Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8. 8 2024 HPC Agenda packet Thursday August 8, 2024 5:30 p.m. Emma J. Harvat Hall City Hall IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, August 8, 2024 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) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review 1. HPC24-0043: 332 East Davenport Street – Northside Historic District (internal gutter repair) 2. HPC24-0059: 1003 East Davenport Street – College Hill Conservation District (porch ceiling repair) 3. HPC24-0060: 316 Church Street – Northside Historic District (porch floor structure and flooring replacement) 4. HPC24-0064: 713 North Lucas Street – Brown Street Historic District (replacement of a portion of the foundation wall) Minor Review –Staff review 1. HPC24-0054: 721 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement) 2. HPC24-0056: 820 Bowery Street – Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (front and rear step replacement) 3. HPC24-0058: 312 South Governor Street – Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (front step and railing replacement) 4. HPC24-0062: 721 North Linn Street – Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement) 5. HPC24-0063: 604 Ronalds Street – Brown Street Historic District (front porch roof cladding replacement) 6. HPC24-0067: 619 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (metal roof replacement with shingles) Intermediate Review –Chair and Staff review 1. HPC24-0055: 812 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (minor revision to a previously approved COA) 2. HPC24-0025: 121 North Linn Street – Local Historic Landmark (new sign and awning installation) 3. HPC24-0066: 504 East Bloomington Street – Local Historic Landmark (rear one-story wall, concrete step and cellar access wall reconstruction and cellar door replacement) 4. HPC24-0069: 923 Dearborn Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (non-historic brick removal and siding patching) E) Consideration of Minutes for June 13, 2024 (deferred from July agenda) F) Consideration of Minutes for July 11, 2024 G) Commission Discussion 1. Commission work plan and subcommittees H) Commission Information I) Adjournment If you will need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Jessica Bristow, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5243 or at jessica-bristow@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 13, 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 MEMBERS ABSENT: Christina Welu-Reynolds STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Simon Andrew, Martha Norbeck, GT Karr, Mark Russo 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: HPC24-0038: 426/430 Church Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (garage demolition): Bristow noted this is in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District on the corner of Church and Van Buren. 426 Church Street is the house and it had aluminum siding removed recently so some of the photos she showed were old. 430 Church Street had a long-term owner and it has recently changed hands. The subject of the project is the shared garage between the homes. The houses were built on a lot that used to extend all the way to the alley and then it was divided in half north and south and then divided again in half east and west. Both homes are catalog homes built about the same time and have a shared driveway and a shared garage. Bristow said the issue with the garage is that it's 16ft by 16ft and a legal parking spot is 9ft by 18ft so it is too short to fit modern cars. Since the 426 property was purchased by the current owner they've been talking about this garage. With the previous owner there was no need for the corner property to have driveway or garage space but then the property changed hands and now both property owners are interested in being able to park on their property so that they don't have to park on the street. Staff has been working through this for a long time with the homeowners trying to figure out ways to first save the garage but there was no way to just add to it and make it workable, especially for two cars, and Iowa City's zoning code does not allow a garage to be built that crosses property lines. They need to have required setbacks, which can be reduced, but not to zero. The current garage not only crosses the property lines but it also is within a foot or two of the rear property line and all of the properties have to maintain a certain amount of open space. For the corner property, adding a driveway off the side street and putting a garage in the backyard would mean that they have no open space. So the solution they came to was that the garage would need to come down. Typically the Commission would look at the condition of the garage prior to approving demolition and this one does need repair. It has been repaired in the past, the doors are bead board with the framing HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 2 of 11 on the outside but garage doors can be replaced and they can also repair the garage itself as it is not beyond repair to the point where they would normally allow demolition. However, in this case the only way to allow both of the properties to have a place to park is to remove the garage. The proposal is to take down the garage and have a parking pad on each side of the property line. They do plan to separate it by 6 inches, Bristow is not really sure exactly why they plan to do that perhaps due to some code requirements that a property owner doesn’t have water that drains from one property to another. Also, when driveways are on the property line it's required to curb them so that the water just does not run onto the adjacent property but in this case it would be difficult for either vehicle to really get from the shared driveway and the apron into the space if it was curbed so it will just become a parking pad. Bristow stated that again they don't tend to approve a demolition for a building that is not beyond repair and if they have a contributing building and it's going to come down they typically require a new one is constructed, especially a garage to avoid surface parking, especially in a rental neighborhood. She explained that is not possible with this project so staff does recommend that the Commission approves the demolition so that the property owners can have parking. Bristow stated it would need to be approved through the use of an exception, and the recommended motion is to approve the project using an exception for the uncommon situation of very small lots with a shared driveway. The guidelines related to this special exception are that sight and landscaping, the provided parking is behind the primary structure which they'll be doing. There is not a new driveway, they're using the same one, but the guidelines talk about driveways being 8ft to 10ft in width which this does comply with. The guidelines also stated to have driveways typically from an alley if possible but there's no alley here. In the guideline section about demolition it talks about retaining historic garages and designing replacement garages but again that will not work in this situation. Lewis asked about the limitations on where a garage can go and why that is not the same for parking pads. Bristow believes the parking pads can be closer to the property lines as it is just concrete on grade. Stork asked if they would be allowed to put any type of covering over these parking pads. Bristow replied no, they would not be able to have a carport due to City zoning code. Stork Lewis asked if carports have the same limitations as garages. Bristow doesn’t know if they're exactly the same but they're similar as again they don't want a structure near the property line because if there's a structure fire it spreads to the other property, that's one of the reasons for setback requirements. Thomann Villanueva asked if there is any way for them to come back in a couple years and request a garage. Bristow replied again no, there's no possible way. Had this garage been taken out by say a tornado they could rebuild it within a certain limited time period regardless of the zoning code because if something's taken out by weather or fire it is allowed. However, they wouldn't have been able to make it bigger to fit two cars. Bristow also noted they had looked at options to add weird little bump outs so that they could come in and park, or to add a lean-to extension and that would solve the length issue but it wouldn't solve the problem with only one being able to park one car in it. MOTION: Wagner moves to approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 426 and 430 Church Street as presented in the staff report using an exception for an uncommon situation. Villanueva seconded. Thomann noted it really is an uncommon situation and feels bad because the garage reminds her so much of her own garage but of course she does haven’t to share it. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 3 of 11 Sellergren is curious if they are planning on just fully demolishing it or if they going to put it up on Craigslist. She always asks about garages because she needs one. Bristow is unsure. Stork is curious how common this is in districts to have shared garages. Bristow replied she knows of a few shared garages but all of the other garages that she knows about are of a size where two cars can actually park in them. A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0. HPC24-0040: 726 Ronalds Street – Brown Street Historic District (new construction): Bristow noted there may be some places in the report and agenda that list the address as 728 but the address is 726 Ronalds Street. This is in the Brown Street Historic District and previously the property had been divided with the student-built house built on the western lot and this application is for the house construction on the eastern lot. Bristow noted there are quite a few guidelines, and they're all listed in the packet, but one of the important parts of new construction in a district is choosing a style. The Foursquare style was chosen partly because of the fact that there are so many in the neighborhood. While it's definitely prevalent in the neighborhood there's quite a variation between them. A basic Foursquare is generally cube shaped, often slightly rectangular, with a hip roof and then a regular pattern of windows basically in each corner of the square. Some of these houses are from a transitional period so the roof type may vary. The Foursquare came out of the development of the Prairie Style so they often have a wide overhang. Submitted as part of the application were some catalog homes that provided inspiration for the design. Bristow shared the site plan noting where the first house that was built on the west side and the property line that divides the lot in half, she reminded the Commission there was an odd sewer easement that very much impacted the depth of the house on the western lot which then impacted the style and what type of architecture would be used. This house on the eastern lot has a little bit more room but there is a steep drop off from the sidewalk, there is only about 10ft or so and then it drops off sharply to the backyard and so that also impacted the design. Bristow said it will be a rectangular Foursquare with a full width front porch and a walkout basement in the sunken area of the backyard with retaining walls around it. The front facade of this house will have three columns, it is typical to often have three columns if they're the thinner columns. However many of the Foursquares with Classical Revival details, like in the Longfellow neighborhood to the south, have large piers and box or ganged columns and so they'll have two instead of three. Bristow pointed out the pattern of double hung windows in a matching pattern. She showed the rear elevation and where on the foundation a door will be cutting through grade and the stairs going down away from the door. The retaining wall will require a railing along it because it'll be greater than 30in. tall. The basement plan walks out and there's the steps up to grade, so it is a sunken patio area, there's a bedroom with an egress window, a bathroom and mechanical stuff. On the first floor is the main entry with the dining room, the kitchen, living room and a bedroom and bath. Upstairs is a series of bedrooms and a bathroom. Bristow said the Housing Fellowship owns the property and has a goal to be able to house some larger families so having this many bedrooms would allow them to do that. Bristow also noted the building HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 4 of 11 inspections and zoning code staff have noted that they would not be able to turn the basement into an accessory dwelling unit so it would not be able to be a separate living space. All new buildings follow guidelines related to how big the façade is and this one is just over half the limitation so it's fine, the height of the building being one and a half or two stories, the front setback is consistent with the neighboring property, adding doors that match what is typically seen on a historic building and using siding that is consistent, in this case a smooth LP product with a flat casing. The windows have been submitted as part of the project and is a window that has been approved before. One of the issues is the guidelines do require that a new construction in a historic district is built so the first floor is at least 18in above grade. Iowa City has had very few new constructions in a historic districts, one of them was a Habitat home over in the Dearborn Neighborhood which is a Conservation District so they did require that the front porch on that house be 18in above grade as they were able to create their zero step entry, which is required on all new constructions, at the back door which was right next to the garage and would be the main way that the occupants of the home would enter the house. In this case because of the fact that the lot slopes so drastically off in the back it's not possible to have a zero step entry into the main living space at the back. This is also the case with the property next door they're creating that zero step entry at the front porch and therefore an exception needs to be made to allow that. Also, because the porch floor will be concrete and the guidelines would have any new porch on any property traditional porch construction, an exception would need to be made for having just a concrete slab on grade. Bristow said the American Foursquare styles often have attic dormers or roof dormers on their hipped roof but this one does not, partly to reduce cost and complexity since they do have students that are building the house. There are many examples in town of Foursquares without roof dormers so staff finds this acceptable. One of the questions was about the porch columns. The porch columns as drawn are considered a round classical revival column but because of ease of construction and everything they would prefer to do a square column and staff finds that it would be acceptable to do a square column but with some added conditions to make sure that they're sized properly. The staff recommendation for this application includes conditions that the door product information and the porch column design are reviewed by staff. Sellergren is curious if there is a side door on this house. Bristow replied no, there's the rear door on the basement level but no side door. Bristow noted an entry canopy is something that they might want to consider adding over the back door. Wagner stated it's not required because of the grade, but he noted they might consider some type of porch railing for accessibility and ease of access to the home at the front door. Bristow said it’s not required but they did consider that. Simon Andrew (The Housing Fellowship) stated they are very pleased with how the first house turned out and they are excited to get the second one going. Bristow also wanted to point out the plan for the basement shows a window on the side and it's not included in the elevation because of the fact that they have already accomplish the required egress window on the bedroom on the back. Staff would assume that this is a traditional basement window size as that would also prevent them from having to put a window well into the side of the hill and the setback requirements that are involved with that. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 5 of 11 Martha Norbeck (C-Wise) stated these are her drawings so everything mentioned she has thought about. With the basement window they need to have a 24in deep open web trust so that they can run the duct work so that means that basement window is suddenly 24in down from the water table and they have to have a window well and that adds so much cost and complexity and they already the door with the light and the egress window they’re going to wind up with no window there. It would have been great to have the extra light in there but from a logistical standpoint it just won’t work and again since this is a student build they don’t want to be too complicated. Also, a lot of these decisions are being driven by cost for the Housing Fellowship as well as the constructability for the students. They’ve already got the guard rail necessary for the entry in the back and had the stairs there so to add the railing going up to the upper level made the kitchen/living room situation untenable by creating that access to that door. She wound up actually deciding to make that first floor room an accessible bedroom and accessible bathroom, which takes up a lot of space, and to make the living room and kitchen work in a way that actually felt like a place she would want to live and therefore got rid of the first floor back door which saves the cost of the overhang over that exit and then it also saves the railing and the landing at the at the top. GT Karr (General Contractor, Sueppel’ s Building and Remodeling) wanted to take the opportunity to talk about the positive things and how things turned out at 728 Ronalds Street. They had 16 students on the build, they’re going to have a family that's a block away from Mann moving in and they got affordable housing ,LEED gold certification, historic district house on the Parade of Homes. He noted they had a 20-year hiatus from student builds but have 26 students involved for next year. His favorite story is it's been on the parade and other than just seeing the kids and the turn out from the neighborhood and all the positive feedback, the Parade of Homes is judged by other home builders’ associations, people in construction from Des Moines and Davenport, they judged this home against the half million dollar homes. He’s had 150-200 people go through the house last weekend as well but when people in construction who are doing it for a living think they just redid a house and not build from scratch, that is showcasing the good work the students did. MOTION: Lewis moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project of 726 Ronald's Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: the door product information and porch column design are reviewed by staff. Beck seconds the motion. Thomann noted she was able to be at the open house on Saturday to see the new home there and it does look like an old home that got a facelift so they did a really good job and she is also pleased with this design too and excited to see something that will accommodate even a bigger family. A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0. HPC24-0045: 1210 Sheridan Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (rear addition): Bristow stated this house is in the Longfellow Historic District and is a Minimal Traditional with an entryway that is Tudor Revival because of the asymmetrical steep angle of the roof. The lap siding with the mitered corners is pretty much the only ornamentation on this home, there had been shutters on it at one point in time, but it is unknown if those had been added or were historic. Bristow noted the grade dropping off behind the house. The windows on the house have been repaired recently. Showing an image of the back elevation of the house Bristow pointed out a little door and a bump that she is not entirely sure when that was done. Bristow showed the 1933 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map and noted this house was pasted in and that means that it's an alteration to that Sanborn Map. Iowa City’s copy of the maps were altered eight HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 6 of 11 different times up until the 1970s and so there are a lot of pasted in pieces but that is consistent with the fact that they think this house was built in the 1930s and it would have been built after 1933. The picture on the map does have that projecting entry but it does not have a bump out on the back. Bristow did note sometimes Sanborn Maps have errors but not too often so she would tend towards thinking this is accurate. She also looked back through the old housing inspector’s forms where they'd sketch properties and make notes of things and the first time they visited this house was 1973 and it did have the bump out at that point in time so she is assuming because of the Sanborn Map it was an addition that happened within the first 30 years or so of the house being built. When she was talking to the owner who proposed an addition Bristow noted that little bump out complicated things quite a bit as they have a very small house and so they want to make any addition simple and not complicate the house too much. She was not sure how they would resolve the roof and some of the set-in requirements because of the grade falling off. Bristow used the property information viewer image and sketched in where an addition would be and it looked like they do drop two feet or so by the time they get from where the current back is to the new back of the house. Bristow showed the existing house plan with a living room, kitchen, two bedrooms and a tiny hall bathroom. The proposed addition is to increase accessibility because as of right now to come into this house and go to either of the bedrooms one would have to enter into the small hallway with doors that don't allow for wheelchair accessibility. The plan proposes an addition where that bump out is. Where the bedrooms were in the original plan, one is now labeled closet and it will have the window replaced with a door that goes into a large bathroom that's accessible and a large bedroom that is also accessible through the kitchen area. The roof issue is resolved by basically removing one wall of the bump out and the roof will be replaced to go over the entire addition including the porch. Bristow compared the existing rear elevation noting the existing door and the two windows and looking at the new addition elevations. She noted that the new addition is set-in on the west side and the wall of the new bedroom is technically set-in on the east side as well by encapsulating both the existing bump out and the new addition under the one roof it keeps it simple for a small house. Staff would recommend approving this addition even though it doesn't necessarily fit some of the ways they normally like to see additions done as they’re not maintaining the roof on that little bump out but removing it and basically keeping the little salt box that was probably built historically with a crossing gable coming off the back. The main gable roof of the house is much taller so they won't be seeing this addition from the front and since the new wall is set-in that won't be visible either. The porch will have the beam that is typically seen on a porch. The one thing that did come up in the guidelines was the guidelines are very clear that a new porch must be built with traditional porch construction which means that the one column will have a pier under it and whether or not there is skirting under there would be up to them because it's going to be close to grade but it would need to still have that traditional porch construction. Also doing so would help them reduce the size of their foundation so it might help reduce the cost too. Bristow showed the west elevation and the entryway to the existing house and the addition. She noted the windows will be separated by framing with a piece of trim instead of being ganged directly together. On the east elevation she pointed out where the existing bump out area was on the existing house and the recessed area for the new addition. She noted they don't want to see a large expanse of wall that doesn't have a window in it but because this is also recessed into the porch staff doesn't find it really concerning. Bristow shared some of the guidelines such as doors trimmed to match other doors, preserving the original roof pitches and spans at least with that front salt box at the entry and all of that, preserving the original walls and vertical corners that define the massing of a historic building and while they are not preserving the roof for that bump out they are setting in from the northwest corner and preserving the actual bump out, adding windows that match the type and everything of the historic windows, adding new windows in a location that's consistent and this does have a few more paired HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 7 of 11 windows on the back that are somewhat traditional in spacing so staff didn't find that concerning. Bristow noted again they want the addition to be set-in so they can distinguish between the historic structure and the new but yet still need to match the eave lines, the window sill and head heights and those other horizontal lines on the building. The siding will match, it will be a lap sighting that has mitered corners to match the historic house, the foundation will need to match. The recommended motion for this project is to approve it with the conditions that the porch follows the traditional porch construction since the drawings didn't indicate that and that the windows are revised as noted and approval of the door product. Thomann is curious as they’ve got the porch that's at the back of the house but the stairs are coming off to the side, why not off the back. Bristow stated in this case it is because of the slope and change in grade to avoid a larger number of stairs. Sellergren asked if there are any guidelines about having a porch or stairs off the side. Bristow is not aware of any, it is required that the stairs have closed risers and some other things that are part of the design but the only time they would really want a stair on the back is if it was a two-story stair for something that's maybe not as historical. But if that is an issue for the Commission they could discuss it further. Mark Russo (1210 Sheridan Drive) is here with his wife Diana and stated the whole purpose of this addition is that as they age they want to get into a simpler arrangement and this is all one floor. He acknowledged the grade doesn't cooperate real well but it would be easy to grow old in this house because it’s all one level. He noted the reason the stairway is on the side is because there's a flat area of grade at the back of the existing bump out that’s about 8ft and then there's a drop off of at least 30in or more and there's nothing in the back except a yard so that stairway needs to return whoever is using it to the front which is unfortunately where they have to park because whoever landscaped this house years ago did not allow for any garage nor the ability to put in a garage unless they build a 10-ft retaining wall to the east and that’s just not going to happen. If they did go to the north with the stairway it would have to be probably a 15ft stairway they’re trying to avoid those issues. Also, regarding the age of the bump out, it wasn't in that original drawing but the siding is all continuous, so he has a hard time believing that this siding was removed to accommodate the bump out. The siding is mitered so it starts at the south end and goes all the way to the north end and additionally in the basement the cement wall was framed and not cut because there is a funny little storm shelter underneath, and somebody built a cement bench. This was all likely done in 1939 or 1940, prior to the nuclear age but that's what he knows about that and it might have been original. He will have to go back and look at it all more closely, it's an odd little structure that is a little dining area off of the kitchen and it's about 6 by 6 so two people can have breakfast or dinner in there but that’s all. They did recently rebuild the windows by Wadsworth Construction and bought storms from Adams Architectural so all the fenestration is original and completely working. His hope is they can find a manufacturer that at least in terms of look can replicate that. This house has been gone through the mill apparently it was owned by a an anthropology professor who left every summer for an archaeological dig and turned the yard over to the neighborhood as a community garden but it was really never attended to and up close the siding is really an issue because it's all peeling and there's so many layers of paint that have been applied and then blistered off. Bristow noted when she looked at the past inspector's notes both of the times they said it desperately needed to be scraped and painted. Russo stated four years ago they had it scraped and painted and now are right back to it looking as it did before. He is afraid he’ll have to be a little more aggressive do a project and perhaps have the siding removed and run through a machine to get it off because they HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 8 of 11 just can't scrape it off and there are also issues of lead, but that would be a different project to discuss later. Wagner had a question about which Sanborn Map Iowa City has because he stated one can go to the Library of Congress and go to their Sanborn Maps and they have each year that it's issued. Bristow acknowledged that but said they just don't have the 1930s ones and that may have something to do with what's in the public domain. MOTION: Beck moves to recommend approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1210 Sheridan Avenue as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: the porch follows traditional porch construction, windows are revised as noted, and door and window product information is reviewed by staff. Wagner seconded the motion. Beck Thomann noted this is a lovely house and appreciates them sharing their stories about it and really respects and appreciates that they're wanting to age in place. A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Bristow noted in an effort to not have as many projects without a permit they are going back to what the Zoning Code really says and it does require that they review anything that requires a regulated permit that makes a material change and is in a historic district. So that means they will be reviewing some basic venting and stuff like that. Generally these are issued a certificate of no material effect and as long as it's not in an impactful area staff is approving it. However now the Commission will see these in the staff report. Certificate of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review HPC24-0035: 722 East College Street – College Green Historic District (mechanical venting): Bristow stated they have a kitchen area down in the basement of this church and are putting in some vents. There will be one on the side wall and the rear, both in areas where they are not visible from the street. HPC24-0036: 903 Iowa Avenue – College Hill Conservation District (mechanical venting): Bristow explained on the back of the house it will have a vent between a back entry and a window that for a bathroom venting as they're adding a bathroom this house. This property is very interesting, it is a key property in this Conservation District and yet it has synthetic siding. It was damaged during the tornado. HPC24-0042: 1501 Center Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (siding replacement): Bristow stated one of the recent storms blew off the siding of this Moffit house. This house is contributing to the District and has had synthetic siding applied but in this case they approved them to just replace what's in the gable and they could match it and are going to paint it because that gable was the only part that was damaged from the storm. Also the porch is a reconstruction, it would not have had these spindle columns. HPC24-0049: 515 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (concrete stoop replacement): Bristow noted this house changed hands recently and it's been glorious to see its transformation. It was probably just a rental house before and now has been purchased by an owner who is completely HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 9 of 11 reworking things which is exciting. This project is replacing the concrete stoop. Minor Review – Staff review HPC24-0017: 818 Rundell Street – Dearborn Street Conservation District (railing replacement and exhaust venting): Bristow stated this is a house on Dearborn that has synthetic siding, the porch has been reconstructed, it is actually a house that would have never had these spindled columns or this spindled railing, the railing is off the shelf from Menard's and it's way too small and too far apart in spacing. They needed to replace the railing now since it's falling apart and staff suggested square spindles and to matching the guidelines with the spacing. HPC24-0047: 830 E Davenport Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (enlarged rear stoop and stairs): Bristow explained they're replacing the railing and on the back the house has several bump outs and additions and several little stoops. One will be enlarged slightly and the railing will now follow the guidelines. Intermediate Review -Chair and Staff review HPC24-0037: 820 Park Road – Local Historic Landmark (roof shingle replacement with shingle-style metal roof): Bristow explained it's time to replace the roof on this house and it has actually always had an asphalt roof. This was a house built by an engineer and the City proposed to do a metal shingle and the Chair and staff agreed that could fit within what Ned Ashton probably would have wanted to do given the fact he was an engineer and given the fact that they have come pretty far in being able to make these shingles look like historic shingles now. Bristow showed some examples of what the shingle tends to look like when it's installed and the color that they're going with. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR MAY 22, 2024: MOTION: Wagner moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's May 22, 2024. Beck seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Work Plan and subcommittees: Bristow stated they started emailing about the awards and stuff so that's good. She was going to get a list of potential landmarks from the past hasn’t done that yet. Sellergren noted Ginalie from Friends of Historic Preservation sent out an email to all of their members requesting nominations this afternoon. Bristow noted they try not award the same properties and the same people all the time and also do awards for residential rehabilitation on anything on the exterior if anyone has nominations. There are also stewardship awards for anyone who has maintained it for a very long time over time. Sellergren stated the goal is to have a good list by July and the next thing they'll need to do is pick a date and find a location. COMMISSION INFORMATION: Sellergren went to the forum but was only there for a few hours but it was very interesting and they got a tour of Mount Pleasant. The town square is very nice with some really cool brick buildings like a large HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 13, 2024 Page 10 of 11 brick hotel in the corner of the square and the first woman lawyer in the United States was sworn in at one of the buildings that's facing the square, the first courthouse in Iowa was located, there's also Iowa Wesleyan College there which just recently closed, it has a lot of old buildings and was the oldest college west of the Mississippi. Bristow did a lot of tours and attended a session that was more geared to mid-century properties and what's historic and working with them. One of the tours had to do with the Underground Railroad and what's interesting is a town south of that had a large Quaker population and the Quakers felt that they were not beholden to the laws of the land but beholden to higher laws and so they helped the Freedom Seekers. They toured a house owned by a Quaker family where they had places basically below the floor where people could hide. She also went on a tour that included the house that James Van Allen lived in and one of the descendants of one of his brothers was there for part of the tour. There was also a house that was lived in by one of Abraham Lincoln's sons and his wife. Sellergren and Bristow both saw a tour related to rehab and Bristow went on another one that was adaptive reuse. Their city hall building now is offices down below and apartments above. It’s a tiny city hall and not anything like what Iowa City would have but interesting. It was a very good conference, and she made notes for things that relate to Iowa City. Sellergren noted next year it's in Muscatine which will be interesting as a river town. Bristow stated the only other thing is Commissioner elections will need to happen at the July meeting. Beck was reappointed and Stork is cycling off the Commission. Bristow thanked Stork for his service and noted it has been very good to have him on the Commission because it is necessary to have a dissenting opinion as they do not need to be a unanimous voting body and it's very valuable to have people like him who live in the District and know what's going on be on the Commission. Wagner discussed the Terrace Mound open house on Saturday, it’s a house he has been working on at 5053 Highway 6 East, right across from Kinder Farm. It is an 1873 house that has been renovated and restored, the open house is Saturday from 1pm to 4pm. ADJOURNMENT: Villanueva moved to adjourn the meeting. Lewis seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:43pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2024 NAME TERM EXP. 7/13 8/10 9/14 10/12 11/9 12/14 1/11 2/8 3/21 4/24 5/22 6/13 BECK, MARGARET 6/30/24 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X BROWN, CARL 6/30/26 X O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E X X O/E X LEWIS, ANDREW 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X X X SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X X X STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X X X X X O/E X X X 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 O/E X X X X X X X X WAGNER, FRANK 6/30/26 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X WELU- REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA 6/30/25 O/E X X X X X X X X O/E X O/E KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 11, 2024 – 5:30 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Kevin Burford, Andrew Lewis, Jordan Sellergren, Deanna Thomann, Nicole Villanueva, Frank Wagner, Christina Welu-Reynolds MEMBERS ABSENT: Carl Brown STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Jeff Clark 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: HPC24-0026: 410-412 North Clinton Street-Local Historic Landmark (portion of related new construction on the rear of the property): Bristow explained this project is the development that is associated with landmarking the historic house at 410-412 Clinton Street. It is located across from the University of Iowa Currier Hall. In 2016 the Commission decided to go ahead and landmark some brick houses that were not protected because they're important structures that could be demolished and this house was one of them. At that time the owner objected and so the landmarking failed at the Council level. Following that the property changed hands and since then City staff has been working with the owner/developer on a project that would landmark the house in exchange for some leniency of zoning code requirements for a new adjacent development. Thomann asked for clarification on what would happen if the owner decided that he did not want to compromise, would there have been any restrictions on any development they wanted to do. Bristow explained if the owner had not agreed to landmark the house then the development would have to follow the normal zoning codes and they worked with Planning and Zoning staff and Commission on the plan. The Historic Preservation Commission and the Friends of Historic Preservation have commented on some of the development proposal along the way and this is the third time that the proposal is being seen. Because the new owner wants a multifamily development it has to go through lots of multiple reviews and has been a very long process. Bristow stated the lot that the historic house is on consists of the 1865 house which has a small two- story addition that was in place by 1899 as documented on the historic Sanborn maps. The apartment addition was likely added in the 1960s, and there was a small garage at one point in the mid-1930s that is clearly not there now. There is a different existing garage. It is unclear from the Sanborn maps whose garage it was historically because of the fact that the way this block was originally platted it had large blocks with many houses and garages so it's just really unclear historically who this garage was HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 11, 2024 Page 2 of 11 associated with. The development agreement will take down the house at 400 North Clinton (on the corner) and 112 East Davenport and there will be a multifamily unit that is placed there, the garage on the landmark lot would also come down. Bristow shared some photos of the 1860s house, the front façade and looking back at the apartment brick building noting it's clearly from the 1960s and the connection to the brick structure of the addition has been covered in siding so they don't know what the condition of that wall is. She also showed some photos of the garage, it’s a two-car garage and does have some historic doors that tilt up and a small window with lap siding. The garage is in reparable condition, but it is a requirement for the development to proceed for the garage to come down. Therefore, part of this review is to approve the demolition of the garage. The first time that this new development came to the Commission was in January 2020, it shows a six- story building it has a mansard roof echoing the roof on Currier Hall across the street. At that time the comments both from the Commission and Friends of Historic Preservation talked a lot about height and one of the suggestions was that the mansard roof or hipped roof actually adds quite a large amount of height and mass to that roof, so the suggestion was to make it a flat roof instead. There was also a request to reduce it from six floors to five. After the discussion in January 2020 the developer came back in December 2020 with a building that was now the five stories and had the flat roof reducing the size in order to make it viable, it also included a wing that went behind the historic house that was three stories instead of five. The proposal before the Commission now is the review of the portion of the development that is within the property of the landmark house. The remainder of the development is going through the design review process with Planning and Zoning like any other property and the other part of the project was that the historic house which will be rehabilitated according to the Secretary of the Interior standards and this Commission already went through that review process and it was approved with one of the requirements that before they can get the certificate of occupancy to the new development they will need to complete that rehabilitation. Bristow explained that part of what was discussed in the second iteration was there was always going to be a brick wall that went from the corner of the facade across to the development to make a courtyard area but one of the comments from a previous review was to not connect that wall to the historic brick structure as an 1860s house has very soft brick and also a soft limestone foundation. Therefore, they have included a gap there and it'll have a metal gate with some landscaping to make the open space for the project. Behind the landmark house will be the three-story flat roof building and both the wall and a lower course area of the building will have a darker brick that will match closely to the historic house brick color and then the upper floor will have a lighter brick that will still blend into a transition. There will be double hung windows in at least what staff would consider an appropriate shape, enough rectangular to mimic some of the historic windows, and then it also shows they're going to do a brick inset between the windows. Bristow noted that's not something that they'd see on a historic structure but at the same time it is part of a modern development so staff doesn't find that problematic. Bristow showed the site plan and elevations noting in the north elevation they've included a sight line and it shows when you're in front of the historic house from the street you are not going to be able to see the development. Looking down the alley is when you can see the apartment building behind the historic house the overhead doors for the garage access because the garage is below grade and there are apartments on the second and third floor. The east elevation is from the neighboring property and shows more of the details of how that lower course of brick is darker and the paired double hung windows. Bristow noted two things when she was going through the drawings which will be part of the staff recommendation. First there is a set of windows on the first floor and second is that the balconies are fully projecting. On the first floor plan the main part of the building is the garage access and understandably there's no windows in that wall however the guidelines would suggest that windows should be there so that any parking in the bottom level of a property does not make the building look HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 11, 2024 Page 3 of 11 like it is sitting on top of a plinth or a bare masonry structure. Staff would recommend it to match what that east elevation shows and include the windows on the east elevation. She doesn’t think they need to be on the west elevation as it is so close to the apartment building that it wouldn’t make any difference to anyone unless they were standing in the alley. Regarding the balconies, on the second- floor plan they can see that while the balcony projects a little bit it is mostly recessed into the structure of the building but on the third floor plan it's actually shifted over a little bit and not recessed so the staff recommendation would be to inset them within the structure instead of having them completely exterior. Bristow next reviewed the guidelines, the balconies have metal railings instead of wood which they tend to approve on a residential property but they should still meet the dimensional requirements and because it's not an addition to the historic house, it's a new structure, it would suggest that it follow those guidelines. Regarding siding the guidelines only says using siding that is consistent with the architectural style of the new building. Most historic siding in Iowa City is wood fiber cement siding with a smooth finish ad that is an acceptable substitute for wood siding. She noted on the rear elevation it's her understanding that the proposal is that would be a metal siding and according to the guidelines that should not be metal siding but a wood or a cement board siding. If it were metal siding it would fall into the realm of synthetic siding and while they do have an exception in the guidelines to allow synthetic siding but not on a landmark property even if it's a new construction (such as a new outbuilding). Another guideline is about the demolition of garage, typically they suggest keeping them and so it will be by exception that the Commission would be approving the demolition of this garage because it's in good enough shape that it wouldn't normally come down as a deteriorated garage. The other guidelines that they would follow for this project are ones that they rarely use and are for multifamily buildings. One is about lighting and Bristow didn't have a lighting plan with this project to know if it's following that portion of the guidelines so that will have to be approved in the design review. The goal with that guideline is to just not have a whole lot of light pollution. It also includes guidelines about parking lots and garages, in this development they are putting the parking below and entering off the alley from the rear so would be following the guideline where it says if parking is located below a building any exposed portions of the exterior walls must appear to be a component of the facade of the building and use similar materials and window openings which is why staff would suggest that those windows are included on the first floor in the east elevation. Staff did ask the developer about the architectural detailing and their response was they're building a new construction behind a 1960s apartment building that is behind a historic house and so the goal is to have this new construction fade into the background so that it's not drawing attention to itself and not competing with the historic house. Staff finds that an acceptable approach. The guidelines regarding balcony decks and other things states they should be designed so they are integrated into the overall design of the building, methods of integrating them may include partially recessing them into the façade, placing them under a roof that is integrated into the overall roof plan, utilizing supports such as columns or walls. Because part of the balcony decks are not recessed they are not meeting the guideline and that is why staff does recommend that they recessed the third floor balconies similar to those as shown on the second floor plan. Regarding roof lines, the guidelines states roofs should reflect the predominant roof type of existing buildings and the roof configuration of bringing the height and volume down for the overall development was necessary so they wouldn't have a hip roof on this wing that goes behind the historic house. The placement of windows and doors on street elevations should be consistent with the window and door patterning found in other properties and the guideline also talks about the proportions of the windows. As Bristow showed on the front elevation there are a couple double hung windows. The Secretary of Interior Standards talks about making sure that new additions, alterations, or new construction shall not destroy the historic materials that characterize the property. The only concern was about the wall and not compromising the historic masonry and it's not attached and it's in a compatible but much more simplified style. The guidelines also state new additions or adjacent new constructions shall be undertaken in a manner that if removed the historic property is unimpaired which is why not connecting the new building to the historic structure will be best. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 11, 2024 Page 4 of 11 Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 410-412 North Clinton Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: • plans are revised to include the first-floor windows on the east elevation; • to inset the balconies as shown on the second floor plan; • window and door product is submitted for review by staff; • aluminum siding is revised to a product that complies with the guidelines and is reviewed by staff and Chair. Thomann is curious about the first-floor windows on the east elevation and if the cars that are going into that garage would they be visible through the windows. Bristow is unsure but is assuming that the windows will be four feet off the ground however the floor of the garage is sloping down, but it could be possible the cars in the garage will be visible through the windows. Thomann noted her own experiences being a pedestrian walking down the street and thinking it's just a regular building and then suddenly seeing cars moving can be a strange feeling. Wagner noted as far as the demolition of the garage it would be nice if Friends of Historic Preservation would have been invited to salvage whatever materials. Bristow noted the owner is here and maybe can speak to that, he knows that suggestion and they are salvaging the other buildings. Jeff Clark (applicant) stated this has been a 5-year project now that they've been trying to get going. Covid slowed it down quite a bit but over the last year they've been back on track trying to get this done and working with staff members at the City through it all. As far as the garage he’s been working with The Salvage Barn on the other houses and after they get stuff out of the garage he’ll have private salvage people coming in as well to take things down. Regarding the windows he wanted to note on that east side there's an apartment building directly behind it that runs lengthwise and so the windows are virtually going to be covered but if it is required it’s not a problem to put them in so long as there isn’t a code issue for any kind of separation. He stated the siding on this building was originally designed to be metal siding so changing the product for one portion, and in a portion that actually faces the alley, instead of just leaving it consistent with the rest of the building seems unnecessary. However they haven't chosen the siding yet as he is a having difficulty getting siding contractors to actually provide a sample but they'll get something prior to the construction but again it would be one portion essentially that would go to a different type of product and if they want to keep the building consistent they'd like to do it all in aluminum. Sellergren asked for clarification on the north facing section that would require a different siding, it would just be the different siding on the lower portion of the building. Clark confirmed yes, the upper portion would use materials to match the large building and they want to use the same material between both buildings. MOTION: Wagner moves for approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 410- 412 North Clinton Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions: • plans are revised to include the first-floor windows on the east elevation; • to insert the balconies as shown on the second floor plan; • window and door product is submitted for review by staff and; • aluminum siding is revised to a product that complies with the guidelines and is reviewed by staff and chair. Villanueva seconded. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 11, 2024 Page 5 of 11 Thomann stated she personally is fine with the material of the builder's choice as long as staff and the Chair have an opportunity to view it but personally thinks it's more important that it matches the rest of the building. Regarding the windows it's very hard for her to visualize what it might look like without them and might regret it if it is just a brick wall and the people who live in the apartment building next door might not like it, but it's hard to visualize that right now. Lewis noted it feels consistent with not including them, there have been a lot of other things that they have deemed not necessary if it’s only visible from one perspective and would be okay not requiring them. Villanueva noted if someone is a resident of the building next door they could either look and see windows which would be nice but then also could see cars driving which could be confusing or see a blank brick wall and in that case the ideal scenario would be thoughtful landscaping. Thomann stated she voiced her thoughts as a pedestrian and what would it be like to be in the building next door. On a functional level is it best to have windows looking into a garage and to parked cars or driving cars and will the driving cars headlights shine into the living space next door, it’s so hard to visualize. Sellergren noted her thought regarding the windows is people wouldn't see cars driving along the line of the windows, the cars would be well beneath the windows by that point. Thomann maybe they need to think about the happiness of the drivers, and do they want daylight as they're driving through the garage but then also assuming the garage will be lit at night will the light coming out of that garage from those windows be frustrating to immediate neighbors. Welu-Reynolds stated one of the things they've discussed as a Commission is being flexible and this is an opportunity demonstrate that and decide if the Commission feels the windows are necessary. She is also okay with the siding being consistent with the rest of the building so they could just take those two things off of the motion. Staff and the Chair could still approve the siding but not state it has to be cement siding. Wagner wondered if the architect designer leave those out specifically just because it's of the revision or is there a vision that those windows should be there. Thomann stated without taking the parking into consideration whatsoever the building looks much nicer with three stories of windows. Burford noted aesthetically they're like false windows so he thinks they could do without them. AMENDED MOTION: Wagner moves for approval of a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 410-412 North Clinton Street as presented in the staff Report with the following conditions: • plans are revised to inset the balconies as shown on the second floor plan; • window and door product is submitted for review by staff and; • siding sample will be reviewed by staff and chair. Lewis seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 8-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 11, 2024 Page 6 of 11 HPC23-0070: 937 East Davenport Street - Local Historic Landmark (rear addition): Bristow noted this application is for an addition on the back of this landmark property located at 937 East Davenport Street. The owner landmarked it because she had rehabbed it and extensively researched the Czech people and this family. Once she was completed with the rehabbing and landmarking she wanted to sell the property but has had difficulty selling it. The owner decided to add an addition and while one might think adding just a single room onto a small house is just really simple and easy it's actually extremely complicated. The house is a small side gabled one-story house, there is a little attic area with stairs that go up to it but it's not an occupiable space legally because it doesn't have the appropriate head height. During the landmarking process it was learned that at one point there was the couple and their four children who were living in this little, tiny space so they had put a cross gabled structure on the back and so now have the side gabled and then a rear-facing gable that was added. Then after that another little rear-facing gable was added, all in place by the 1920s. Bristow is unsure when the porch was added, there is also a very small amount of dugout basement under a portion of the house that is accessed through the porch floor but it's also clear that this house was originally a crawl space so it was dug out in order to have a water heater and connections added. When the owner did the rehab she extended the porch and added French doors. Bristow also wanted to note that the roof the owner has put on the house is not a roof that is approved typically and in fact have started requiring approval of roof changes in order to prevent roofs like this. Looking at the back of the house Bristow pointed out a single window and this proposal would change that to a door. Another thing to point out is the floor level and anytime they would approve an addition it should be at the same floor level and not step it down but this has a much lower roof line and will need the step down. There are guidelines for additions about continuing the horizontal lines like eave condition, guidelines about retaining the corners of the house and some of that gets a little bit difficult with this project. Bristow showed more views of the side of the house and pointed out the oldest addition noting it is at the same height as the rest of the house but the later addition steps down. Bristow noted a concern because the drawings are somewhat inconsistent and somewhat inaccurate. The site plan shows the property line and the front portion of the house and the plan is to add to the back of the house. She has talked to the owner about set-ins, they are showing a 6-inch set-in, and this house doesn't really have big eave overhangs it's pretty tight and simple. The zoning code requires a 5-foot setback off the property line and they've drawn that in here but in no way is that accurate with the property lines. It might be possible for them to get a minor modification to reduce the property line on the side but it still has to be like 3-foot or so. Bristow stated the original application was submitted to lift the entire house and replace the entire foundation but that's over $100,000 project and so an intermediate step would be to just repair the foundation in the front room but that was still like a $70,000 project. So at this point it is not clear how they will move it over or meet the property line requirements. {Frank Wagner left the meeting.} Bristow noted the addition will be a slab on grade however the back of the house is already out of the ground a little bit and slopes and so the addition will be further out of the ground and it is highly likely that they won't be able to do it as just a slab on grade it'll probably need to have a frost footing but that will be something that will come out of the building code review. It would also then have to have a step and stoop because it's not going to be at grade. There are also some complications with the gutter in between where the porch roof was extended over the existing roof and there are some water issues HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 11, 2024 Page 7 of 11 with that. Bristow is not sure how the new addition roof meets the existing 1920s addition because it's not clear in the drawings. Overall staff is still not sure how all of these parts are going to come together especially in regard to the roof. Thomann is curious if they had a completely separate structure that was not attached except by like a hallway or breezeway would that make things less complicated or more complicated. Bristow noted the guidelines do say that one of the ways to differentiate between a historic structure and an addition is to attach the addition through a breezeway and that breezeway can be fully enclosed. The zoning code has some rules about attached garages and breezeways that would have to be abided by. Bristow stated given the size of things that are going on here she does not think that the appropriate addition is just another gable and extend the train back. She noted they would rather keep that last pod as something where they know where it's extent is and not just extend it and setting an addition smaller than they normally do, that would become an unusable space. She stated it might be appropriate to do a cross gable that matches the other end so that basically they have two side gable structures connected by a rear-facing gable. The current drawings have not worked out how things are going to meet or how the roofs are going to work together and as part of the City design review process they will normally go through can resolve roof issues like that. Bristow stated the guidelines are typical as for all additions, to matching openings and she reiterated staff suggests they match that back portion with windows that match, she would use wood so there's no question about the materiality of new siding or trim and matching the key horizontal lines of the old addition to the new addition. Lewis stated it looks like they don't have clarity on some of the plans yet so how do they approve this application. Bristow explained there are a couple things that they could do, they could defer the whole project as they know the building permit process is going to require additional drawings, that's been communicated however she is not sure it’s really been understood, the Commission could also say that potentially this does not need to come back to the Commission but could be reviewed at an intermediate review level between staff and Chair. Thomann stated she trusts staff and the Chair to adhere to guidelines but is concerned that it's a landmark property and are they going against their ethics as a Commission by allowing major alterations on a historic property. Welu-Reynolds stated it can it be done gracefully as long as it follows the rules of an addition. Bristow noted the Commission can approve the idea of an addition but then have conditions to review the window and door and roofing. Bristow would prefer that the Commission decide if they want to allow an exception so she can match the roof that's on the rest of the house or require her to have the new portion of the roof be something that’s allowed by guidelines. She reiterated the entire reason they review roofs is to avoid that specific roof however just having an addition not match the rest of the house, that is something the Commission will have to voice an opinion on. Lewis noted this is the ghost of a recommendation because there are so many things that need to be met. Bristow agreed nothing they need to match the floor height of the existing southern room, the wood siding, corner boards and other trim to match the historic house, the windows match that south facing window that won't exist anymore and that the roof and addition configuration is reviewed by staff and chair. Sellergren noted that the water issues would be addressed as well. Bristow stated there are some code requirements that will address some of it, the owner has applied for a building permit and does plan to HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 11, 2024 Page 8 of 11 move forward right away but the building permit will not be able to be approved until they meet code. Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 937 East Davenport Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: • window, door, and roofing product information is submitted for review by staff; • the eave and floor height of the existing southern room is matched in the new addition; • the addition has wood lap siding, corner boards and other trim to match the historic • house and; • the windows match the proportion of the south- facing window in the rear addition. Thomann is not fully sure what the building permit's going to reject out of this proposal or what they'll have to change and has this weird irrational fear of if they approve this and she gets whatever the building permit changes are asked for, will she just go off without getting the rest of the approval that this is requiring. Bristow confirmed the City wouldn't issue the Certificate of Appropriateness until these are done MOTION: Welu-Reynolds moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 937 East Davenport Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: • window door and Roofing product information is submitted for review by staff; • the even floor height of the existing southern room is matched in the new addition; • the addition has wood lap siding, corner boards and other trim to match the historic house; • the windows match the proportion of the south facing window in the rear addition and; • the roof and addition configuration is reviewed by staff and chair. Lewis seconds the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0 (Wagner not present). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review HPC24-0051: 529 Brown Street - Brown Street Historic District (roof material replacement): Bristow stated this is a key property, the bump out has a new roof that will need minor staff review. Minor Review – Staff review HPC24-0044: 921 Dearborn Street - Dearborn Street Conservation District (basement egress window): This small house is on Dearborn Street all the way at the end, there is one rear basement window that will become an egress window with a window well. HPC24-0050: 312 South Governor - Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (driveway and sidewalk approach replacement): The driveway and sidewalk approach are both being replaced and easily meets the guidelines. They were able to enlarge the driveway apron just a little bit so there's easier access, Bristow noted they are reviewing the replacement of the porch steps too because they're getting rid of the steps by regrading the entire yard. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 11, 2024 Page 9 of 11 HPC24-0052: 520 Brown Street - Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement): Bristow stated they normally approve brown or gray asphalt shingles as to look as similar to wood shingles as possible however when asphalt shingles first started the grit that they used was a natural material and it happened to most often be either green because it was slate or red and so historically there was a period in time where if someone had asphalt shingles they could only get them in green or red and there was also a time when it was popular. So when someone wants to do green staff does a little research and determines if it might be appropriate given the time period of the house and that was the case here. Intermediate Review -Chair and Staff review HPC24-0046: 515 Clark Street - Clark Street Conservation District (window alterations to garage): This property has a garage that was originally just a garage and then somebody added a screen porch to it which is a little strange so it's totally modified. The current owner is going to use it as a studio but the only thing they're going to modify is adding two more windows to the back to match the existing windows and then also put in a wall air conditioner unit. HPC24-0053: 1230 East Burlington Street - College Hill Conservation District (rear basement wall reconstruction): This house is a little Cape Cod that originally had a basement garage and in the 1970s they turned the basement garage into an apartment and also added an addition. What has happened is they're getting a lot of water in there so they need to replace rear basement wall. They will be taking out the wood frame portion of the wall and replacing it with block to match the rest of the foundation. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 11, 2024: MOTION: Thomann moves to defer approval the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's June 11, 2024 meeting. Beck seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Wagner not present). COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Commission Officer Elections: Bristow noted that at the July meeting each year they vote for a new officers, the vote takes place in July and then the position changes at the August meeting. Thomann moved to nominate Lewis as Vice Chair, Beck seconded, the motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Wagner not present). Beck moved to nominate Sellergren as Chair, Villanueva seconded, the motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Wagner not present). Work Plan and subcommittees: Sellergren stated the awards subcommittee discussed pushing the awards ceremony to February. They first thought about October and then talked about how that might be difficult and ended on February. However, that would be the first time they've actually skipped a full year as it would be 16 months since the last ceremony. Bristow stated the preference normally would be to always do it during preservation month which is May but that is a really bad time with graduations, people gearing up and sending in applications for projects, etc. and the issue with doing it in September this year is they don't have enough time. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 11, 2024 Page 10 of 11 Sellergren stated she thinks February seems fine but would ask the subcommittee to also prepare for the next round and making this process have structure. Bristow stated it is a lot of work to get the nominations together and ready for the subcommittee, but all of the real work begins after the award is decided in contacting different people and gathering information. Sellergren asked who typically does that work. Bristow stated she used to do it all, because the project has gone through this process so she usually knows who the owner is or who the contractor is and would have that contact information but it's something that maybe she can somehow compile and hand it off. The Commission agreed to a February date. ADJOURNMENT: Beck moved to adjourn the meeting. Lewis seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Wagner not present). The meeting was adjourned at 6:45pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2024 NAME TERM EXP. 8/10 9/14 10/12 11/9 12/14 1/11 2/8 3/21 4/24 5/22 6/13 7/11 BECK, MARGARET 6/30/24 X X O/E X X X X X X X X X BROWN, CARL 6/30/26 O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E X X O/E X O/E BURFORD, KEVIN 6/30/27 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X LEWIS, ANDREW 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X X X RUSSELL, RYAN 6/30/27 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- O/E SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X X X X X STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X X X X O/E X X X 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 O/E X X X X X X X X X WAGNER, FRANK 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X X X WELU- REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA 6/30/25 X X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member