Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 10 2024 HPC Agenda packet Thursday October 10, 2024 5:30 p.m. Emma J. Harvat Hall City Hall IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, October 10, 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) Certificates of Appropriateness HPC24-0079: 841 South 7th Avenue – Dearborn Street Conservation District (complete rehabilitation including removal of window opening) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review 1. HPC24-0075: 325 North Gilbert Street – Northside Historic District (porch repair of column base, flooring and soffit) 2. HPC24-0081: 8 Bella Vista Place – Brown Street Historic District (deteriorated soffit replacement) Minor Review –Staff review 1. HPC24-0086: 730 N Linn Street – Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement) 2. HPC24-0089: 713 East Jefferson Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (replacement stairs to the second floor) 3. HPC24-0092: 629 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (porch repair and front step handrail construction) 4. HPC24-0091: 1220 East Burlington Street – College Hill Conservation District (damaged window replacement and partial foundation reconstruction) Intermediate Review –Chair and Staff review 1. HPC24-0061: 26 East Market, Old Brick – Local Historic Landmark (door and transom replacement) 2. HPC24-0078: 726 Ronalds Street – Brown Street Historic District (minor change to prior COA- adding egress windows and one window well) 3. HPC24-0080: 804 East Davenport Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (porch alterations and repair, radon installation, siding repair, soffit and fascia repair) 4. HPC24-0085: 515 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (rear basement window removal) 5. HPC24-0087: 430 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (minor change to prior COA – revised porch to be screened with paneled balustrade and square columns) 6. HPC24-0089: 529 East College Street – College Green Historic District (mini-split installation) F) Consideration of Minutes for September 12, 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 October 3, 2024 Historic Review for HPC24-0079: 841 South 7th Avenue General Information: Applicant/Owner: Ascend Property, LLC Contact person: Audrey Lester, audreyglester@gmail.com District: Dearborn Street Conservation District Classification: Non-Historic Project Scope: Full rehabilitation project including new windows, deck demolition, modern passage door opening removal, demolition of screens at front porch, demolition of ramp, new front steps, siding and trim repair, and removal of south-facing window in breezeway. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.13 Windows 7.0 Guidelines for Demolition 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features Property History: This Minimal Traditional cottage was built ca. 1945. It is a single-story side-gabled house with a front projection under a roof with a curved slope. The entry door is located in the south side of the front projection. The house has a picture window flanked by two double-hung windows in the front projection, similar to early ranch houses. The other windows are double-hung sash, except for a sliding windows in the rear addition. All have been replaced with vinyl windows. The first rear addition (now breezeway) was added in 1959. The second addition was completed in 1995. The screened front porch was added in 1996. Aluminum siding was installed in 1978. The deck was added at an unknown date. The gables have a shingled siding detail that has been covered with synthetic siding. Detailed Project Description: This project is a full rehabilitation of the house which, according to the owner, has some extensive termite damage and has been stripped down to the structural framing on the interior. All windows will be replaced with vinyl windows. The front windows will be replaced with a fixed sash window with double-hung windows on either side to match the “historic” photo of the house. The windows in the rear addition will change from sliding windows to double-hung windows. Modern elements such and the deck, south- facing door to the deck, screening on the modern front porch, and front ramp will be removed. Holes in the fascia and soffit at the breezeway will be repaired and new metal will be installed to match the rest of the house. The applicant also proposes to remove the south-facing window in the breezeway and to patch the opening with matching siding. The house will also have a new roof, gutters and downspouts, and a new coat of paint, none of which require review. Guidelines: Section 4.13 Window recommends: • If a window is to be relocated, it should not detract from the 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 begin placed across and randomly extended beyond the opening. Section 7.1 Demolition of Whole Structures or Significant Features recommends: • Removing additions or alterations that are not historic and that significantly detract from the building’s historic character or that are structurally unsound are a safety hazard. Analysis: Much of this project can be approved by staff or staff and Chair without Commission approval, including: • Removal of the modern deck and door on the south side • Removal of the screening and ramp at the modern front porch • Removal of the modern shutters • Construction of new front steps • Repair of soffit and fascia, including new metal cladding at breezeway • Replacement of existing vinyl windows with new vinyl through an exception to the guidelines for non-historic properties. Product information has been submitted for staff review. The removal of the south-facing window in the breezeway is the portion of the project requiring Commission review. The breezeway was added in 1959 as a bedroom addition that was accessed through an existing bedroom in the house. The addition had a window on the south face but no window on the north face. It likely had a window facing west but the 1995 addition was located against this wall. The applicant plans to remove the south-facing window opening in the breezeway and patch the siding over the opening. On the inside, two bathrooms will be located in this area, preventing the installation of a single, centered window because of a new dividing wall that will be installed there. Each bathroom will have a shower against the exterior wall so that it will not be practical to install a new window opening in either bathroom. The spaces are too small to move the shower to another wall. The applicant has also stated that it is not possible to move the bathrooms to the north wall which is already windowless because of some elements of the plan that already exist and are not in the budget to change. Application materials include plan drawings which are attached and an applicant statement to the Commission on the proposed change. The house has been vacant and in disrepair since a long-term owner vacated the property in recent years. Much of the project involves the removal of modern intrusive elements, improving the exterior integrity of the property. For instance, the modern sliding windows in the 1995 addition will be replaced with double-hung windows and the screened panels will be removed from the modern front porch. However, the guidelines recommend that changes to window openings do not detract from the overall fenestration pattern, which included a south-facing window in the 1959 addition. Removing the window from the breezeway will impact the fenestration pattern on the house, creating a windowless wall which is typically something not found on a historic house and therefore typically avoided. In Staff’s opinion, the overall rehabilitation project will have a positive impact on the house and the neighborhood. Many intrusive elements will be removed, and the house will be repaired and able to be occupied again. While the window is street-facing to the south, it is also on the side of the building and while the proposal may not comply with the guidelines, staff finds that this may be an appropriate project for the Commission to apply an exception to the guidelines. Currently, there is no documented exception in the section 4.13 that applies to this portion of the project. Section 3.2, Exceptions to the Iowa City Guidelines, provides criteria by which non- historic structures can be evaluated. In order to qualify for an exception, the proposed change to the exterior of a non-historic property must comply with the following criteria: • The project will not further detract from the historic character of the district. • The project will not create a false historic character. • Alterations….will be compatible with the style and character of the non-historic structure. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 841 South 7th Avenue as presented in the application through an exception to the guidelines for non-historic properties. 841 South Seventh Avenue – East-facing façade and portion of north elevation from NE corner (July 16, 2024) 841 South Seventh Avenue – South elevation of historic portion of house (July 16, 2024) 841 South Seventh Avenue – South elevation of breezeway (1959) and rear addition (1995) (July 16, 2024) 841 South Seventh Avenue – West elevation and portion of north elevation from NW corner (July 16, 2024) 841 South Seventh Avenue – West elevation and portion of north elevation from NW corner (photo from site inventory form) To: Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission Subject: Request for Approval to Remove Window in Non-Historic Home at 841 S 7th Ave, Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Members of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission, I am writing to respectfully request approval for the removal of a window in the extension of a non-historic home located in the Dearborn Street Conservation District. As part of a restoration and improvement project, we are rehabilitating a property that has unfortunately fallen into severe disrepair. Our intention is to not only restore the home to a livable condition but to also enhance its long-term value and contribution to the neighborhood. However, we face a design challenge with the current location of a window in the newly added wing, which I would like to outline below. Project Context and Challenge The portion of the house where the window is currently located is an addition to the original structure, not part of the historic fabric of the home. As part of the restoration process, we are adding two bathrooms in this section. Due to the layout of the bathrooms, the placement of showers on the wall with the window creates a significant issue, as shower walls are not suited for window openings. For structural, privacy, and functional reasons, removing the window is necessary. While we understand that the Commission's position is that a window may have been historically located in this area had the addition been part of the original home, the current configuration and condition of the property pose practical difficulties that we cannot ignore. Structural and Financial Constraints We have explored alternative solutions, including relocating the bathrooms to another wall without a window. However, this change would require moving multiple load-bearing walls, significantly complicating the design and increasing costs beyond what our project budget for this project allows. Given that this property has been uninhabited for some time, and we are working to restore it from a state of near-total neglect—rotting structural components on the exterior and interior, termite damage throughout, mold, foundation bracing—we are already facing substantial renovation costs. Preservation and Improvement Intentions Our goal is not just to flip this property but to ensure its future as a valuable and attractive home that enhances the conservation district. The proposed work will dramatically improve the exterior's appearance and repair severe structural issues that have left the home unlivable for years. By removing this non-original window, we can preserve the overall integrity of the structure while adhering to current building standards and budgetary realities. We are committed to preserving the historic charm of the neighborhood, and I assure the Commission that this modification will not detract from the aesthetic or historical value of the area. The removal is a necessary step to ensure the home's functionality and livability. Conclusion We respectfully ask for your understanding of our practical constraints and approval to remove this window. Doing so will allow us to complete this much-needed renovation, bringing new life to a dilapidated property in the Dearborn Street Conservation District while maintaining the neighborhood's historic character. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Audrey Lester MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 – 5:30 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Carl Brown, Kevin Burford, Andrew Lewis, Ryan Russell, Jordan Sellergren, Deanna Thomann, Nicole Villanueva, Christina Welu- Reynolds MEMBERS ABSENT: Frank Wagner STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: Sellergren called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS: Review of Roof Material Replacement Certificate of Appropriateness Bristow explained they have some projects that are staff reviewable as a minor review because the Commission has created a Certificate of Appropriateness with certain conditions by which staff can approve them.It's usually because it came to the Commission a quite a few times and was always approved the same way. Therefore, this was a way to not have some of the projects come to the Commission. The first publication of the current guidelines was in 2010 with a list of items like decks and porches that were staff-approvable, then in 2018 several other types of projects were added and one of them was roof replacements. Bristow noted even during the conversation of the Commission in 2018 they thought this one might need revisiting and at the last meeting Sellergren suggested revisiting it. In January 2018 the Commission members who were present voted to approve staff having the ability to approve changes in roof material if the following conditions are met. First is that all the details of the fascia, trim and gutter that might be associated with the roof remain as existing. If there were any changes needed in fascia, trim or gutter then that would come to the Commission instead. Second, there were two types of review that this included, one was a roof that had flat asphalt shingles or 3-tab shingles and the new roof will be architectural asphalt shingles mimicking wood shake shingles and then that a roof currently that has a flat panel standing seam metal roof that is deteriorated beyond repair and the new roof will be replaced with architectural asphalt shingles mimicking wood shake shingles. In Bristow’s opinion the first two points are fine and have been working well it's the metal roof that they've been questioning and the way it reads currently is if a flat panel standing seam metal roof is also deteriorated beyond repair then the new roof would be architectural asphalt shingles mimicking wood shake shingles and not replacing it with a metal roof with a metal roof. She noted part of the reason why that could be approved generally is because in 95% of the cases the metal roof is the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2024 Page 2 of 9 second roof and it is over wood shingles so it's basically going back to what would have been the original but not using wood and instead using asphalt shingles. The Certificate of Appropriateness then also contains just some basic language about pre-approved items may be approved by minor review by staff if the conditions are met, it also talks about meeting code but not reviewing for building permit codes. Bristow next showed some example projects that were done via staff approval. First was one in a conservation district and the Commission doesn’t review roofs in conservation districts only in a historic district or on a Landmark property and the Code changed to allow staff to review those in 2015. But this is an example of a metal roof that was changed to asphalt shingles that was approve because it was part of a larger project and this house is non-contributing. The next example was a house that has been approved since the 2018 Certificate of Appropriateness was written and was approved by staff. It is a key property in the Brown Street Historic District and the metal roof was deteriorated and it has been replaced with architectural asphalt shingles. Next is an example of a property where they applied to remove it and the staff member cautioned them that because it is a key property, and this roof is significant, they'd have to take it to the Commission and the owner did not proceed. Next is a house that is a key property in the Jefferson Street Historic District that would have also needed to go to the Commission, so the owner just decided to replace it with another standing seam metal roof and therefore became a certificate of no material effect. Next is Old Brick and their roof was having some leaking and there was conversation about changing the roof however it is a monumental roof that has internal gutters that were integrated within the roof system. Staff therefore suggested that they look at whether or not the leak was from the internal gutters instead and it was, so they moved forward with repairing the gutter system and there was no change on the roof. But again, it was one where staff could have just approved replacing it with something else. The next example was an interesting case, the Newman Center, which is an addition to an historic building so the entire property is considered non-historic in the Jefferson Street Historic District. When they approached staff about replacing the roofs, which are all copper, Bristow suggested to them that replacing the roof on the historic part of the building with a different material would likely not be appropriate and should probably be taken to the Commission. The new portion, the Newman Center was designed in the 1980s and the roof on the building is architecturally significant and not historic in the District so staff could have approved replacing it but no one wanted to imagine what this building would look like if it was covered in asphalt shingles so she suggested because it was architecturally significant they replace the roof to match. They did so but it's no longer copper but a steel that's colored like copper. The final example is one that happened just last month and it's a contributing property in a historic district and staff approved replacing it with asphalt shingles and it's been completed. Bristow stated she is recommending a revision to the conditions for the Certificate of Appropriateness. It is her recommendation to leave the first bullet point because that retains some details that they want for anything that was approved. She also recommends leaving the first part about switching a flat asphalt shingle with the more appropriate architectural asphalt shingle so they have options. She stated the next part is an important thing to include because they do have some buildings where they might have an overall roof that is anything, wood, metal or asphalt shingles and they might have a remnant like a small one-story addition that's still metal or they might have a porch that has the flat seam metal so the added bullet point would state that if the roof has a porch or a small rear addition roof that currently has a metal roof with standing seams or flat seams that will be replaced with roofing membrane that would be typical for a one-story low slope roof and that would allow staff to approve the replacement of a metal roof that's not the feature roof, it’s just on the rear or maybe a porch because it is very standard to replace those roofs with membrane. Bristow would also suggest adding a bullet point that the property is non-historic or non-contributing to a historic district if they want to approve replacing the metal with architectural shingles. So the first bullet point relates to everything and then there are three options, one of which has the two bullet points because it's connected by and that would HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2024 Page 3 of 9 still allow staff to approve replacing a metal roof with architectural shingles if it is non-historic or non- contributing. That would allow then the example like the Newman Center which could still be replaced with shingles however it does allow for those buildings where they're just not contributing or not significant still be replaced. The alternative would be to make it so the only thing that this Certificate of Appropriateness approves is shingle to shingle or the roof of the porch and small addition replacements. Bristow’s recommendation is to still allow some of them to be approved by staff and she reminded the Commission that in a conservation district they don't review any roofs, whether it's a key property or not, they can still replace it. So, if the Commission would rather have all the metal roofs in districts come before them they could delete the two points regarding that. Lewis wanted to clarify that the properties shown as examples were ones the Commission would like to have approved but didn’t because of the way the Certificate of Appropriateness was written. Bristow explained she showed examples of some that staff approved and some that as a staff member she thought that this certificate allowed too much leeway and staff should not approve and they should go to the Commission. If she hadn't stopped them they would be approved. Lewis asked then this revision is to be more limiting than before and not allow staff quite so much ability to approve replacements. Bristow confirmed that is correct because the Commission is supposed to be the experts and the professionals if staff was not trained in preservation, it could be an issue. She also noted this is probably the most open-ended certificate that's staff approvable and so this is an attempt to limit that and get more eyes on a project especially if it is a key property or a Landmark property. Welu-Reynolds noted some members of the Commission in 2018 came up with the current roof replacement recommendations that are in place right now. Bristow acknowledged that she wrote the Certificate of Appropriateness but it was presented to the Commission after several potential minor reviews and they did approve it. Welu-Reynolds asked however since 2018 some situations have come up where Bristow felt maybe that roof should not be replaced with what they're suggesting and so that is why it is being questioned. Bristow confirmed that was correct. Brown noted at present a property owner in theory could actually pressure staff that they are perfectly allowed to approve it and there is no need to go to the Commission. Bristow stated its first staff's determination whether or not something is staff reviewable or goes to the Commission, even if something meets conditions but she still feels odd about it she would probably still bring it before the Commission but another staff member might not do so. Thomann acknowledged she would be concerned about a staffing change and if they don't have somebody who has the expertise like Bristow to look at a project. She likes the idea of limiting things a little bit for historic districts and contributing properties. Bristow noted there's not a lot of products people use for roofs when replacing a roof, people would put on shingled roofs or replace a metal roof with a metal roof, there's not a lot of leeway there, most people would not use cedar shake because of the expense, so the reason they review roofs is because there's a wide range of metal roofs and the flat panel standing seam metal roof that are on a lot of houses are in need some repair or replacement. On Ronald Street specifically there are two houses that have replaced their metal roofs with new standing seam that is considered appropriate, one of those roofs was $8,000 in 2018 and the other was $84,000 in 2022. Totally different contractors, different brand of metal roof, obviously different dates, and different size houses and roofs, but there is a wide range of options, and it depends on what is used. Some companies make the proper metal seam roof as a product and then there are contractors who will just take the flat metal and bend their own seams and it works fine. The roofs they're trying to avoid are the standing seam metal roofs where there are any ridges or striations between the seams because that's considered an agricultural metal roof and the National Park Service actually wrote to Iowa City before 2015, before this new rule, to say HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2024 Page 4 of 9 that if a property was eligible for the National Register and it had a standing steam metal roof that was replaced with one of these agricultural metal roofs it would no longer be eligible. So staff has stepped up to try to stop some of those so they don’t become ineligible. For example, there are few houses in districts where someone wants to do a metal roof with a metal roof replacement, and she has to talk to that contractor about using a thicker gauge metal because the thicker gauge metal prevents the striations. She will also suggest if the building is big enough to replace with a metal roof that looks like wood shingles. There is a sorority across from the Bloom County house to the north on 932 East College that was replaced with one, the house across from the Preucil School to the west that was replaced with one, there's one on Clark Street and one on Seventh and Muscatine that is very three- dimensional compared to an asphalt shingle roof. She acknowledged a metal roof lasts longer and actually what they end up doing is they create an airspace between the existing shingles and the new roof which is even better for the roof. Welu-Reynolds asked if a house with a metal roof would have to put another metal roof on instead of the shingles if they wanted staff to approve it but if they wanted to they could have come to the Commission and ask the Commission to allow them to do shingles. Bristow confirmed that was correct, it wouldn't prevent them it just means it would come to the Commission instead. Welu-Reynolds inquired that right now some things just go to City staff but when/if someone is hired by the City and they don't have the qualifications to understand what should be approved and what should not approved this could be an issue. She stated her concern is not to have the Commission be a deterrent for people buying certain houses. She has talked to people who are so worried about buying a historic house because they feel like there's so many restrictions with historic properties and it's scaring people away from certain buying certain houses in certain neighborhoods, particularly houses that need some fixing up. The City has hired appropriate staff to do this job so having the process come back to the Commission for approval makes her worry. Have there been multiple cases since 2018 and is this is a problem or why did this become a problem resulting in a proposal to change. Bristow explained the revision came up because there were two or three situations where staff could have approved asphalt shingles instead of standing seam metal and roofs would be replaced and there would have been a major loss of historic character. Brown noted the most egregious example shown earlier wouldn't be stopped by this updated wording and someone else in this staff position might say it looks fine and approve it. The updated wording wouldn't change that fact because it's non-historic non-contributing. Bristow noted the Newman Center is the only standing seam metal roof that's modern that is in a district or even a potential district so that building is a unique case. Brown feels if this is taking a stricter approach without it being the strictest approach it tightens things up a little bit which might be a good thing and then if they find five years from now this clearly was not strict enough they could always come back to it as a Commission. Bristow stated on the condition that allows the replacement the added statement regarding the property is non-historic or non-contributing to a historic district allows this to occur to properties that meet this condition or if they wanted to expand it to contributing properties they could. It may only remove the ability for staff to approve it when it's a key property or a landmark. Beck noted the recommended revision isn't stricter than what's currently happening right now, it is just a process to reduce loopholes in the event that future staff doesn't have training in historic preservation. Sellergren stated the purpose of this Commission is to maintain historic preservation in Iowa City and it could be a contributing property or even a Landmark property and if that roof is not significant staff would still approve replacing it, it would just if staff denies it that it will slow the process down slightly to allow the Commission to evaluate it. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2024 Page 5 of 9 Welu-Reynolds stated while it might create a little bit more time for the applicant she likes the idea of saying that they would do that for contributing or Landmark properties. Brown noted as written it states that it has to have all details of fascia, trim and gutter remaining existing and then situations a, b or c could all be true and therefore staff could approve it. Perhaps the last two bullet points should be combined so there's no way for someone to interpret that the and goes along with everything up above. Lewis agreed with Welu-Reynolds in that he doesn’t want to make this feel like they're making people jump through extra steps and especially if they get in the wrong part of the cycle and suddenly they're waiting a month if not a little bit longer to get things decided. Most likely it will probably be fine but it does feel like an extra step but at the same time he does like the closing of the loophole. Beck acknowledged in the cases presented the homeowners could have chosen to go with an option that would mean no material effect, homeowners always have that option rather than to go through review, perhaps the expense is what blocks some homeowners from immediately going for the no material effect choice. Sellergren thinks flexibility is important and the Commission is capable of flexibility so she would personally like to close the loophole so that they don't lose more historic attributes in town. They can all take a reasonable approach on a case-by-case basis and hopefully things will move through quickly enough that people won't have to wait. Lewis clarified with the revision all key contributing and Landmark properties come to the Commission and everything else can be decided on at the staff level. Villanueva noted perhaps there could be a medium approach if they say the property is non-historic non-contributing to Historic District and then staff could approve it and the ones that for sure come to the Commission would be key and landmark. Russell stated he lives on a street that has a lot of these metal roofs that look really ugly. He would think that they're contributing and would not be comfortable necessarily with somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about to approve that in the office so he would not be in favor of adding that word here because he thinks it's important to come before least another set of eyes and it could be really quick to approve. Bristow noted regarding Lewis’s statement about the time, the worst-case scenario on an application to the Commission is that someone applies pass the deadline but about five weeks is the longest that somebody could have to wait if they apply the day after the deadline for the next meeting. Sellergren noted that seems reasonable to her. MOTION: Russell moved to approve the recommend revision of the Certificate of Appropriateness as follows: The conditions for roof replacement to be reviewed by staff are as follows: • All details of fascia, trim and gutter remain as existing • The roof currently has flat asphalt shingles or 3-tab shingles and the new roof will be architectural asphalt shingles mimicking wood shake shingles or a flat panel standing HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2024 Page 6 of 9 seam metal roof, or • The roof is a porch or small rear addition that currently has a metal roof with standing seams or flat seams that will be replaced with roofing membrane, or • The property is non-historic or non-contributing to a historic district and the roof currently has a flat panel standing seam metal roof that is deteriorated beyond repair and the new roof will be architectural asphalt shingles mimicking wood shake shingles (a new flat panel standing seam metal roof would qualify as a Certificate of No Material Effect). Villanueva seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 9-0. Request for Comment West-side Park Naming Proposal Bristow noted former commissioner Kevin Boyd has been doing some amateur historical research and he had found Adelaide Joy Rogers in his research and had always thought that she would be a good person to name a park after and so the Parks and Rec Commission have this new park located at the southwest corner of West High and Highway 218. Bristow confirmed with Juli Seydell Johnson, the Parks and Rec Director, that the only part of the park will be improved with paths and playground equipment is marked on the attached map. Boyd had written up a brief statement about Adelaide Joy Rogers which was included in the agenda packet. Some of the bullet points are: following the ratification of the 19th Amendment both Emma J. Harvat and Adelaide Joy Rogers were on that first ballot. Adelaide Joy Rogers was running to be a parks commissioner and she did not succeed but she was on that first ballot. Adelaide Joy Rogers attended the State University of Iowa's Normal School which eventually became the school of education. In 1886 she was one of the charter organizers who founded the local YWCA and their staff member that they hired became a director of women's athletics. As they grew and needed more space, they were the ones who had Close Hall built and it was built by a well-known and prominent brick mason and it was also moved by horses up the hill. Historically it's just a prominent part of the University's architecture. In 1901 Adelaide Joy Rogers petitioned the all- male school board to provide equal training opportunities for girls which allowed more scientific education for girls as well. Adelaide Joy Rogers was a public-school teacher and was married to a well-known instructor in the dentistry school, they adopted two orphans and at one point in time lived on Melrose Avenue which is nearby the park. She also lived at 620 Park Road which was demolished a few years ago but was a colonial revival house. During World War I Adelaide Joy Rogers was active in the Red Cross, she chaired a committee where they came up with comfort packs that they sent off with the troops as they departed. In 1919 she saw a need for educating the children who were in The Children's Hospital so they didn't miss out on education and she helped train volunteers to provide that education. Seydell Johnson would like this Commission’s opinion about this as a name for a park and whether or not they felt it might be appropriate. Beck stated she is strongly in support. Lewis agreed and thinks it's a really good idea, her background is education based and this park is next to a school. Thomann noted the area is off Shannon Drive Park and is there any historical significance with that name or is it just a random name chosen by the developer for that street. Bristow is unsure if there is any significance as developers get to name their streets. Russell ask what the actual name they're going to use, would be Rogers Park or Adelaide Rogers Park HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2024 Page 7 of 9 or Adelaide Joy Rogers Park. Sellergren noted it's such a beautiful name and thinks it would be important to keep the entire name as the official name for the park because it's a feminine name and it gives people something easy to Google. Sellergren thanked Boyd for his research and work on this proposal. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Minor Review - Staff review HPC24-0073: 713 Ronalds Street - Brown Street Historic District (garage roof shingle replacement) Bristow noted this was a simple roof shingle replacement on the garage. HPC24-0072: 323 Brown Street - Brown Street Historic District (deck railing and flooring replacement) Bristow stated this house is actually non-contributing in the Brown Street Historic District and it's been altered. This project was a deck replacement. HPC24-0071: 621 South Summit Street - Summit Street Historic District (flat roof EPDM replacement) Bristow explained the flat roofs on each end will be replaced. HPC24-0068: 614 North Johnson Street - Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement, deteriorated fascia and soffit replacement) Bristow stated this is just a roof shingle replacement and since this house has never had a metal roof on it, it went from wood shingles to asphalt shingles, she did suggest asphalt shingles as replacement. Intermediate Review -Chair and Staff review HPC24-0070: 103 South Governor Street - College Hill Conservation District (replacement of rear stoop and step to second floor unit) Bristow stated this porch was reconstructed and got a historic preservation award last year. It had a two-story stoop and step and it needed to be replaced. To meet code now it had to be reconfigured to run toward the back of the building. HPC24-0007: 917 Bowery Street - Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (front bay repair and rear porch reconstruction) Bristow stated this is a significant property in a conservation district and they’ve been working with them on a few projects over time. There is a copper roof on the front bay and they are having some leaking coming in at the roof edge. Also, the enclosed porch has been deteriorating for a while and will be reconstructed, it's currently just a screened-in porch and not enclosed and it will be reconstructed pretty much the same as it is. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR August 8, 2024: MOTION: Beck moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's August 8, 2024 meeting as amended. Lewis seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2024 Page 8 of 9 COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Work Plan and subcommittees: Sellergren reported the preservation awards subcommittee met on Tuesday and clarified the dates and created a good outline of the months to come. Nominations will close on October 21st and then the subcommittee will meet on November 12th to go through a PowerPoint of all of the nominated properties, vote on who will take an award this year and then letters will be sent out. The subcommittee will also take care of assigning most of the writing and presentation but anybody who serves on the Commission would be more than welcome to contribute to that. Bristow noted they were thinking of forming other subcommittees and have they formed one to think about landmarks downtown. As Council starts to talk about their budget, which they do in the fall for the next year, it would be a good time if they want to try to present something to them to consider. The Commission should potentially think about having that subcommittee meet sooner than later to decide whether or not to try to get anything to them this year or not. Sellergren stated for what it's worth she knows about a downtown business owner who's working on drafting a letter, or petition, from local downtown business owners who are in favor of protecting the buildings downtown so that would be a good place to start. Bristow stated if they want to talk about incentives she suggests that they have a meeting with staff first. Sellergren stated they could go back over the previously suggested incentive program to get started. She will get something set up in early October. COMMISSION INFORMATION: Bristow stated these are not open for discussion they're just on the agenda for the Commission’s information. Both were forwarded to members by email. Correspondence from John Courtney The letter from Mr. Courtney is the exact kind of information needed for an application for historic review and an application for historic review has been submitted and it will likely be reviewed and approved next week. Correspondence from Christine Denburg This is about the house that was burned in Woodlawn almost 2 years ago. The letter was addressed to both the Commission and Friends of Historic Preservation, the Commission does not have a budget or the ability to buy any property at all nor does the Commission have the budget to rehabilitate or repair any properties. It is not a priority of the City to purchase properties for this reason either, but the Friends of Historic Preservation Board will have a conversation about it. ADJOURNMENT: Lewis moved to adjourn the meeting. Beck seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:36pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2024 NAME TERM EXP. 10/12 11/9 12/14 1/11 2/8 3/21 4/24 5/22 6/13 7/11 8/8 9/12 BECK, MARGARET 6/30/24 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X BROWN, CARL 6/30/26 X O/E X O/E O/E X X O/E X O/E O/E X BURFORD, KEVIN 6/30/27 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X X 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 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 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 O/E X X X X X X X X X O/E X WAGNER, FRANK 6/30/26 X X X X X X X X X X X O/E WELU- REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA 6/30/25 X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member