Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-2023 HPC agenda packet Thursday November 9, 2023 5:30 p.m. Emma J. Harvat Hall City Hall IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, November 9, 2023 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J. Harvat Hall 5:30 p.m. Agenda A) Call to Order B) Roll Call C) Public discussion of anything not on the agenda D) Certificate of Appropriateness 1. HPC23-0056: 610 North Johnson Street – Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District (porch reconstruction) 2. HPC23-0059: 331 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (porch reconstruction) 3. HPC23-0065: 1031 East College Street – East College Street Historic District (addition to kitchen and alterations to earlier rear addition) E) Report on Certificates issued by Chair and Staff Certificate of No Material Effect –Chair and Staff review 1. HPC23-0062: 1025 Woodlawn Avenue - Woodlawn Historic District (chimney repair and reconstruction) 2. HPC23-0068: 304 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (north wall reconstruction) Minor Review –Staff review 1. HPC23-0058: 331 South Summit Street – Summit Street Historic District (synthetic siding removal at porch.) 2. HPC23-0064: 1031 East College Street – East College Street Historic District (front step replacement and construction of new rear deck) 3. HPC23-0067: 225 North Gilbert Street – Local Historic Landmark (deteriorated attic window replacement) Intermediate Review –Chair and Staff review 1. HPC23-0066: 119 East College Street – Local Historic Landmark (commercial sign at second floor) F) Consideration of Minutes for October 12, 2023 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 6, 2023 Historic Review for HPC23-0056: 610 North Johnson Street General Information: Applicant/Owner: Mike Oliveira, Prestige Properties, admin@prestigeprop.com District: Goosetown/Horace Mann Conservation District Classification: Contributing Project Scope: Porch reconstruction including floor, column, and stair replacement Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.10 Porches 4.14 Wood Property History: This house is an American Foursquare built between 1906 and 1912 with new concrete block foundation and several unusual details that may relate to a Queen Anne influence: slight bump out on north wall, chamfered bay on south end of front facade, slight chamfered bay on south side. Roof is hip with a bell-cast eave condition. Front porch has been modified and is no longer full width, columns are also not original. Detailed Project Description: This project removes the existing floor structure due to deterioration. The flooring, stairs and, skirtboard trim, and two front posts have all been replaced without a permit in violation of the zoning code. The applicant states that they have used a treated vertical- grained Douglas Fir. The flooring has been installed parallel to the house and inset within the floor structure (rim joists) which was painted white. The gap between the floor and the structure was caulked. Two posts that the applicant says are structural were replaced with treated 4x4 posts. The stairs were replaced without closed risers or a toe- kick (which the applicant says they will replace). Porch skirting was not installed because there are windows in the porch foundation wall. Guidelines: Section 4.10 Porches recommends: • Replacing badly deteriorated components with new ones that match the historic components in design and material. Custom fabrication of columns, brackets, pedestals, and moldings may be necessary, but many porch components can be ordered through lumber yards. • Using vertical-grained fir porch flooring for its resistance to weathering. • Leaving exposed the support piers below the porch columns. Skirting must be added to fill the space below the porch floor and grade if this space is 18 inches or greater. The skirt must be located between the porch piers. • Constructing porch skirting using a 3-6 inch wood frame with slats fastened to the back of the frame in a vertical or lattice pattern. Disallowed: • Using unpainted treated wood for elements that would have been painted in their historic applications. Section 4.14 Wood recommends: • Duplicating and replacing historic wood elements when they cannot be repaired. Replacing damaged wood components with new or salvaged wood components that match the historic ones. • Substituting a material in place of wood only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Disallowed: • Substituting a material in place of wood that does not retain the appearance, function, and paintability of the original wood. Analysis: While this porch had been remodeled with the installation of a concrete block foundation and occupied space, truncating of the porch, installation of undersized turned columns, and the removal of piers and skirting, this property is within a Conservation District and Historic review is required for all exterior work, including the replacement of deteriorated materials. In Staff’s opinion, this porch was deteriorated, however, several parts of the work do not follow the Guidelines and follow the traditional installation: • The flooring is a treated tongue-and-groove flooring rather than a vertical-grained Douglas Fir. It is not installed perpendicular to the wall of the house to aid in drainage. It also does not overhang the skirtboard on the porch to create a drip edge. The current installation does not match the historic installation and relies on caulk to prevent moisture infiltration. Staff recommends replacement of this floor with one that is installed in the traditional manner. • The two 4x4 post on either side of the stairs were replaced with new 4x4 posts. New porch elements must match either historic porch elements or existing porch elements if historic or appropriate. In this case while the existing turned columns do not fit the Foursquare style of the house and are undersized, since the scope only included the replacement of the two central posts, staff could recommend approval of the two posts to match the existing turned columns. However, the applicant has proposed replacing all four columns with the vinyl columns attached to the staff report since they cannot find a match to the existing turned columns. Staff would recommend that any turned replacement columns are wood or fiberglass and a larger diameter than the existing columns. Alternatively, Staff would prefer to work with the applicant to approve larger square or round columns to replace the existing columns, likely no longer needing the central columns. • This porch has had the porch piers replaced by a concrete basement. Even so, the guidelines require the installation of porch skirting. Staff sent the applicant a photo of 1037 East Washington Street that has been similarly modified but has porch skirting installed between false piers with the concrete painted black. Staff recommends a similar installation with framed openings cut in the skirting to allow light to enter the windows. • The applicant has agreed to modify the steps with closed risers and a toe-kick. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 610 North Johnson Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions:  The porch floor is replaced as described in the staff report, and  The porch columns are replaced with square or round columns as described in the staff report, and  Framed porch skirting is installed between false piers with openings for the windows in the foundation. 610 North Johnson Street – photo taken same day application submitted 610 North Johnson Street- porch with structural damage 610 North Johnson Street- porch with structural damage 610 North Johnson Street- porch flooring material 610 North Johnson Street- floor installation 610 North Johnson Street- porch floor structure 610 North Johnson Street- project as finished without historic review 1037 East Washington Street example Porch column option submitted by applicant: Structural QuickPost Porch Post with Lifetime Finish QuickPost synthetic porch posts are the perfect complement to our rail systems. Featuring the same lifetime finish as all rail system components, the vibrant color is virtually maintenance free and never needs to be painted. • Structural post with steel insert • Traditional Colonial or modern square detail • Trim to fit your project • Designed for use with rail systems • Virtually maintenance free • Lifetime limited warranty • This product is NOT paintable • Product Details • Shell is composed of UV-protected vinyl • Internal core includes a structural, galvanized steel tube • Kit includes mounting plates and screws Product Options • Sizes: 5" and 6" are nominal for Colonial styles • Sizes: 4" and 5" are actual for Square styles • Finish colors: White • Accessories: QuickPost Trim Kit available (sold separately - Item # 400600PWTK) NOTE: This product should NOT be painted! This product has a lifetime white finish. Staff Report November 6, 2023 Historic Review for HPC23:0059: 331 South Summit Street General Information: Applicant/Owner: Michael Cowan, Michael-cowan@uiowa.edu Contact Person: Michael Cortex, iowacitydeckbuilders@gmail.com District: Summit Street Historic District Classification: Key Project Scope: Rearrangement of openings on the partially enclosed rear porch in the SW corner of the house and opening and reconstruction of the front porch. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails 4.10 Porches 4.13 Windows 4.14 Wood Property History: This Queen Anne House, built 1890-5, features a large Gable-on-hip main roof with a front facing gable projection and a north-facing side gable projection. The main roof has small triangular dormers in the front facing EL of the roofs and in the south facing side of the main hip. A single story, gable addition on the rear also has newer dormers, believed to have been added in the 1990s. The house as clad in aluminum siding and the front porch was partially enclosed at an unknown date. Because of the elaborate attic windows and barge boards, it is assumed that the aluminum obscures elaborate trim and siding details. Detailed Project Description: This project includes work on two areas of the house. On the rear porch, the openings will be reorganized to facilitate access to the new deck. The south-facing storm door opening, and storm window opening will be located to the west side and the two storm window openings that face west will be moved to the south side. On the front porch, the screens, paneled balustrades, framing between the screens, deteriorated elements of the porch floor and structure will be removed. Deteriorated porch floor will be replaced with vertical-grained Douglas Fir. The applicant proposes to install Classical columns and a turned balustrade. See attachments. Guidelines: Section 4.1 Balustrades and Handrails recommends: • Constructing or replacing missing balustrades by using historic photographs or by choosing a style that is consistent with the architectural style of the building. • Installing turned balusters in balustrades that have an actual diameter of 2 inches or greater, or square spindles that are 1-1/2 inches or greater in width. • Installing top and foot rails that are at least 2 inches in thickness. • On buildings where a spindled balustrade would be most consistent with the architectural style, spacing spindles so that the balustrade is at least 40% solid. Spindles must be spaced so that no gap between the spindles exceeds 4 inches as required by the building code. • Sloping the top and foot rails slightly to allow water to be shed from these surfaces and help prevent deterioration of these members. Section 4.10 Porches recommends: • Replacing badly deteriorated components with new ones that match the historic components in design and material. Custom fabrication of columns, brackets, pedestals, and moldings may be necessary, but many porch components can be ordered through lumber yards. • Using vertical-grained fir porch flooring for its resistance to weathering. • Leaving exposed the support piers below the porch columns. Skirting must be added to fill the space below the porch floor and grade if this space is 18 inches or greater. The skirt must be located between the porch piers. • Constructing porch skirting using a 3-6 inch wood frame with slats fastened to the back of the frame in a vertical or lattice pattern. Disallowed: • Using unpainted treated wood for elements that would have been painted in their historic applications. Section 4.13 Windows recommends: • If an opening is to be relocated, it should not detract from overall fenestration pattern. Section 4.14 Wood recommends: • Duplicating and replacing historic wood elements when they cannot be repaired. Replacing damaged wood components with new or salvaged wood components that match the historic ones. • Substituting a material in place of wood only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Disallowed: • Substituting a material in place of wood that does not retain the appearance, function, and paintability of the original wood. Analysis: In Staff’s opinion, the rear porch has been partially enclosed for at least 50 years. Staff has worked with the applicant and contractor to propose an alteration that only switches the openings on the west with those on the front. This will have a minimal impact on the character of the house. While it is recommended to reuse any historic storm windows and storm doors, no approval is needed to replace these items so the existing ones can either be reused or replaced. The steps to the door will be removed since it will exit onto the deck instead. The front porch, which has been a screened porch for at least 50 years, will be opened with new columns and balustrade replacing the screens and solid balustrade. During the project, the porch floor structure will be reviewed and damaged materials replaced. Any deteriorated floor will be replaced with the appropriate Douglas Fir. The existing brick porch piers will remain and inform the location of the new columns. The owner has proposed 609 South Summit as a model and example for the proposed new porch columns and spindled balustrade. Both houses have similar trim details, brick piers and foundation. Staff agrees that this house would be an appropriate model and a simplified version of this column in wood or fiberglass could be appropriate for 331 S Summit. Staff recommends approval of the proposed column and balustrade with the column size approved by staff and the balustrade meeting the dimensional requirements of the guidelines (spacing and diameter) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 331 South Summit Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions:  New columns are approved by staff  New balustrades follow the guidelines. 331 South Summit Street – front façade (column locations at blue lines) 609 South Summit- example porch to copy 331 South Summit – interior of front porch 331 South Summit – existing rear porch (before deck construction to the left) Staff Report November 6, 2023 Historic Review for HPC23-0065: 1031 East College Street General Information: Owner: Kevin Edens Applicant/ Contact Person: Kevin Hochstedler, keinv@builtbyhbd.com District: East College Street Historic District Classification: Contributing Project Scope: Removal of west-facing door and stoop on the rear addition and replacement with a window, removal of the windows on the south of the rear addition and replacement with French doors, and kitchen addition that extends the SW corner of the historic house, removes a sliding door, and a small rear deck. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: 4.0 Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Doors 4.7 Mass and Rooflines 4.13 Windows 4.14 Wood 5.0 Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint Property History: This house was built ca. 1915 as a two-story Foursquare with some bungalow or Craftsman details. The house has a full front porch, square porch columns, exposed rafters, a Craftsman front door with 8 beveled lights, and a low hipped roof. The windows are individual double-hung windows with a larger window and a small fixed window at the front porch. The house has a one-story rear addition with awning windows that was built in 1985. Detailed Project Description: This project includes some new work as well as some work that was completed without historic review. The new work includes several changes to the rear addition including the replacement of the windows on the south wall with a French door to access the deck that was recently approved by staff. There is also a west-facing door and stoop on the rear addition that will be removed. The applicant stated that they could install a window to match the other windows on the side of the addition if the Commission prefers. The final part of the project, which has already been completed without a building permit or historic review, includes an addition to the kitchen that removes a sliding door and deck that were inset into the NW corner of the rear addition. The work in this area extends the building footprint, extending the west wall of the existing house to the south and closing the area of the small deck to incorporate the space into the kitchen. The wall will be clad in matching siding and no windows. The roof edge of the rear addition will be extended with a shed roof to cover the new addition. Guidelines: Section 4.3 Doors recommends: • Adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building. • Substituting a material in place of wood for doors and screen doors only if the substitute material retains the style and appearance of the historic doors and screen doors. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Section 4.7 Mass and Rooflines recommends: • Preserving the original roof pitches and spans. • Preserving the original walls and vertical corners that define the massing of a historic building. 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. • Adding new windows 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 overall fenestration pattern. • If an opening is to be closed on a framed structure, appropriate siding that matches the existing should be used with its members being placed across and randomly extended beyond the opening. Section 4.14 Wood recommends: • Substituting a material in place of wood only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. The substitute material must be durable, accept paint, and be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. Section 5.1 Expansion of the Building Footprint recommends: • Distinguishing between the historic structure and the new addition. This may be accomplished easily by offsetting the walls of the addition from the walls of the original structure. • Matching key horizontal “lines” on the existing building, such as water table, eave height, window head height and band boards, in order to provide continuity between the addition and the historic structure. • Using a palette of materials that is similar to that used on the historic structure. • Placing building additions at the rear of a property, if possible. • Constructing additions that are consistent with the massing and roofline of the historic building. This requires that the wall areas and corners, as well as the roof pitches and spans are all consistent with the existing building and have a proportion that is similar to that of the existing building. • Constructing the roof overhang, soffits and eaves of the addition so that they match the roof overhang, soffits and eaves of the existing building. When the eaves of an addition intersect the eaves of the existing building, care should be taken to assure that the two eaves align properly. The trim details of a new eave should match the eave details of the existing building. • Applying siding to a new addition that appears similar in size, shape, texture, and material to the existing siding on the historic building. Analysis: In Staff’s opinion, the replacement of the rear windows on the 1985 addition with wood or fiberglass French doors follows the guidelines. Staff recommends either full-lite or four-lite doors since the windows on the house do not have a divided-lite condition. Staff also recommends approval of the removal of the side door and entry stoop at the 1985 addition. Staff does recommend that the door is replaced with a window that matches the other three awning windows on the sides of this addition. The new window should also be trimmed to match. In Staff’s opinion, the addition to the kitchen, which has already been completed without a building permit or historic review, does not follow the guidelines because it does not retain the corners of the historic house. It also creates a bump-out with out windows, which does not follow the window patterning of a historic house. Staff recommends an addition that removes the small deck and sliding door and extends the west wall of the rear addition north to the historic house, thereby not needing any additional openings, retaining the corner of the historic house, and utilizing the existing roof configuration. Any approval of the proposed addition should identify the guidelines for which an exception is being made and the rationale for the exception. No documented exception currently exists for an addition in this configuration. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval a Certificate of Appropriateness for the project at 1031 East College Street as presented in the staff report with the following conditions:  Window and door product information is approved by staff.  The side door is replaced with a window as described in the staff report  The rear addition is revised as described in the staff report 1031 East College Street 1031 East College- View of all three work areas right to left: rear windows to be replaced with French door, side door and stoop to be removed, and sliding door and deck at location of future kitchen addition. 1031 East College Street – rear of house 1031 East College Street- small rear deck seen through kitchen sliding door MINUTES PRELIMINARY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2023 – 5:30 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Lewis, Deanna Thomann, Noah Stork, Jordan Sellergren, Frank Wagner, Christina Welu-Reynolds, Carl Brown MEMBERS ABSENT: Nicole Villanueva, Margaret Beck STAFF PRESENT: Jessica Bristow OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas Hager, Genalie Swaim, Bob Miklo, Sharon DeGraw, Anne Marie Taylor CALL TO ORDER: Sellergren called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS: HPC23-0061: 1047 Woodlawn Avenue – Woodlawn Historic District (new rear deck and repairs to earlier addition): Bristow began the staff report noting this is a Queen Anne house with some detailing that could be described potentially as Carpenter Gothic or could be a little bit reminiscent of Italianate. The house has been added on multiple times including a 1984 addition on the back which has a really low gable roof. The project before them today is the deck and while normally a deck can be reviewed by staff this one cannot follow the guidelines for a staff review. Bristow showed some images of the house, the main block of the historic building noting there was a second floor added at some point in time, maybe around 1915. The one-story addition again was added in 1984 and that gable roof addition projects out with the screen porch beyond the side of the house and then where the deck is as well. Bristow explained the issue is that decks must be behind the house and set in from the sidewall of the building about eight inches and so for that reason an exception to the guidelines will be required for approval. The current deck is deteriorated and there's been some damage to that corner of the house because there was no ledger board flashing causing some rotten damage and that was the impetus for this project. Bristow showed the plan for the new deck, it will align with the side of the screen porch and extend towards the sunroom and will have a railing along the side and at the stair. Otherwise, there will be benches around one side with a current drop-in hot tub kept in the deck. Bristow stated the guidelines are fairly simple for this project, locating the deck on the back, setting it in eight inches, designing it so the size and scale don't distract, attaching in a manner to not damage the historic building, in this case they are attaching it to the modern addition. Regarding the section on balustrades and handrails, the square spindles would be at least an inch and a half in width and there'd be a top and bottom rail. Bristow stated because they want their deck to align with their screen porch staff recommends approval through the use of an exception to the guidelines for the uncommon situation created by the existing rear addition to the house. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2023 Page 2 of 10 MOTION: Wagner moves to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 1047 Woodlawn Avenue, as presented in the application through the use of an exception for the uncommon situation by the existing rear addition to the house. Welu-Reynolds second. Sellergren asked because this is a modern structure that's behind the old home, in a situation like this they're able to make repairs to that modern structure because it happened before the Historic Commission was in place. Bristow confirmed yes, the addition has lap siding, it has trim, it has shingles, and modern windows and they are not looking at repairing those, but it has the same general basic things that they would have on a historic house and therefore would continue to keep them as they are. She did talk with the homeowners about how they might be able to revise the addition to make it fit in better with the historic portion of the house if they ever wanted to, so that's always the possibility if they decide to remodel the addition. Otherwise, it can stay like this forever, it is clearly a postmodern addition architecture. A vote was taken and the motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Villanueva and Beck absent). REPORT ON CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY CHAIR AND STAFF: Certificate of No Material Effect -Chair and Staff review HPC23-0043: 518 South Lucas Street – Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (concrete site stair replacement): HPC23-0047: 314 South Governor Street – Governor-Lucas Conservation District (concrete site stair replacement): Bristow quickly reviewed these two applications, both homes are owned by the same owner and just need the concrete stairs replaced. Minor Review -Staff review HPC23-0037: 738 Rundell Street - Longfellow Historic District (deteriorated window and door replacement): Bristow explained the homeowners converted the garage to living space and ended up determining that the rear door and the side window were both damaged beyond repair so they will be replaced. HPC23-0041: 521 South Governor Street – Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (vinyl siding removal and historic siding and trim repair): Bristow noted this house has had a couple projects and one of them was that they removed the vinyl siding and uncovered some interesting details such as they could tell that there were brackets holding up a different kind of entry canopy and that the current one is smaller than the one that was there before. They could see that there were shutters on the building, this was probably a colonial revival house that was remodeled early in the 1900s. HPC23-0044: 707 Rundell Street – Longfellow Historic District (overhead door replacement): HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2023 Page 3 of 10 Homeowners are replacing the overhead door. HPC23-0046: 1328 Muscatine Avenue – Longfellow Historic District (roof shingle replacement): Bristow believes they'll end up doing a several other projects on this home, but this one is the replacement of the roof shingles. HPC23-0060: 737 Grant Street – Longfellow Historic District (front step replacement): Homeowners are replacing their front steps. Intermediate Review -Chair and Staff review HPC23-0052: 1025 Woodlawn Avenue – Woodlawn Historic District (new barn foundation): Bristow stated this has been a very long time coming and they are finally getting a new foundation on the barn at 1025 Woodlawn Avenue, this barn has needed a new foundation for at least a decade. It currently has a stone foundation and the new foundation will just be smooth poured concrete. She explained this barn did have a wood floor suspended in it that was broken and so it'll have a new floor as well. They will be actually moving the barn over, Goodwin House Movers will be doing that, and they will remove the lean-to. Because the lean-to shows up on all of the Sanborn fire insurance maps they think it is a very old lean-to so they're actually just going to remove it and reinstall it. There's a possibility they might move it to the other end of the barn instead of this one. HPC23-0055: 521 South Governor Street – Governor-Lucas Street Conservation District (shutter installation): Bristow stated they are installing new shutters that will be functioning shutters. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2023: MOTION: Wagner moves to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission's September 14, 2023, meeting, as amended. Thomann seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Villanueva and Beck absent). COMMISSION DISCUSSION : 302 (316) East Bloomington Street, Slezak Hall aka Palagi’s building: Bristow stated this building has actually has all of the numbers between 302 to 316, 302 being the front portion. This was originally a hall where people met on the upper floor with stores below. The three- story apartment building was added and the back area at one point in time there was a carriage house and a stable. She showed a detailed image of the property, pointing out the brackets and dentals. She is unsure if the current windows are the original with trim or if they were reduced. There likely would have been a storefront with two entrances since it was divided in half down the middle. From Linn Street they can see the west elevation of the building and a possible decorative element over a storefront or perhaps some kind of loading door. Bristow noted the Holub apartments would have been upstairs. From the 1888 Sanborn map it shows grocers on each side and the stage on the second floor in the main hall. There was a dining room parlor and a carriage hoist on the first floor, laundry on the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2023 Page 4 of 10 second, sleeping on the third and the feed area. Bristow stated they believe everything was in place no later than 1888. The Iowa Site Inventory form, which is basically what historians and consultants use to fill out information to document it for the State, shows this building had been studied multiple times. At one point in time someone determined that the building would be eligible for the National Register and it would be as it has good integrity and would definitely be eligible under the National Register criterion A which relates to events that have happened over time. Bristow could not recall which of Iowa City’s criteria that relates to but because it would be eligible for the National Register it would also be eligible for local landmark listing. Bristow stated this item was brought up because Sellergren, as the Chair, requested that it be on the agenda for discussing it for a potential local landmark designation. If that process were to proceed it could potentially proceed with the Commission determining that they want to locally landmark it so that the application for rezoning would come to the Commission for review. The process is first they would discuss the building and its history and a public hearing for everyone to speak, then it would move on to the Planning and Zoning Commission and finally it would move to City Council. If the owner were to object to the landmark rezoning a supermajority of City Council would have to vote to approve it for it to become a local landmark. Bristow also wanted to note in 2015 a subcommittee of the Commission did meet to look at historic properties in the community that are not currently either locally landmarks, nor in a district of any type, to see which ones should be landmarks and this building was on that list. Sellergren opened the public hearing. Thomas Hager stated he was a former commissioner and wanted to talk about this because like a lot of people in Iowa City that saw that this building went up for sale it had him reflecting about this property and reflecting also on his time on the Commission and experiences he had on the Commission. He wanted to share some of his experiences as they prepare to look in more depth to this property. The main example he wanted to bring up is the landmarking that they attempted for 410 Clinton Street, which is brick building across from Dey House. Basically, that was a similar situation, the property owner didn't want landmark status but it advanced through because it obviously deserved to be a landmark. Then in the midst of all that the property owner sold to the Clark family and when it went to the supermajority at Council, led by Susan Mims, it did not get the super majority. Hager read an excerpt from the Press-Citizien article at the time. “Since that vote the City has been in talks to the property owner asking what could persuade them to voluntarily pursue local landmark designation. Brian Clark says the goal is to pursue more units. He said the owners of two adjacent properties, 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport Street have signaled a willingness to sell providing the City rezones adjacent properties to allow higher density. Clark said he would be willing to designate 412 North Clinton as a local historic landmark in exchange.” Hagar stated his summary of that is developers do not need handouts and the last one is apartments downtown in the Clark family. So what happens when a property like this comes up for sale is that a developer with deep pockets, who's not afraid to play hardball with the City, will buy the property and then what happens is that there's this emotional hostage taking the property where they twist the City's arm because people are worried and don't want to step tread on individual property rights. It's the owner, they own the building. What happens is they take the property hostage, and they try to get handouts, they tried to get approvals for things that would never otherwise ordinarily be approved. There are other scenarios where this also happened. Across from the Co-op what happened was undesignated buildings got torn down and they encroach upon a historic property. Hager stated as the Commissions think about this, also think about how this could be parceled up in some kind of deal as the remaining property that didn't sell across from the Co-op ended up being so encroached upon by these inappropriate buildings for the scale of the neighborhood and they ended up later tearing that building down. Another example is the Elks building where they’re going to tear it down and then leave a big hole in the ground right across from City Hall. Or Ted Pacha, who on Christmas Eve, bulldozed the antebellum railroad cottages over on HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2023 Page 5 of 10 South Dubuque Street. Those are the outcomes that are possible here. People don't come back to Iowa City because they love the three over one new builds that go up everywhere with the empty retail on the bottom and that's what will go on here if it's not landmarked. Like the empty gravel lot on Van Buren Street that Michael Rivera manages, there's all kinds of bad outcomes here. Hager think that there are different strategies for what they can do, some are more extreme and some are less extreme. Maybe there's a development moratorium, whether it's a demolition permit moratorium in this area, maybe instead of do dealing with an individual landmark status they could expand the district to include Bloomington Street, or they could do what's actually the easiest thing, which is to landmark the property. He is hopeful they will do that, but of course will need a supermajority and are going to get pushback from the property owner. Hager noted the Scarda family, or whoever owns this building, chose to own this building but don't own the parking lot across the street, they don't own the HeadStart preschool next door, both places that would be great to be redeveloped. He encourages them to landmark this property, but they will have to have that supermajority so he encourages them to find out if they have the votes with City Council to make sure that this thing is going to sail through otherwise the same thing that happened on 410 North Clinton is going to happen here. Lastly, developers own the buildings, they own the deeds to all these properties, but they just own the deeds and they don't own the history of the community. There is a structure created to allow them to protect that history and that is landmark status and it exists so that no matter who owns the building, and what their inclinations are over time, because property owners come and go, the building can stay relevant to the community. Hager also noted that he was on the Commission when they went through that whole study to find other properties that they to also should landmark, but the urgency now is because this building came for sale. However, 75% of the 19th century building stock in Iowa City is not protected, all of downtown is not protected, and they only find the urgency when things like this happen. Again, he really hopes that they landmark it, prioritize it and get the votes. Ginalie Swaim noted she has done laundry in that laundromat before she had washing machine, she went to have pizza there when the dorms didn't serve meals on Sunday nights, and she thinks she visited somebody who lives in in the apartments. This commercial building dates far back to the relations with the Czech neighborhood. The customers do the grocery stores, and hall upstairs and the stable and so she could get emotionally connected to this building but on greater self-examination that's what history is about, that people wrap their own lives into a building and come up with some meaning which the building then can preserve for the people or the community if it's protected. Obviously, this building has great integrity, it has an incredible community history, and it is always anchored that corner. It's a keystone between the Downtown and the Northside. Swaim would echo was Hager has said and when she was on this Commission many of those issues came up and things happen very fast. She sincerely hopes everything can turn out the way they would like it to and landmark the property. Bob Miklo (900 North Johnson Street) wanted to point out that this hall clearly meets the criteria for the National Register as well as the local landmark. Its association with the Czech immigrant community demonstrates broad patterns of local history as well as national history. It tells the story of the community being built by immigrants and its architecture is a good representation of a commercial storefront. He also noted it's unique in that it contained an ethnic social hall and a historic hotel, then later apartments and livery were horses were cared for and tended to. There are very few surviving buildings in Iowa City with this much history or character. Miklo also pointed to the Comprehensive Plan, including the Central District Plan, which was unanimously adopted by City Council as a blueprint for the community's future, calls for the protections of buildings like this and of the Northside commercial district. Therefore, the City has already gone on record that this is an important building in the life of the community and should follow up with zoning protections to enforce that policy. Again, there are a few properties in Iowa City with this rich history and this well preserved. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2023 Page 6 of 10 Sharon DeGraw is with the Friends of Historic Preservation and lives in the Northside. She agrees with all the history of the building and that it needs to be preserved for that reason. It's an example of being a certain type of architecture that they want to value and preserve. However, she also sees the tie into the way that perhaps the business community and decision makers think is that this building is an economic boost to the commercial area and the residential houses. So if it goes and things like it go, what they replace it with has much less economic value in terms of the way the Downtown District wants to think about what they need to do to create a vibrant downtown Iowa City. DeGraw would hope that they engage the Downtown District in the discussion of how to land market locally also. Thomann stated the value of this building and the stories it tells, the fact that it was important to farmers back in the day and they would come and stay in these hotels and they put their horse and carriage or whatever else in the stable. She lives just a few blocks away from this building and if she is going to see her farming relatives in town, it's at Pagliai’s, she runs into them all the time. People are drawn to not only Pagliai’s but also this building, it's very comfortable for them. She doesn’t see her relatives in downtown proper, but people will come into this building and eat and enjoy themselves. It's important in that way, it's not just important to the City but to the surrounding areas too. Thomann is really concerned about this part of town, the houses around here are being run down and it may be happening intentionally. She has also heard a little bit of gossip and it sounds like a developer has bought two houses within this block and she is sure they're eyeing this building now too. They've got these two houses they bought, it would be easy buy this building, clear out this whole block, build tall and City Council might just go for this because they are on a mission now as they want density and housing. Is it possible to do the landmark status vote tonight. Bristow replied no. Thomann stated that it is her concern because things will move so quickly, there will be a buyer and it may be the person who bought the two houses or the company that did and it'll start rolling without them being even able to say anything and that concerns her. Welu-Reynolds asked Bristow to review again the recent history. Bristow stated it has been owned by the same family for like 150 years or something like that. Welu-Reynolds asked if they have local family members who might buy the building. Bristow is unsure. Bristow stated they should set aside any consideration of ownership and consider this a community building that needs to be landmarked as soon as possible. Welu-Reynolds is not worried about who owns it it’s just that because it is up for sale right now that weighs on their timeline for could happen tomorrow. If something gets out to potential buyers that the historical commission may label this as a landmark that may have an effect on who purchases the property. Bristow noted it's currently listed at $5 million, which is $3 million more than its assessed value, it's assessed at $1.8 million so that leaves few buyer options. Anne Marie Taylor is on the Johnson County Historic Preservation Commission and lives in a house that Iowa City very creatively saved. It's an old house on Burlington Street and was part of the UniverCity program that renovated houses and now it’s a single-family home. She is really concerned about what's going to happen, the ad says it is not on historic preservation protection so they can basically do what they want. That land at $5 million, one could only make money off of it if they knock everything down around it. She would like to see whatever can be done to protect the community and to protect Iowa City's history like this. Taylor acknowledged them talking about the City wanting more and more housing but would go in there would not be the housing Iowa City is looking for, it would be high dollar with some stores, probably a Subway and things like that, at the bottom. The housing going into the core of Iowa City right now is not affordable, it is very expensive and doesn't benefit the people there, it kicks the people who are renting out further and further. Taylor just wanted to let them know that those of them with the County also discussed this and would appreciate anything this Commission can do. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2023 Page 7 of 10 Sellergren wanted to make a point with regard to housing density, which is that there's a new development going up on Scott Boulevard and North Dubuque, it's a four-acre lot with a total of 15 townhomes going in, there could be 100 or 200 so she doesn’t think housing density is necessarily the top incentive. People shouldn’t be swayed by that argument. Lewis asked what the timeline for the process is to make it a landmark. Bristow explained the owner will be contacted and staff will meet with the owner after this meeting tonight, before an application will be submitted for rezoning and be processed, it would come before this Commission, so there's a possibility it'll be on the November agenda. Stork asked if they do make this landmark status designation does that lock it into looking like this forever and any little thing that the future owner wants to do comes before this Commission an exception. They should be considering that as well, yes there's so much human history here in this building and it's wonderful, maybe not about the laundry building, that could be knocked down right now. Thomann stated if they don't landmark it there's probably a 90% chance that it comes down. Welu-Reynolds noted the question is does this building deserve landmark status. Sellergren stated yes but the other question is it an emergency and that answer is yes, it is. Stork agrees it is an urgent issue. Bristow noted if it were to be landmarked they would have to follow the guidelines like everyone else and retain historic materials on the building, modern materials that maybe don't fit the building could be changed, they could make an addition or something if approved by the Commission, just like any other property, there wouldn't be a desire to keep something that would be considered non-historic just because it happens to be there right now. It would follow the guidelines like any other property, the building definitely has the integrity to be landmarked, as well as be listed in the National Register. It is also a part of the social history and for those reasons it would definitely be eligible and that's the easy part of the landmark process. Stork asked about The Mill because this feels like The Mill situation a little bit. Bristow agreed but stated there's more architectural integrity and with The Mill it did not have integrity for what it was historically, they can't landmark the business, only land and buildings, that's what rezoning and guidelines do. Stork noted they could also start to consider newer time periods as now historical. Bristow confirmed yes, basically it just needs to be 50 years old to be eligible. Lewis asked if they start doing this process does that slow down the selling process. Bristow doesn’t know, it is a process but honestly it's probably more of a political process than anything else. There is a point when City Council sets a public hearing where there's a moratorium on demolition, so specifically if there were an application to demolish the building they would have to post that application for seven days and then they could take the building down. Sellergren noted then this is truly an emergency situation. Bristow reiterated they'll start with a public hearing and that has to be published seven days before the public hearing. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2023 Page 8 of 10 Thomann stated if they do get to the point where they're able to recommend this for being a landmark status property, she encourages those that feel passionately about this to go to the other meetings after this, P&Z, City Council, and tell them the historic value in this. Sellergren noted there's a lot of public interest in this topic and was surprised there weren’t more people here but really did appreciate the those who did come. Sellergren asked if the Commissioners were wanting to move forward with this process and all agreed to move forward. She noted there also is probably openness to special meeting, if that's possible. Stork asked about this district or surrounding districts and if this building is close enough to be included. Bristow stated this area is not included in any of the districts because the districts nearby are residential districts and this is a commercial area. When creating a district they basically stick to a type, each district has a story and is a cohesive unit. Bob Miklo noted when he was on staff a number of years ago they considered a national registered district for the Northside, including the commercial area, and it was found to be eligible for the National Register but there was considerable property owner objection. As a result the commercial area was removed from the proposed historic district. Thomas Hager stated there are five undeveloped parking lots and multiple single-story buildings in the Northside Business District so they don’t have to make space on this lot for development. They don't have to make space on this lot for density. Currently if the zoning for this building is CB-2, whatever the price to but, given the University metrics that they're predicting for student housing, all the other housing coming online, this is urgent, and should be treated as urgent. He noted Sellergren or somebody else should talk to the City manager and ask what is possible there and how City staff envisions that property being and the demolition of it being leveraged. The current zoning and opportunities for zoning changes that might be leveraged against the property might be a step to take while they wait for the due process of the landmark status. Bristow stated this property has been in this configuration since 1888, staff would not recommend building another building in the middle of that empty parking lot, that would not be something that would follow guidelines. Bob Miklo noted in terms of urgency he would encourage them to pursue this as quickly as possible but because there is a lease for the pizza place it's not going to be torn down tomorrow so they do have some time. He cautions against doing a special meeting and to follow the normal procedure to the extent possible so that it doesn't look like they're rushing or cutting corners and are following the procedure and legitimately designating the building as a landmark. Thomann noted a lot of the homes in this area are RNS-12 and also don’t have protection so if someone wants to do development in this area of the Northside, it’s going to happen. Sellergren also noted there's a City Council primary and Council will be changing over in January, so they should not just talk to the City Council members but also the candidates. Anne Marie Taylor wanted to share one other piece of experience, before living in Iowa City she was in the legislative and government relations for the American Institute of Architects and worked with the national organizations doing things to try and protect properties. One of the things that they did was spend a lot of time working on in some of the state legislatures was being sure that an area didn't become the building, because everything around it has been knocked down or removed. Another HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2023 Page 9 of 10 example is when she was working in Seattle, particularly old historic buildings that was about to get protection on Monday, were knocked down over the weekend. So someone who is willing to pay $5 million is only going to do that if they can make the money with tall buildings with all sorts of things. The sooner they can protect this building the better. It’s not just because it's a pizza place it’s because the history of this building and its place in the area is remarkable and needs to be protected, there's not another place like this in Iowa City. Sellergren stated the next step is to talk with the landowner, they might decide they do want the landmark status, they've had it in the family for all these years and have taken such care of it. Historic Preservation Awards: Bristow gave an update on the Historic Preservation Awards and thanked everybody for their help. She did note however, even with the assistance it took so much of her time that she could not review projects for a month. Therefore, they may have to rethink how they do this in the future. Thomann asked if there is a student assistant that could help. Bristow replied they do have an intern however the assistance that the intern provides totally depends on the individual intern and their abilities. ADJOURNMENT: Wagner moved to adjourn the meeting. Thomann seconded. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0 (Villanueva and Beck absent). The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 pm. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2022-2023 NAME TERM EXP. 10/13 11/10 1/12 2/9 3/22 4/13 5/11 6/8 7/13 8/10 9/14 10/12 BECK, MARGARET 6/30/24 O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E BOYD, KEVIN 6/30/23 X X X X X 0/E X X -- -- -- -- BROWN, CARL 6/30/23 X X O/E O/E X X O/E X X O/E X X LARSON, KEVIN 6/30/24 O -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SELLERGREN, JORDAN 6/30/22 X X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X STORK, NOAH 6/30/24 X X X X X O/E X X X X X X THOMANN, DEANNA 6/30/23 X X X X X X X X X X X X VILLANUEVA, NICOLE 6/30/25 O/E X X X X X X X X X X O/E WAGNER, FRANK 6/30/23 X O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X WELU- REYNOLDS, CHRISTINA 6/30/25 O/E X X X X X O/E X O/E X X X LEWIS, ANDREW -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a member