Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Packet 09.12.2019 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL August 8, 2019 MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Kevin Boyd, Helen Burford, Sharon DeGraw, Lyndi Kiple, Cecile Kuenzli, G. T. Karr, Quentin Pitzen, Jordan Sellergren MEMBERS ABSENT: Gosia Clore STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Ginalie Swaim, John Christenson, Maeve Clark RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 513 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (second floor rear addition). Bristow explained 513 Grant Street is a four-square, contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. It has a rock-faced stone foundation and piers. It has narrow lap siding, corner boards, and double-hung windows – a few of them paired. The house does have an intrusive addition built in the 1970s off the rear. The applicant is currently planning to add to a second-floor addition for a bedroom, bathroom, and closet. Staff worked with the applicant first to see if it was possible to have the second-floor addition fit the guidelines- set in from the corners of the house to preserve that corner, matching the siding, having the roof connect in either a flat roof, like a lot of the four-square sleeping porches are when they are on the second floor, or maybe match the hip roof on the house. One option would have been to have the new addition smaller than the footprint on the current addition. Structurally, that was not going to be possible. So following the existing footprint was most appropriate. The current proposal will revise the existing addition so that it is more appropriate for the house and then add the new second floor. Bristow noted there is an issue with the roofline that is not yet resolved following this approach. She said part of the reason the guidelines recommend additions are set in from the sides is to prevent an awkward condition with the roof connections. Staff has requested either more detailed drawings or a basic 3D model to illustrate how the rooflines will be resolved. The current recommendation from staff is to have the window and door product information approved by staff, or staff and chair after the fact, and also have staff and chair approve the roof condition. Bristow shared a view from the south side, showing how the addition protrudes two to three feet past the side of the house. The radon pipe will be removed. She showed the addition from the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 2 of 11 back corner. It has inappropriate siding and a flat roof with a small eave overhang. The windows are also incorrectly proportioned and ganged. The north side of the current addition has no windows. Kuenzli asked if there had been consideration of removing the bottom addition, and rebuilding it set in so it would meet the guidelines. Bristow said it was beyond the scope of the project because it is so fully integrated into the house right now. Bristow shared the proposed plan showing the footprint of the addition.On the second floor, the north side would have one window in it. There would be two full windows on the back and two windows on the south side. Bristow said the two ganged windows in the addition now on the first floor would be replaced with two windows that match the others in the house, with the second- floor windows aligned above them. Bristow described the west side, the area of the addition on the back side. Currently it has a pair of windows. The applicant would like to put in a pair of French doors to let more light in on the west side and to provide direct access to the back yard. There would be one, slightly smaller proportioned window in the bathroom above the French doors. Bristow said because of the interior they only propose to add one window to the north side. Staff finds that acceptable, partly because this part of the addition is recessed so far from the side walls of the house. It is also difficult to see from any direction, and is not visible from the sidewalk or the street at all. Bristow said an original porch was enclosed on the back of the house long ago and has a wide eave and a flat roof condition that could be mimicked in a flat roof on the addition. The other option is a hip roof. The slope of the existing roof and the head of the windows on the second floor in the original house make it difficult to tie in the roofs. This situation in combination with the addition extending past the south wall of the house make the roof condition difficult to resolve. For both floors of the rear addition, all siding and trim conditions would matched the historic house. At least one upper floor window from the house could be reused in the addition. The new windows would be five-over-one double hung windows to match the existing. Boyd explained that now was the time for clarifying questions before opening the public hearing. After the hearing closes, the Commission will have further discussion. Pitzen wondered if this were to be a flat roof with a side exposed, if there were any guidelines for how the roof edge would be treated. Bristow said they would have fascia or some kind of board on any side that did not have a gutter, so we would at least have some kind of a roof edge that had a flat edge. She said the house has open soffits, but it has the gutter, so it would be a matter of combining the roof edge condition.Bristow said a model would allow them to work out the details. Agran thought, if the project timeline allowed, it would be better reviewed once all the roof details had been worked out. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 3 of 11 Boyd opened and closed the public hearing with no comments. Karr did not believe the project could be reviewed without knowing how the roofline would look. Kuenzli agreed. Pitzen thought a hip roof would look more appropriate. Bristow said the goal had been to reflect a two-story addition with a sleeping porch, which tends to have a flat roof, but noted that might not be the best choice for this house. She said staff has pushed for the idea of having a model or more detailed drawings because the roof tie-in cannot be determined enough from the drawings to approve it. MOTION: Agran moved to defer the decision for the Certificate of Appropriateness for 513 Grant Street to either the August 19th meeting or the following formal meeting, contingent upon seeing specific information about the roofline of the proposed addition and how it ties into the structure, either in the form of more detailed drawings or a model. Kuenzli seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 718 East Washington Street – College Hill Conservation District (window replacement for egress). Bristow explained 718 East Washington Street is a contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. It is a bungalow and was owner-occupied for decades. Bristow noted the part of the application suggesting replacement of the five dormer attic windows had been withdrawn. They now propose to repair them and apply a storm window, as they will be doing with all first-floor windows. The attic was originally an unfinished walk -up. The applicant is adding two bedrooms in the attic – one on each side. They propose to change the second floor east and west windows to egress windows. Each will be a casement window that has muntin bars, so it looks like a double-hung window. The product information they submitted was a Brighton casement window, three-over- one appearance, meeting egress requirements. The guidelines talk about the ability to change a window like this if it’s needed by code for a bedroom, which in this case it is. As they are also on the side of the house, Staff finds that appropriate and applauds the owners for repairing the original windows that remain in the house otherwise. Boyd opened and closed the public hearing with no comments. Pitzen asked if there were guidelines for matching muntins on storm windows. Bristow said storm windows and storm doors are not regulated but, if someone were to ask, generally we just like a storm window to be divided into two panes like a traditional storm window. They are not required to match other divided light conditions. MOTION: Karr moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the egress window portion of the project at 718 East Washington Street as presented in the amended application. Kuenzli seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 4 of 11 10 South Gilbert Street – Local Landmark (generator installation and screening). Bristow announced that the applicant had requested to defer this discussion. The owner was not able to attend this evening. Since the Staff report did not recommend approval, she said they also wanted to investigate their options. Staff felt the request for deferral until the September 12th meeting was acceptable. Agran saw no reason to defer discussion of this project. Bristow said the applicant was aware the Commission would have to vote to do that. Agran said since their options do not include this site, there was no reason to have it deferred. Boyd stated the Commission would be receptive to a request from a property owner for a specific meeting if noted when submitting their application. DeGraw wanted to know if a motion was made to affirm or deny, would it limit their progress in any way when they come up with an alternative solution. Bristow said it depended what the Commission decides. If the Commission decided the equipment should not be on this site and needed to be removed, then an alternative proposal from the applicant would not need to be heard by the Commission. If the Commission determines the site is okay, but the situation needs to change, that would require an alternative submittal that could be heard again by the Commission. If it’s the same site that had already been denied, then the Commission would not hear it again. Kuenzli thought for the sake of clarity the Commission should go ahead and render an opinion so the applicants would know what they must come back with and what they cannot come back with. Boyd made a counter argument to honor the deferment for the sake of being cooperative partners. He said in their motion they could note their intent to vote at the September meeting whether a representative was present or not. If deferred, DeGraw wanted to note issues with the project as is. Pitzen asked if any entity of the City had approved the applicants’ request. Bristow said no, the approved site plans did not include a generator anywhere on the project at all. Sellergren asked if the problem was a noise complaint or simply esthetic. Bristow said the problem is that the equipment is for a different building installed on a landmark property. MOTION: Agran moved to defer the decision on the Certificate of Appropriateness for 10 South Gilbert Street to the September meeting to provide the applicant time to further investigate options and to attend that meeting, where a decision will be made regardless of the attendance of the applicant. Burford seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 5 of 11 REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review. 714 Ronalds Street – Brown Street Historic District (porch repair). Bristow stated the porch would be repaired to match what was there. There was some rotting likely caused by too much plant material too close to the building. 528 East College Street – College Green Historic District (porch repair). This porch is being repaired. 507 North Linn Street – Northside Historic District (siding and soffit repair). 507 North Linn Street was once a Queen Anne. It has had two additions and is a rental property. The porch has been removed. Bristow said right now they are patching the siding. Some of it needs painted and some of the soffit needs repaired. She said the plan is that someday the historic house will all have narrow lap siding and the modern part will have modern, wider lap siding. 613 Ronalds Street – Brown Street Historic District (metal roof replacement). Bristow said the metal roof will be replaced with a new standing seam metal roof with flat panel in between. Minor Review – Staff Review. 309 Fairchild Street – Northside Historic District (porch stair and site stair replacement). Bristow said both sets of stairs would be replaced as they are, with concrete. She did tell the applicants that since they have a wooden porch, the more appropriate material would be wood stairs. The project was approved with that as an option. 809 Bloomington Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (porch floor and stair replacement). There was some rot in the porch floor and some of the railing that will be replaced. Bristow said this is not original. 424 East Jefferson Street – Jefferson Street Historic District (porch step and site railing replacement). The porch stair railing and the site stair railing would be replaced with a simple metal railing. 502 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (rear step replacement). The concrete stairs in the back will be replaced with wood. She said there was a simple railing around the side porch roof that will be matched. The stairs will descend in two directions. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 6 of 11 603 East College Street – College Green Historic District (porch railing and skirting replacement). The front side porch railing will be replaced with a standard spindle railing. The project included enlarging the corner pier and adding some skirting. 821 North Johnson Street – Brown Street Historic District (metal railing replacement). Bristow explained this was a project that came through the Commission. They originally intended to retain the existing metal railing. This house is mid-century modern with a black wrought iron railing. The stairs had to change slightly to meet current code, so they must put in a new railing. Bristow said they talked about matching exactly what they had. It was just not going to work out, so they are going to install a simple black aluminum railing with spindles and posts to be as unobtrusive as possible. 318 Church Street – Northside Historic District (rear sliding door changed to French door). Bristow said this house had work on the front porch last year and had an inappropriate addition in back. The sliding door will be replaced with a pair of French doors. Intermediate Review – Chair and Staff Review. 829 Kirkwood Avenue – Local Landmark (porch repair and roof shingle replacement). The applicant will be replacing some of the porch trim and materials around the floor and stairs that have rotted out. She said staff worked with them on the roof replacement project. Currently it has original wood shingles. In the past, under a different owner, this house had been lifted off its foundation for a long period. Animals had been getting into the roof during that time. Ever since, the new owners have not been able to keep the animals out. Currently they eat through the roof shingles. The owners patch the roof and the animals eat through it again. Staff approved asphalt shingles for this roof to prevent animals from getting in. 423 Ronalds Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (fence installation). 423 Ronalds Street is the result of another project. Bristow said the neighbor has a Commission-approved a driveway going in behind the house. That driveway points at the applicants back deck and porch so they are now putting in a privacy fence in the backyard. Bristow explained the taller fence portion will step down and become much shorter in between the two houses. The main purpose of the tall part is to block car headlights pointing at them. 220 and 226 South Johnson Street – College Green Historic District (retaining wall replacement). 220 and 226 South Johnson Street are under the same ownership. Bristow said it has a concrete retaining wall, but it is falling in so they will be replacing it. She said they will be using landscape block. This was the second Willowwind School. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 13, 2019 MOTION: Kuenzli moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission’s June 13, 2019 meeting. Agran seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 7 of 11 COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Commissioner Retirement. Bristow announced that Lee Shoppe had retired. He was moving, so he would not be able to represent the Woodlawn District anymore. His last meeting would have been July. She said she and Boyd thanked him for his service. We hope he continues well in his new location. Boyd pointed out current vacancies in Woodlawn and East College Street. Bristow said if any Commissioners know anyone who lives on Woodlawn or in the East College Historic District, please talk to them about becoming a commissioner. We would love to have them. Election of Officers. Boyd said the election is supposed to take place annually after the new Commission is appointed. All Commission terms are three years staggered and Zach, who was our Vice Chair, is no longer on the Commission, so we need a Chair and a Vice Chair. Boyd said he was happy to continue as the Chair, but if someone else wanted it, he would not object. Kuenzli moved that Kevin Boyd continue serving as Chair. DeGraw seconded the motion. There were no other nominations for Chair. Boyd said he had filled a partial term, and this was the final year of his first full term, so others should start thinking about serving as Chair. Bristow noted if they receive applicants for the at-large positions, Council wants to turn the positions over, so is may be difficult for the at-large positions to get a second term. Bristow explained the State really likes it if the Vice-Chair is being prepared to become the next Chair. Kuenzli nominated Tom Agran as Vice-Chair. Pitzen seconded the motion. Agran said he was not currently planning on renewing his term, but he would be happy to serve until next June. MOTION: Boyd moved to continue serving as Chair, with Agran serving as Vice-Chair. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. Annual Awards Ceremony. Bristow explained the need to revamp how are awards are done because it currently takes too much Staff time. Bristow said she did talk to Stefanie Bowers, who staffs the Human Rights Commission about their awards program. They have both the adult awards and the youth awards. She said there were several things that came up that could potentially be done by this Commission. Some things, if they involve changes to budgets, would take more time. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 8 of 11 Bristow noted there were at least three people in attendance from the Friends of Historic Preservation, one of our co-sponsors, as well as a representative from the County Commission. The County Chair had emailed that they think continuing to hold the awards is important and one of the only ways we have visibility within the community. They do want to be involved and Staff suggests getting them more involved. Ginalie Swaim, current President of the board of Friends of Historic Preservation, introduced Dan Matheson and Maeve Clark, also on the board. Swaim also noted Friends had co-sponsored the awards for years and years. She said that last year, and perhaps the year before that, Friends did not carry its load for various reasons. They are now in a better position to carry their load again and hoped to do more. Friends recognize the value of the awards to the community, to the property owners, to the contractors, and to the local preservation movement. It is a well-done event. It has high standards. It’s a very educational event. It is a very feel-good event. From her past time on the Commission, Swaim also recognized the awards are a lot of work. She thanked Bristow for her work and said if things cannot continue the way we may like, Friends is ready to help rethink and redo the awards in any way they can with volunteer energy. John Christenson spoke. He has been a member of the Johnson County Historic Commission for 13 years. He compared the historic commission from his previous home in St. Peter, MN with the Iowa City Commission. He said St. Peter did not have the same strength and power found in Iowa City. He noted the Johnson County Historic Commission has no working budget, no staff members, and they do not have the authority to approve or deny changes made to properties. Christenson said one of the high points every year was cooperating with the Iowa City HPC to have the awards recognition. He thought it was tremendous to have all these people – contractors, architects, just ordinary people interested in preservation – brought together. Christenson said they want the awards to continue, even though they cannot contribute any money. He said they want to be involved. He believed it was an important public relations device. He said they do come up with some interesting historic sites within Johnson County to be recognized. Boyd asked Bristow what tasks could be shifted from City Staff to the combined historic committee. Bristow said Staff has been thinking about this - how to change it and make it better or more efficient. She said currently there are several major draws on Staff time. One is coming up with the nominees. One of the things that we used to do is look back through all the projects that we’ve reviewed over the past few years – a few years because maybe it took them that long to get finished, and the projects need to be complete before they are given an award. She said they also would just drive around town. We don’t want to restrict the awards just to regulated historic properties. We really like it when we can find those properties that are outside of our historic districts and recognized landmarks. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 9 of 11 Bristow said any projects that make it before the nomination committee should be reviewed by Staff. She thought the Commission and other groups could assist in acquiring an overall list of potential nominees and property photographs. Compiling the nominees and getting them ready for the nominating committee takes a considerable amount of time. Beyond that, the biggest time crunch is compiling information on the award winners. Some of that also must be done by Staff because we need to have a letter about an award come from the City. Bristow said in the past we have had the Committee help write the script, but Staff must edit it. Staff doesn’t feel that taking the script writing away from the Committee is a good thing, but we do know with the other Commissions, staff completely write the script. Bristow said we could consider not only having a keynote speaker, which we have had in the past, but potentially having some educational moment. Bristow said the Human Rights Commission has never had to pay any speaker, but sometimes they are known people that help them sell tickets, because theirs is a paid event. Bristow said we could potentially have fewer awards. She suggested some light categories, like painting, could have the number of awards reduced. Typically we have many awards, generally 18-19. Attendees numbered around 75 last year, 100 the year prior. She said many of the winners were not the award presentation attendees, so even if there were fewer winners, she thought they could still bring in a crowd. She believed we could also err on the side of too few awards. People like to hear about the buildings, but they also like to hear about the stories in town. Having a speaker that was more entertaining might be a good thing, too. Kuenzli agreed with everything that everyone said about the importance and significance of the awards. She noted it helps create civic pride. It encourages people. It motivates people. It can be inspirational. Kuenzli said she was willing to help in any way she could to keep it going. She thought fewer awards might be a good idea and maybe people would come if it didn’t go on so long. Bristow noted they try to limit the awards to one hour. DeGraw suggested four commissioners volunteer to each take on four properties to research, gather information, take photos and then meet back together on a deadline. These would be properties designated as awardees. She said a larger pool of volunteers could help come up with the nominees. Bristow suggested commissioners take stock of their own districts for nominees. Burford asked if there was a contractor list or list of building permits that could be reviewed. Bristow said contractor lists for historic preservation exist. They could be contacted for potential nominees. She advised against sending a blanket email to all general contractors. Maeve Clark spoke. She is on the Friends of Historic Preservation Board, but also works at the Iowa City Public Library. She suggested holding the awards in May, during Weber Days, when the City celebrates local history and preservation. She thought maybe the Library could help find a speaker and include the awards in the promotion they already put out. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 10 of 11 Boyd was in favor of tying the awards in with Weber Days and preservation month. He said it would create some great synergy and allow for cross-promotion and bringing greater awareness on both ends of things. Clark noted in the past, they typically displayed the before-and-after pictures of the awardee projects at the Library. She said the pictures catch a tremendous amount of attention. Kuenzli thought people would be more likely to come out in May than in January. Boyd suggested a couple HPC Commissioners and representatives of the other organizations get together to map out a work plan around a May awards date. Then people would be needed to go look for sites and take photos, and someone to draft an email to the contractor list or past award winners. Swaim said that after the last awards in January the Mayor met with her, Agran, and Boyd. She said he thinks the awards are a wonderful thing, but he hoped more opportunities could be found to have more stories and less description of architectural features. After today’s discussion, she thought if there were fewer awards, they could maybe have something more of human interest to draw more people in. Boyd believed some of the new landmarks would lend themselves to stories tying buildings and humans together and how they are part of our shared history as a community and as a City. Bristow asked for a list of Commissioners who would be involved with the initial work plan. Boyd named DeGraw, Burford, Kuenzli and himself. Agran wanted to make sure the short-term goal was organization and distribution of tasks, not reinvention of a well-attended event that would cause more work for the upcoming year’s award ceremony. Boyd agreed. Boyd and Bristow mentioned research that had already been completed on some projects that could be used to obtain stories for the event. Boyd stated there was consensus to move the next award ceremony to May 2020. He said ideally, a work plan would be ready for the September meeting listing who needs to do what. Bristow encouraged attendees to watch for projects when they are out and about. When they see somebody working on something, write down the address and take a quick photo. Then come back later to check the progress and take more photos. Bristow reminded Commissioners of a special meeting at 6 p.m. on Monday, August 19th. The next regular meeting is scheduled for September 12th. ADJOURNMENT: Agran moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Kuenzli. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Minutes submitted by Judy Jones HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 8, 2019 Page 11 of 11 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018-2019 NAME TERM EXP. 9/13 10/1 1 11/0 8 12/1 3 1/10 2/14 3/14 4/11 5/09 5/23 6/13 8/08 AGRAN, THOMAS 6/30/20 X O/E X X O/E O/E X O/E O/E X X X BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/20 X X O/E X X X X X X OE X X BUILTA, ZACH 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X X X X -- BURFORD, HELEN 6/30/21 X O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X X X CLORE, GOSIA 6/30/20 X O/E X X O/E X X X O/E X OE OE DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/19 X X X X X O/E X X X X OE X KARR, G. T. 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X X X X X KUENZLI, CECILE 6/30/19 X X X X X O/E X X X X OE X KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X PITZEN, QUENTIN 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X X X X X SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X SHOPE, LEE 6/30/21 O/E X O/E X O/E X X X X X OE -- MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL August 19, 2019 MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd, Gosia Clore, Lyndi Kiple, Cecile Kuenzli, G. T. Karr, Quentin Pitzen, and Jordan Sellergren. Thomas Agran, Helen Burford, and Sharon DeGraw arrived late MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Brianna Wills, Mike Oliveira RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (become effective only after separate Council action) CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Boyd called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: 26 East Market Street (Old Brick) – Local Historic Landmark (new monument sign). Bristow noted that Old Brick is located on the corner of Clinton and Market Street and was fundamental to beginning of the preservation movement in Iowa City. She said numerous projects have been approved by the Commission for this property. The current project is signage for the church. She shared a view showing their current signage on top of the hill. Part of the project involves installing a retaining wall because of some drainage issues. The retaining wall is not tall enough to require either a building permit or approval by the Commission, so it is not being reviewed, though Staff would like to comment that putting in a limestone retaining wall like this would be considered appropriate for this structure. Bristow shared an image of the proposed retaining wall and sign. The sign would be set below the church. There is a hedge on the top of the hill and retaining wall to give a little privacy to a patio they will be installing on the top side of the retaining wall. The sign is set in a little bit from the corner at the base of the retaining wall so there can be some landscaping around. The sign will use a harder variety of limestone than the retaining wall since it will be engraved. Agran and Burford joined the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Bristow said the subject of the sign will be the Old Brick name and a “B” logo that they use on their website. Another view showed the proposed sign set back a little bit from the corner. Bristow said it was not going to be installed on the surface of the retaining wall. It will be installed in front of the retaining wall. Bristow shared the detail of the logo, the name, and the date that will be on the sign. She noted the Commission does review signage. It comes up more often on landmarked properties because most residential properties in districts don’t have signage. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 19, 2019 Page 2 of 6 Bristow explained there are signage guidelines for the downtown area, but they tend to relate to either projecting signs or signs in a sign band on a commercial building. She included Preservation Brief 25, regarding new signs, for review. These briefs are put out by the National Park Service. The Brief talked about signs working with a building, rather than against it, often featuring details of the building as a motif for the sign. The sign should not obscure significant features and the material should be compatible with those of the historic building. Bristow said given the fact that the sign is set at the bottom of the hill, in front of the retaining wall, and is constructed of limestone, which would be appropriate with a church like this, Staff finds the sign appropriate and does recommend approval. She said the only other material that would be appropriate would be brick. Boyd asked if there were any clarifying questions, then opened the public hearing. Brianna Wills, Executive Director of Old Brick, came to answer questions. She noted the sign is a small part of a very large project they are hoping to start next week. It started with some water issues they were having with the foundation. She said it is an almost $200,000 project. She noted they went through many design iterations and ultimately went with the limestone look because the front stairs of Old Brick are limestone. They did not go with brick because aged red brick is very difficult to match. She said they would use Anamosa limestone, a natural Iowa product. Kuenzli noted the function of a sign is to convey some information about what the building is or what its function is. In the case of Old Brick, she thought that was important since it was originally a religious structure. Kuenzli believed the proposed sign was hard to read and did not convey enough information about its multiple uses. She thought people would assume it was a church. Wills agreed they were going with a simpler sign. As a marketing piece, she said they are hoping the new sign will pique enough interest and curiosity in people passing by to take out their smartphones and search for Old Brick. That action will get them to their website and social media, where they can explore the history of Old Brick and learn how it is used. Burford thought the date on the sign was barely legible. Wills said the 1856 date would be engraved in dark print and noted that this would be a lighted sign. Agran said they could have a lively and valid critique about the branding of Old Brick, but for the scope of this conversation the actual content of the sign is not something that is within the Commission’s purview, just the architecture of the sign. He did not see a problem with the structure, or the materials used, and said he would be voting in favor of the project. Sellergran asked how they decided upon the font. Wills said it was part of the logo that had been adopted by their board. Bristow said Staff also wondered where the design came from. They went to Old Brick’s website and found it was their logo. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 19, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Mike Oliveira said he drives by Old Brick all the time and still didn’t really know what it was. He asked how its purpose would be described. Wills said it functions as a community center and a nonprofit incubator. She said it currently houses 16 nonprofits. Kiple noted she is a student and uses her smartphone all the time. She said everything she knows about Old Brick came from the marquee sign that was there. She said every day when she would walk by, she would learn something new from the sign, such as when it was built, what it has been used for, and how it is used now. Boyd closed the public hearing. Kiple believed the proposed sign conveys that it is a community building and it is inviting. Boyd said he agreed with Agran, that the Commission is not really looking at what the sign says, but rather just making sure the sign fits the character. He said if this is their logo and that’s what they want to do, he was fine with it. Karr agreed. While not something the Commission would vote on, he did think a separate informative plaque, viewed as people would walk into Old Brick, would be an acceptable alternative to adding more information to the sign. MOTION: Karr moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 26 East Market Street as presented in the application. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 527 North Van Buren Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (window removal). Bristow explained this property is on the corner of Church and Van Buren. It is a contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. She said earlier this year the removal of a non-historic roof canopy and stair entry to a second floor was approved. The house was built as a single-family home, but it had been duplexed long ago. Now, the second-floor entry was going to be removed. The current project is part of returning the house to a single-family home. It does involve some changes in order to make a more functional kitchen. In this case the kitchen has two windows, one facing north, which is on Church Street, and one facing the backyard and the garage on the west, and numerous doors. In order to get some upper cabinets in this kitchen to make it more functional for a family, the proposal is to remove the window that faces west. The upstairs corner room will be a bathroom. In order to have shower space, the proposal is to remove the corresponding window above the kitchen window to create some wall space. She said the windows facing Church Street are original to the house. While the back of the house has had some significant changes, the north side of the house has not had the same kind of changes. Bristow said the windows on the Church Street (north) side would remain. In addition to the two windows proposed to be removed, a cover used to block weather from coming in the back door would be removed. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps show this house always had a one-story HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 19, 2019 Page 4 of 6 bump-out and that it was always enclosed, which is a little bit unusual. Sometimes these were rear porches. Bristow shared a view showing stairs that would eventually be removed. She did not know the status of a window that was presumably removed for the stairs. She thought if the window was going to be opened back up, maybe one of the windows being removed now could be used in that location. Bristow said the house has aluminum siding on it and the applicant has enough aluminum siding for patching. Removing the aluminum siding is not part of the scope of this project. Bristow said Staff recommends approval of this project since there have been significant changes to the exterior rear of the house, and the fact that the house is going to be single-family again. The proposed changes will facilitate the functioning of those spaces. Kuenzli asked if the windows would remain on the bump-out? Bristow said yes. Boyd opened the public hearing. Mike Oliveira with Prestige Properties spoke. He bought this house in the winter. He said it had been a duplex that was owner-occupied on the first floor and the top floor was rented out. He said the house was in pretty bad shape. He said they submitted all the necessary paperwork to convert it from a duplex to a single family. He said the project is currently stalled until they figure out what they can do with the upstairs bathroom and the kitchen. He said the kitchen had approximately five doors and the two windows, making cabinet space very limited. He said he put in a request to the Historic Preservation Commission to take out the two windows and redo the space to make it livable. He thought it was a nice, four-square house. Oliveira thought taking off the back-door entry on the north side was a good thing. He said it would make the property more attractive. He noted they already took off a canopy that used to cover the entire back area. He couldn’t remember the details about the window, presumably to the dining room, but said if they could put it back in, they would. Boyd closed the public hearing. Agran thought the project was a positive change for the property and said he supported the application. Boyd also was comfortable with the plan. DeGraw had joined the meeting. Agran said if the dining room window could be opened up and it happened to be the same opening size as the other window, it would be nice if a window removed for the project was installed there, then all the existing windows would match and be of the same age. In the past, Boyd noted the Commission has asked that materials be retained for reuse or salvage. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 19, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Agran said since the dining room window was not in the current application the Commission could only make a recommendation to reuse the window if possible. Kuenzli agreed with Agran and applauded the return of the building to a single-family residence. MOTION: Agran moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 527 North Van Buren as presented in the application. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 10-0. ADJOURNMENT: Clore moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Karr. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Minutes submitted by Judy Jones HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION August 19, 2019 Page 6 of 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018-2019 NAME TERM EXP. 10/1 1 11/0 8 12/1 3 1/10 2/14 3/14 4/11 5/09 5/23 6/13 8/08 8/19 AGRAN, THOMAS 6/30/20 O/E X X O/E O/E X O/E O/E X X X X BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/20 X O/E X X X X X X OE X X X BUILTA, ZACH 6/30/19 X X X X X X X X X X -- -- BURFORD, HELEN 6/30/21 O/E O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X CLORE, GOSIA 6/30/20 O/E X X O/E X X X O/E X OE OE X DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/19 X X X X O/E X X X X OE X X KARR, G. T. 6/30/20 X X X X X X X X X X X X KUENZLI, CECILE 6/30/19 X X X X O/E X X X X OE X X KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X PITZEN, QUENTIN 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X X X X X SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X SHOPE, LEE 6/30/21 X X O/E X X X X X OE -- --