HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-2004 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
THURSDAY, MAY 27, 2004
Emma J. Harvat Hall
7:00 p.m.
A. Call to Order
B. Public discussion of anything not on the agenda
C. Items for Consideration (vote required)
1.
Historic Review:
a. 427 Brown Street
b. 1152 Court Street
c. 1011 Sheridan Avenue
2.
Section 106 Review: 410 Iowa Avenue
3.
Minutes: May 13, 2004
4.
Design Review Subcommittee
D. Items for Discussion
1.
CNME for 1027 Court Street
2.
CNME for 529 Brown Street
E. Other
F. Adjourn
Please review these items prior to the meeting.
Application for Historic Review
Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties
located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City
Code Section 14-4C.
Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month.
During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday.
Applications are due by Wednesday the week prior to the meeting.
Applicant Information
(Please check primary contact person)
® Owner..Y en4y peutelbaum
................................................
Phone .....354.3816
.....................................................................
Address 431 Brown Street
.....................................................................
...........................................................................................................
email ....... deutel!n rnindspring.com
❑ Contractor..................................................................................
Address...........................................................................................
Phone..........................................
email............................................
❑ Consultant ..............................
Address......................................
Phone
email
Application Requirements
Attached are the following items:
❑
Site plan
❑
Floor plans
❑
Building elevations
M
Photographs
❑
Product information
❑
Other ..........................
If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or
a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a
site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs.
If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure,
please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently
describe the scope of the project.
Provide a written description of the proposed project on the
second page of this application.
For Staff Use:
Date submitted .......................................
❑ Certificate of No Material Effect
M Certificate of Appropriateness
® Major review
❑ Intermediate review
❑ Minor review
Property Information
Address of ro er 427 Brown Street
Use of property......... Single.family residence ........................
Date constructed (if known) ......1921
............................
Historic Designation
❑ This property is a local historic landmark
OR
® This property is located in the:
® Brown Street Historic District
❑ College Green Historic District
❑ East College Street Historic District
❑ Longfellow Historic District
❑ Summit Street Historic District
❑ Woodlawn Historic District
❑ Clark Street Conservation District
❑ College Hill Conservation District
❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District
❑ Lucas -Governor Street Conservation District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
M Contributing
❑ Noncontributing
❑ Nonhistoric
Project Type
❑ Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window
replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new
decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar)
❑ Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps)
® Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch,
chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar)
❑ Construction of new building
❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not
change its appearance
❑ Other
Project description
Remove porch columns
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Materials to be used
Exterior appearance changes
V
im
Staff Report
Historic Review for 427 Brown Street
District: Brown Street Historic District
Classification: Contributing
May 21, 2004
This is a Colonial Revival house which was constructed in 1921. The applicant originally requested to remove the
porch and reconstruct it using more typical porch columns and a hipped roof. Staff researched the property to
determine if the porch was original to the house and based on the siding, foundation and overall degree to which
the porch appears to be integrated with the house, staff feels that the porch is original. However, a former
resident of Brown Street, Amy Smothers, recollects that the Doric columns were added in the 1980s, which would
not be inconsistent with staff's findings. The applicant has proceeded to repair the porch and after removing the
columns for repair, have decided that they prefer not to reinstall the columns. They are planning to construct a
solid baluster with recessed panels. The baluster is less than 30 inches from the ground, and therefore does not
require a building permit. This application is a request for a COA to allow the permanent removal of the columns.
Applicable Guidelines:
7.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Demolition
Recommended:
Removing additions or alterations that are not historic and that significantly detract from the building's historic character.
Disallowed
Removing any historic architectural feature, such as a porch, chimney, bay window, dormer, brackets or decorative trim, that is
significant to the architectural character and style of the building.
Staff Comments: Staff feels that this application complies with the guidelines and recommends that the columns
be donated to the Salvage Barn.
Recommendation: The application for a certificate of appropriateness for the removal of the Doric porch columns
be approved. This application complies with the Iowa City Guidelines for Historic Preservation and Secretary of
the Interior's Standards.
f
Application for Historic Review For Staff Use:
Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties Date submitted .... �,?...��,%..�..`�(
located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City ❑ Certificate of N4 Material Effect
Code Section 144C. X Certificate of Appropriateness
Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. Major review
During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Intermediate review
Applications are due by Wednesday the week prior to the meeting. ❑ Minor review
Applicant Information
(Please check primary contact
ctt person) q�
51 Owner..I*V.!�. ......ISM0L-1-WiI F.-�....................
3�.J 33-- - o<zj
Phone........uu...........................................................I.....................
Address....:.1. �.Q..........................................
`k...Cf ST�......1tk_.... 5.VI-4?............................
email ....tk bk .{�Q.W. ...1`!.r.-..t.................
❑ Contractor.... .........................
Address.1 S� ...�..'....s'!... ..................
........
.Ga !....�Pt! ! ! .......1 ........ .1 .........................
Phone .... ��� 3`�� —'
...............................................................................
email...............................................................................................
❑ Consultant.................................................................................
Address..........................................................................................
Phone...........................................................................
email...............................................................................................
Application Requirements
Attached are the following items:
Er Site plan
lie Floor plans
❑ Building elevations
Er Photographs
d Product information
❑ Other............................................................................
If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or
a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a
site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs.
If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure,
please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently
describe the scope of the project.
Provide a written description of the proposed project on the
second page of this application.
Property Information
Address of property .... Z W ST
...V .........................................
1 w. .........��.... ...t.......sz2.....ti.........................
Use of property ....... j�-�.I..b � L4r
..... ............................. I ............ .........
Date constructed (if known)......i,A.!1A.........................................
Historic Designation
❑ This property is a local historic landmark
OR
❑ This property is located in the:
❑ Brown Street Historic District
❑ College Green Historic District
❑ East College Street Historic District
XLongfellow Historic District
❑ Summit Street Historic District
❑ Woodlawn Historic District
❑ Clark Street Conservation District
❑ College Hill Conservation District
❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District
❑ Lucas -Governor Street Conservation District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
❑ Contributing
❑ Noncontributing
❑ Nonhistoric
Project Type
Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window
replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new
decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar)
Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps)
❑ Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch,
chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar)
❑ Construction of new building
❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not
change its appearance
❑ Other
Application for Historic Review
1152 Court Street
Project Description.
Alteration of a 1914 foursquare house on Court Street, with the addition of a small deck
and stairs in rear. Alteration to include new HVAC system; some rewiring; exterior and
interior paint; refigured interior walls creating a combination kitchen/dining area and a
study; and new tile floors, pedestal sinks and inset medicine cabinets in ground floor and
upstairs bathrooms. Existing double -hung windows to be reglazed; one new window to
be placed in upstairs bathroom (east side), and three new windows to be placed in
kitchen/dining area (west side, two above sink and one in dining area). Dimensions and
trim of new windows to match existing windows and trim. (Please see attached photos of
existing windows and trim.) Sliding French patio door to be placed at rear (north side) of
house; choice of sliding, rather swinging, French door due to space constraints detailed
below. Door trim to match existing window trim. Small deck with stairs for access to
French patio door to be built on north side of house, replacing existing concrete stairs.
Wood steps to be built to replace concrete steps on front of house.
Sliding French patio doors are disallowed by Historic Preservation guidelines. We are
requesting an exception due to space constraints, with the door design and placement as
mitigating factors. The new dining area is 12'x14'. The French patio door on the north
wall begins 1' from the east wall of the dining area and extends 6' to the west. In the
dining area we will place a round dining table (4' diameter) and chairs (add 3' to
diameter all around, for 10' total diameter). To maintain circulation from the passage
between island and counter on west wall into the dining area, it is desirable to place the
table at the east -west center of the room. Such placement leaves less than 3' clearance
between a 3' swinging door and the perimeter of the space required for table and chairs.
To avoid this conflict, we would like to place a sliding (rather than swinging) French
patio door in the north wall. While an outswing door would eliminate this problem, it
would also necessitate a larger deck than is necessary just for access purposes; we would
prefer to keep this deck as small as possible. The Marvin sliding French patio door
features wider rails and stiles than most new sliding patio doors, and resembles a
swinging French patio door more than most sliding patio doors. (Please see below and
attached product information) Finally, the patio door will be placed on the north (rear)
side of the house. Historic Preservation guidelines allows sliding patio doors on the rear
of houses in conservation districts, but not historic preservation districts. While this
house is in a historic preservation district, the proposed door will be on the rear of the
house and we request an exception in this case.
Materials to be used
All new windows and the new sliding French patio door are to be manufactured by
Marvin Windows. (Please see attached product information.) The windows are Marvin's
Ultimate Double Hung with aluminum cladding on exterior. Exterior cladding color will
be chosen to match historically appropriate color scheme for exterior paint. Marvin sash
are designed to match those in older homes, with wider rails and stiles than in most new
sash. New window dimensions will be comparable to existing windows. The glass sizes
in existing sash in double hung windows on ground floor range from 28-28" to 28-36"
(width x height). The new sash glass sizes will be 16-26" (upstairs bathroom, same
height as adjacent bedroom window), 24-14" (two windows, side by side above sink,
Application for Historic Review 1152 Court Street
same width as existing kitchen windows but extending down to backsplash on kitchen
counter), and 36-28" (dining area). These glass sizes will maintain historically
appropriate ratio of height to width throughout. The Marvin sliding French patio door
will be 6'x6' 11" to match upper height of existing and new windows in kitchen and
through ground floor.
Exterior appearance changes
New painted wood steps will replace concrete steps on the south side of house, facing the
street. On the east side, a new window in the upstairs bathroom will be the same height
as the adjacent bedroom window, but narrower. On the west side, the new windows
above the sink will replace windows of similar design, maintaining the upper line of
existing windows but adding height at the bottom; and the new window in the dining area
will preserve the overall pattern of window height and height -width ratio of the existing
windows. On the north side, the French patio door will be trimmed to match existing
windows (with the exception of the picture window to the east, installed with minimal
trim during 1964 addition). A small deck with stairs for access to French patio door will
be added to north side. (Please see attached site plan, diagrams and detail of deck.)
. �.'+
• rya
I� j / a
�,
d Y
' IM.tM—
.tp�pkJ ��,s
e
ml
f(72-
4, 0
(r,,� C v - e t Pf�,rJ
-- . r D K - y ,r- � f sr R--S
A
FX 6,,-m K PATr o !�> o o k
0
AL
vL
J -z
��
Z)
�}
� �
1:01
cs—
(3
AIL
tal
.6
IN
M
f/ 2004-04-26
19-351-3543 9A iv.__,dow
N +�(L`1-►� w h-t_ L
on P 3
n
13:25
------------
A
All dimemdonu ,zi?.e dcsignationa givrn am
aabjeot to vrsil'iut£O.n on job site and
adjnatment to lit job Qorlditkn;.
TCWD
This is as odginal design and mast wt bo
micased or copied iml��a applicable &e bm
boon paid or job order pla d-
pcslr&ned: 42Ui6
Printed! 4/21/2004
li[71,1.WI2dIQ.Ei t-p 1 ' Drswin$ 0- 1
Ultimate Double Hung Pagel of 2
MAM"home I request a catalog I at your service I log in I my idea file 0 search;'
About Marvin Dream Windows Doors Remodel & Replace Learn Where to Buy
About Marvin Dream Windows Doors Remodel & Replace I Learn I Where to Buy
ULTIMATE DOUBLE HUNG pctip
� k
t
By redefining a traditional favorite, we've changed the way people
look at windows. Introducing the Marvin Ultimate Double Hung -
state-of-the-art window design combined with the style and beauty
of an earlier era. An extruded aluminum exterior Cladding is also
available that is durable and detailed to look like finely milled wood.
The interior is exceptionally beautiful, offering authentic -looking lines
and hardware, plus jambs that feature more wood than you've ever
seen in a double hung - at least in the last fifty years.
Standard Features
• 4 9/16" (116 mm) Jambs
• All wood Brick Mould Casing
9 8 degree sill bevel
r Bare wood interior
i
• Satin Taupe sash lock
• Clear, one-lite insulating glass
• Extruded aluminum clad exterior (clad only)
• Screen
a Vinyl nailing fin (wood only)
Ultimate Double Hui
Photo Gallery
Options
Sizes and Specs.
CAD Drawings
Installation Instru
http://homeowner.marvin. com/products/product. c fm?oid=F215 A.F94-ODD4-4090-AD6B6... 5/ 12/2004
Sliding French Door
Page 1 of 1
MRAKVINIX& home I request a catalog I at your service I log in I my idea file I,search
tl'4�era •.a Doors
About Marvin I Dream I Windows I Doors I Remodel & Replace I Learn I Where to Buy
SLIDING FRENCH DOOR pclip >ope, "sTt,is?
The Marvin line of French doors is complemented by our sliding
version - in fact, it's one of the most popular choices. Every inch a
traditional French door, it features extra -wide stiles and tall bottom
rails. With elegant touches such as our Satin Taupe handle that's
ergonomically designed to cradle in your palm, the Sliding French
Door adds a space -saving accent you can't find anywhere else.
Design your sliding door down to the details with a wide array of
options and flexibility, such as adding an Ultimate Hardware Package
for maximum air and water -infiltration protection and tougher
security. Select from various hardware finishes, exterior casing
profiles and operating configurations (such as the impressive four -
wide). And you can always add transoms or side lites to really
reflect your own personal style.
Standard Features
• 4 9/16" (116 Trim) jambs
1 • All wood Brick Mould Casing (wood units)
• Bare wood interior
0 Multi -point lock with Satin Taupe handles
• Oak liner on Ultrex® sill
• Tempered, one-lite insulating glass
• Vinyl drip cap and nailing fin (clad units)
CONTACT US I ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY I TERMS OF USE
Sliding French Door
Photo Gallery
Options
Sizes and Specs
CAD Drawings
Installation Instru
02004 Marvin V
http://homeowner.marvin.com/products/product. cfm?oid=F4FB 5 3 5D-C8 85 -455 5-8F3A27... 5/ 12/2004
Staff Report
May 21, 2004
Historic Review for 1152 Court Street
District: Longfellow Historic District
Classification: Contributing
This is a two-story Foursquare house constructed in 1914. The current owners are in the process of rehabilitating
the house which includes reconfiguring the kitchen and dining areas. The one-story portion on the back of the
house is a later addition. There is a vertical board separating the addition from the original two-story portion of the
house. Likewise, there is a joint in the foundation and the window in the addition is more consistent with
architectural styles of the 1950s or later.
The applicants are requesting approval of a COA for three items:
1) Replacement of a window and door on the north side of the addition with a sliding French patio door;
2) Construction of a wood stoop and stairs outside the proposed new door; and
3) Replacement of three windows with Marvin metal clad windows.
Attached is a more detailed description from the applicant regarding their proposal.
Applicable Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations
4.7 Windows
Recommended
Historic windows
• Preserving the historic windows by repairing sashes and frames.
• Retaining historic window frames and replacing badly deteriorated sashes with new sashes that match the historic ones.
Replacement windows
• Replacing badly deteriorated windows with new ones that match the type, size, sash width, trim, use of divided -lights, and overall
appearance of the historic windows.
• Using new wood windows and sashes, if necessary, to replace historic wood windows and sashes. The use of metal -clad, solid -
wood windows is acceptable. Replacement windows and trim must accept paint. Divided -lights may be created with muntin-bars
that are adhered to both sides of the glass, but not with snap -in muntin bars.
4.8 Doors
Recommended
New doors
• Adding new door openings that are trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building.
Disallowed
• Installing sliding patio doors if they were not original to the building or consistent with the architectural style.
5.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Additions
5.2 Decks & Ramos
Recommended
Decks
• Locating a new deck on the back of a primary building, opposite the street -facing facade and set in from the side walls at least 8
inches.
• Designing decks so that the size, scale and location do not detract from the character of the district's rear yards, if significant to
the district.
• Attaching decks to the building in a manner that will not damage a historic exterior wall or, other historic materials, or cause wood
siding to deteriorate.
• Following the guidelines in section 4.10 Balustrades and Handrails.
Staff Comments:
When inspecting this property, staff noted that the contractor had already cut an opening in the wall for the patio
doors and removed the windows that the applicant is proposing to replace. The Commission should not allow this
premature work to influence the review of this application and your decision. If the Commission finds that the
proposed alterations do not comply, the applicant will be responsible for replacing any removed material to its
original configuration.
1) Patio door: The guidelines specifically disallow the installation of sliding patio doors. The intent of this
guideline is to disallow a door that would never have been original to historic houses in Iowa City. However,
the portion of the house where the door would be located appears to be an addition. The existing north
window opening in the addition has a fixed picture window flanked by two narrow double -hung windows. This
window configuration is more typical of post-war architectural styles, as are sliding patio doors. Under the
Iowa City Guidelines for Additions, a new addition may have a sliding patio door provided it is not highly
visible from the street. Therefore, if the applicant were proposing to construct this addition today, it would be
allowed.
Given that the sliding door will be installed in a later addition and the quality and design of the proposed
sliding door, staff feels that the proposed sliding doors would not be contrary to the intent of the guidelines or
the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. However, because muntin bars are not used in any of
the historic windows, staff recommends that they are not used in the sliding doors either.
2) Wood stoop and stair: As illustrated in the attached drawing, staff feels that the proposed new wood stoop
and stairs comply with the guidelines.
3) Windows: The applicant has indicated that they are repairing as many of the historic windows as possible. It
is proposed that three of the windows be replaced with Marvin windows, which comply with the guidelines.
Recommendation: The application for a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of a sliding glass door,
construction of a new rear stoop and stairs, and replacement of three windows be approved as proposed provided
muntin bars are not used in the sliding glass doors. This application complies with the Iowa City Guidelines for
Historic Preservation and Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
Application for Historic Review
Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties
located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City
Code Section 14-4C.
Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month.
During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday.
Applications are due by Wednesday the week prior to the meeting.
Applicant Information
(Please check primary contact person)
Z( Owner..%Y1.iX. AA.!A......... .4..1N. L^- .............. I................
Phone.... K.... ...................................................
Address ... t'.� II........ .�,Y..1e.poJ n......[Y.f!"`.................
w......... G. �,�....� ....�.AII.... ,5 .�(.. .................
email .....Ara..la..r.......�P ..! A..r....� a..+..f. v..�.........
❑ Contractor..................................................................................
Address...........................................................................................
Phone
email
❑ Consultant ..............
Address ......................
.................................................
Phone.....................................
email
Application Requirements
Attached are the following items:
❑ Site plan
❑ Floor plans
❑ Building elevations
Photographs
❑ Product information
❑ Other..............................................................................
If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or
a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a
site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs.
If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure,
please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently
describe the scope of the project.
Provide a written description of the proposed project on the
second page of this application.
For Staff Use:
Date submitted.......��a� ...................
❑ Certificate of No Material Effect
�Vl Certificate of Appropriateness
'O Major review
❑ Intermediate review
❑ Minor review
Property Information
Address of property.la.(.l...... s)��Qgr.i.FT.4u`......
1t.{!-!�
aw.C�........r.i.`(...1......./......-$.:.rf%..a .......................
Use of property........cF.�.t2�^...(.?� ................................................
Date constructed (if known)
Historic Designation
❑ This property is a local historic landmark
OR
❑ This property is located in the:
❑ Brown Street Historic District
❑ College Green Historic District
❑ East College Street Historic District
❑ Longfellow Historic District
Summit Street Historic District
❑ Woodlawn Historic District
❑ Clark Street Conservation District
❑ College Hill Conservation District
❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District
❑ Lucas -Governor Street Conservation District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
* Contributing
❑ Noncontributing
❑ Nonhistoric
Project Type
a-�Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window
replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new
decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar)
❑ Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps)
❑ Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch,
chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar)
❑ Construction of new building
❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not
change its appearance
❑ Other
Project description
T h.W.:vt.................... i..n.EL
JQ.�.........L.wk...s. ..q..l.l. f. .�, ......... . �^. <../ .... a.K 1 ...... �.4 ��`..K .....
..........a.K4........G. .f.. ..`.. �a.......... ...4.!^.4.v�L.....w..........,NS.kQzA-os........g..:.fr�..!.�.........w..LZ.S..........................
...........':e "..` o. u- ..J..........a.. 0-41. f.........Lp.......... ^............. ..............7... ,.......... , s,
........... ....................
.......... .. $...a.-ti.A...... I... ......... 5.N.. 4 /.`. �.R.�?.........?.� ........W�1.`lfer�Droe.E.' 3...... ^ . ........................
............ ............ .:... s.
...........�ry..........Q�.A.,���b....�41"'...................................
?f..T.......
�^ c ►!n .4...4.h..r...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
Materials to be used
T... ....... ..f N....,!^....... a ......... d oP..!` °:...... a.!^........w.a.:.2.! v........ w%. L1....... .......... �� J.....`l..................
..
�.......Gr........................ ..{..✓.�......... ,.. .....w..l..�..k........ .. .........'t.i.. .ra.u.�.......G..�.+k .!r1.r .... .Q.R.F..:.. ..
ev
b.�............m:�. try......... a.44.r.k....... .........ip!........ vr.............. k:.u..s...e..-...:R.................................
Exterior appearance changes
Staff Report
May 21, 2004
Historic Review for 1011 Sheridan Avenue
District: Summit Street Historic District
Classification: Contributing
This application is to side an existing garage with fiber cement board and add trim that would match the house.
The garage originally was covered with asbestos siding with wide shiplap boards for sheathing. The garage was
likely constructed sometime in the late 1940s when asbestos siding was at its peak usage. All the asbestos
siding has been removed as well as the window sashes, garage doors and door trim. Because the shiplap boards
are relatively rough cut and have numerous nail holes, the applicant believes these boards were likely salvaged
from a barn and reused on this garage for sheathing. The applicant is requesting approval of a COA to allow the
shiplap to be covered with fiber cement clapboard siding with a 4 inch exposure. The window and door trim will
be 1 x4 cedar.
Applicable Guidelines:
4.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations
4.5 Siding
Recommended
Wood substitutes
Substituting a material in place of wood siding 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. In many
applications, fiber cement board is an approved wood substitute.
6.0 Iowa City Guidelines for New Construction
6.2 New Outbuildings
Recommended
Design
• Constructing new outbuildings that reflect the style of the primary structure.
Staff Comments:
This property is a contributing property in the Summit Street Historic District. This classification is based on the
historic value and integrity of the primary structure, which is a Queen Ann house. At the time the Summit Street
Historic District was nominated to the NRHP, outbuildings were not classified in the nomination documents. Due
to the lack of historic integrity of the garage, staff feels that it should be considered a noncontributing structure.
However, the Handbook does not contain specific guidelines for a noncontributing outbuildings in a historic
district. For the construction of new outbuildings, it does state that they should reflect the style of the primary
structure. If this were an entirely new structure, this would require a steeper roof pitch and ornamentation similar
to the house. Staff feels, that adding siding and trim to the shell of this existing garage so that it is more similar to
the house is a reasonable compromise and is not contrary to any of the historic preservation guidelines.
Recommendation: The application for a certificate of appropriateness to reside an existing noncontributing garage
using fiber cement board lap siding and wood trim to match the house be approved as proposed provided the
garage door complies with the historic preservation guidelines. This application complies with the Iowa City
Guidelines for Historic Preservation and Secretary of the Interior's Standards.
Staff Comments
Section 106 Review for 410 Iowa Avenue
Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
May 21, 2004
Please find attached information regarding the Section 106 process. The Historic Preservation Commission is
required to comment regarding the effect the proposed undertaking will have on the historic resource. Figure 1 on
page 16 of the attached information outlines the basic steps of Section 106 review. The criteria of effect and
adverse effect is provided in Figure 2, page 25.
Project Summary: United Action for Youth, 410 Iowa Avenue, Iowa City, IA
When UAY opens its new Youth Center at 355 Iowa Avenue it will move the Teen Parent
Program and Family Counseling offices that are currently at 422 Iowa Avenue into the
present Youth Center location at 410 Iowa Avenue. This proposal is to help UAY redesign
the entrance to the property at 410 Iowa to be fully accessible and redesign space to
accommodate the needs of the Teen Parents, infants and families. Included in the
redesign will be efforts to modify the recording studio to be an accessible child-care area;
convert the equipment booth to a fully accessible health office; and add an accessible
children's bathroom. In this redesign, an additional office for the Teen Parent staff will be
added where the current data office has been, and a reception office built immediately
inside the re -designed entrance. The overall project also includes repairs to the front of
the building, improved winterization of the windows and an effort to highlight the fact that
the house at 410 Iowa is identical to the birth home of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. located in
Atlanta.
The primary feature of the redesign is to build a new entrance to the facility that includes
an automated door and direct access into the main floor and reception area of the building.
A children's bathroom and child-care office will be added by modifying what is now a
recording studio for youth.
July 1, 2004 Beginning of City Fiscal Year and Project Start Date
October —December Move Youth Center operation
November Complete redesign and request bids
January -April 2005 Reconstruct entrance
May 2005 Window replacement, exterior repainted
June 2005 Move Teen parent program/counseling services
UAY continues to serve large numbers of low moderate income households in Iowa City,
which is a basis for its on -going CDBG support for services at the Youth Center. The new
Youth Center at 355 Iowa Avenue provides a great environment in which both counseling
and youth development programs are combined and the redesign of the existing Youth
Center will provide an enhanced environment for the Teen Parent Program and other
counseling services at UAY. This project will allow UAY to further enhance this as a
welcoming and accessible environment with expanded child care and health programs,
consistent with the objectives outlined in CITY STEPS, (pp 98-100).
0
'AOIKAw
0 Jot
0*
Ok 41
I"
R:f'F.MlT:' 0 MCI
1.1�11
IMIR
mo."Malpin"w,
wo"441AN, I
R&MMMumaw'"',
114'riad",
iA14x ti ii
tZffilk
mono
n
a a r
V .I
� I y
N. P
am r `+d4r.; d II
.a
r i
c.
AK
�
fl In
r. IT
u.i..
I HA4NN1
� fJFrcl
I
�Ip�'IN��Xh
i XdH NMII M. n '
•.'I�
'
I N.XnX�%ru.�
_
ryl 'ILL'4_'4
Y
li
r w I' i" �f
.....,
I
II'1uII ill1� �
I�I�M1i
I`II 1 I4
'
I LF 15p 1 nA
I II .N INkn' ¢
I`
IGN��UE
u
+
44Wi4IXn
tll
Ti
�nXd•IIlO
J Yk6'
CI I'
Cfllfmill"
AWO
INMtlMu'
Nn0.Rp..,
I40
�. .u.w
XUMOM
IV k➢OM
i
IX hWIX
I XIXP�X
�
L
'.�
ns
iWUNIXIpN:piGY
IW RXNYXd�
� _. r ..
�'�
I
i IW
ICJ �'
C
LNw
i✓;i .IF.
� 1N�
I r ,I tlwl
u.I
Il l.hlil
ntq .
M feP' M
pI
'1
l
X
4
to
4
Section W% Step -by -Step I*
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to
consider the effects of their actions on
historic properties and seek comments from an
independent reviewing agency, the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation. The purpose
of Section 106 is to avoid unnecessary harm to
historic properties from Federal actions. Now
commonly known as the "Section 106 process," the
procedure for meeting Section 106 requirements
is defined in regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation, "Protection
of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800).
These revised regulations, which became
effective October 1, 1986, were published in the
Federal Register on September 2, 1986, at 51 FR
31115. This booklet provides a discussion of
the Section 106 review process and briefly
explains each of its steps.
SOME BACKGROUND ON SECTION 106 0
Origins of Section 106 The concerns that resulted in Section 106 began
to develop during the 1950's and 1960's, when
Federal law applied to a limited number of
nationally significant historic properties.
During those decades, hundreds of Federal
projects -- such 'as highways, dams, and urban
renewal -- were completed with little regard for
historic resources valued by the communities in
which they were located. As a result, those
Federal projects destroyed or damaged thousands
of historic properties, much to the dismay of
local citizens.
Congress observed this phenomenon across the
country and recognized that new legislation was
needed to ensure that Federal agencies
considered historic properties in their
planning.
National Historic The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Preservation Act (NHPA) was passed to address these concerns and
has since been amended and strengthened several
times. The cornerstone of Federal preservation
law, NHPA established today's national historic
preservation program, which includes elements
for identification, assistance, and protection.
5
• Identification is coordinated by the State
Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO's), who are
appointed by each governor. SHPO's develop
comprehensive preservation plans for their
States, direct their States' surveys and
inventories of historic properties, and nominate
properties to the National Register of Historic
Places, which is maintained by the Department of
the Interior. Identification is also carried
out by Federal agencies, local communities,
certified local government historic preservation
programs, and private industry as part of
project and program planning.
Assistance under NHPA is the responsibility of
the Department of the Interior, which has
authority to make grants-in-aid and which offers
published technical guidance on many
preservation issues. Other Federal assistance
for historic preservation is available through
tax incentives for rehabilitation and the use of
various Federal grant programs to achieve
preservation objectives.
Protection is generally integrated into the
planning process for Federal actions that may
affect historic properties. Sections 110 and
106 of NHPA assign responsibilities to all
Federal agencies.
What Section 110 Under Section 110, all Federal agencies must
of NHPA requires carry out their programs in accordance with, and
of Federal agencies in furtherance of, national historic
preservation policy; designate historic
preservation officers to coordinate the
agencies' activities under the act; identify and
preserve historic properties under their
ownership or control; and make efforts to
minimize harm to National Historic Landmarks.
What Section 106 Section 106 requires each agency to take into
of NHPA requires account the effects of its actions on historic
of Federal agencies properties. Furthermore, an agency must afford
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an independent Federal agency created by NHPA an opportunity to comment on any of the agency's
undertakings that could affect historic
properties.
The language of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act as amended (16 U.S.C.
if 470f) follows:
6
The head of any Federal agency having it
direct or indirect jurisdiction over a
proposed Federal or federally assisted
undertaking in any State and the head of
any Federal department or independent
agency having authority to license any
undertaking shall, prior to the approval of
the expenditure of any Federal funds on the
undertaking or prior to the issuance of any
license, as the case may be, take into
account the effect of the undertaking on
any district, site, building, structure, or
object that is included in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register. The
head of any such Federal agency shall
afford the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation established under Title II of
this Act a reasonable opportunity to
comment with regard to such undertaking.
Section 106 applies to all properties already
listed in the National Register, to properties
formally determined eligible for listing, and to
properties not formally determined eligible but
that meet specified eligibility criteria. This
means that properties that have not yet been
listed, and even properties that have not yet W,
been discovered, can be eligible for
consideration under Section 106.
Evolution of the While Section 106 of NHPA tells agencies they
Section 106 must take the effects of their undertakings into
commenting process account and afford the Council an opportunity to
comment, it does not tell them how. Acting
under the authority of Section 211 of NHPA, the
Council has developed a process for carrying out
Section 106 responsibilities. This is set forth
in regulations, "Protection of Historic
Properties," at 36 CFR Part 800.
The first Section 106 procedures were issued in
1968. They evolved over the years and were
recast as regulations in 1979. Recently revised
and reissued, the current regulations took
effect on October 1, 1986. An annotated version
of these regulations is available from the
Council.
Basic Section 106 The Section 106 review process includes steps
review steps for identifying and evaluating historic
properties, assessing the effects of the
agency's proposed action on the historic
properties, and, if there is a harmful (adverse)
7
aeffect, consultation about ways to avoid,
reduce, or mitigate that harm.
Consultation always involves the agency and the
SHPO (unless the SHPO declines to participate),
and often includes the'Council and other
interested persons. Typically, such
consultation results in a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA), which sets out specific steps
for avoiding or reducing harm to historic
properties. When an MOA has been accepted by
the Council, it serves as the Council's comment.
In those cases in which the consuLting parties
cannot reach agreement, consultation may be
terminated and the agency may request Council
comments directly.
In the early years of Section 106 review, the
steps of identification, assessment of effect,
and mitigation were almost universally applied
on a project -by -project basis, and effects were
considered for a particular location or site.
Under current regulations, agencies may obtain
Council comment on a programmatic basis,
eliminating the need for case -by -case Council
• involvement. This approach saves time and money
for both the agency and the Council and tends to
institutionalize preservation concerns in agency
program operation. As a result, the
programmatic approach in many instances
accomplishes historic preservation objectives
even more effectively than case -by -case review.
Principles of Whether an agency seeks Council comment on a
Section 106 review case -by -case or programmatic basis, the
principles involved are the same. Inherent in
the philosophy underlying Section 106 is the
belief that a built environment in which old and
new blend harmoniously is the best in which to
live and work. At the same time, this
philosophy recognizes that pure preservation of
every historic property is unrealistic and not
in the public interest.
Hence, the Section 106 process does not require
preservation in every case. Nor does it give
the Council veto power over an agency's actions.
What it does require is full consideration of
preservation values by Federal agencies.
Section 106 "solutions" resulting from the
process can range from the purest preservation
to unmitigated loss of a property. However,
Section 106 does ensure that an agency's
decision about how to treat historic properties
0
results from meaningful consideration of
historic values and of options available to
protect the properties. In short, the Section
106 review process ensures that an agency weighs
preservation into the balance with the projected
benefit of the completed undertaking, costs, and
other factors.
Another Section 106 principle has to do with
timing. It is important that consideration of
historic properties occur in the early stages of
project planning so that preservation concerns
can receive thorough consideration as a project
is planned. Early preservation review also
permits modifications to a project while they
are relatively easy to accomplish and reduces
the potential for conflict and delay.
Properties subject Because Section 106 extends not only to National
to Section 106 Register -listed properties but to eligible
unlisted (and especially in the case of
archeology, often even undiscovered) properties
as well, it is essential to understand what
qualifies a property for National Register
listing.
Department of the Interior regulations describe
the National Register criteria for listing this
way [36 CFR Section 60.4]:
The quality of significance in American
history, architecture,.archeology,
engineering, and culture is present in
districts, sites, buildings, structures,
and objects that possess integrity of
location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association, and
that (a) are associated with events that
have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history; or (b) that
are associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past; or (c) that embody
the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that
possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or (d) that have yielded or
may be likely to yield information
important in history or prehistory.
9
Ll
SECTION 106 applies to any property listed in, or eligible for, the
National Register of Historic Places, the official list of the Nation's
cultural resources worthy of preservation. Buildings, structures,
objects, sites, and districts are included in the National Register for
their importance in American history, architecture, archeology, culture,
or engineering.
Properties included on the National Register range from large-scale,
monumentally proportioned buildings such as the Baltimore Pennsylvania
Station in Baltimore, Maryland, to smaller scale, regionally distinctive
buildings such as the Toyo Theater, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Photo credits: Toyo Theatre courtesy of Hawaii State Historic Preservation Office/Rick Regan;
Baltimore Pennsylvania Station courtesy of Federal Railway Administration/sC'Steve Rosenthal..
10
Owned and administered by the U.S. Coast
Guard, the Heceta Head Lighthouse is one of nine
historic lighthouses remaining on the Oregon
coast. The Eureka Lily Headframe is the only
4-post headframe of its type listed in the Tinti,c
Mining District Multiple Resource Area near
Eureka, Utah. The Poplar Grove Tide Mill, in
operation until 1912, is the only known tide mill
still standing in Virginia. This archeological
site on the Old Hampton waterfront in Virginia
was excavated in connection with an Urban
Development Action Grant project that was
reviewed under Section 106.
11
11
E
An industrial structure associated with the oil industry, the
Sinclair Loading Rack is located along an Oklahoma railroad, where it could
fill large tank storage cars easily and quickly. The Pleasant Hill Historic
District in Macon, Georgia is a significant historic Black neighborhood.
Pluto credits: Heceta Head Lighthouse courtesy of Oregon State Historic Preservation Office;
Eureka Lily Headfram=_ courtesy of Utah State Historical Society/Paul Mogensen; Poplar Grove
Tide Mill courtesy of Virginia Division of Historic LaxImrks; Old Hampton Waterfront
archeology site courtesy of MAAR Associates; Sinclair Loading Rack courtesy of Oklahoma
Historical Society/Mark Miller; Pleasant Hill Historic District courtesy of Georgia
Department of Natural Resources/James R. Lockhart.
12
The National Register criteria are broadly
drawn, in response to clear Congressional
direction that locally valued places be included.
The criteria require that a property retain
integrity. In addition, it must be associated
with historic lives or events; historically,
architecturally, or artistically distinctive; or
valuable as a source of information.
Properties are nominated to the National
Register by SHPO's, through certified local
government historic preservation programs, and
by Federal agencies (pursuant to Section 110 of
NHPA). There are more than 45,000 listings,
many of which are districts, and more are being
nominated daily.
Federal actions The word "undertaking" was used deliberately in
subject to NHPA and in Council regulations to connote a
Section 106 broad range of Federal actions. The statutory
language refers specifically to undertakings
over which Federal agencies hav either "direct"
or "indirect" jurisdiction. Three kinds of
undertakings are alluded to: Federal
undertakings (actions undertaken directly by a
Federal agency); federally assisted undertakings
(for example, activities receiving direct
Federal financial assistance or such indirect
assistance as loan guarantees and mortgage
insurance); and federally licensed undertakings
(undertakings requiring permits or other
entitlements from Federal agencies).
In its regulations, the Council has defined the
term "undertaking" to include Federal actions
that can result in changes in the character or
use of historic properties, if such properties
are located in the area to be affected by an
action. [Section 800.2(o)] The intent of this
defink,,tion is to make it clear that actions
which by their nature have no potential to
affect historic properties (for example,
providing hot lunches to school children or
installing new radios in police cars) need not
be subjected to Section 106 review, even though
they are federally supported.
Agencies subject The agency responsible for meeting Section 106
to Section 106 requirements can be any component of the Federal
jovernment directly or indirectly responsible
for an undertaking. Most departments have
delegated the responsibility for Section 106
compliance to their constituent bureaus and
offices, and in many instances these units in
13
turn look to their field offices to ensure
compliance.
For certain programs of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, notably Community
Development Block Grants (CDBG), Urban
Development Action Grants (UDAG), the Rental
Rehabilitation Program, and the Housing
Development Grant Program (HoDAG), compliance
responsibility has been delegated by statute to
the local governments as recipients of the
grants.
Effect of Council As Federal regulations, the procedures set forth
regulations in 36 CFR Part 800 are binding on all agencies,
including the Council. While the regulations
specifically state at Section 800.3(b) that the
procedures may be implemented in a flexible
manner by agencies, agencies as well as the
Council must meet the purposes of Section 106 of
NHPA. Failure to do so may lead to litigation.
Counterpart regulations Agencies may work with the Council's
professional staff to develop counterpart
regulations designed to meet the objectives of
Section 106 while reflecting particular agency
needs. When concurred in by the Council,
counterpart regulations substitute for the
Council's regulations. [Section 800.15]
The relationship of Council regulations encourage maximum
Section 106 to NEPA coordination with the environmental review
and other authorities process required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). It is typical for agencies
to design the draft environmental impact
statement or draft environmental assessment so
that it can also serve as part of the required
documentation during Section 106 consultation.
Normally an agency describes the outcome of the
Section 106 review process in its final
environmental impact statement or final
environmental assessment. Undertakings that do
not require an environmental impact statement or
environmental assessment under NEPA still are
subject to Section 106 if they have the
potential to affect historic properties.
The Council suggests coordination between
Section 106 and other statutes, as well.
Council regulations encourage agencies to design
determinations and agreements so that they also
meet requirements of such other authorities as
the Archeological and Historic Preservation Act,
the Archeological Resources Protection Act,
14
Section 110 of NHPA, and Section 4(f) of the 0111
Department of Transportation Act. [Section
800.141
Coordination with
Special social and cultural values related to
consideration of
historic properties are often important to
social and cultural
Native American groups and local communities.
values
Also, historic properties sometimes receive
special consideration under the American Indian
Religious Freedom Act. The regulations
encourage agencies to consider intangible social
and cultural values related to historic
properties. The regulations provide for
traditional cultural leaders and other Native
Americans to be brought into the consultation
process when historic properties of importance
to them may be affected. [Sections
800.1(c)(2)(iii), 800.4(a)(1)(iii), 800.5(a),
and 800.5(e)(1)(ii); see also Sections 800.7,
800.11, and 800.13]
Coordination with
Section 106 review is a Federal requirement
State and local reviews
separate and apart from any environmental or
planning reviews required under State and local
laws and ordinances. Coordination of Section
106 review with State and local review is
recommended, however, to avoid redundant efforts.
Under some circumstances, Section 106 review and
review under State and local laws may be
explicitly combined. Section 800.7 of the
regulations permits SHPO's to establish review
processes which, when approved by the Council,
can stand in place of Section 106 review. Such
processes could be identical with processes
established to carry out the requirements of a
State historic preservation or environmental
statute. Section 800.1(c)(2)(i) of the
regulations permits a local government whose
historic preservation program has been certified
pursuant to Section 101(c)(1) of NHPA to assume
the duties of the SHPO when the local
government, the SHPO, and the Council so agree.
A local government assuming such duties could
carry them out in coordination with functions
required by a local ordinance.
HOW SECTION 106 REVIEW WORKS
Consideration of the effects of Federal
undertakings on historic properties under
Section 106 consists of five basic steps:
identification and evaluation of the historic
properties; assessment of the undertaking's
15
effects; consultation to avoid, reduce, or
minimize adverse effects; Council comment; and
the final agency decision about whether and how
to proceed.
The remainder of this booklet briefly explains
each step of the Section 106 review process.
Bracketed references throughout refer the reader
to the Council's current regulations.
16
ir
,9
Q
J
o
m
m
y^aa� S
e 0 m
�
S9
VZiN O
=
EZEK
4
ryTC
! u
U a�N
C O >
�
m
fmmi
o.�..u�d
aCeC
ee
6
U O m S
<S
ep
4 q
N
m 4
KyV _ _ _
myf
e
_
— 1
u
a
e
c a
—
N
A
W
LL
W U C
m u 4
u
W w
gN
o d m
o m
tl
bE
a
4.
y
w
O
9 d
m u V
O
me
A
0
P
Ga
V w a
C
o o u o
V! V 9 A V
0 0 o a
V 9 C O
�O
s
C)
q
C
V
p
6 V
O
C 2
N O—
C T N A
.t
E-4
WYi emu
c W ..
W
W
EO
& a
b T
^�
W
T
WW
F
u
u06C
Y O
H
d
r
N
W W 6
..
y OE V
�„1
W
b
HILL & Y4 u
O
00a
$ du po
(q
YL
Y .Ni M g U M
�'
W 0 L
b�� e u44 0 u
maw
Q
� Muep
.omi$N e
m b
Tun
ui�.�i
,�
YI
�/�
U �
uVy6d
W O �
ewiC aY
6 JpI n
yV
(yp
<.Oi~
ZL 0.M
fVp Q q pV
SEN+dl 0.lC A'
04
17
STEP 1: IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE HISTORIC
PROPERTIES
Agency responsibility Carrying out the tasks involved in the
for identification identification of historic properties --
properties included in or eligible for inclusion
in the National Register -- is the
responsibility of the agency official with
direct or indirect jurisdiction over the
undertaking. [Section 800.4] When the
undertaking involves providing assistance or
issuing a license, the agency may rely on the
applicant to assist in the identification of
historic properties, but the final
responsibility for identification is the
agency's. [Section 800.1(c)(i)] Council
regulations state that efforts to identify
historic properties should follow the Secretary
of the Interior's "Standards and Guidelines for
Archeology and Historic Preservation." [Section
800.4(b)] The following discussion clarifies
how the agency can receive help in completing
its identification responsibilities.
Determining that an Before beginning identification work, the agency
action constitutes first establishes that its proposed action
an undertaking constitutes an "undertaking." [Section
800.4(a)(1)] That is, the agency determines
whether the proposed action could result in
changes in the character or use of any historic
properties, in the event any such properties are
located in the area of potential effects.
[Section 800.2(o)]
It is important to note that determining whether
a given Federal action constitutes an
"undertaking" does not require that an agency
know from the outset that specific historic
properties will be subject to change as a result
of the action. Considering whether an action
could affect historic properties is a
prospective activity in which the agency
considers whether the action is of a sort that
could affect historic properties, if any are
there to be affected.
For example, a program designed to provide
medical counseling to Federal workers would not
normally be viewed as having the potential to
affect historic properties, and so would not be
an undertaking for purposes of Section 106.
But, if the program could result in the
modification of buildings to provide space in
which to carry out such counseling, the program
18
would be an undertaking, because if any of the
buildings were historic, the program would ha. -
the potential to affect them.
Determining the area The agency must also determine the "area of
of potential effects potential effects," which is defined in Council
regulations as "the geographic area or areas
within which an undertaking may cause changes in
the character or use of historic properties, if
any such properties exist." [Section 800.2(c)]
It is not necessary to know that the area in
question contains historic properties, or even
to suspect that such properties exist, in order
to recognize the area as the area of potential
effect.
For example, the area in which a federally
assisted construction project will disturb land
or result in the demolition or alteration of
buildings is always part of the area of
potential effect, because if any historic
properties exist there, they will surely
experience change as a result of the project.
The area of potential effects need not be a
contiguous area; it can include multiple
alternative project sites or multiple areas in
which possible changes are anticipated. For
example, the area of potential effects of a
highway construction project might include
alternative construction corridors; locations
from which borrow material might be obtained;
areas where access might be provided to
archeological sites, resulting in their
disturbance by artifact seekers; areas where
visual or audible changes could occur; and areas
where the project could result in modified
traffic patterns that might affect the
livability or commercial viability of historic
districts.
Assessing After determining that its action constitutes an
information needs undertaking and establishing the area of
potential effects, the agency begins the first
task involved in identification, which is
assessing what information it needs in order to
identify historic properties. [Section 800.4(a)]
This involves review of all available
information that can help in determining whether
there might be historic properties in the area
of potential effects.
"-
Using the published One readily available source of information on
National Register known historic properties is the published
19
® National Register of Historic Places. Single
copies are available from: National Register,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
20240. The most recent edition was published on
February 6, 1979; annual updates of new National
Register listings are published in the Federal
Register each February or March. In addition,
listings of properties already determined by the
Secretary of the Interior to be eligible for the
National Register are published periodically in
the Federal Register. Information on National
Register listings may also be obtained from the
SHPO.
Although the published National Register is an
important source of information on what is
already known about the historic resources of an
area, it cannot be assumed to be comprehensive.
Historic properties are constantly being
discovered and added to the National Register;
many others remain to be discovered. Thus, the
fact that an area of potential effect contains
no properties presently included in or
determined eligible for inclusion in the
National Register does not mean that it contains
no historic properties subject to review under
Section 106..
Other sources of Therefore, in addition to reviewing information
information and advice on properties already recorded in the National
Register, the agency must consult other sources.
The SHPO, a primary source for information, can
advise the agency on previous identification
studies pertinent to the area, previously
recorded historic properties not listed in the
National Register, and the likelihood that
undiscovered or unrecorded properties exist in
the area. The SHPO can provide information on
properties being nominated and on State
registers or State inventories. Other sources
of information include the State Archeologist
(where such an official exists), local academic
institutions and museums, historical and
archeological societies, local governments,
Indian tribes, and published or unpublished
background studies pertinent to the area.
(Section 800.4(a)(1)(i)]
The regulations require that the agency also
seek information from local governments, Indian
tribes, public and private organizations, and
others who may have knowledge of historic
properties in the area or who may be concerned
about such properties. This serves two
20
purposes: it aids the agency in determining what
it needs to do to identify historic properties,
and it permits interested persons to express
their interests in historic properties early in
the agency's planning process so they can be
considered in a timely manner. The agency is
encouraged to use its existing planning
processes to seek such information; the
regulations do not require that special new
processes be established to obtain it. [Section
800.4(a)(1)(iii)] Agencies are encouraged,
however, to examine their administrative
processes to ensure that they provide adequately
for this and other forms of public
participation, and to consult with the Council
to develop improved processes - if impediments to
public participation are found to exist.
[Section 800.1(b)]
The agency must also request the SHPO's views
about whether further actions are needed to
identify historic properties -- for example,
field surveys or additional background research.
[Section 800.4(a)(1)(ii)] Based on its review
of available information and the advice of the
SHPO, the agency then decides whether any
further information gathering will be necessary fll
to identify historic properties. Typical
further actions include field surveys and the
use of predictive models, which are discussed
below. [Section 800.4(a)(2)]
Locating historic Based on its assessment of existing information
properties and further needs, the agency then moves on to
the second task, which is to make a reasonable
and good faith effort to actually locate
historic properties that may be affected by the
undertaking and to gather enough information to
evaluate their eligibility for inclusion in the
National Register. This effort is carried out
in consultation with the SHPO and should be
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's
"Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and
Historic Preservation." The specific standards
and guidelines within that document that are
applicable to this stage of Section 106 review
are the Secretary's "Standards and Guidelines
for Preservation Planning," published at 48 FR
44716-44720, September 29, 1983, and the
Secretary's "Standards and Guidelines for
Identification," published at 48 FR 44720-44723,
September 29, 1983. This effort should also be
consistent with the agency's program for
carrying out the identification requirements set
21
forth in Section 110(a)(2) of NHPA, for which
guidelines are being developed by the Secretary
of the Interior. [Section 800.4(b)]
Additional useful guidance about surveys can be
found in two National Park Service publications:
"Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for
Preservation Planning" and "The Archeological
Survey: Methods and Uses." "Guidelines for
Local Surveys" is available at no charge by
requesting National Register Bulletin #24 from
the U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Park Service, National Register of Historic
Places, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC
20013-7127. "The Archeological Survey" is
available from the National Technical
Information Service by sending $16.95 plus $3.00
for shipping and handling to NTIS, 5285 Fort
Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; indicate
identification #PB284061 on the order.
Surveys and If a survey is needed, the SHPO will probably be
predictive models able to provide State or regional guidelines for
surveying and forms for recording survey methods
and properties discovered. The SHPO may also be
able to help identify individuals, institutions,
and firms that can do survey work under contract.
Some SHPO's conduct survey work themselves on
behalf of Federal agencies, an activity
authorized by Section 110(g) of NHPA. When
large areas of potential effects are involved,
an agency may find it useful to prepare a
predictive model -- that is, a set of
predictions about where historic properties of
different kinds are likely to occur, based on
background data -- and then to orient its survey
work to test this model.
Reports of completed surveys, as well as of any
other original identification research, should
always be filed with the SHPO -- even if no
historic properties were found -- so that the
results can be incorporated into the SHPO's
statewide inventory of historic properties.
Although this is not a requirement of the
regulations, it helps the SHPO build up a body
of information and will help prevent redundant
future studies of the same area.
Identifying classes In some cases, agencies may find it useful to
of historic properties identify and consider "classes" of historic
to properties. For example, if an undertaking will
have difficult -to -define effects on a large area
-- as would be the case when a federally
22
assisted water project makes it possible to
begin irrigation agriculture in a large valley,
or when a federally assisted housing program
will rehabilitate buildings throughout a city --
it may not be feasible to identify all
individual properties subject to effect prior to
project approval. It may, however, be possible
to predict that the undertaking will affect
certain kinds of archeological sites in the
agricultural valley or certain kinds of historic
buildings in the city. Knowing that such
effects will occur, it may be possible to
develop systems to protect the significant
characteristics of such properties. Thus the
fact that it may not always be feasible to
identify specific historic properties does not
mean that an agency cannot carry out its
responsibilities under Section 106.
Evaluating eligibility When properties are found that may be historic
but have never actually been evaluated, it is
the agency's responsibility to complete the
final task, which is to ascertain whether the
properties are eligible for the National
Register. To determine whether a property is
eligible, the agency reviews the property with
reference to the National Register listing
criteria, which are listed on page 8 of this
booklet. The regulations require that agencies
also follow the Secretary of the Interior's
"Standards and Guidelines for Evaluation,"
published at 48 PR 44723-44726. [Section
800.4(c)(1)] In addition, the regulations
require that the agency's determination be made
in consultation with the SHPO, but if the SHPO
does not provide views as to the eligibility of
properties, the SHPO is presumed to agree with
the agency's determination. [Section
800.4(c)(5)]
In evaluating properties for historic
significance, agencies should be aware that the
passage of time or changing perceptions of
significance may justify reevaluation of
properties that were previously determined to be
eligible or ineligible for the National
Register. [Section 800.4(c)(1)]
When the agency The agency and SHPO consult about eligibility
and SHPO agree for each property within the area of potential
about eligibility effects that may be historic. If the agency and
SHPO agree that a property is eligible, it is
treated as eligible for purposes of Section 106
[Section 800.4(c)(2)]; if they agree that a
F
23
property is not eligible, it is treated as not
eligible for purposes of Section 106. [Section
800.4(c)(3)] Others may request the Council to
review eligibility findings, in which case the
Council will refer the matter to the Secretary
of the Interior. [Section 800.6(e)(3)]
When disagreement If the agency and the SHPO cannot agree about
about eligibility National Register eligibility, the agency must
occurs obtain a formal determination of eligibility
from the Keeper of the National Register, who
acts on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior,
in accordance with applicable National Park
Service regulations. If either the Council or
the Secretary so requests -- as either might
after reviewing an agency/SHPO agreement about
eligibility -- the agency must obtain a formal
determination of eligibility from the Keeper.
[Section 800.4(c)(4)]
Agency action when Once the agency has completed the identification
no historic properties tasks described above, the agency may find that
are found there are no historic properties that may be
affected by its proposed action. In that event,
the agency:
o Must provide documentation to the SHPO that it
has found no historic properties;
o Should notify other interested parties, such
as those with whom the agency has consulted
during identification, of the same thing; and
o Must make pertinent documentation available to
the public. [Section 800.4(d)]
When the agency has found no historic
properties, it has completed the Section 106
process once it has taken the above actions.
[Section 800.4(d)] However, any member of the
public may question the agency's determination
that there are no historic properties and may
request a Council review of that finding. The
Council must conduct its review within 30 days
of such a request; the Council's finding may
cause the agency to reconsider its finding of
"no historic properties." [Section 800.6(e)]
Agency action when If the agency finds one or more historic
historic properties properties that its undertaking could affect,
are found the agency proceeds to Step 2 in the Section 106
Am process, assessing effects. [Section 800.4(e)]
24
STEP 2: ASSESS EFFECTS
Once the agency has identified historic
properties, it then determines whether its
proposed activity could affect the properties in
any way. Again, the agency consults with the
SHPO to decide this and takes into account the
views of any interested persons. [Section
800.5(a)] The agency's judgment about whether
there could be an effect is based on the
criteria of effect and adverse effect, which are
found in the Council's regulations. [Section
800.9]
25
Figure 2: CRITERIA OF EFFECT AND ADVERSE EFFECT
Criterion of Effect: [Section 800.9(a)]
"An undertaking has an effect on a historic property when the undertaking
may alter characteristics of the property that may qualify the property for
inclusion in the National Register. For the purpose of determining effect,
alteration to features of a property's location, setting, or use may be
relevant depending on a property's significant characteristics and should
be considered."
Criteria of Adverse Effect: [Section 800.9(b)]
"An undertaking is considered to have an adverse effect when the effect on
a historic property may diminish the integrity of the property's location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse
effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to:
(1) Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the
property;
(2) Isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the
property's setting when that character contributes to the property's
qualification for the National Register;
(3) Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out
of character with the property or alter its setting;
(4) Neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction;
and
(5) Transfer, lease, or sale of the property."
Exceptions to the Criteria of Adverse Effect: [Section 800.9(c)]
"Effects of an undertaking that would otherwise be found to be adverse may
be considered as being not adverse for the purpose of these regulations:
(1) When the historic property is of value only for its potential
contribution to archeological, historical, or architectural research,
and when such value can be substantially preserved through the conduct
of appropriate research, and such research is conducted in accordance
with applicable professional standards and guidelines;
(2) When the undertaking is limited to the rehabilitation of buildings and
structures and is conducted in a manner that preserves the historical
and architectural value of affected property through conformance with
the Secretary's "Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings"; or
(3) When the undertaking is limited to the transfer, lease, or sale of a
historic property, and adequate restrictions or conditions are included
to ensure preservation of the property's significant historic
features."
J
WO
Applying the criteria Basically, if the undertaking could change in
of effect and any way the characteristics that qualify the
adverse effect property for inclusion in the National Register,
for better or for worse, it is considered to
have an "effect." If the potential Federal
activity could diminish the integrity of such
characteristics, it is considered to have an
"adverse effect."
Effects may occur at the same time and place as
the undertaking, or they may occur later than or
at a distance from the location of the
undertaking. For example, highway construction
that may cause the demolition of buildings or
the disruption of archeological sites clearly
has the potential to affect historic properties
in the area or areas the highway traverses. If
it can reasonably be anticipated that the
highway, once built, will cause or accelerate
changes in land use or traffic patterns in other
areas, these changes are also potential effects
of the action. The latter kind of effect is
sometimes called "indirect," though this
terminology is not used in the Council's
regulations.
When applying the criteria of effect and adverse
effect, there are three possible findings:
o No effect: There is no effect of any kind
(that is, neither harmful nor beneficial) on the
historic properties;
o No adverse effect: There could be an effect,
but the effect would not be harmful to those
characteristics that qualify the property for
inclusion in the National Register; or
o Adverse effect: There could be an effect, and
that effect could diminish the integrity of such
characteristics.
Agency action for a If there is no effect on historic properties,
finding of no effect the agency must:
o Notify the SHPO and any interested persons who
have made their concerns known to the agency
(for example, parties with whom the agency has
consulted during identification) that there has
been a finding of no effect; and
o Compile the documentation that supports the
finding and make that documentation available
for public inspection.
27
rUnless the SHPO objects to the finding of no
effect within 15 days or the agency decides to
reconsider its finding after review by the
Council under Section 800.6(e)(1), these actions
complete the agency's Section 106
responsibilities. [Section 800.5(b)]
Agency action when If the agency determines that there is an
an effect is found effect, or if the SHPO objects to the agency's
finding of no effect, the agency must consider
whether the effect is adverse, using the
criteria of adverse effect in the regulations.
This is done in consultation with the SHPO.
[Sections 800.5(c), 800.5(b), and 800.9(b)]
Agency action for If there is effect, but the effect is not
a finding of adverse, the agency has a choice. It may
no adverse effect either:
o Obtain the SHPO's concurrence with the finding
of no adverse effect and then notify the Council
with summary documentation, which it must also
make available for public inspection [Section
800.5(d)(1)(i)]; or
® o Submit the finding of no adverse effect
directly to the Council for a 30-day review
period and notify the SHPO of its action. In
this case, the agency must submit specific
documentation spelled out in Section 800.8(a) of
the regulations. [Section 800.5(d)(1)(ii)]
Submitting notice with When the SHPO concurs with the agency's finding
summary documentation of no adverse effect,the agency should include
to the Council when the following summary documentation when
SHPO concurs notifying the Council:
o A map or other documentation showing the area
of potential effects;
o The name and a brief description of the
undertaking;
o A brief summary of the historic properties
subject to effect;
o A brief explanation of why the undertaking
will have no adverse effect on the historic
properties involved;
o The written concurrence of the SHPO; and
o The views of interested persons, if any.
28
Submitting no adverse When the agency chooses to have the Council
effect documentation review an agency's finding of no adverse effect
for Council review (without mandatory SHPO concurrence), Section
without mandatory SHPO 800.8(a) of the regulations prescribes the
concurrence following documentation to be sent to the
Council:
o A description of the undertaking, including
photographs, maps, and drawings, as necessary;
o A description of historic properties that may
be affected by the undertaking;
o A description of the efforts used to identify
historic properties;
o A statement of how and why the criteria of
adverse effect were found inapplicable; and
o The views of the State Historic Preservation
Officer, affected local governments, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies, and the public, if any
were provided, as well as a description of the
means employed to solicit those views.
The Council's 30-day review period does not
commence until this documentation has been
provided.
Council response to a The Council may object to determinations of no
determination of no adverse effect, whether made with the
adverse effect concurrence of the SHPO or submitted directly to
the Council. If the Council does not object to
the agency's determination within 30 days after
it receives notice, the agency has completed its
Section 106 requirements. [Section 800.5(d)(2)]
If the Council does object, it may propose
changes in or conditions to the agency's finding.
If the agency accepts these changes, it has
completed its Section 106 requirements. (Section
800.5(d)(2)]
If the agency does not accept proposed Council
changes or if the Council objects to the finding
without proposing changes, the effect is
considered adverse, and the agency then proceeds
to Step 3 of the Section 106 process,
consultation. [Section 800.5(d)(2)]
If the agency requires the Council's response to
a determination of no adverse effect in less
time than the 30 days allowed by the
v
29
`J
regulations, the agency should contact the
Council to make special arrangements.
Agency fulfillment
In reaching a determination of no adverse
of conditions
effect, an agency may specify that the
undertaking will be carried out in accordance
with particular conditions (for example, that
construction specifications will be reviewed and
approved by the SHPO), or it may agree to such
conditions when proposed by the SHPO or by the
Council, as described above. If the agency has
committed itself to conditions in this way, it
must honor its commitments as -it proceeds with
its undertaking. [Section 800.5(d)(2)]
Agency action for a
If there is adverse effect, the agency proceeds
finding of adverse
with Step 3 of the Section 106 process,
effect
consultation. [Section 800.5(e)]
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MAY 13, 2004 — 7:00 P.M.
EMMA HARVAT HALL — CIVIC CENTER
Draft
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy
Smothers, Paul Sueppel, Tim Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
CALL TO ORDER:
James Enloe, Justine Zimmer
Shelley McCafferty
Greg Littin, Jon Ringen
Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Historic Review:
1223 Seymour Avenue. McCafferty stated that this is an application for the demolition of the
current garage and the construction of a two -car garage on a contributing property in the
Longfellow District. She showed a photograph of the view of the backyard of the property.
McCafferty said the current garage is considered a historic structure. She said that at this time
there is really no place to put a new garage and keep the present one because of the gazebo in
the backyard.
McCafferty said the garage also has structural. She stated that given the limited space and the
fact that there are structural issues, she recommends approval of the application. McCafferty
said the new garage would be compatible with the house and would comply with all the
guidelines for outbuildings.
McCafferty said she discussed using one single garage door versus two doors with the
applicant. She said the owner prefers to have one door for maneuverability in order to park his
vehicle, which is rather large. Sueppel asked the owner what type of garage door he would be
using. Ringen replied that he has not yet chosen the door. He said he would like to use a panel
door that would be appropriate for the design of the house and the garage. McCafferty said the
guidelines call for the garage door to be very simple in design.
Smothers asked Ringen if he would consider retrofitting the old garage. Ringen said there are
two issues with the current garage. First, he said that the garage is in such bad condition that it
is probably not worth saving. Also, Ringen said that the current garage is not large enough for a
modern car. Smothers said it is one of the last remaining original garages in the neighborhood.
Ringen said he believed there are four original garages in the neighborhood, all of them in a
similar state of disrepair.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 13, 2004
Page 2
McCafferty asked Ringen if, should Friends of Historic Preservation find someone who would
want to take or salvage the garage, he would be willing to cooperate with that. He said he would
not have a problem with that as long as it did not interfere with his time schedule.
McCafferty said she did not want to see all of these garages disappear. She said if the gazebo
was not located where it is, she would have recommended building the new garage next to the
existing one.
MOTION: Sueppel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of
the existing garage at 1223 Seymour Street and construction of a new two -car garage at
this address, provided the garage door complies with the Guidelines for New
Construction. Ponto seconded the motion.
Smothers said she believes there are other options to explore. She said she understood the
desire for a two -car garage here but felt that the present garage could be reused for another
purpose and/or could be added on to for the purpose of housing vehicles. Smothers asked if the
gazebo was built on concrete, and Ringen confirmed this.
Ringen said he did explore the possibility of enlarging the garage and was told by contractors
that it was not an option. He said he was told that the garage could be preserved but could not
be enlarged. Ringen said the garage is actually four feet into the right-of-way. Sueppel asked
Ringen if he would be moving the new garage back. Ringen said it would be moved back closer
to ten feet.
Maharry asked, should the applicant not be granted the special exception, if the garage would
be feasible with the current plan. McCafferty stated that the applicant has to go through the
Board of Adjustment for a special exception and, based on other special exceptions, should be
able to get that done.
McCallum said he could support the plan as proposed. Weitzel said he would probably vote in
favor, but he did have reservations about granting what is usually discouraged, especially with
the door being a single door and with the demolition of a historic structure.
Weitzel said he did understand that there is a need for this in this case. However, he said he did
not want to get into a situation where every certificate of appropriateness becomes a special
case. He said if everything has to be evaluated that way, then special cases will eventually
water down the guidelines.
McCafferty said the Commission could establish more guidelines and some criteria for this type
of decision. Weitzel said he understood the need for this. He said he assumed the contractor
knew what he was talking about, but the contractor's interests are not necessarily those of
historic preservation.
Smothers said she worked on a garage in Freeport, Maine in which the garage was raised and
righted, and the roof was fixed. She said that anything can be done; it is always a matter of time,
money, and what the owner wants. Ringen said he would not say that rehabilitation of the
garage could not be done, but the contractors have said they would not do it.
The motion carried on a vote of 6-1. with Smothers voting no.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 13, 2004
Page 3
717 Clark Street. McCafferty stated that this is an application for an addition to a non -historic
structure in the Clark Street Conservation District. She said the house was built in 1950, and it
has some colonial revival characteristics. McCafferty said the applicant proposes to add a four -
season sun porch to the back of the house.
McCafferty said there are three criteria to be satisfied to determine whether the addition could
be issued a certificate of appropriateness: 1) it does not further detract from the historic
character of the district, 2) it does not create a false historic character, and 3) it is compatible
with the style and character of the nonhistoric property. She said she feels the addition meets
the criteria and therefore recommends approval. McCafferty said the addition will be slightly
visible from the street.
Sueppel said the windows in the back seem much smaller than the other windows. Littin said
the windows would be consistent with the windows on the rest of the house. Smothers asked
about the railing. Littin replied that the existing railing is not in good shape, and he plans to
replace it with wood to match the railing proposed for the addition.
Smothers asked Littin to comment on the door and the choice of brick veneer around the
skirting. Littin replied that the top of foundation on the house is below grade. He intends to add
the brick to protect the foundation of the house.
Smothers asked if the neighbors had any problem with this, as it comes close to the property
line. Littin said the neighbors are fine with this.
Ponto asked about the decision to have the sun porch extend past the house. Littin replied that
is for protection of that corner, where he has had a lot of water infiltration into the basement.
Ponto said he would like to see the porch set in, with the entire thing moved north a little bit.
McCallum said he agreed with those comments and asked about having the door on the side
instead of on the north side or the other side. He said he would have less concern with the door
if the whole thing was set back.
McCafferty said that since this is a non -historic structure, the Commission has to look at it
relative to the criteria. Gunn said the Commission allows extension to the side, front, and behind
in all directions for historic properties. He said there are no guidelines that say this cannot
extend beyond the side, although it generally looks better set back. Gunn said everything the
Commission does encourages a setback, but nothing requires it or even close to it.
MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the addition of a
sun room to the west side of 717 Clark Street, as proposed by the applicant. Sueppel
seconded the motion.
Maharry said he was in agreement that this meets the three criteria
The motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
Weitzel said he was not certain that the extension of the addition in the back would meet the
three criteria. McCafferty said the Commission had determined, however, that it wanted to
provide a lot of flexibility; part of that decision came via concerns from the City Council. Maharry
agreed that he should be able to sign off on non -historic things if they meet the three criteria.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 13, 2004
Page 4
Gunn said the Commission did not have a basis for denial of the addition. He agreed that it
could be better, but the Commission cannot always insure that it gets the best possible design.
Englert Theatre Marquee.
McCafferty said this is a request for a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment. She said the
Englert Theatre wants to restore its marquee to make it a running light sign again. McCafferty
said the Code disallows animated signs except for artistic purposes, and specifically, if it is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places and if it is significant to the building. McCafferty said
the National Register nomination discusses the significance of the marquee so she feel that the
marquee itself is historically significant to a National Register building.
MOTION: Weitzel moved, given that the marquee is addressed specifically in the National
Register nomination and its context is specified to the building and that restoring the
sign will restore that element, that this is an appropriate request and the Commission
recommends approval to the Board of Adjustment. Sueppel seconded the motion. The
motion carried on a vote of 7-0.
MINUTES: APRIL 22:
MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve the minutes of the April 22, 2004 meeting of the Historic
Preservation Commission, as written. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a
vote of 7-0.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
Northside Historic Districts.
McCafferty stated that Marlys Svendsen made a presentation about the Northside Historic
District at the presentation of awards. McCafferty said the Commission will need to have one
official meeting for which notice is sent out to property owners and the Commission has its
official vote. She asked Commission members how they would like to proceed with any local
designation now that the district will be going on the National Register.
Maharry said he would prefer to have that discussion once the district on the National Register,
because that designation could take until October. Gunn pointed out that there is really no
connection between the local and NRHP designations. He said the borders don't have to be the
same, and the timing doesn't have to be the same; there is no inner connection. McCafferty said
the State recommends that the districts are the same, but that does not mean that things could
be different.
Maharry said he is of the opinion that the Commission should not go forward with a local district
until a declared NRHP district is in place. He said did not want the Commission to give any
appearance that they are trying to designate a district without sufficient notification and input
from the public.
Smothers said the documentation and the generalizations that have been made should not be a
great mystery. She said the Commission should publicize where things are going and in what
order they are being done.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 13, 2004
Page 5
Smother, Weitzel and Maharry expressed concern regarding notifying property owners about
the process and timing..
McCafferty said the process of designation is described in a flow chart in the handbook. She
said that most of the information is out there if people are interested. McCafferty said this shows
the importance of education, as the Commission looks for continuing support for these districts.
She said the Commission's original focus was on education, but the focus has now switched to
more of an administrative role, while Friends of Historic Preservation has taken on more of a
development role. McCafferty said the whole segment of the preservation process via education
and information is now ignored, and someone needs to take over that role.
McCafferty said everyone in the potential Northside District received a letter from the State
about the nomination. She said they also received a letter from the City and was notified via the
Northside Neighborhood newsletter.
Gunn said the City also has locally designated conservation districts that have nothing to do
with the National Register.
Goosetown Conservation District.
Maharry said the neighborhood meeting was held, and over 30 people were in attendance. He
said that by and large there was support for preservation, and owners were behind the idea of
fixing up the houses. Maharry said there was some concern by property owners that they would
not support this because they feel that preservation is expensive and there is no funding to
assist them.
Maharry said that before anything is done to pursue a district in Goosetown, the neighbors need
to be educated that it does not necessarily cost more to comply with the guidelines. He said the
Commission will need the facts and figures to back up that claim. Maharry said Svendsen had
an excellent idea by encouraging neighbors to help each other do neighborhood do-it-yourself
projects. He said she also suggested having a tool library so that owners can check out tools as
opposed to buying and renting.
Maharry said the Commission needs to provide real, tangible incentives to get community
support, and/or it needs to talk with the leadership of the Goosetown Neighborhood Association
to help them organized and provide those opportunities within the neighborhood. He said the
Commission should also talk to Friends about bringing back its grant program.
Maharry said he was initially discouraged but realized that there was neighborhood support,
although people did not want to spend the money to do rehabilitation. Gunn said a property
comes before the Historic Preservation Commission for certificate approval only about once
every 17 years. He pointed out that the average house in the City turns over every five years so
that there could be three owners before anyone ever comes before the Commission.
Weitzel asked if there were serious contention about this potential district, and if a lot of people
will come to the meetings and speak against it. Maharry said that if incentives are not provided,
the owners will not support a district.
Sueppel suggested that when the neighbors are approached, the Commission give them
information about the resources it can provide and tell them who can fix up their houses and do
it without spending a fortune. He said the Commission can let them know that it will help restore
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 13, 2004
Page 6
their homes and do it the right way and give them the information. He said as a rule of thumb, it
costs three times as much to install siding than to paint the exterior.
McCafferty suggested finding a sample house to determine how much it would cost to paint
versus siding it. She said the Commission can get data from estimates to compare costs to do
things in a historically appropriate way.
Gunn said that as long as the Commission doesn't force the district through and gives the
owners time to react, listen, think, and respond, then he thought it would pass.
Maharry said he would like to respond to the Goosetown owners with concrete facts when the
next neighborhood meeting is held. McCafferty said she and Maharry could compile a list of
owners' concerns so that the Commission can respond with good information. McCafferty
suggested sending out a comment sheet to property owners who have gone through the
process to get information to present to homeowners in potential new districts.
Gunn said he really does not think the Commission forces people to spend a lot of money.
Maharry said the Commission needs to have something to prove that. Gunn said that opposition
to a district tends to go away as things go along. He said his sense is that as more things are
done, momentum tends to carry the nomination along.
Certificate of No Material Effect for 1027 Court Street.
McCafferty said she would provide information regarding this application in the next packet.
OTHER:
McCafferty said she that a developer is interested in purchasing the McCollister Homestead and
has plans to sell half of it and develop the other portion. She said it is important that any
development be done with sensitivity to the site, and, at this point, the developer seems willing
to do that.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte
data on citynt/pcd/minutes/p&z2004/hpc05-1304.doc
j 1114;M.40
trwi®��i
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(319)356-5000
(319) 356-5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
Historic Preservation Commission
CERTIFICATE OF NO MATERIAL EFFECT
1027 Court Street
On April 29, 2004, the Chair of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission and the Preservation
Planner conducted a review and approved a Certificate of No Material Effect for 1027 Court Street,
which is a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. This certificate allows the
replacement of the existing historic windows with Pella replacement windows. The muntin bar pattern
must match the muntin bars of the existing windows. Muntin bars must simulated true divided -lights.
The Commission Chair and Preservation Planner finds that the proposed alterations will have no
material effect on the exterior appearance of the property, and will not compromise the historic
integrity of the structure.
The proposed alterations, as presented on the plans submitted by the applicant, are approved as
provided in City Code Section 14-4C-7
/WX_6_� �y
t
Michael Maharry, Chair
Iowa City Historic Preservation Commissi
Shelley M Cafferty, Pre do Planner
l3
Date
Application for Historic Review
Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties
located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City
Code Section 14-4C.
Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month.
During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday.
Applications are due by Wednesday the week prior to the meeting.
Applicant Information
(Please check primary contact person)
Dale y y
❑ Owner.............................and ......Bett.................D......e ................................
Phone ............351-3006
..............................................................
Address..........1027 East Court Street
................................................................................
Iowa City, IA 52242
.........................................................................................................
email ..............betty—dye@uiowa.edu
...........................
❑ Contractor.................................................................................
Address..........................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
Phone.............................................................................................
email...............................................................................................
❑ Consultant.................................................................................
Address..........................................................................................
Phone........................................................................
....................................................................................
email..........................................................................
Application Requirements
Attached are the following items:
❑ Site plan
❑ Floor plans
❑ Building elevations
❑ Photographs
M Product information
❑ Other............................................................................
If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or
a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a
site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs.
If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure,
please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently
describe the scope of the project.
Provide a written description of the proposed project on the
second page of this application.
For Staff Use:
Date submitted... ...................
El Certificate of No / ateL)rial Effect
❑ Certificate of Appropriateness
❑ Major review
❑ Intermediate review
❑ Minor review
Property Information
Address of property
1027 East Court Street
..............................................................
Use of residence
property.............................................
Date constructed (if known) 1917
......................
Historic Designation
❑ This property is a local historic landmark
OR
❑ This property is located in the:
❑ Brown Street Historic District
❑ College Green Historic District
❑ East College Street Historic District
ILI Longfellow Historic District
❑ Summit Street Historic District
❑ Woodlawn Historic District
❑ Clark Street Conservation District
❑ College Hill Conservation District
❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District
❑ Lucas -Governor Street Conservation District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
❑ Contributing
❑ Noncontributing
❑ Nonhistoric
Project Type
® Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window
replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new
decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar)
❑ Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps)
❑ Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch,
chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar)
❑ Construction of new building
❑ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not
change its appearance
❑ Other
Materials to be used
wood interior
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ainted aluminum exterior
...................................................................P............................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Exterior appearance changes
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
By removing the existing combination windows, the exterior appearance
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
will be enhanced. The existing siding is aluminum and will remain.
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Pella Windows and Doors - Pella Products
Page 1 of 1
Double -Hung Windows
Home > Polla_Products > Windows > Douhl�Hung > Precision Fit
Precision FitO Replacement Windows
Precision FitB Replacement Windows slide easily into the existing "window pocket" without damaging
surrounding trim, wallpaper, paint or plaster. Professional installation usually takes less than one hour per
window.
The fully -assembled, factory -tested window slides easily —and quickly —into existing sash "pocket".
Windows are "made -to -order" in 1/4" increments to fit the existing opening.
0 AIrchittsct Series*
Unsurpassed Architectural Expression. Recreates the charm of true
divided light while adding a new dimension of energy efficiency and
performance. Features elegant, distinctive profiles and virtually endless
design options.
0 Designer Series
Innovations Other Can't Touch. Features blinds and grilles tucked
away neatly between panes of glass, away from dust, damage and
little hands.
SEARCH: ' Go!
___— STEP-BY-STEP """'""""""
1. Remove old double -hung sash,
saving interior sash stops. With
banding in place, temporarily set
unit in opening to check fit.
2. Apply sealant to old window
frame. Install new window into
opening.
3. Square and plumb window;
shim as needed. Secure with
screws.
4. Make final adjustments and
reinstall interior sash stops.
Finish interior as desired.
Basic Installation overview. See
your local Pella sales specialist or
download the installation
Instructions for complete details.
El
02002 Pella Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.pella.com/products/windows_patiodoors/Type. asp?path=/products/windows/doublehung/prec... 4/ 19/2004
Pella Windows and Doors - Pella Products
Page 1 of 2
Double -Hung Windows
Home > Pella _ProSf_ -m > Windows > Double -Hung > Precision Fit > Architect
IINTiRESTIRID IN THIS VANiDOM
0 Request on Appaintroent
® IE-moil Product fnfdrmotion
0 Print Page
® find o Store
0 Request UtArotura
Q Warranty Information
0 Sfzo/Design Charts (PDF)
0 Instpflafion InsirwcHons (PDF)
0 Arekitoourat InFwm atiion
Precision Fit' architect Series'
Architect Series® Precision Fit® Windows feature the patented
technology that recreates the charm of true divided light, yet adds a
new dimension of energy efficiency & performance. Muntin bars
(grilles) are permanently bonded to the interior and exterior surfaces of
insulating glass.
Choose from three standard muntin bar (grille) patterns —Prairie style,
9-lite Prairie Style and Traditional Style. Custom muntin patterns also
available.
Every Precision Fit® window is factory -assembled and factory -tested
for air infiltration —no questions about performance.
Benefits
Windows are "made -to -order" in 1/4" increments to fit your existing
window opening.
Energy -Efficient Insulating Glass —double -pane glazing options
provide superior performance in hot & cold climates. Choose from
either argon -filled, Low-E insulating glass or standard insulating
glass.
Tilt -to -Clean Sash —both sash tilt so interior and exterior glass can
be easily cleaned from inside your home.
Wood Interior —natural wood interior may be painted or stained to
match d6cor.
Hassle-FreeTm Aluminum Exterior —tough aluminum exterior
features a seven -step, baked -on finish.
Hardware--cam-action locks are designed to increase leverage as
the window is closed to assure a superior, weather -tight seal. Locks
are recessed into the wood for improved functionality and
appearance. Champagne finish is standard. White or Brass finish is
optional.
Insect Screens —purchase price includes black fiberglass half-size
insect screen. Easily installed —and removed —from interior of
home.
Options
• Exterior colors—Hassle-FreeTm aluminum cladding available in
three standard colors: White, Tan or Brown
• Removable Wood Interior Muntins (grilles)
• Charcoal jambliner
Grilles
Available Patterns:
F. ....... .I
I
t I
Bar Style Options:
I
HIGHLIGHTS
Tilt -in Cleaning
Compare "Window
to the Compowoo
http://www. pella.comlproductslwindows_patiodoorsIDetail. asp?path=/products/windowsldoublehung/pre... 4/ 19/2004
Pella Windows and Doors - Pella Products Page 1 of 1
Casement Windows
HQ_me > Pelle.P.r.Q.dtlas > N/i(1(IQ\y_@ > CaSemant > ProUne
INTERESTED IN THIS VANDOW?
0 Request an Appointment
® E-moil Product Information
10 Print Page
0 Find o Stare
0 Requett Utarature
0 Worronty Information
0 Size/Design Charts (PaF)
Q Installation Instrr ttians (P@F)
0 ArchihwvralInformptian
ProUnO HP
Basic done beautifully —our most affordable windows are available in a
wide variety of standard sizes and three standard exterior colors. By
keeping our ProLine® offering simple we maximize your value.
Pella factory -tests every standard venting ProLineO window for air
infiltration —if it doesn't pass, it doesn't ship.
Benefits Into
• Hardware —exclusive integrated crank with fold -away handle won't
interfere with window treatments. Stainless steel operating hardware
resists rust & corrosion. Finish options: Champagne finish is
standard. White or Brass finish Is optional.
• Sash Lock —patented Sure Lock® system reaches out to lift and pull
the sash tight against the weatherstripping to form a tight seal.
Patented Unison Lock System secures both upper and lower locks
with a single easy -to -reach handle.
• Easy Cleaning —sash moves toward the center of the frame a full
4", which is wider than most competitors' standard casements— Gr
making it a breeze to clean exterior glass from inside your home.
• Wood Interior —natural wood interior may be painted or stained to
match decor. T
• Hassle-FreeTv Aluminum Exterior —tough aluminum exterior con"
features a seven -step, baked -on finish. _ to tbt
#
Glass --choose the double -pane protection of energy -saving, argon -
filled Low-E insulating glass or standard insulating glass.
Options
• Exterior_ colors-Hassle-FreeTm aluminum cladding available in
White, Tan or Brown.
• Muntins (grilles) —Removable Wood Interior Muntins with a real
wood, beveled profile or permanently installed aluminum
grilles -between -the -glass
• Fiat Insect Screen —rust -free fiberglass.
Grilles
Available Patterns:
Bar Style Options:
-f
02002 Pella Corporation.
http://www.pella.comlproductslwindows_patiodoorsIDetail. asp?path=/products/windowslc... 4/25/2004
-Ara -"—
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826
(319)356-5000
(319)356-5009 FAX
www.lcgov.org
Historic Preservation Commission
CERTIFICATE OF NO MATERIAL EFFECT
529 Brown Street
On May 13, 2004, the Chair of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission and the
Preservation Planner conducted a review and approved a Certificate of No Material Effect for
529 Brown Street, which is a contributing property in the Brown Street Historic District. This
certificate allows the replacement of an existing window, which is currently hidden behind
siding, with a new wood window to match.
The Commission Chair and Preservation Planner finds that the proposed alterations will have
no material effect on the exterior appearance of the property, and will not compromise the
historic integrity of the structure.
The proposed alterations, as presented on the plans submitted by the applicant, are approved
as provided in City Code Section 14-4C-7
Michael Maharry, Chair
Iowa City Historic Preservaflon Commion
ley VcCafferry; Pf 6ervation Planner
Date
Application for Historic Review For Staff Use:
Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties Date submitted ....... 617l./.............................
located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City �d Certificate of No Material Effect
Code Section 14-4C. ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness
Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. ❑ Major review
During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. ❑ Intermediate review
Applications are due by Wednesday the week prior to the meeting. ❑ Minor review
Applicant Information
(Please check primary contact person)
❑ Owner ...... h5..'7..F.A......... i/..r4W. ,AWe..! o! t 4... :
Phone......... 3. j...... :..22........................................
Address............`J a. g......... ............................
email.................................................................................................
❑ Contractor...............`y ...............................................
Address...........................................................................................
Phone................................................
email..................................................
❑ Consultant ...............` ..............
Address...........................................
...........................................................
Phone...............................................
...........................................................
email.................................................
Application Requirements
Attached are the following items:
❑ Site plan
❑ Floor plans
❑ Building elevations
❑ Photographs
❑ Product information
❑ Other ..........................
If the proposed project entails an addition, a new structure or
a significant alteration to an existing structure, please submit a
site plan, floor plans. building elevations and photographs.
If the proposed project is a minor alteration to a structure,
please provide drawings and photographs to sufficiently
describe the scope of the project
Provide a written description of the proposed project on the
second page of this application.
Property Information
Address of property .............. ..?.......'Q, 11:i�lec�
....
....................................................................................................................
Use of property ........................................................
Date constructed (if known) .................1... 11?...... I....................
Historic Designation
❑ This property is a local historic landmark
OR
IK This property is located in the:
Brown Street Historic District
)U1
College Green Historic District
❑ East College Street Historic District
❑ Longfellow Historic District
❑ Summit Street Historic District
❑ Woodlawn Historic District
❑ Clark Street Conservation District
❑ College Hill Conservation District
❑ Dearborn Street Conservation District
❑ Lucas -Governor Street Conservation District
Within the district, this property is classified as:
Contributing
❑ Noncontributing
❑ Nonhistoric
Project Type
❑ Alteration of an existing building (ie. siding and window
replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new
decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar)
❑ Addition to an existing building (includes decks and ramps)
❑ Demolition of a building or portion of a building (ie. porch,
chimneys, decorative trim, baluster or similar)
❑ Construction of new building
Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not
change its appearance
0 Other
Project description
....................... T� f%�fz. ............41, ............... ?. ..............1=-'cn2............. i rlf'1�°?..*?7..........................................
....................... �Nt. a r,!`...............7.7*!...:..........1�'!�'............. lw '�.............6 �'�s�...............................................
l...T... s ...........''4.��?s.............. �i'%f...... ........ rat........... a....°�..,�.Z.f . ..........C�'4..u,�r,/',�?�t';csE
Materials to be used
................�f...........rf`.........../..%%.d..P............................. .............................................................. ............
.... r �..........1................ z.2 . ......... ,......................................................................................
:::..........1,1!sG.✓................... 5.........s ...:!':!::?!................. , - ............,.....................................................
Exterior appearance changes
rx�c�✓ .............. ?�..............'0............ . .....................
Iowa Site Inventory
Location and Functional Information
1. Historical Names: Bohumil Shimek House
3. Street Address: 529 East Brown Street
4. City: Iowa City Vicinity [ ]
6. Subdivision: OT 7. Block(s): 33
10. Historical Function(s):
Description
Single Dwelling
2. Common Name(s):
5. County: Johnson
8. Lot(s): N 1/2 Lot 1
Survey ID Number
Database ID Number
Nonextant
11. Current Function(s): Multiple Dwelling
12. Owner: Steven J. van der Woude Phone #: (319) 354-0953
Address: 730 North Van Buren Street City/State: Iowa City, Iowa
Code
01A
01B