruct it. They will match the aluminum siding for the portion of the wall that is infilled below the window. Guidelines: Section 4.7 Mass and Rooflines recommends: • Designing new dormers such that the face of the dormer is primarily composed of window area. Section 4.11 Siding recommends: • Repairing historic wood siding and trim. • Replacing deteriorated sections of wood siding with new or salvaged wood siding that matches the historic wood siding. • Removing synthetic siding and repairing historic wood siding and trim. • Replacing synthetic siding with siding to match the original siding of the structure. • Matching synthetic siding may be used to repair damage to small sections of existing synthetic siding. Section 4.13 Windows recommends: • Preserving the historic windows by repairing sashes and frames. • Adding windows that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. • Adding new windows in a location that is consistent with the window pattern of the historic building or buildings of similar architectural style. • If an opening is to be relocated, it should not detract from overall fenestration pattern. • If an opening is to be closed … On a framed structure, appropriate siding that matches the existing should be used with its members being placed across and randomly extended beyond the opening. Analysis: This project reduces the vertical size of a historic window in the east-facing dormer in order to accommodate a bathroom reorganization. Section 4.7 of the guidelines addresses the addition of new dormers by requiring that the face of the dormer is primarily composed of window area because that is the example we find in historic dormers: they are created to add headroom and light from a window to a space within the roof of the house. This house has a wall dormer, that simply means the wall interrupts the eave and extends up into the dormer, instead of the dormer “sitting” on the roof. Staff finds that the proposed window alteration will still allow the historic dormer to be composed primarily of window area as intended. The altered window will retain the existing head height and existing width of the current opening. Raising a sill height for a kitchen counter clearance is an alteration that the Commission commonly approves if it is on the rear or side elevation. Since the window will remain, even in altered form, the window patterning on the building is generally retained which complies with the guidelines in section 4.13. The owner provided photo mock-ups of the change in addition to an example of a much less visible but similar alteration to a house of a similar style at 620 Ronalds Street. The owner has proposed to either rework the upper sash to work as a fixed window or to have it replicated by a carpenter. This would be the recommended approach to best comply with the guidelines. If this was not possible, the guidelines would also recommend a wood or metal-clad wood window that matches the historic one. Staff finds that either replacement window option would be appropriate. This house has aluminum siding which can be matched and patched for this small alteration. However, since this property has synthetic siding, it is assumed that at some point in the future when the synthetic siding has reached the end of its lifespan, compliance with the guidelines will lead to its removal and the repair of the historic siding underneath. With this in mind staff has recommended that the sheathing thickness matches the historic sheathing to make the patching of wood siding easier in this location in the future. Even though this project is located on the highly visible side elevation on North Van Buren Street, staff finds that this is an appropriate change to allow for a reconfiguration of this bathroom with increased privacy. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 430 Church Street as presented in the staff report. 430 Church Street – (Google 2022) Current Pictures, Interior + Ext. 430 Church Exterior Window Current Conditions: ●Exterior opening dimensions = ○W = 36 ¼” ○H = 60” ●Approx. 25% of area above roof line is window ●To increase floor space efficiency, update fixtures, comply with clearance requirements, etc. we’d like to relocate the tub+shower to align with the exterior wall. 430 Church Bathroom Mock-Up Window shown is software default. 430 Church Exterior Window Proposed Change (ranked by preference): Shrink window opening, replace with like-for-like wooden reproduction 1.Top sash only (~30in high, half as high, no change to window coverage above roof line) 2.Copy other window proportions (~18in high, 2:1 Width:Height) 430 Church Exterior Window, Proposed Change #1 ●New opening ~30in. high ●~50% reduction in height ●Window surface area at/above roofline not affected 430 Church, East Elevation, Current Condition 430 Church, East Elevation, Proposed Change #1 Local Precedents, Proposed Change #1 620 Ronalds St (Brown St Historic Dist.) ●3.5 blocks from proposal site ●Window is approx. 30in high ●Approx. 40% of area above roof line is window Local Precedents, Proposed Change #1 121 Evans St ●Window is approx. 48in high ●Approx. 15% of area above roof line is window Other Considerations: ●Replace window glazing with tempered safety glass, per IRC ○With privacy pattern ●Add exhaust fan + light to satisfy ventilation requirements (if window doesn’t open) – need approval for small, low-profile vent on roof ●Like-for-like replacement siding sourced from Gilcrest Jewett ○Plan to change the house envelope as little as possible, matching the fill-in sheathing thickness with the historic sheathing to make patching and restoring original siding possible later on. Prepared by William Nixon 973.647.8661 will.lewis.nixon@gmail.com Staff Report April 4, 2024 Historic Review for HPC24-0012: 602 Dearborn Street General Information: Applicant/Owner: Monica Freet Contact person: Troy Renoux, renouxbuilders@hotmail.com District: Dearborn Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing Project Scope: Construction of a rear addition to the house Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.5 Foundations 4.6 Gutters and Downspouts 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.11 Siding 4.13 Windows 4.14 Wood 5.0 Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint Property History: This single-story front gabled bungalow was built between 1923 and 1926 and features a half-width front-gabled porch with heavy columns on raised stucco-coated, battered piers. The porch has been partially enclosed. The house originally had Craftsman style windows grouped in pairs. Synthetic siding was installed in the 1970s. An addition that widened the house by 4 feet along the north side was completed in 2000. This addition also changed the roofline in the north slope, decreasing the slope from a point about two feet down from the ridge to the eave edge. A garage was built in 1994. The date of the window replacement is unknown. Detailed Project Description: This project adds an addition across the back of the house. This addition will be set in 1 foot from the north and south sides of the house. The addition will add about 14 feet to the back of the house with a 12’-4” extension (as measured no the north side) and a 16- inch projection from that on the south portion of the rear wall. The rear facing gable roofline will match the existing, including the slope change, with the bump out extending in a rear-facing gable. The entry door will have a shed roof canopy supported on cedar brackets. The addition will have metal-clad wood double-hung windows. The house will have composite lap siding and flat casing around windows and doors and corner boards. The sizes will match the historic siding and trim. There will be a wood step and small deck at the rear door. Guidelines: Section 4.3 Doors recommends: • Adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building. • Substituting a material in place of wood for doors and screen doors only if the substitute material retains the style and appearance of the historic doors and screen doors. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Section 4.5 Foundations recommends: • If new window wells are required, the materials must appear similar to the existing foundation material. Section 4.7 Mass and Rooflines recommends: • Preserving the original roof pitches and spans. • Preserving the original walls and vertical corners that define the massing of a historic building. Section 4.13 Windows recommends: • Adding windows that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. • Adding new windows in a location that is consistent with the window pattern of the historic building or buildings of similar architectural style. Section 4.14 Wood recommends: • Substituting a material in place of wood only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint recommends: • Distinguishing between the historic structure and the new addition. This may be accomplished easily by offsetting the walls of the addition from the walls of the original structure. • Matching key horizontal “lines” on the existing building, such as water table, eave height, window head height and band boards, in order to provide continuity between the addition and the historic structure. • Using a palette of materials that is similar to that used on the historic structure. • Placing building additions at the rear of a property, if possible. • Constructing an addition foundation that appears similar to the historic foundation in color, texture, unit size and joint profile. • Constructing additions that are consistent with the massing and roofline of the historic building. This requires that the wall areas and corners, as well as the roof pitches and spans are all consistent with the existing building and have a proportion that is similar to that of the existing building. • Constructing the roof overhang, soffits and eaves of the addition so that they match the roof overhang, soffits and eaves of the existing building. When the eaves of an addition intersect the eaves of the existing building, care should be taken to assure that the two eaves align properly. The trim details of a new eave should match the eave details of the existing building. • Applying siding to a new addition that appears similar in size, shape, texture, and material to the existing siding on the historic building. • Constructing additions with materials that appear similar to the historic siding, trim, moldings, and other details of the original building. • It is disallowed to leave large expanses of wall surface uninterrupted by windows or doors. Analysis: In Staff’s opinion, this addition is placed on the rear of the structure, is set in from the corners and will match the existing roof slope. It will be necessary to match the modified slope on the north side to avoid projecting above the existing roof with the new roof. Since the house has vinyl siding, the new addition will match the lap of the historic siding underneath. The drawings include a note to document the siding lap and the window trim condition. Currently the drawings say a composite siding. The guidelines allow for a smooth cement board product. Any other products must be reviewed by the Commission. The drawings note that the trim will be a synthetic product called MiraTec which can be approved on a case-by-case basis. Staff would recommend approval. Staff noted that the historic house will have a watertable (6-12” flat trim) with a drip edge above it at the bottom of the wall as well as a frieze board at the top of the wall. Staff recommends that any trim like this is confirmed with the siding and window trim and then matched with smooth materials on the addition. The exposed soffit and rafters are called out on the drawing. Staff also noted that the proposed windows have a lower sill than the existing windows on the house and are wider than the historic windows. Staff recommends that the new windows comply with the guidelines that recommend that new windows match the size of the existing windows. It appears that the main window on the south side of the house is a full-size historic opening and staff suggests that the new windows match those proportions. The rear deck and steps will have a composite decking and MiraTec risers. The door product information has not yet been submitted but is shown as a half-light door with two panels below. This door could be approved in wood or fiberglass. The existing foundation on the historic part of the house appears to be a parge-coated material. On the addition along the north side, the foundation appears to be smooth concrete. The drawings for the project state that the addition will have an exposed concrete block foundation and that the egress window wells will match the foundation. Staff recommends that a concrete block foundation is parge-coated above grade to match the historic foundation. A smooth poured concrete foundation could also be approved. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 602 Dearborn Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions:  The windows are revised to match the size of the historic window.  Door product information is submitted for staff review.  The siding product is submitted for review if it is not smooth cement board  Additional trim such as a watertable and frieze board are included on the addition  The foundation is parge-coated 602 Dearborn Street – front (west elevation) 602 Dearborn Street – rear (east) elevation 602 Dearborn Street – NE corner (looking WSW) 602 Dearborn Street – SE corner (looking WNW) Staff Report April 4, 2024 Historic Review for HPC24-0015: 515 Rundell Street General Information: Applicant/Owner: Lea Boldt, lea.j.boldt@gmail.com Contact person: Robert Rich, rob@homeworksiowa.com District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing Project Scope: Replace two first floor rear windows with a pair of doors Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.3 Doors 4.4 Energy Efficiency 4.5 Foundations 4.6 Gutters and Downspouts 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.8 Masonry 4.9 Paint and Color 4.10 Porches 4.11 Siding 4.12 Site and Landscaping 4.13 Windows 4.14 Wood Property History: This house was built by Moffit & Blakesly in 1924 or 1927 making it one of the earliest houses on this side of the street. It appears to have originally been a Colonial Revival Style house with dormer windows projecting from the gable roof, and a single story one car garage on the south end. In 1973 this was altered with the garage converted to a family room and a bedroom added above. The windows in the original portion are double-hung sash. The house has wood shingle siding and an asphalt shingle roof. In 2014, replacement of window sashes was approved. The house is currently having trim and siding repaired and selectively replaced. Earlier this year we approved the replacement of rear basement windows and the removal of an entry canopy over the rear sliding door. Detailed Project Description: The project will remove the pair of rear-facing windows in toward the north end of the house. The windows will be replaced with a pair of swinging (French) doors. The proposed doors are from the Pella Lifestyle Series. The new doors will also have a wood step and stoop. Guidelines: Section 4.3 Doors recommends: • Adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building. • Substituting a material in place of wood for doors and screen doors only if the substitute material retains the style and appearance of the historic doors and screen doors. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. • Disallowed: o Installing flush entrance doors or other modern door styles. o Installing sliding patio doors if they were not original to the building or consistent with the architectural style. Section 4.13 Windows recommends: • If an opening is to be relocated, it should not detract from overall fenestration pattern. Stoop and step requirements for staff review: • The railing will follow the guidelines for balusters and handrails, including the use of posts • The steps will have closed risers and a toe kick (overhang from risers and stringer) • The stoop will be supported on piers or posts aligned with the corner posts in the railing • All wood elements will be painted to blend with the house Analysis: The owner is currently working on a general rehabilitation of this property with some interior renovation including the kitchen area on the back. There are future plans to return the first-floor garage to a garage use. During that project, the sliding door on the south end of the rear wall would be removed. This project will be reviewed in the future. With the current kitchen remodel, the owner wants to include the modification of the rear pair of windows into a pair of doors in anticipation of the future garage project. This window change will allow direct access from the living space to the rear yard. The new door will retain the head height of the existing windows and the overall width of these windows. As a change to the rear of the house, it will have a minimal impact to the historic character of the property and allow easy access to the rear yard. The proposed door is a metal-clad wood door. For doors, we have found that metal doors do not comply with the guidelines for substitute materials. They tend to dent and rust easily. For this reason, we approve either wood doors or fiberglass doors. Staff recommends approval with a wood or fiberglass full-light pair of doors. Because this house has windows whose upper sashes have a divided light condition, staff would also find it appropriate for a similar divided light condition in the new doors as an alternative to no divided lights. Some of the conditions for staff approval of a stoop and step are included because they provide an easy reference for this portion of the project. Staff recommends that the new stoop has a railing that follows the guidelines and closed risers on the steps. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 515 Rundell Street as presented in the application with the following conditions:  New door product information is submitted for review by staff. 515 Rundell Street (Google 2022) 515 Rundell Street – rear elevation REVISED 3.15.2024 Staff Report April 4, 2024 Historic Review for HPC21-0091: 812 South Summit Street General Information: Applicant/Owner: Jamie Powers, Jamie.powers@deluxeiowa.com Contact Person: William Downing, wdowning@rdgusa.com District: Summit Street Historic District Classification: Contributing Project Scope: New stoop, steps, permanent accessibility ramp and railings. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 5.0 Guidelines for Additions 5.2 Decks and Ramps Property History: This house was originally constructed ca. 1900 as a front-gabled American Vernacular house. This is the only commercial building in the Summit Street District. According to Irving Weber, in the 1910’s, owner Harry Smith began a grocery in the house. He later moved the store to the “boomtown” storefront that was built beside the house prior to 1933. The buildings are a vernacular style with lap siding and typical trim, a front gable on the historic house and a “false front” on the storefront addition. The Commission has approved several projects in the past including the addition of a small casement window on the south side, replacement of the front, commercial door, the removal of a rear entry porch and the construction of a gable addition on the north side, replacement signage, and alteration of the south-facing entry door size to accommodate new commercial equipment. Detailed Project Description: This project adds a permanent accessibility ramp to the front entry of the building. The ramp will extend north from the landing, and then turn west along the north property line, ending at the front sidewalk. At the mid-point landing, steps will extend west to the patio and east to the front entry of the north addition. The front step and stoop will be replaced as well. The ramp will be concrete with a simple black metal handrail (and lower wheel rail) on the ramp and at all stairs. Guidelines: Section 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails recommends: • Providing handrails on porch steps as required by the building code. The handrail must have a continuous member that can be easily gripped. The handrail should either match the porch balustrade or be made of round steel pipe. Section 5.2 Decks and Ramps recommends: • Designing ramps so they do not detract from the historic character of the building. To the extent possible, the yard should be graded to create a portion of the incline of the ramp. • Locating a new ramp, or as much of the new ramp as possible, on the side of the building. • Incorporating a ramp into a porch. • Landscaping around a ramp to soften the visual impact of the structure from the street. • It is disallowed to construct a ramp that extends more than 8 feet in front of the primary, street-facing façade. In 2010, the Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness making the construction of accessibility ramps eligible for a minor review provided they follow the guidelines and meet the following conditions: • The new ramp is constructed without footings in order to emphasize the temporary nature of the ramp and to facilitate removal after the ramp is no longer needed; and • The ramp being removed once it is no longer needed; and • The ramp being placed on a side or rear door if possible. Analysis: Unlike most ramps we review, this ramp will be permanent. As a permanent ramp, it will not meet the conditions for a Minor Review by staff and must be reviewed by the Commission. Solving the accessibility issues for this property has been an ongoing conversation. With this property, it is not possible to add a ramp to the south side of the building because the property line is along the building wall. It is not possible to add a ramp to the rear of the building because it would not be possible to provide patron access through the rear. The proposed location allows space for a ramp with minimal change to the historic building. A ramp in this location will require a Minor Modification for the setback requirements of the zoning code. The current front stoop is concrete, and the ramp will continue this material choice. Along the front of the building, the ramp will be obscured from view by planters. The railing will be similar to the black metal railing that currently exists on the stairs. Staff recommends approval of this project as an appropriate solution for a permanent ramp at this business with a very limited site. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 812 South Summit Street as presented in the staff report. 812 South Summit Street – front elevation 812 South Summit Street – front elevation and area for ramp Detail from site plan drawing 8 BS 6 HY 3 SL 1 PG HANDRAILS, TYP. ADA RAMP STEPS (2 RISERS) LANDING RAISED PLATFORM SEAT WALL PAVERS PAVERS BRICK COLUMN W/ CONCRETE CAP BRICK COLUMN W/ CONCRETE CAP STEPS (5 RISERS) LANDING HANDRAIL, TYP. REPLACED CONCRETE 1 2 3 4 6 C A B 5 D E C A B D E 1 2 3 4 65 KEY PLAN © PROJECT. THEY ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR USE ON OTHER PROJECTS OR IN OTHER LOCATIONS WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL AND PARTICIPATION OF RDG Planning & Design, Inc. REPRODUCTION IS PROHIBITED. THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY RDG SPECIFICALLY FOR THE RDG Planning & Design PROJECT NO:3006.279.00 ISSUANCE DATE DELUXE BAKERY 2024 THIS DRAWING MAY NOT REPRESENT ALL CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED DURING BID OR CONSTRUCTION PHASES. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, ADDENDA AND CHANGE DOCUMENTS REMAIN THE OFFICIAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. L02.01 SITE LAYOUT PLAN A1 PLAN: SITE LAYOUT 1" = 2'0 SCALE: 1" = 2' 2'4'6' NORTH SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE QTY DETAIL REMARKS SHRUBS BS Buxus sempervirens 'Suffruticosa' / Suffruticosa Common Boxwood ---8 PG Picea pungens 'Globosa' / Dwarf Globe Blue Spruce ---1 GRASSES SL Schizachyrium scoparium / Little Bluestem ---3 PERENNIALS HY Hemerocallis x / Hybrid Daylily ---6 PLANT SCHEDULE 1" = 1'-0"A6 TYP. HANDRAIL -0833 WELD END OF RAIL TO POST 1 12" O.D. STAINLESS STEEL HANDRAIL & POST, SEE SPECS OVERFILL GROUT TO ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM POST CORE DRILL CONC. SLAB FOR POST & ANCHOR W/ NON-SHRINK, NON-METALLIC GROUT CONCRETE 3" NOTE: GRIND ALL WELDS SMOOTH AND FINISH WELDS SIM. TO POST & RAIL FINISH STAINLESS STEEL LIGHTED RAILING, SEE ELECTRICAL NOT TO SCALEA5SECTION: PCC STAIRS - "A" -NTS NOTE: REFER TO STRUCTURAL FOR PLACEMENT AND SIZING OF REBAR B.S. ELEV. T.S. ELEV. SEE LAYOUT PLAN SEE LAYOUT PLAN 1 12" O.D. STAINLESS STEEL RAILING, SEE "TYP. HANDRAIL" DETAIL FIELD VERIFY INTERACTION OF HANDRAIL CORE WITH REINFORCING OF CONCRETE ISO JOINT, TYP. CONCRETE STAIR FOOTING, SEE STRUCTURAL FOR REINFORCING PCC SIDEWALK, TYP. EXISTING SUBGRADE R 1/4" 1/2" MIN. 1'-0" TYP. COMPACTED SUBGRADE COMPACTED SUBGRADE 1'-0" 1'-0" 6" MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MARCH 21, 2024 – 5:30 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Carl Brown, Andrew Lewis, Jordan Sellergren, Noah Stork, Deanna Thomann, Nicole Villanueva, Frank Wagner, Christina Welu- Reynolds MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow, Juli Seydell-Johnson OTHERS PRESENT: Christopher Munoz 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: HPC24-0006: 435 Rundell Street - Longfellow Historic District (garage alteration and new addition): Bristow stated this house is in the Longfellow Historic District and is a Moffitt cottage. It has a characteristic chimney, the dormer they think is original as well because it's similar to many other dormers on Moffitt cottages, and it also has an attached garage that is original to the house and was built at the same time as the rest of the house. The project is to convert the garage into living space. Bristow noted historically a lot of times people would just remove the garage door, put in a window, and leave the driveway. She showed a couple of examples of how these houses have been converted elsewhere. However, Iowa City Code does not allow that anymore stating they can't have a driveway that's just in front of the habitable part of the space, the driveway needs to lead to a legal parking space. Bristow shared another more recent example on Rundell where when they wanted to convert it. Because they had additional space in the rear yard and off the alley, they were able to convert it to a living space, remove the driveway and add a garage off the alley instead. From a historic preservation point of view, they treat it as an addition, so they want it to match all the horizontal lines and all the siding and trim, etc. Bristow noted this house at 435 Rundell Street does not have an alley off the back and also has a tight lot so there's no way to make a driveway, go around the house to the rear and add a driveway back there. Therefore, as a part of this project, when they remove the parking in the garage to make it a living space, they will need to have the Board of Adjustment to waive some of the parking requirements and parking standards. The Board of Adjustment can do this if they get approval from this Commission for their project. Bristow noted it will help retain the historic character of the house which is another requirement for the Board of Adjustment to make this special exception. The owners presented to staff a proposal to retain the look of the garage and asking for approval to HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 21, 2024 Page 2 of 12 replace the garage overhead door with a wall that looks just like it and so the driveway will remain but there will no longer be an overhead door but there'll be a wall with a wood panel over it so it'll look just like the garage door. For this Commission, the extent of the approval is approving the removal of the garage door and the replacement with a wall that resembles the historic door. From a historic preservation point of view staff would recommend approval of that because it retains a historic character of the house. Bristow showed one of the renderings that showed how the exterior siding and trim will match the door. Bristow stated the additional part of the project is behind the house where there's a little L created by the body of the house in the back of the garage, they have a porch there now and they want to create an addition. She showed the plan with the wall set in to retain the corner of the house, there is no eave overhang on that side of the house so they've stepped it in just a minimal amount to comply with the guidelines and fill in that L. Bristow explained they did notice during the project review that a three-foot landing will be required at the rear door per Code. She showed a plan drawing of the garage space, with the wall infill and retaining the existing window. They will have steps up from that garage space into the main portion of the house and they're using it to expand their kitchen. The addition will have a door on the back and a window on the side. The guidelines related to this are the same guidelines we have used for other additions. If they had a historic garage door it's recommended to retain it but in this case it would be acceptable to replace it with a wall that looks like it because of what the scope of the project is. Regarding windows, if they were relocating an opening, they could consider the garage door an opening. If it is being relocated, it should not detract from the overall fenestration pattern or opening pattern. In this case, by filling that wall with something that looks like the garage door they would be following that guideline. Bristow noted it doesn't come up often to remove a door from the front of a house, whether it's a garage door or a passage door. The Secretary of the Interior standards, which are section 10, in the City’s guidelines, the historic character of the property shall be retained and preserved. In this case they’re not removing historic materials or features that characterize the property and by doing this fake door wall they’re following that guideline because they're reusing the space and still retaining the physical, historic character of the exterior. Additionally, exterior alterations shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property and they're not removing the garage just changing the use of the space on the inside. With the addition, there will be a window similar to the other windows on the house and a craftsman style door. They are retaining the horizontal lines on the house and extending that eave with the body of the house. Bristow showed an updated plan that shows the stoop out the door and the stairs that go down to the side. She showed the expansion of the building footprint, the matching of the horizontal lines and that they’re using the same palette of materials. Bristow did note she would recommend that that roof slope match the dormers. If the dormer is too flat, they could add a little bit more slope to that to make it work a little better. Roof overhangs, soffits and eaves are matching on the addition as well as is the siding. Bristow stated there are some guidelines about doors, retaining the corners, matching the roof pitches and matching windows. She did note she has not reviewed the window product or the door product for the addition and so would add that as a recommended condition that it's submitted for review, but otherwise staff would recommend approval of this project. Christopher Munoz (435 Rundell Street) is the homeowner and has worked with staff to share what they are trying to do and to hopefully stay within the guidelines. Brown asked about the inset for the corners and that in the back they’re not coming in the six inches and just infilling how does that fit in terms of the guidelines. Bristow replied in-setting from the side is something that will help with how it is viewed from the front looking at it from the side. On this building, because of the fact that's the gable end, it’s easy to set it in. If they set in on the back, it's going to HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 21, 2024 Page 3 of 12 make them have to do a jog in the gutter and that roof edge, so it is actually just easier to make it align. There is also no issue with visibility of the addition since that's totally on the back and so that's why they would recommend only setting it in on the side. Similarly, dormers have some set-in requirements, it’s required that a dormer for instance is set in three feet from the roof edge but would still align with a wall along the front. Architecturally it works out better to align with the rear wall but set in on the side. Thomann noted it seems like Bristow has seen projects like this before, where they convert the garage and then there's still the driveway leading to the garage. When this is done, is it common for people keep their cars on that pad of cement or do they usually keep the car in the back of the house someplace. Bristow replied that with most of these, especially if they are having the access problem, they would tend to keep their car on the driveway. She noted at least two examples on the other street where they regularly do park there and they legally can if the parking spot is grandfathered in. Munoz commented that the width of Rundell Street is huge so he wishes they could have more yard than street but there's plenty of parking on the street. Sellergren asked regarding the guidelines is the reason that they're retaining the garage doors specifically so that they can keep the driveway or so that they can retain the look of the house with the attached garage. Bristow noted that is something for the Commission to discuss but that it is about retaining the historic appearance of the attached garage. Munoz stated he is not sure when the rules were changed but on many of the conversions of the Moffitt houses, the garage conversions, they don't see that the garages were retained. There's windows and they got that exception because they've created parking on the backside but is there an example of one where they retain the garage. Bristow is unsure, partly because since the District has been made it's a little bit more difficult to do that and it has a lot to do with the Code requirement. Thomann noted this is creative thinking and thinks it's great that they want to keep the look of the garage. They’d probably prefer to have windows in there but it's a Moffitt house and it's still going to look like a Moffitt house and she appreciates that. MOTION: Wagner moves to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 435 Rundell Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: window and door product is approved by staff and the rear door, stair, and landing are located on the rear of the house. Villanueva seconded the motion. Sellergren raised the point that she thinks retaining a fake garage door is kind of a silly requirement, especially considering that on examples of similar homes, even though the driveway has been removed, the home's still fine with windows. She is wondering if the property owner prefers the windows and if that's the case could there be any exception that Historic Preservation could make to allow that. She just thinks sometimes these guidelines can get in the way of public opinion of historic preservation and she wants to make sure that they can be somewhat flexible in situations like this when appropriate. Bristow stated that doing it this way allows them to do what they want and it allows HPC to retain the historic character that they want to retain. Wagner also noted the limitations of the lot size. Bristow agreed noting that they would completely lose any chance of parking on the lot if the garage door was removed and it became windows instead because they would have to remove the driveway. Sellergren asked about the Code requirements and is retaining the garage door look to keep the pavement to accommodate what Code is protecting. Bristow confirmed yes, it is mostly a code issue HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 21, 2024 Page 4 of 12 but also from a preservation point of view this would be the preferred way to do it. Stork asked because the Commission doesn't really concern itself with the interior if they could approve a future owner turning the garage door back to functional. Bristow acknowledged that is a possibility. Sellergren stated her concerns come from the place where fake garage doors or fake chimneys seem unnecessary and she is just for function over form. A vote was taken and the motion passed 9-0. HPC23-0057: 410-412 North Clinton Street - Local Historic Landmark (rehabilitation plan): Bristow explained this property is located west of the Gilbert/Linn Historic District or Northside Historic District. It's the Cochrane-Sharpless-Dennis house. This property was locally land marked as part of a development project that will soon come forward. Basically what is happening is the historic house is from 1865 with a little addition that was built before 1899 and there is the 1965 apartment building. Next to it is another historic house with another historic house behind that and both of those houses will be demolished to make way for a new multi-family building. Part of the development agreement is allowing the other houses to be salvaged. They will also be taking down the garage on the landmark property and a portion of the development will cross the back portion of the landmark property. Bristow reiterated this was all part of the development agreement. There are two additional parts beyond the fact that they must salvage the historic house, they also had to create a comprehensive rehabilitation plan for the exterior of the landmark property, which is really needed. There is the agreement that the Commission will end up reviewing the portion of the development that crosses across the back of the landmark property, similar to what was done with the Unitarian Church. The previous iteration of this Commission worked through this with the developer and the City to come to this agreement and Friends of Historic Preservation also commented on it. Bristow showed a preliminary look at the development that will go next to the locally landmarked property, it will be a multi-level apartment building with underground parking that comes across the back of the landmarked property with upper floors of apartments. She added the existing 1965 apartment building will remain. As part of this process Bristow went to the property and documented it and provided the owner with the City’s suggested rehabilitation and the guidelines that concern that. This guidance was attached in the staff report in its entirety. The owners then came back with a plan. The biggest area of work needed is the masonry, it has 1865 masonry so it's really soft. Staff will review the means and methods for the mason, that's not something that they normally do with a contractor, but they want to make sure they're not using power tools without experience and to make sure that they're using the correct mortar as well as other concerns with historic masonry. They will also review the brick match to make sure that it's an appropriate match, because there will be some bricks that will have to be replaced. Bristow noted over the years there's been some inappropriate masonry work done here so they will try to clean that up as best they can. Also with the stone foundation there's some areas without mortar and that needs to be fixed. There's a lot of wood that needs repair as well and they will match things that are too deteriorated. There are internal gutters and they've been leaking over time so there's some extensive wood rot and they'll be looking at the gutters. The roof does have a historic metal roof right now and there's no thought that it is to the point where it needs to be replaced right now. She would expect that the internal gutters probably need some new pans, but the proposal is to reline them with EPDM. There are some brackets missing or broken and those will be repaired. There are operable historic shutters installed in the correct place and the missing one will be recreated to match. The windows will HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 21, 2024 Page 5 of 12 be repaired, all of the windows will have storm windows to protect the windows. The front door was in good condition except for a little bit of deterioration on the bottom so it was recommended that they repair it and actually retain the screen door if they can. The schedule for these repairs is now through July, they will work on all the exterior wood, then begin working on the windows and start looking at the roof and the gutters. The chimney is parge-coated brick so they'll just make sure that it's intact and it's not cracking. The masonry work would happen later in the year after staff has reviewed how they're going to do the work and any brick matches. Part of the development agreement is that the rehab for the historic house must be completed before they get their occupancy permit so that is provides the guarantee that it will be completed. Staff does recommend approving this as long as the masonry proposal is reviewed and the brick is also reviewed. MOTION: Beck moves to prove a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 410 to 412 North Clinton Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: the masonry proposal is reviewed and approved by staff and any replacement brick match is reviewed on site by staff.Brown seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 9-0. CITY PARK POOL PLANNING: Juli Seydell Johnson (Parks and Recreation Director) is here to give a quick update on what's happening with City Park pool. The first step was to choose the project consultant team that was done. They've assessed the current condition of the pool and last summer Council had a presentation and decided that it was to the point where it couldn't be repaired, and they should go forward with replacement. That went into Phase One of public input, which included idea generation sessions that were open to the public and online option, then focus groups, and that's been completed. That led to four concept designs which went through another survey, both a statistically valid random survey and an open public survey and a public open house. The results of those surveys will be presented to Council at a joint meeting of Council and the Parks and Rec Commission on May 7 from 4pm to 6pm here in the Council chambers. They hope to move forward for construction in January through December of 2025 so there will be one more season of the current City Park pool and then it would close for demolition and construction. Seydell Johnson noted the goals of the project have not changed since they started down the road of hiring consultants for the project in that they're looking to have a new pool that will provide community recreation experiences to a wide variety. They heard the words multicultural, multi-generational options in the pool and to provide increased independent accessibility. The current pool meets ADA standards barely but you have to use a pool lift, it's not independent access into most of the pool. More goals were: designs to provide shade in several areas on the deck and in some of the water area, to provide design and operating efficiencies that support the City's climate action goals, to maximize the efficiency of lifeguards, they have enough lifeguards now but there's a shortage of them across the country so they want to have options as they move into the future of how this thing will operate. To promote the vision of every child learning how to swim, swimming lessons, and teaching everyone to swim is a very important part of what they do in Parks and Recreation. Welcome users of all backgrounds, especially through the bathhouse and locker rooms, evaluate the proposed potential of merging the outdoor restrooms and indoor shelter that's available in City Park into the same structure as the City Park pool building, and limit the construction area generally to within the fence line of the current pool. Seydell Johnson noted they had really strong input from the public not to mess with any of the trees, which they really don't want to do anyway, and they’re also not planning on adding any parking. But that really limits some of what they would do in any kind of renovation because they don't have any additional HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 21, 2024 Page 6 of 12 parking. She also wanted to mention that the pool proposal has its own website page at the City website so one can always go here and get the updates of where they're at and what they're doing. Regarding phase one, public input, they’ve had tremendous public input throughout this whole entire process. They did open houses where people could come in and give all sorts of ideas, they had 35 people come during an afternoon session, but 460 came that night, which was a great turnout and great diversity in the crowd in terms of ages, family makeup, different nationalities, etc. a good cross section of the community. 327 additional people took advantage of the open house online. After that they did focus groups, people applied who wanted to be involved in the focus groups and were chosen based on a specific balance in the focus groups so that it matched as closely as they could to the City's demographics. They were also looking to have both swimmers and non-swimmers, people with kids, people without kids, people who like to come and sunbathe, people who like to come lap swim, and people who like to do aqua fitness. In the end, the process involved Seydell Johnson, one of the Parks and Rec Commission members, one of the leaders of the Back to the Future group, and a couple staff members. They used a huge spreadsheet and did all the selection for the focus groups without any sense of who the person's name was or their address. They had 327 people register for the focus groups, 227 were selected and invited and they hosted 14 different in person focus groups. Of those 227 invited 137 actually came those evenings and participated. If someone was chosen to participate in a focus group and didn't attend they were given an option to do an online version. Additionally if someone applied to be in a focus group and weren't selected, they got the online version so well over 1000 people participated in these first two parts. That led to the summary and the priorities from the phase one input and is what guided the four option designs that they came up with. Seydell Johnson stated the four option designs are going to sound very close to the project goals, they heard people wanted to maintain the park-like setting and maintain kind of the historic look of the pool and the open space of the pool. They wanted a multi-use, multigenerational space. People like to do a lot of different things, but generally in the same spaces so they were looking for ways to come to the pool, do their thing and not be bothered by the other user groups. Of those separate activity areas, zero depth entry was one of the big priorities that they heard, meaning a beach front type entry into all areas of the pool, not just the kid area. Shade was another priority, and it's interesting because they heard both people wanted shade and they wanted areas to sunbathe, so the plans come in with both of those. They heard both strongly 50-meter and 25-meter lap lanes and they're still trying to figure that out. People wanted both low and high diving boards and wanted the diving boards more than slides or other amenities such as that, and a children's play area that was left kind of open ended for what that might be. Seydell Johnson moved onto showing the four designs that were created out of feedback given. All four of them include a reworking or a rebuilding of the bathhouse and the entry house. It includes separate male and female locker room spaces, but with more privacy spaces within those locker room spaces, and also two single user restroom shower spaces right in the center behind the entrance so that one doesn’t have to identify male or female, they can come in and use a single user space. Or if it is a small group of family or an adult that needs help with care they’ve got those single user spaces. It also includes an indoor programming space, kind of a small classroom space, that could be used during the pool season, but it would be heated and can be used throughout the rest of the year for an indoor park shelter or recreation programming needs. They also added the two outdoor restrooms that would replace the current outdoor restroom that's in upper City Park which is nearing the end of its serviceable life. This also separates out the filtration and mechanical and chemical areas, right now those are really close to all the public areas and a lot of it is underneath the current bathhouse which gives a confined space entry for staff, which is pretty dangerous so it moves that to a separate building away from the public uses near the diving well. All of that happens with all four options and that's the top safety concerns as far as the operating and of how can they provide a more inclusive entry, more HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 21, 2024 Page 7 of 12 inclusive restrooms and locker rooms situations. Moving next to the differences between the four concept designs, they categorized each based on project goals, what's the cost of the estimate, what is the bather load, or how many people would be would be able to swim in the pool at any one time (interestingly the current pool has a bather load of over 1000 and on a really busy day they have around 400 so they aren't anywhere near the bather capacity of what that pool could be), separate programming areas, children's activity area, the zero depth entry, 25 meter lap lanes, 50 meter lap lanes, 50 meter lap lanes available all day (currently they're only available during designated lap swim periods earlier in the morning and then over the lunch hour), high and low diving boards, deck space for chairs and sunbathing, additional shade, minimal tree impact and design within the current fence line and the new bathhouse. All four concept designs meet several of those criteria right off the bat so no matter which of the four is chosen it will have a lot of those things. Seydell Johnson noted they are still working on how to incorporate the 25-meter lap lanes, but they have a commitment that it’s going to happen in some way, whichever pool concept ends up getting chosen. Option A shows a fairly large zero depth entry area and that would be the zero depth children's play area. Then it has a current channel, not really a lazy river, but a current channel which has moving water to play in or to walk in or to do exercise in. The zero-depth play area is connected to the six lap lanes and then a separate diving well. Why a separate diving well, Seydell Johnson noted one of the goals is climate action and less water and by moving it into a separate dive tank it greatly reduces the amount of water, about 30%-35% less water in the first three options compared to the last. She stated it's not just the amount of water but also lets them size all of the mechanical systems and use much less chemicals and all that makes everything a little more cost effective. Also, the neat part about these dive tanks is it also has stairs to get into them so more accessible for people to get in and out of the dive tank which will be really popular with aqua joggers or aqua fitness folks. Also, if this is widened a little bit it could become that short course lap lane. Option A is the second most expensive option at $18.39 million, has a bather load of 975, which is slightly less than the current pool but not much, uses 34% less water than the current pool. The only thing this doesn't meet in those goals is that 25-meter lap lane. Option B is somewhat similar in that it has the zero-depth entry, but it's now a separate pool. Option B shows it as three separate pools instead of two with a children's activity area that has small playground type structure in it, it goes from zero depth up to about three and a half, maybe four feet at the other end and has stairs as well for an entry. Option B has the lap lanes as a separate six lane lap lane and then the diving well remains separate and everything about the dive tank is the same. Having the three separate areas would help with a lot of operating issues and have a lot of operating enhancements. This option would take the least amount of lifeguards of all the options. Additionally, Seydell Johnson wanted to mention that in the first three options the 50 meter lap lanes are three and a half to five feet deep so one could walk the entire distance and the water walkers and water joggers can do that during an open swim period of time, two or three of them would still be designated as lap lanes, and the rest would be open space for just the general public to use. Option B again does not have the 25-meter lap lanes, one could swim perpendicular to the 50-meter lap lanes, that would be probably okay for recreational but it's not quite the 25 meter. However, it is shallow so people can stop and turn hallway, they just wouldn’t have the hard surface to kick turn on. The other benefit for three separate areas is that there are little fecal accidents that happen occasionally and in this situation they would just have to close one of the tanks and could keep the other two open. That also provides if one had other maintenance issues, one could be closed and it would be possible the others open, additionally, it might be possible pre/post season to keep the lap lane pool open possibly longer with fewer staff and have the other two close. Option B would provide a lot more flexibility of how it could operate. Option B has everything except the 25-meter lap lanes shown at this time, it's a little cheaper than the first option, it HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 21, 2024 Page 8 of 12 has a little lower capacity, and uses 39% less water than the current pool. Option C shows an L shaped pool and this is as close as they got to what people asked for that wanted to keep the exact same pool design, but with a zero depth entry. Instead of having the two wings like the current pool, this has one that allows for the zero depth entry and that would move the play structure to that part of the pool. That then connects to the six lap lanes. The diving well remains separate, once again because they feel like that is important to the water savings. Option C hits everything except that 25-meter lap lane which they are still trying to figure out, this option has the most water savings of the three options and about the same cost. The final option should look really familiar, it is essentially a rebuild of the same pool that they currently have, the only change is that it does have entry stairs in that top left corner and it's kind of covered by the shade structure. This option doesn't have the separate program areas, it doesn't have the children activity area, it would still have the wading pool that is currently there but no play features, it doesn't have the assessable zero depth entry. They show this option because people really wanted to see what it would take to do exactly the same pool and it is the most expensive at $19.56 million with no water savings. Seydell Johnson noted that all four options were out for public survey through March 8 but she doesn’t have the results of the survey yet. They also did a random, statistically valid survey and 4949 received that invitation via a postcard in the mail, it was provided in four languages beyond English and interestingly they had 68 people fill it out in languages other than English. Over 1000 people did the open survey so the consultants say they have enough in the random one to make it statistically valid. They have plotted the addresses of the statistically valid survey that were returned and they have really good representation from all areas of the City. All the various surveys, forums and open houses will inform the staff recommendation that will come back to City Council on Tuesday, May 7. The decision by Council would likely be two weeks later at their next meeting if they're ready to do it at that point. Seydell Johnson noted also that when they begin to move forward with any of the four options there's still refinements to be made as they move forward. Budget considerations are probably going to help trim some of the things in the end result and they might also run into unknown site conditions so there's still a long way to go with whichever design is chosen. Sellergren asked what the reason is that the zero depth is not possible in the historic model. Seydell Johnson explained because of the site, they’d have to shift the lap lanes to the left and make it come off one side, instead of both, they can't have it come off both sides and have the space that they need on the deck as one of the project goals is to keep the project essentially within the fence line of the current pool. Stork asked if there wasn't a thought to rotate it slightly, to rotate the footprint. Seydell Johnson stated they actually went through about 64-72 different variations of trying to make everything fit and these are honestly the best four options that they came up with after that long process. Sellergren asked in the second model could the width of the pool be expanded to 25 to accommodate. Seydell Johnson replied possibly, that'll be part of a budget condition. Right now they're showing six lap lanes, there's been some public interest in eight but each additional lap lane is about a million dollars more and then there would be less water savings and less of the other project goals too. They are also concerned that they probably won't have the deck space that people are asking for, to move around the pool. Beck asked about the water leaks of existing pool, where does the water go. Seydell Johnson HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 21, 2024 Page 9 of 12 explained most of its going down the storm drain, they do know that it's being captured underneath and going out a storm drain but it’s likely some of it is absorbed into the ground underneath and probably finding its way to the river. Stork asked about the water savings, how is that measured in terms of environmental or financial. Seydell Johnson explained they measure it in terms of pounds of co2 that it would save and options A through C would give about 7767 less pounds of co2 per season. Stork asked if that was electricity to clean the water and Seydell Johnson is not sure exactly what it measures, she got the information from sustainability office. But it would mean they would have smaller pumps, smaller electrical use, smaller amounts of water, smaller chemical uses etc., it's much more than just the gallons of water. Beck asked if entrance prices at City Park pool would go up with the new pool. Seydell Johnson replied probably not, it hasn't been something they've been tasked with looking at. She did note it's probably time for them to incrementally go up soon. Seydell Johnson noted she thinks there's a real intent that they want to keep the keep the feel of what City Park has been for so long, and that it's a community gathering space and open and welcoming to all and just want to expand that part of it but keeping that tree lined atmosphere. Sellergren noted on behalf of historic preservation do they have any plans to mark the historic pool. Seydell Johnson replied yes, and that's actually one of the main reasons they chose the architectural team that they did. They've done some really neat things in terms of marking the history of the sites they've worked on and being really cognizant of how to showcase that and capture that. She doesn’t know what that will look like yet. Sellergren asked if that is something that historic preservation could be consulted on in terms of if there was some kind of plaque that went up. Seydell Johnson agreed that could be one and did share there might be a Herky coming that's in honor of Ned Ashton, who was the original lead engineer for that project. {Wagner left the meeting} REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review HPC24-0010: 1031 East College Street - East College Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement): Bristow stated this is an addition project previously reviewed by the Commission that completed work without permits and one of the conditions of the violation was they needed to submit an application for review for the roof that they replaced. They did replace it with an appropriate material, and it was asphalt shingles before so they’ve approved that as a certificate of no material effect. HPC24-0013: 504 East Bloomington Street - Local Historic Landmark (roof shingle replacement): Bristow noted this is a more recent local landmark and it will also have roof shingles replaced. It's also going to have a little brick work done as well eventually but that’ll be a separate approval. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 21, 2024 Page 10 of 12 Minor Review – Staff review HPC24-0004: 812 Church Street - Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (replacement of vinyl windows with metal-dad wood windows): Bristow stated this was a project that came before the Commission a while back where this house had a little addition and a deck and there are some historic windows and some vinyl windows and the rest of the vinyl windows are being replaced with a metal clad wood window to match what was approved for their addition so it won't have any vinyl anymore on the windows. HPC24-0008: 827 Dearborn Street - Dearborn Street Conservation District (new front steps): This house on Dearborn is getting new front steps. HPC24-0009: 921 Dearborn Street - Dearborn Street Conservation District (new front step and stoop): This house also got new front steps. Intermediate Review – Chair and Staff review HPC24-0003: 1530 Sheridan Avenue - Dearborn Street Conservation District (new rear deck): This house is on the corner of Dearborn and Sheridan and while a deck can be reviewed by staff when it's behind the house, it's hard to do that on a corner. Because it's in a conservation district, it was reviewed with the Chair and staff instead of bringing it to the Commission but they made sure that the railing followed the guidelines and they reviewed the stoop and steps. The Commission had made a staff approval version of a stoop and step and the key to that is it has some elements of a porch because it is designed to go on the front. So things like the railing posts will align with the posts below and they'll be doing that with this as well. Right now they have a little deck with some steps, with the new one they'll have a square landing and it will be set back from the corner. They'll have the deck and a straight run along the side of the addition and a larger area of the deck back where they don't currently have a deck. So they'll have a little bit more usable space behind the house. Bristow explained it was an intermediate review because it's very visible from the side street. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 8, 2024: MOTION: Thomann moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's February 8, 2024, meeting with correction that Thomann’s house is three blocks from Pagliai’s and not one block. Beck seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. COMMISSION INFORMATION: Sellergren wanted to let everybody know that City Council's hearing on the Pagliai’s landmark designation will be April 2 and is open to the public, Commission presence is appreciated. Her, Thomann and members of the Friends of Historic Preservation have made an effort to create a case for why the building deserves to be landmarked and that includes a letter from the Northside Businesses Partnership, and to some degree partnership with Iowa City Downtown District. They've just really been doing their best to make sure that City Council knows how important this is and any public support that can be drummed up in the meantime will be very appreciated. Thomann noted Sellergren has been doing a lot of work trying to go out and talk with businesses, to HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION March 21, 2024 Page 11 of 12 see if they're interested in signing this letter that says that they support preservation efforts for the Pagliai’s building and it's quite a list. If any others on the Commission are interested in taking one or two businesses and talking with them she has a little letter that's written up that would really be helpful. If interested let her know. Bristow wanted to remind all it's now possible to register for the Preserve Iowa Summit in Mount Pleasant June 6 through 8. They have changed the day so that the CLG (Certified Local Government) forum is on the Saturday, and it is a flat $10 fee for that day because they're providing lunch. She noted it's a good place to meet people at the State and meet people from Commissions elsewhere to learn things. She will be there because she attends the whole conference. As a member of the Commission, if they wanted to attend the whole conference they certainly can it’s just going to cost about $100 to register and the City doesn’t have the funding pay for Commissioners. She encourages as many of them that come for that one Saturday as possible to do so as it would be good to represent because usually it's just her from the fifth biggest city in Iowa. Beck noted as one of the Commissioners whose term ends in June she was wondering if she wanted to be considered for another term or find replacement or when do they have to start worrying about that. Bristow explained the City will basically post the position and there will be a deadline to apply and you will need to apply by that deadline. Bristow also wanted to mention the work plan, after they're through with the Pagliai’s landmark designation through Council it might be time to start thinking about some of the other subcommittees and other things and how the Commission wants to move forward with the work plan. ADJOURNMENT: Lewis moved to adjourn the meeting. Beck seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2024 NAME TERM EXP. 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/13 8/10 9/14 10/12 11/9 12/14 1/11 2/8 3/21 BECK, MARGARET 6/30/24 X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X X BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 O/E X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- BROWN, CARL 6/30/26 X O/E X X O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E X LEWIS, ANDREW 6/30/26 -- -- -- X X X X X X X X X SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/25 X X O/E X X X X X X X X X STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 O/E X X X X X X X X O/E X X THOMANN, DEANNA 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X X X VILLANUEVA, NICOLE 6/30/25 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X WAGNER, FRANK 6/30/26 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X WELU- REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA 6/30/25 X O/E X O/E X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member