Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Packet 10.10.2019 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL September 12, 2019 MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Agran, Kevin Boyd, Helen Burford, Gosia Clore, Sharon DeGraw, Lyndi Kiple, G. T. Karr, Quentin Pitzen, and Jordan Sellergren. MEMBERS ABSENT: Cecile Kuenzli STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Ginalie Swaim, Joel Kline, Evangeline Kadera 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: 10 South Gilbert Street – Local Historic Landmark (generator installation and screening). Bristow said the applicant sent an email this afternoon asking to withdraw the application. Bristow said the application cannot be withdrawn because the work was already completed without a permit so the Commission will review the project, discuss, and make a decision. The applicant wanted the Commission to know they do plan to find a different location and relocate the generator, but that is not yet determined. 10 South Gilbert, the former Unitarian Universalist Church, was recently locally landmarked in order to preserve it as a development was built around it. The Commission reviewed just a portion of the development building that was located on the edge of the landmarked property for the materials so it could blend with the church. The Commission also reviewed an elevator and stair addition that will attach to the church. Bristow shared the site plan that was part of the original project where the Commission reviewed the material on this portion of the development. She noted the hashed area identified the property that was landmarked. This is the area that will be discussed. The overall dotted line that continues for the whole half-block is the property line under ownership of the same owner for the development. Bristow shared a site plan that was submitted for the construction drawings for Augusta Place. It was a drawing dated 6/01/2017. She noted Augusta Place to be represented in all pink. The church is outlined in black and white. The paving is all tan. They had a limited amount of paving at that point in time. There was no generator anywhere. Bristow shared the site plan provided for the review of the stair and elevator tower addition. It is the same outline, the same development property. From this rendering it could be seen that the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2019 Page 2 of 12 paving had changed a little bit because they were going to need straight access to the elevator addition. Bristow shared a photo taken the day before this meeting. It showed the larger paved area, as well as the generator being discussed. It showed the stair tower addition. Bristow noted that the addition’s connection to the church appeared to be different from what was approved. A meeting was scheduled to discuss this. Bristow showed the most recent site plan dated May of this year. It has a larger area of concrete and instead of being tan it is white. No generator was included on this site plan. DeGraw joined the meeting. Bristow explained mechanical systems are not discussed in the Historic Preservation Handbook, so will look at the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and additional Preservation Briefs, all put out by the National Park Service for this type of review. Adding equipment for a different building to a landmarked site is not discussed in any of the documents. Often properties are landmarked, when local regulations exist, to prevent demolition, intrusive alterations, and relocation, but also to prevent using the site in a way it is not intended to be used. Installing equipment for the surrounding development is not appropriate on this site. Bristow said if the church needed its own generator, it would be a smaller generator sized for the load needed for the church. It would be located somewhere that would be appropriate, not somewhere visible from the street. She said looking at the site plan, there is room even behind this new addition, if the church needed its own generator, to have it located there. Currently Staff has been communicating with the owner about removing the generator from the landmarked property. Staff is also aware of the fact that the owner learned during the construction process that the gas line had to come in off Iowa Avenue instead of coming off Gilbert Street. For the current installation, they did go through the church walls with all the piping needed to bring the gas to the generator. When the generator is moved, this will need to be repaired. There are a number of alternative locations for the generator. Staff recommends denying this application. Bristow reminded the Commission that any motion needs to be put in the affirmative, a voted down if a Commissioner did not want to approve it. Boyd asked for clarifying questions and opened the public hearing. Ginalie Swaim, President of the Board of Directors of Friends of Historic Preservation, said she became familiar with the history of the Unitarian Universalist Church while she served on the Commission and they were researching the history for possible landmarking. She noted this is a postage stamp-sized lot to begin with. It is a very small building on a small lot, but with a big story in terms of church architecture history and women’s role in leadership of the church. She said there is no reason that a generator or gas line that is associated with a new, nearby building should go on property that is landmarked. Boyd closed the public hearing. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2019 Page 3 of 12 MOTION: Agran moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 10 South Gilbert Street as presented in the application. Clore seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 0-9. 608 Ronalds Street – Brown Street Historic District (garage demolition and new construction). Bristow noted 608 Ronalds Street is in the Brown Street Historic District. It is a Craftsman bungalow. It has a garage in the back yard that was originally built as the garage for the neighboring house at 610 Ronalds, then the lot was divided, the house at 608 Ronalds was built, and a garage for 610 Ronalds was built next door. Bristow said this garage shows strong evidence of many changes over time, as well as a high level of deterioration. It still has the original wood shingles under the asphalt. The level of deterioration is at least the same or greater than some of the other garages that the Commission has have approved reconstructing. Bristow said a year ago she talked with the owner about potentially taking this on as an investigative project to repair the garage. She thought he looked into that, but he did come back with an application to demolish the garage and build a new one. He is not looking at changing its size in any way or its orientation. It is simply a matter of having a new garage. It is a rental property, so presumably the Housing inspectors asked him to repair it, and it has come down to rebuilding it instead. Bristow displayed the south elevation of the proposed new garage, showing no current openings in the south elevation. He did put in this application that openings could be added, and Bristow suggested the Commission approve that. She said it could be rebuilt with the same openings that it had, minus the two double doors on the alley side. Bristow showed a photo of the south side of the existing garage. The stairs at the passage door have fallen in. The door, itself, is pretty checked and dried out. Bristow showed the double doors on the alley side. She said they are all rotted across the bottom and corrugated metal covers the bottom. Bristow displayed a view of the southeast corner of the garage. The foundation is pulling away from the hillside. As it pulls away, the sill plate that is intact pulls away with it, which pulls the wall away, which forces the trim on the corner to break apart, as well. With the condition of this garage, Staff does recommend allowing it to come down and be rebuilt. The new garage does need to be moved in slightly from each property line but would still be oriented so the overhead door faces east off the alley and would be the same size as the existing garage. Bristow shared the elevation drawings. Staff suggested three changes: a higher pitched roof, more similar to the roof on the garage, assuming that’s probably a 6:12 instead of the 4:12 shown, changing the siding from lap siding to something like the Dutch lap siding the garage currently has, and adding openings to the south elevation. Bristow said it could be the same passage door and two windows like it currently has. Neither this product information, nor the overhead door product information, has been submitted for review at this time. Staff assumes the overhead door will be a simple flat panel garage door. Staff does recommend approval of this project. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2019 Page 4 of 12 Boyd asked for clarifying questions, then opened and closed the public hearing. Burford asked for clarification on the doors, stating they appeared curved, making that a distinctive feature. Bristow explained the garage sits a little bit lower than grade on the alley side. The two doors with metal at the bottom take up most of the wall. She assumed the metal was curved because as drainage happens and soil gets washed against the garage, it heaves and that has bent the metal over time. Pitzen said it could also just be the garage settling. Bristow agreed, especially since part of the foundation is deteriorating and starting to pull away on the south side. Agran noted the original entry to the garage was off the alley and not easy to park in. He wondered if the orientation could rotate on its axis. Bristow said they could make that suggestion but noted there was quite a slope from the alley to the back of the house and rotation would call for a taller foundation wall. MOTION: Agran moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 608 Ronalds Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: Changes are made to the new garage drawing for the roof pitch, siding, soffits, and all openings as listed in the Staff report and approved by Staff; all door and window product information to be approved by Staff; and the potential reorientation of the garage to be approved by Staff. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 2460 Gilbert Street – Local Historic Landmark (rear addition conversion). Bristow said 2460 Gilbert Street is a local landmark, the original McCollister farm. She said this house was built in several different parts. At the point in time when the current owner took possession, it was in a heavily deteriorated condition. Quite a bit of work has been done on this house. It is missing some elements such as its original windows. It has been altered with additions over time. If the rear end of the side porch originally was an open porch, it has been enclosed. Around the corner, is a shed enclosure under the same wrap-around porch roof. This enclosed area is the current area that is being discussed with the application. It is in the rear of the property against a slope and will not be visible. One of the things that the application is showing is a desire to infill this area to regain some extra space within the house. Bristow shared a view showing its deterioration and some T1-11 siding. It does not blend well with the house. This project will gain interior space, but it will also help make this corner of this house more compatible with the historic portion of the house. Bristow explained there is a lot of vegetation on this corner but there is also a slope, so there have been some moisture issues. She said some of the materials being suggested for the trim and the siding is because of the moisture issue. Bristow showed the interior of that space. It is just a storage shed. It has not been enclosed. It does have at least a partial concrete floor. On the exterior there is a partial low wall. The idea of HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2019 Page 5 of 12 keeping this low brick wall as kind of a base around the side of the house will keep the wood products up out of the ground so there will be less deterioration. There seems to be a significant number of bricks on site they can use to add to this wall. They should blend well with what’s been used there already. Bristow shared an older photo of the area of the project. She also shared a project rendering. The main house has a very ornate Italianate cornice. The infill area is a new addition that will have wood siding instead of a full brick wall. Replicating the ornate trim in the new addition would create a false sense of history. A simpler trim would be more appropriate. Similarly, all the arched lintels on the house would not be replicated in this frame structure either. The addition will also have simple square-topped windows and a pair of doors, probably full light in order to have better access out to the patio. The window rhythm works well with the rest of the house and includes a pair of windows also. Bristow showed a wall detail drawing. It would have stone (or manufactured stone) cap on top of the short brick wall, and then the lap siding above. They are suggesting a 4-inch reveal and an LP SmartSide siding, which is something that has been approved. It does come in what’s considered smooth, which has a little bit of texture. (The proposed siding and trim was passed around). For the trim, they would like to use a composite material. We have approved this in some locations on historic properties, especially if it is up on a second floor. Set in the back, basically within a hillside, is probably an equivalent to being up on a second floor. The composite material would be used for all the trim parts of the proposed project – the crown, the window trim, the corner boards, similar things. Bristow said the Commission could approve these materials here, but the windows and doors still need to be submitted and approved. Otherwise, Staff does recommend approval of this project. Boyd asked for clarifying questions and opened the public hearing. Joel Kline, property owner of 2460 South Gilbert said they have worked very hard on this house over the last eight years putting in new floorings inside that were salvaged wood from the same period, taking out tile and carpet, putting in gas, electricity, water, kitchen, and bathroom. He said the last three years they have been having historic tuckpointing done. Boyd closed the public hearing. Agran & Boyd thanked the owner for his stewardship of this house. MOTION: Karr moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 2460 South Gilbert Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: the siding product submitted is approved by Staff, the windows and doors approved by Staff, and the material and configuration of the stone cap approved by Staff. Clore seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 1132 Burlington Street – College Hill Conservation District (rear screen porch addition). Bristow explained 1132 Burlington Street is in the College Hill Conservation District. There was a project that was approved at one point in time to replace a window and the contractor decided to repair it instead. There have been several other projects done without approval, such as enclosing the carport. While it was done in a way that would have been approved, it did not come before the Commission. Last year they started building a deck without a permit that also HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2019 Page 6 of 12 did not meet the guidelines so work stopped. The contractor came to us with drawings this year to change this potential deck to a screened porch and deck. The new screened porch would be attached to the back of the current one-story addition and would have the same roof pitch. She noted it was low to avoid the window on the second floor. Bristow shared a view showing what it looked like before the deck was built. The reconfiguration of this landing was approved at one point by the Commission years back. They are proposing to add a screened porch behind the one-story addition and a deck - a small deck with stair access to the yard. There is a significant slope in this backyard, so they do have several stairs. Bristow showed where the roofline would be and the elevations. Staff requested several changes to these elevations. The guidelines for decks say if you are building a screened porch it needs to follow the porch guidelines in the new addition part of the handbook. That would mean that the screened porch area should have porch piers and skirting under it. Given the extremely large amount of skirting that would be here, Staff recommends not having skirting on the deck portion and confining it only to the screened porch portion. The contractor has been notified that for approval we would need to have a defined pier at the corner showing us where the screened porch is, so we would have at least a pier on each side. The screened porch, by building code, must have a railing, so the railing will be on the inside of the screened porch. Bristow said the Staff report talks about the gable having a fascia board across the bottom of the siding that would resemble the beam that’s carrying the porch roof structure. After further review, staff recommends a hip roof like the current one-story addition. Since this roof pitch isn’t going to match the roof pitch on the house it would make it much simpler to detail if it continued the hip roof on the existing addition. Boyd asked for clarifying questions, opened and closed the public hearing. Pitzen asked if there were any guidelines on the type of skirting that would go under the screened in porch. Bristow said there were guidelines that talk about it being either diamond, vertical, or vertical and horizontal. She said in rare circumstances they have approved something different from that. Pitzen asked if they could just take the diamond shape and cover everything up from the windows on down. Bristow noted it had to be framed and will have the corner posts. She said if the Commission wanted, they could recommend an intermediate post that would further break it up. Pitzen asked if it would be more than just a 4x4. Bristow said they usually require something a little more substantial, maybe a 6x6. Boyd wanted to know if the recommendation for a hipped roof was an addition or if it was a replacement of the third bullet point in the suggested motion. Bristow said it would replace the last bullet point in the recommended motion. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2019 Page 7 of 12 Agran agreed with the request for an intermediate subdivision of the area under the screened porch since it was a big expanse. If moving the pier to underneath the corner of the porch, he would suggest a secondary nonstructural one be included, as well. MOTION: Agran moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1132 East Burlington Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: Porch posts define the structural bearing under the screened porch portion and subdividing posts to be approved by Staff, referencing the minutes of this meeting; skirting is installed under the screened porch portion; the roof be a hip roof to match the existing condition. Karr seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. 430 Ronalds Street – Goosetown / Horace Mann Conservation District (demolition of historic rear addition and new addition). Bristow said this was a rental property until it was purchased by its current owner, who is turning it into a single-family home, and it requires a great deal of work. There have been window projects. One of them is on the agenda later. We know this house is covered in synthetic siding. It did have a wrap-around porch originally. The current project is to remove and then rebuild what is a small shed addition on the back of the house. It was built prior to 1933. Bristow showed where it was located on the house. It is set in and meets all our general guidelines, even though it was built in 1933. It is heavily deteriorated. It is not covered in synthetic siding. There is also no evidence that it was originally an open porch, but the window configuration is very similar to a porch that has been enclosed, so it must have been some kind of shed – a potting shed kind of thing. The sill plate is rotting away. Bristow shared a view of the street-facing side, or the east side. The door has been replaced and it is a larger than normal door. This application also has several suggested changes by Staff. The applicant does have a desire to have a larger than normal door because the new shed will be part of the workspace for the continuing rehabilitation of the home. It is a very big project that is not completed. They would like to have one larger door for getting equipment, tools and things out of the house. Staff recommends that the larger door be on the west side, which is not the street-facing side. Bristow displayed a view of the west side showing lap siding. There is a little bit of shingled siding above here, some old windows, and a door. The current proposal is to remove the shed completely and build it deeper, which will change the slope of the roof slightly, but that is not a very big change. A sketch of the proposed west side showed how a larger door would look on that opening. It does show a window. This window has different proportions than the existing window, but the applicant does propose to salvage many of the materials, including windows to do this project. Staff suggests that at least two windows are added to the north-facing side to make it more similar to the existing shed and to reduce this street-facing door to a size that mimics better some of the other doors on the exterior of the house. With a potential change to the window pattern and the street-facing door, Staff recommends approval of this project. Boyd opened the public hearing. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2019 Page 8 of 12 Evangeline Kadera, current owner and resident of 430 Ronalds Street, said she had a picture of the north side of the shed if the Commission would like to see it. It does currently have six windows. They all need to be restored. They need new glazing and the wood needs to be repainted, and a lot of the glass has been spray painted over. She said she intended to use as many of the windows as she could, but there were two that would not work at all. She was thinking of putting two or even four windows on the north side, as well as one each on the east and the west side. Burford asked the owner if she had intentions of coming back later asking to remove the shed so she could expand the small house. Kadera said no, she just needed the workshop space since she is doing the work herself. Pitzen asked if the existing siding to be matched was on the house. Bristow said Staff would recommend that the siding on the shed be matched, assuming that underneath the current siding we have something that is similar to this. Kadera said it is similar. It is a little bit wider than the shed, but it’s the same kind of lap siding. Boyd closed the public hearing and opened discussion. Agran said he was comfortable with the siding matching either the shed as it stands or the known condition of the siding on the house under the synthetic siding. Bristow said Staff would recommend, once this shed is removed, to know what the lap and coursing of the siding is on the house and to have it tie in so it aligns. MOTION: Agran moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 430 Ronalds Street as presented in the application with the following conditions: At least two windows are included in the north wall of the addition and the east-facing door is changed to match other standard-size historic exterior doors on the house, and the lap siding can match either the existing shed or the original condition after reveal of the siding on the house. DeGraw seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 9-0. REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review. 221 East Fairchild Street – Northside Historic District (window repair). Bristow said this was an application to replace all the windows in the house. Now that they will all be repaired 20 double-hung windows have been saved from the landfill. 930 East College Street – College Hill Conservation District (chimney repair). Bristow noted this was an emergency repair of the chimney. 12 Bella Vista Place – Brown Street Historic District (porch roof membrane replacement). Bristow said this is a very interesting Prairie School house with an extensive porch roof. The porch roof membrane is being replaced. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2019 Page 9 of 12 225 North Gilbert Street – Local Historic Landmark (roof shingle replacement). The roof will be redone on this recent local landmark. 430 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement). 430 Brown Street is having its roof redone to match the garage that was more recently approved. Agran left the meeting. 104 East Jefferson Street – Jefferson Street Historic District (roof replacement). This church is considered noncontributing as part of the Jefferson Street Historic District. It includes not only the modern Catholic Student Center, but also the original and very historic Abbey (for the Catholic School that used to be on the site). Both standing seam metal roofs need to be replaced. Both roofs are copper. Staff has worked with the owners to make sure things like the cross details at the ridge are kept. The new standing seam metal roof will have a flat panel, but the color will match the Student Center next door. It will not be green, and it also will not be copper. There is an extensive amount of copper to be removed and sold. It will be removed from the site every day to make sure there is no vandalism. The historic building will be reroofed soon because of water getting in. The Catholic Student Center will probably be reroofed next year. Staff has recommended that they hire an architect to make sure that it is done properly because this is a very elaborate roof. Because it is in an historic district, even though it is more modern, the goal is to help this building retain its architectural character. 320 Fairchild Street – Northside Historic District (storm window installation for HP fund). This property is just getting new storm windows, but this was another one where they wanted to replace the eleven double-hung windows on the first floor. They are getting new storm windows instead and will repair the windows as needed over time. 112 South Summit Street – College Hill Conservation District (roof repair and shingle replacement). Bristow said this house was in this condition without any shingles this spring. Now, they will be putting on shingles. Minor Review – Staff Review. 210-212 Johnson Street – College Green Historic District (porch floor and stair replacement). This porch has been in a heavily deteriorated condition for quite a while and it now has new ownership. The floor structure will be replaced taking care not to harm the piers which would be very difficult to match. The stairs and the floor will be replaced. 430 Ronalds Street – Goosetown / Horace Mann Conservation District (window replacement). This project was one where the owner applied to use the Historic Preservation Fund to rehab all these windows. They have a dispute with the contractor, who will not return the windows. So now they must replace all the first-floor windows. They can use sash packs in this instance instead of replacing the actual entire window and frame, so it is possible that if the windows ever HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2019 Page 10 of 12 come back, they could be put back in. They are no longer on the property. The second-floor windows still are there. 515 North Van Buren Street – Northside Historic District (roof shingle replacement). This will be a reshingling. It is not an appropriate roof currently, but was popular at the time, and will be an appropriate roof. Intermediate Review – Chair and Staff Review. 117 North Linn Street – Economy Advertising – Local Landmark (fabric awning replacement). The awning on a portion of this local landmark will be replaced. In reviewing this, staff looks at the awning structure and how it attaches to the building so that it doesn’t damage the building. The awning fabric is something that can be easily replaced. Staff considers the actual material temporary like a house being painted. It will be a rather elaborate stripe. Historically many of these awnings were also striped. It will be matching one of the food trucks that you see on the Ped Mall. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 8, 2019 MOTION: Burford moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission’s August 8, 2019 meeting. Pitzen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 19, 2019 MOTION: Burford moved to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission’s August 19, 2019 meeting. Pitzen seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. COMMISSION INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION: Correspondence to Council from Jesse Allen – Re: Augusta Place. Bristow said this letter was sent from Jesse Allen to the Mayor in appreciation of all the work that made the Augusta Place possible and it was suggested that we share it with the Commission. The Commission did have a role in this project. It’s just for information. Civil Rights Grant – Tate-Arms and the Iowa Federation of Colored Women’s Homes. Bristow said the Civil Rights grant is being wrapped up that nominated Tate-Arms and the Iowa Federation of Colored Women’s Homes to the National Register. Those have been reviewed by our State Nominating Committee. They are being sent to the National Park Service and we will hear back in 45 or 60 days. We have never been concerned about the Iowa Federation Home being approved, but we have had some concerns about Tate-Arms because nothing on the interior is original. The National Park Service gave the City a grant for this project. They suggested several large changes to the nomination after it had already been reviewed by the State Committee. They didn’t realize that the State Committee had already approved it. The consultant made some of those changes. The grant also provided for some signage, which is currently being fabricated and will be installed before the end of the month in front of each house. Then there is an educational component that will be a web page on the City website with more information about them. Commission members will be sent a link once it goes live. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2019 Page 11 of 12 Boyd thought there was an opportunity to share this as one of the City’s weekly video updates. Bristow said there is also a Facebook page about “so you used to live in Iowa City” and it does include historic information. Historic Awards Ceremony. Boyd said the working committee has a scheduled meeting in four weeks. There will be more to come. Deferred Projects. Bristow brought up the two projects deferred at the August meeting. She said the other project was deferred to have the applicant do other drawings or a model to resolve a roof condition. The owner only recently came back from Europe, so that’s still in progress. There is a chance that they will decide to just enlarge the single-story addition in a way that would be appropriate instead of adding a second floor. Downtown Landmarking. Burford asked if there was any information about the proposed downtown project that would landmark some buildings on the Ped Mall. Bristow said we are currently going through the National Register nomination process for downtown. She said the urban renewal area was included because that allows us to include College Street in our National Register boundary. If we did not include urban renewal, we could not include College Street because the relationship with cars and such is ruined by the Pedestrian Mall. The buildings along the south side of College Street in the 100-block are all very significant to the downtown story. The Crescent Block was sold in recent years and was toured by staff at that time. That building, except for the bar part, is amazingly intact in the upper floors, though it had been vandalized for quite a while. The new owner has proposed to landmark the buildings in that block that are not landmarked except, of course, the corner building, and to build a tower addition behind four of those buildings, set back almost 80 feet. Staff had studied sight lines in this area about a year ago. The proposal had several issues such as it said they would landmark the College block building and it is already a landmark. The project would likely come before the Commission if the buildings are landmarked. ADJOURNMENT: DeGraw moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Sellergren. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Judy Jones HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION September 12, 2019 Page 12 of 12 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 9/12 AGRAN, THOMAS 6/30/20 O/E X X O/E O/E X O/E O/E X X X X X BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/20 X O/E X X X X X X O/E X 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 X CLORE, GOSIA 6/30/20 O/E X X O/E X X X O/E X O/E O/E X X DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/19 X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X KARR, G. T. 6/30/20 X 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 O/E X X O/E KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X PITZEN, QUENTIN 6/30/21 X X X X X X X X X X X X X SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X SHOPE, LEE 6/30/21 X X O/E X X X X X O/E -- -- --