MINUTES OF MOUNT VERNON HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 18, 2025
The Historic Preservation Commission met at the Mount Vernon City Hall on June 18, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. Commission members present were Randy Brown, Mary Evans, Sherry Brayton, Duane Eash, Sue Astley and Guy Booth. Also present was Edith Dawson. Guests present were: Rick Forbes and Susan Pisarik from the Methodist Church, Chad from Chad Electric, Cherelle James from T Mobile, and Lizette and Cheyanne Anderson.
Minutes of the meeting of June 7, 2025 were approved.
The first design review application was considered. T Mobile desires to install a diesel generator in Memorial Park, which is the emergency back-up for the T Mobile system that has substantial equipment on the Mount Vernon Water Tower. Ms. James appeared via Zoom for T Mobile. She indicates they are in negotiations with the City of Mount Vernon to expand a lease which will give them adequate room for the new generator. There is some concern as to the location of the generator in the northeast corner of the park. It will be next to another generator that is owned by the City of Mount Vernon. Some concerns were expressed regarding how often the generator will be tested and what amount of noise pollution it will cause and what kind of pollution will come from the diesel exhaust. Also, there was a question about the rather industrial appearance of the generators in the park. This generator is normal equipment for the T Mobile system and is needed in case of some type of power outage. A motion to grant a certificate of no material effect, subject to the approval of the lease with the City of Mt Vernon was made by Guy Booth, seconded by Sherry Brayton. It was further requested that the motion ask the City about the need for screening the generators and to review of the noise and diesel exhaust pollution that may affect the City park. The motion carried.
The next design review request comes from the Mount Vernon Methodist Church. Sue Pisarik and Rick Forbes were present for the church. The church is proposing to put in two mini split air conditioning units that will be on the east side of the church near the east side entrance to the lower level. The site will be partially hidden from normal traffic on the east side of the church. The mini units will be outside a small window. The window structure will be used to provide the tubing and utility connections for the units. Each unit will be approximately 31×11 inches and about 21 inches high. A motion to approve a certificate of no material effect was made by Duane Eash and seconded by Sherry Brayton. The motion passed.
The next design review comes from Tom Kortemeyer, owner of the building at 107 and 107 ½ First St NW in the downtown historic district. Chad from Chad Electric was present via Zoom to explain the request. There has been some repair and remodeling of some electrical systems in the building. The design review request is asking for a change of location and the installation of two new electric meters. These will be on the rear of the building, and will not be visible, either from the front or from the rear. The new meters are required as the electrical system is being updated. Upon motion by Mary Evans and seconded by Duane Eash, a certificate of no material effect is approved.
The next design review request comes from Cornell College regarding property at 508 10th Ave. SW. This is in the Cornell historic district. The house had a deck and stairway
attached to the building a number of years ago. The wood has deteriorated and the deck was no longer safe for use. The City granted permission to remove the deteriorated deck. The College desires to replace the deck and staircase. It will be slightly smaller in size, but will otherwise be consistent with the deck that has deteriorated. A motion to approve a certificate of no material effect was made by Duane Eash and seconded by Mary Evans. The motion passed. As a follow- up to this discussion from Cornell College, the representative indicated that there are some improvements being planned at the Cornell baseball diamond. There is a fairly large graveled area that is in the strategic walkway of the baseball facility. The college desires to remove the large gravel area and replace it with a solid asphalt-type surface. This will increase the safety of the area. This did not need a motion, as the item was not previously on the agenda. Cornell wanted to give an idea of what is needed and will be asked for in the future.
Lizette and Cheyanne Anderson were present to seek information about grante that may be available to assist in the renovation of the building they recently purchased located at 112 2nd Ave NW. This building is not within the downtown historic district, but is adjacent to it. Mary Evans indicated this was the Ada Sherwood house that was built probably in the 1860’s or 1870’s. It is a historic structure. The building will be used as a four-plex apartment building.
Sue Astley gave a good presentation of various agencies where the new owners could seek grants. Sue also gave them the name of Technical Specialty Services, a company that has great knowledge of renovation work and where there may be types of grants available. Sue also suggested they contact the Iowa Historic Resource Development program. There could be information for available grants, and what the requirements are to be a recipient.
There was some discussion regarding the demolition ordinance. The application may not be needed for demolition of porches or decks. Porches and decks are not specifically identified in the ordinance as requiring a permit for demolition. Further, there is nothing in the demolition ordinance that would require an applicant to be present for the HPC consideration of an application. Sue indicates we need to correct the application form for the demolition permit.
Mary Evans raised an interesting point indicating that we do not have a definition of what
“historically significant” means as it relates to a structure. She inquired as to any literature that may help give guidance to the Commission in correctly defining if a building is historically significant. Some of these factors are set forth in the demolition ordinance, but there is not a specific definition of historical significance. This is important, as it may relate to structures that are not within historic districts. The Commission desires to attempt to define historic significance and to give factors to be considered when an application for a demolition comes before the Commission. Sue is going to check with the State Historic Society to see if they have any literature on defining historically-significant buildings, and also to determine if there is a person who could give a seminar to the Commission and the general public regarding the identification of historical significance. This topic will be pursued further.
Sue adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, Guy Booth, Secretary