Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC Agenda Packet 11.18.2021 IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, November 18, 2021 The Center – Assembly Room 28 South Linn Street (Entrance on East Washington Street) 5:30 p.m. Agenda A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. HPC21-0100: 812 Church Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (deck, window and door changes) 2. HPC21-0101: 1101 Kirkwood Avenue – Local Historic Landmark (enclosure of rear entry porch and kitchen window changes) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review 1. HPC21-0089: 427 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District (porch railing replacement) 2. HPC21-0096: 414 Brown Street – Brown Street Historic District and Local Landmark (windowsill replacement) 3. HPC21-0020: 1519 Center Avenue – Dearborn Street Conservation District (tuck-pointing, masonry repair, soffit and fascia repair) 4. HPC21-0104: 125-127 East College Street – Local Historic Landmark (window cloud signs) Minor Review –Staff review 1. HPC21-0084: 728 East Washington Street – College Hill Conservation District (new rear deck and railings) 2. HPC21-0098: 200 South Summit Street – East College Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement) 3. HPC21-0097: 531 Clark Street – Clark Street Conservation District (roof repair and shingle replacement, skylight installation) 4. HPC21-0105: 125-127 East College Street – Local Historic Landmark (projecting blade sign) 5. HPC21-0108: 727 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (window replacement) Intermediate Review –Chair and Staff review HPC21-0103: 741 Oakland Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (new porch pier) F) Consideration of Minutes for October 14, 2021 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 November 11, 2021 Historic Review for 812 Church Street District: Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District Classification: Contributing The applicants, Alexis Graves and Zachary Cook, are requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 812 Church Street, a Contributing property in the Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District. The project consists of alterations to window and door openings on the rear of an additions, removal of the existing deck and ramp, and installation of a new rear deck or entry stoop. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.3 Doors 4.11 Siding 4.13 Windows 5.0 Guidelines for Additions 5.2 Decks and Ramps Staff C omments The house likely dates to about 1900 and was a one-story house with a small rear bump out. In 1931 it was almost destroyed by fire. It does appear that the house was reconstructed on the same foundation. A full front porch was added, the area next to the rear bump-out was added and the new roof allowed for a second floor under the eaves, making the house 1 1/2 stories. Around the same time, the garage was either added or created by expanding a smaller outbuilding. In 1978 a rear addition (16 x 26) was added to the house. In 1978 the 8 x 10 rear porch was enclosed. In 1985, a 24 x 28 detached garage was built, replacing the earlier one. In 2000, a ramp was added to the back of the house. The applicant is proposing to remove the rear deck and ramp to create a more usable space. The small rear bump out currently has the rear entrance door. The applicants propose to remodel the space as a small bathroom, changing the exterior door for a window. The exterior door will be moved to the kitchen in the 1978 addition where the applicants propose to replace the existing double-hung window with a sliding door. On the west side of the house, the kitchen window is a horizontally oriented sliding window. The applicants propose to alter the opening to a vertical orientation and install a double-hung window in that location. The sill will be higher than the sills on the historic windows to accommodate kitchen counters. On the east side of the house, the master bedroom has two smaller double-hung windows that are ganged together. The applicants propose to remove those openings and create two openings with proportions and spacing more similar to the historic windows. The window toward the rear of the house will be a casement window for egress purposes, with muntin bars to appear similar to the double-hung window. All windows will be metal-clad wood windows. The sliding door will be fiberglass. They will be able to match the current metal siding for the changes. The applicant also proposes to construct either an entry stoop or a deck at the new rear entry. With a goal to retain as much rear yard as possible, they propose to build the deck in the Ell created by the 1978 addition and the rear bump out. They propose to build the deck up to the corner of the house instead of setting it back 8 inches in order to retain as much space as possible. The guidelines recommend in Section 4.3 Doors, that new door openings are trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building. A wood door may be substituted by a door in another material that is durable, accepts paint and is approved by the Commission. It is disallowed to stall sliding patio doors if they were not original to the building or consistent with the architectural style. An exception exists for properties in Conservation Districts for the Commission to approve a sliding door on the rear of a primary building if the openings are trimmed to match the existing doors and/or windows. Section 4.11 Siding recommends that matching synthetic siding may be used to repair damage to small sections of existing synthetic siding. Section 4.13 Windows recommends adding windows that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. New windows should be added in a location that is consistent with the window pattern of the historic building or buildings of similar architectural style. If an opening is to be relocated, it should not detract from the overall fenestration pattern. It is recommended to use new wood windows to replace deteriorated historic wood windows although the use of metal-clad, solid wood windows is acceptable. Section 5.2 Decks recommends locating a new deck on the back of a primary building, opposite the street- facing façade and set in from the side walls at least 8 inches. It is also recommended that decks are designed so that the size scale and location do not detract from the character of the district’s rear yards. It is also recommended to follow the guidelines in section 4.1 Balustrades and handrails. Section 4.1 recommends that for new balustrades and handrails square spindles are at least 1 ½ inches in width, the top and foot rails are at least 2 inches in thickness, the spindles are spaced so that no gaps between them exceeds 4 inches. An appropriate balustrade has posts for the rails and spindles to span between. In Staff’s opinion, the proposed project includes alterations that will provide greater continuity between the 1978 addition and the historic house. The kitchen window alteration will remove a modern sliding window and replace it with a double-hung window that will not match the historic proportions but will appear more similar while also accommodating the kitchen counters. In the master bedroom two shorter, ganged double hung windows will be replaced with two new windows with a proportion that approximates the historic windows. They will be separated to retain the functionality of the space. They will be spaced so that the distance from each window to the corner is similar to the distance between the historic windows and their respective corners. Staff finds that this alteration will better reflect the window patterning on the historic house than the existing window location. The new window in the rear bump out will also reflect the proportion of the historic windows. Two aspects of this project require an exception from the Commission. While adding a sliding door is disallowed by the guidelines, a documented exception exists where the Commission can approve the installation of a sliding door. Staff finds that this location on the rear of the house, on a modern addition and in a location where the street sits far below the houses would be eligible for this exception. In addition, the applicants would like the flexibility to construct their rear deck flush with the sidewall of the house in order to maximize the amount of deck space while not extending behind the rear bump out. While they have not submitted drawings for the deck, staff finds that the approval for an exception to this setback requirement now could allow staff to approve the final deck drawings without bringing the project to the Commission for a second approval. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 812 Church Street as presented in the application with the following condition:  Window and door product information is approved by staff. 812 Church Street 812 Church Street- west side 812 Church Street – East side Current Back of House: Rough Sketch of Proposed Back of House: Street View of House: Current Kitchen Windows: s: Current Bedroom Windows: Current Back Door: Staff Report November 9, 2021 Historic Review for 1101 Kirkwood Avenue Classification: Local Historic Landmark The applicants, Natalie and Doug Fern, are requesting approval for a proposed alteration project at 1101 Kirkwood Avenue, a Local Historic Landmark in the Kirkwood Avenue neighborhood. The project consists of the enclosure of a partially enclosed rear porch and the relocation of two windows for a kitchen remodel. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.10 Porches 4.11 Siding 4.13 Windows Staff Comments The house was built for Governor Samuel J Kirkwood right after his first term in office. He lived there from 1864 to his death in 1893, serving again as Governor, US Senator, and US Secretary of the Interior during the period. His wife lived there until she died in 1923. The house is both a local landmark and listed in the National Register of Historic Places with national significance. This Gable Front and Wing house has lap siding, paired brackets and cornice returns as the only remnants of its Italianate style. The house originally had a wrap-around porch with thin Italianate columns as shown in the 1910s photo of the house. Around the time that the lot was divided, the east portion of the porch was removed, and the remaining portion was reconstructed with a bulkier style, new roof line, and a footprint that expanded to the north. Windows in the kitchen, (SW corner) were replaced, the projecting bay on the front of the house was removed and changes were made to the rear porches. At some point, an entry vestibule was added to the front door (and shows in the 1910s photo). The opening was moved from the north side to the east side, likely at the same time the front porch was remodeled. Several other changes are apparent on the back of the house. The house has a T-shaped plan. A two-story extension to the south end of the T was added at a very early date. In the Ell created on the south side of the house, a one-story area includes a south-facing sunroom with window trim that does not match the older trim on the house but includes a basement matching the older portion of the house. The east-facing portion includes a pantry on the south end with an original window and trim and a formerly open porch which is partially enclosed with storm windows and a storm door. Several windows on the south and west were replaced at an unknown date. The applicant is proposing to enclose the partially enclosed rear porch as part of a kitchen remodel. In the project, the pantry will be expanded, and the new enclosed area will become a mudroom. The wall between the two spaces will be moved toward the north to allow for the expanded pantry. The exterior wall of the mudroom will be sided to match the existing and will have a single ¾-lite door. A pair of windows between the existing kitchen and the partially enclosed porch will be moved to the south exterior wall, replacing the single window currently in that location. The guidelines recommend, in section 4.3 Doors, adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other doors and windows on the building. A wood door may be substituted by a door in another material that is durable, accepts paint and is approved by the Commission. Section 4.10 Porches says that it is disallowed to enclose front porches or other porches that are highly visible from the street with permanent windows and/or walls. Section 4.11 Siding recommends replacing deteriorated section of wood siding with new or salvaged wood siding that matches the historic wood siding. Section 4.13 Windows recommends adding windows that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided lights, and overall appearance of the historic windows. New windows should be added in a location that is consistent with the window pattern of the historic building or buildings of similar architectural style. In Staff’s opinion, the location of the proposed work is on the back of the house. The porch that is to be permanently enclosed is on the back of the house and has already been altered from its original configuration. Low walls, storm windows and a storm door have been installed at some point in the past. The permanent enclosure will provide the applicants with a conditioned entry area to use as a mudroom. Part of the project also moves the interior wall between the pantry and mudroom so that the area would be too small to install both a window and a door. This wall relocation is necessary to provide a functional space in the pantry. For that reason, staff finds it appropriate to install a door in the porch enclosure instead of a door and window. Staff finds that either a wood door or a painted fiberglass door would be appropriate. The siding will be patched with wood lap siding matching the existing and the door will also be trimmed in wood to match the simpler trim style found on the house. Staff also finds the kitchen window replacement portion of the project appropriate. The single, south-facing kitchen window will be replaced with a pair of windows that already exist in the wall between the kitchen and new mudroom. The windows match the other windows in that area and will provide more light to the kitchen area. Staff recommends approval of the project. Recommended Motion Move to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1101 Kirkwood Avenue as presented in the staff report with the following condition:  Door product information is approved by staff. 1101 Kirkwood Avenue Photo of 1101 Kirkwood Avenue from the 1910s 1101 Kirkwood Avenue- rear area to be altered 1101 Kirkwood Avenue- SW corner (window to be replaced with pair of windows) 6"90"7"44 7/8"33 3/8"69"85 1/4"105 1/8"34"41 3/4"83 3/8"32 1/4"41 7/8"37 1/2"77 3/4"105 5/8"Add Window (Re-use Existing Windows from East Interior Wall) BUILT-IN CABINETRY CHIMNEYWINDOWS48-1/2" AFFUP BASEMENT DINING ROOM CEILING H: 102" 36" SINK BASE WINDOW23" AFF38 7/8"40 3/4"31 7/8"24" DW 3/0 NEW DOOR New Opening Change Door Swing Refrig. Pantry 21"9" 6" mudroom bench Prep Sink18"36" Cooktop 42"NOTES: Harvest/Work Table (drawers & open storage below) W1539W362115 24"x18"D 3-drawer 28 1/8"44 3/8"12 5/8" 83 3/8"7 7/16" 7 3/16" 30" 3-Drawer 33" x 93" Oven Cabinet 27" Microwave Wall Cabinet 24" 24"36"24"48"42"43 3/8"18"Filler21" Waste/ Recycle9" Base21"9" 1 1/16" 7 7/16"23" 36" 15" Beverage Refrig.4 1/2"36"18 3/4"36"Existing Walls New Walls18 3/4"21"23"41 7/8"20 3/8"98 3/16" 108"23"Scale Date Drawn by 614 Clark Street Iowa City, IA 52240 PH: 319-430-0038 EMAIL: markrussoic@gmail.com Approved by 1/4" = 1'-0" A3 First Floor -Plan BNatalie Fern 10/28/21 E.K. 1101 Kirkwood Ave Iowa City, IA 52240 n_jang@hotmail.com 319-541-9871 M. Russo 35 1/4"44 1/4"6"90"7"44 7/8"5 5/8"18 3/4"23"69"57 1/2"22"12 1/2"83 1/4"33"28 1/8"44 3/8"12 5/8"105 1/8"34"41 3/4"83 3/8"32 1/4"41 7/8"23"37 1/2" 10 1/4"44 3/4"35"31 3/4"104"39"3 1/2"44 1/4"3 1/4"31 7/8"40 3/4"32 3/4"105 3/8"Exterior SidingWINDOW 49" AFF BUILT-IN CABINETRY CHIMNEY WINDOWS48-1/2" AFFBUILT-INCABINETRYPOWDER ROOM Refrig. GAS RANGE UP BASEMENTDW DINING ROOM CEILING H: 102"SINKWINDOWS36" AFFWINDOW23" AFFScale Date Drawn by 614 Clark Street Iowa City, IA 52240 PH: 319-430-0038 EMAIL: markrussoic@gmail.com Approved by 1/4" = 1'-0" A1 Kitchen As-builtNatalie Fern 6/14/21 E.K. 1101 Kirkwood Ave Iowa City, IA 52240 n_jang@hotmail.com 319-541-9871 M. Russo 98"8 1/2"15 1/4"36"42 5/8"4"4"64 1/2"42 5/8"4 1/8"4 1/8"102 1/2"10 5/8"24 1/4"73 1/4"11 1/4"EXISTING EXTERIOR -back of house, facing westPROPOSED REMODEL -EXTERIOR ELEVATION OPTION 1 77 3/4"4 1/2"Interior2x4 WallScaleDateDrawn byChecked by614 Clark St.Iowa City, IA 52240319-430-0038 / markrussoic@gmail.com1/4" = 1'-0"A9First Floor Plan B - Exterior Elevation Option 1Natalie Fern10/28/21E.K.M. Russo1101 Kirkwood AveIowa City, IA 52240n_jang@hotmail.com319-541-9871 55"4 1/2"5"4 1/2"4"36 3/4"14 1/8"82"23"8 1/8"PROPOSED REMODEL -EXTERIOR SOUTH ELEVATIONChimney(23"W)EXISTING EXTERIOR -back of house, facing NorthScaleDateDrawn byChecked by614 Clark St.Iowa City, IA 52240319-430-0038 / markrussoic@gmail.com1/4" = 1'-0"A11First Floor Plan B - Exterior South ElevationNatalie Fern11/2/21E.K.M. Russo1101 Kirkwood AveIowa City, IA 52240n_jang@hotmail.com319-541-9871 1 MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL October 14, 2021 MEMBERS PRESENT: Margaret Beck, Kevin Boyd, Sharon DeGraw, Cecile Kuenzli, Jordan Sellergren, Noah Stork, Deanna Thomann, Frank Wagner MEMBERS ABSENT: Carl Brown, Kevin Larson STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Adam Clore, Gosia Clore 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: None. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: HPC21-0071: 1133 East Court Street – Longfellow Historic District (demolition of original siding and sheathing and installation of new sheathing, cement board siding, vapor barrier, and new wood trim) Bristow said the Commission heard the case on December 10th to remove the original siding and replace it with cement board, but the application was denied and the Commission approved an alternative project to repaint and repair the original siding. She said the applicants appealed the decision to the City Council, who affirmed the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission, but also encouraged them to develop an exception to their guidelines for this situation. Bristow said that as part of the appeal process staff was able to go out to the location and determine the state of the material under a portion of removed siding. Bristow said the applicants’ architect wrote a letter to Council about the technical difficulties of removing the aluminum siding and having a siding on the house without any integrity - the claim being that the historic breathable building system has been altered. Because of this, she said the applicants are saying that the wood will always be deteriorated and needs to be replaced with something that can handle the current conditions of the building and won’t be damaged by moisture. She said that the plan is to remove the siding and put Tyvek or a vapor barrier of some kind between it and a new siding. She said the application also included the installation of LP SmartSide, but the contractor has come forward and said that this material will not work for multiple reasons, including the condition to match the lap of the historic siding and to match the mitered corner installation. Bristow said they have the new exception to remove the original siding to fit with the technical difficulties of the situation, but an additional exception is needed to allow the alteration of the trim condition and lap exposure for the new siding on the house. She said that wood is the only material that will match the lap and allow a mitered corner condition, but both the architect and contractor are saying that wood will not be suitable, and it will be much more expensive in this 2 situation. Bristow suggested the Commission allow an exception to change the mitered corner to a corner board, which will allow the use of LP SmartSide and the use of a wider lap. She said Staff believes the applicants meet the conditions for both exceptions. Bristow said the proposal is also to add a gang of three windows onto the addition, which Staff finds appropriate as long as the meet the conditions listed within the staff report and the preservation guidelines. Kuenzli asked if the front porch will remain covered in the original siding (2 ¾ inches wide). Bristow said the front wall of the house in the porch area will remain as is, but everything else would be wider. Boyd asked if Staff were the ones to measure the “technical and economic challenges” for this case. Bristow said that the exception as approved by Council didn’t include a strict definition and was instead left for the applicant to make their case for the issue and for the Commission to determine if the conditions are met. Boyd asked if the trim details listed in the recommended motion include the corner boards. Bristow said yes and that they would be a standard dimension. Boyd opened the public hearing. Adam Clore, the homeowner and applicant, said he had a short presentation to clarify some issues and reinforce their reasoning and passion as to why they believe an exception is warranted. He said the original siding of the house is steel siding, as opposed to aluminum, which was damaged quite a bit during the derecho last year. He said there is a fair amount of damage to the wood siding in the historic part of the house, and that they are also very concerned with the lead-based paint present. He said they believe strongly in ensuring that they do not have lead-based contamination for themselves and their children. Clore showed several pictures of the damaged siding and said that their proposal is to remove the siding and add a moisture barrier as well as seal the holes in the nooks and crannies for pest prevention. He said that they are working with experts who have hands-on experience restoring historic structures, Michael Nolan and G.T. Karr, who are also recommending removing the wood siding and replacing it with a historically accurate siding. He included a letter that had supportive signatures from their neighbors as well. Clore said they are not asking so much for an exception as for a reasonable remedy. He went through the remainder of his slideshow and gave clarifications and further explanation on his supporting points. He said that their main goal is to restore the historic structure of the house, using modern materials, in a way that is safe and that will last for decades to come. He thanked Staff, Tracy and Anne Russett, the building inspectors, and G.T. Karr and Mike Nolan for all of their help and guidance throughout this process. Gosia Clore, the applicant and epidemiologist, said that there is no “safe” blood-lead level for children, but 76% of children in Iowa have an unsafe blood-lead level, citing from a study this year. She said she is not willing to take any risks of exposing her three children to lead. She said the fatality rate from rabies is 99.9%, and just last month a man in Illinois refused to get rabies shots and died a month after exposure. She said she is not sure when her kids might have a bat in their room, but it is only a matter of time, so that adds to the urgency of their situation. She said that they originally thought the bats were coming in from the roof, but after several inspections they deduced that they are getting in through holes in the metal siding. She urged the Commission to vote yes for this proposal. Kuenzli asked if the insulation currently in the walls of their house is wet and has moisture problems now. Gosia Clore said that last time they opened up the walls to fix the electrical it was damp. Kuenzli asked if they would also remove the insulation from the interior walls once they removed the wood siding. Clore said no, because there was an original reason that it was 3 put in. Kuenzli said she thinks the LP SmartSide material doesn’t breathe and asked if they thought that as well. Adam Clore said he believes it does breathe, but he would have to defer to G.T. Karr on that issue and that the siding itself is not sealed – it has laps which lay on top of one another. Gosia Clore said there is a vapor barrier as well. Kuenzli said it looks like they have a paint problem rather than a wood problem, and that the wood looks to be in remarkably good shape except in a few places that can be fixed with wooden plugs. Gosia Clore said that would not solve the insulation issue. Kuenzli asked if their cost estimate was to replace the wood on the entire house. Adam Clore said the estimate was for restoring wood on the addition of the house where there currently is none. Boyd closed the public hearing. MOTION: DeGraw moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1133 East Court Street through two exceptions: one for siding based on technical difficulties in the current configuration as presented in the staff report, and one for uncommon situations based on the limitations of available materials for the requirement that the new siding must match the old. The project is subject to the following conditions: (1) the historic exterior is fully documented in photographs by Staff once it is exposed, (2) the trim details are reviewed and approved by Staff and Commission Chair, the trim on the addition is installed to match the historic house and corner boards added to all inside and outside corners and siding transitions, all trim will be wood, (3) and the new windows are separated by framing and trim and match the head and sill height of existing historic windows on the house, are double hung windows, and are constructed of wood or metal-clad wood. Beck seconded. Sellergren said she had some thoughts on the bat and lead paint issues. As someone who lives in a house with lead paint and bats, she said she absolutely sympathizes with those issues, but she doesn’t necessarily believe that those are strong enough arguments for her to fully support the request of the applicant, and that they more just come with the nature of living in a historic house. Kuenzli said a vapor barrier could be put in based on their guidelines, and she had previously talked to several contractors who said that a vapor barrier could be created by putting oil-based paint on the walls. Boyd said, although there are other issues that have been brought up and that are helpful for context, their task at hand is to decide whether the motion and proposal made by the applicant meets their guidelines. He said he believes the first two conditions meet their guidelines, and what he is trying to figure out is whether this situation counts as “uncommon” based on the limitations of the materials. Beck asked if he is concerned that this situation would set a precedent for future applicants. Boyd said that their work as a Commission can be precedent setting (as applicants can and have sited previous projects as such) but it is not what they weigh when making decisions. Bristow said they are tasked with reviewing each property individually and, technically, precedents aren’t set. Beck asked if they have reason to doubt the assessments presented by the homeowners or if they want another assessment done. Boyd said that is up to each individual Commissioner to weigh. Thomann said looking at the photos of the siding, it looks in pretty good shape and she wonders if they remove it if it will have a life beyond this. Wagner asked what the purpose of the first item in the motion is. Bristow said it is a part of their record-keeping process. Kuenzli said the house will not replicate the original historic structure with all the changes the applicants are proposing. Stork said he agreed that the width of the siding and losing the mitered corners is unfortunate, but the applicants will be adding the trim details around the windows, which is an improvement since they are not there now. DeGraw said she is not pleased to approve a project like this, but she sympathizes with the financial side of things. Boyd said he is leaning towards this being an uncommon condition/situation. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1. Nay: Kuenzli. 4 REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect – Chair and Staff Review HPC21-0086: 520 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (roof shingle replacement) Bristow said this project replaced the roof shingles. HPC21-0087: 424 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (roof shingle replacement) Bristow said this project had several aspects of their projects previously approved, except for the roof shingle replacement. She said she is meeting with the owners on site next week to look at the internal gutters. HPC21-0094: 125-127 East College Street – Local Historic Landmark (vinyl window signage installation) Bristow said the landmark will have vinyl sign graphics installed on the windows. Minor Review – Staff Review HPC21-0090: 619 N Linn Street – Northside Historic District (roof shingle replacement) Bristow said the shingles were replaced with architectural shingles. HPC21-0092: 638 South Governor Street – Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (deteriorated window replacement) Bristow said the windows were originally going to be repaired, but an individual window and a pair of windows are going to be replaced due to damage. HPC21-0093: 320 East College, Trinity Episcopal Church – Local Historic Landmark (roof shingle replacement) Bristow said insurance is helping the Church replace their roof. HPC20:0050: 520 Grant Street, Longfellow Historic District (garage repairs, overhead door replacement and deck stair relocation) Bristow said the applicants are replacing the garage floor, the pressed steel door, repairing the rear corners of the foundation, and relocating the stairs off the side of the deck. Intermediate Review – Chair and Staff Review HPC21-0062: 533 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (alterations and reconstruction of north side porch previously approved by HPC) Bristow said they approved making the deck slightly smaller. HPC21-0091: 812 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (south side door alterations) Bristow said the 50-year-old oven suddenly broke, and the applicants needed to make the door two inches wider in order to get a new oven in the building. She said this is a historic contributing property, but they approved this as a Chair and Staff review since it was an emergency. 5 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 9, 2021: Bristow said she found a few errors in the attendance portion of the minutes, which she was going to correct. MOTION: Wagner moved to approve the minutes from September 9, 2021 as amended. Beck seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Historic Preservation Survey Kuenzli asked if there was any chance of getting extra time for Bristow to work. Boyd agreed, but said her time is limited to 20 hours a week. He said that they have requested more Staff support on many of their priorities and projects, but they have been tabled by the Neighborhood Planning and Development Office. He also said he was offended that the City found time and resources for the Homebuilders when they asked for a survey, while the Historic Preservation Commission has had a rough history trying to get those same resources. Kuenzli asked how much time other towns (of comparable size) get for their historic preservation. Bristow said they did an analysis of similar staffing back in 2015. Sellergren said that one of their biggest issues was windows and how they don’t have a go-to person in town or a list of resources to deal with window issues. DeGraw suggested they work with the local schools to communicate their need for someone to properly repair historic windows. Bristow said there is a nationwide contractor shortage at the moment. Sellergren said that reading through the survey made her feel like the Historic Preservation Commission and Staff were appreciated overall. COMMISSION INFORMATION: Bristow reminded the Commission that the November meeting was moved one week further back (November 18th) due to Veteran’s Day. ADJOURNMENT: Sellergren moved to adjourn the meeting. DeGraw seconded. Meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m. 6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2020-2021 NAME TERM EXP. 01/28 02/11 03/11 04/08 05/13 06/10 7/08 7/21 8/12 9/09 10/14 BECK, MARGARET 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X BROWN, CARL 6/30/23 X X X X X O/E X O/E X X O/E BURFORD, HELEN 6/30/21 X X X X X X -- -- -- -- -- DEGRAW, SHARON 6/30/22 X X X X X X O/E O/E X X X KUENZLI, CECILE 6/30/22 X X X X X X X X O/E X X KIPLE, LYNDI 6/30/22 X X X X X X X -- -- -- -- LARSON, KEVIN 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- X X O/E X O PITZEN, QUENTIN 6/30/21 X X X O/E X X -- -- -- -- -- SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/22 X X X X X O/E X X X X X STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X O X THOMANN, DEANNA 6/30/23 -- -- -- -- -- -- O/E X X O/E X WAGNER, FRANK -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X WU, AUSTIN 6/30/23 X O/E O/E O/E X X -- -- -- -- -- KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member