The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-22-2004 Historic Preservation CommissionIOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 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. COA for 725 S. Summit Street b. COA for 728 Dearborn Street c. COA for 614 Clark Street d. COA for 621 S. Summit Street 2. Minutes: April 8, 2004 D. Items for Discussion 1. Historic Preservation Awards E. Other F. Adjourn Please review these items prior to the meeting. Staff Report April 27, 2004 Historic Review for 725 S. Summit Street District: Summit Street Historic District Classification: Contributing This is a simple Queen Anne house that was constructed around the turn -of -the -century. At some point, the original wood siding was removed and replaced with asbestos wall shingles. The applicant would like to remove the asbestos and reside the house with wood or fiber cement clapboard,with fish scale shingles at the gables, corner boards and a water table at the base. In the porch gable, the original fish scale shingles were not removed and the porch retains it historic character. The replacement clapboard will have an exposure of 3-4 inches. The applicants have indicated on their application plans to insulate and wrap the house in Tyvek. Because insulation does not require a building permit, this is not under the purview of the HPC. However, staff has provided the applicants with information regarding appropriate insulation and ventilation practice to ensure that any weatherization does not result in long term structural damage. Applicable Guidelines: Iowa City Guidelines for Historic Preservation 4.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations 4.3 Wood Substituting a material in place of wood only if the substitute material retains the appearance and function of the original wood. Secretary of the Interior's Standards 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historic development, such as add conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Staff Comments: The Handbook does not specifically address replacing siding when the original has been removed. The existing siding was likely added sometime between the 1940s and 1960s and is not historically appropriate. The existing historic details, fenestration and the massing of the house indicate that it was original constructed in a vernacular Queen Anne style. The proposed plan for residing the house incorporates features that are typical to this style Se examples on next page), but does not add features that are purely conjectural. Because there are fish scale shingles in the porch gable, it is likely they were also used at the house gables. All existing historic details will be preserved and window casings and caps will be reproduced to match the historic details where necessary. Recommendation: The application for a certificate of appropriateness to reside the house at 725 S. Summit Street with wood or clapboard siding as proposed be approved. This application complies with the Iowa City Guidelines for Historic Preservation and Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Examples of Queen Anne houses with similar siding treatment Application for Historic Rev-1-0 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) J� Owner ._i.` Ka.. .. rI C....!. f eejre ............................................... Phone......................................................... Address._}z 5 mm... s+ ................................................. ......... .....Sowa...Ci+.Y... :La ......SLzio................................. email.Ylxa. reeze@ ho}m,i`_Com ........................................................... ❑ Contractor................................................................................. Address.......................................................................................... ❑ 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 Stoff Use: Date submitted ......�A ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect Ur' Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review Property Information Address of property31.55.....:...ti/J!YXt!+..�?t.. Use of property ..Cep.I.L! +.(........................................................... Date constructed (if known) ....09............................................... 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 X 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 ? do�l know ❑ 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 lie. 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 .\W- wisb..+O...SC&i( ],_ r V9 5 Vi c,{o rian house. The Wrren ........................................................................................ ,nrnin Innk Wt wit( re.mon 4he er,....9......�ja�O.�.�r....,�ldi.......... ... `.�.:Fr m.....an..PAink...iP......k................................................................................................................. Tbis. TD B+...will...hel�...brin -Fhe housg.....a.more _his ericall o`f'�ro ria%�.....Cr� Y4r?s .�............ .W....are eXcited....a�to.!�k... thisro�ec................................................................................................................................................... 1[Je..te!o ld.... like ...fA... kn.0..W... if...f�ber..�.�menf..sideR....i.s....allowed:....Once�ain+ed�...t.ha.s.................... sae.... 5.0XInA.... Ppe 4.nit.....as.....!nco4.d ... 5.Wi.09............ _............................................................ . ................................................... Materials to be used trim........(or....�iWcemen+...ia............ n �............... .....blown in..�berlass _insUlaFio.n.. ............................................. ........................................................ ._......mQ�s as ..... T ve ...�?ousewrc �............................................................................................................... '....�AI}r........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Exterior appearance changes fee..above................................................................ ..................._ ................................................................................................................................... t Z 3 `/ 2 Staff Report April 27, 2004 Historic Review for 738 Dearborn Street District: Dearborn Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing The primary structure is a gable -end Craftsman Bungalow that was constructed in 1924. The house is stuccoed with asbestos shingles in the gables. The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to allow the construction of an 8 by 10 foot kitchen addition on the back of the house, removal of the chimney, and replacement of a kitchen window with a "garden" window. The proposed kitchen addition incorporates details of the original house including the details of the eaves and brackets. The addition will be sided with fiber cement board and there will be a fiber cement board water table that aligns with the stuccoed water table on the house. The windows will be metal clad wood casements with a faux checkrail to simulate the look of double -hung windows. A skylight will also be located on the south side of the roof. Applicable Guidelines: Iowa City Guidelines for Historic Preservation 4.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations 4.7 Windows Disallowed: Installing modern types of windows including sliding, awning, casement, and bay windows when they were not original to the building, consistent with the architectural style, or required for egress. 4.12 Chimneys Disallowed: Removing prominent chimneys that are important to the historic architectural character of the building. 5.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint Design • Designing an addition so that it does not diminish the character of the historic structure. • Distinguishing between the historic structure and the new addition. • Matching key horizontal "lines" on the existing building, such as water table, eave height, window head height and band boards, in order to provide continuity between the addition and the historic structure. • Placing building additions at the rear of a property, if possible. Foundations • Constructing an addition foundation that appears similar to the historic foundation in color, texture, unit size, and joint profile. Mass and Roofline • Constructing additions that are consistent with the massing and roofline of the historic building. This requires that the wall areas and corners, as well as the roof pitches and spans are all consistent with the existing building and have a proportion that is similar to that of the existing building. • Constructing the roof overhang, soffits and eaves of the addition so that they match the roof overhang, soffits and eaves of the existing building. Masonry • When using masonry on an addition, using new masonry that appears similar in color, texture, unit size, and joint profile to the historic masonry. Wood • Constructing additions with materials that appear similar to the historic siding, trim, moldings, and other details of the original building. Windows • Using windows that are of a similar type, proportion and divided -light pattern as those in the original structure Applicable Exceptions New foundations • For additions to foundations, it is acceptable to match the color of the original foundation by using paint or masonry stain rather than matching the material and appearance of the original foundation material. Windows • Modern window types, such as casement windows, may be used in additions provided they have overall proportions comparable to those found on the historic building, and a similar divided -light pattern. The windows must be trimmed to match the historic windows in the building. The windows may be installed side -by -side, but they must have a mullion between them if mullions were used between windows on the historic building. Secretary of the Interior's Standards 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Staff Comments: Previous dormer additions and removal of the front porch columns have compromised the historic integrity of this bungalow. However, the applicant is proposing an addition that incorporates design details and horizontal lines of the original structure per the Guidelines for Additions. The use of clapboard siding adequately distinguishes the addition from the house and therefore staff feels that it does not need to be setback from the wall of the house. Staff does recommend adding a horizontal frieze board above the column and a slightly wider column (see sketch). The incorporation of a skylight is not on a prominent street elevation and therefor complies with the guidelines. Removal of prominent chimney is disallowed, however this chimney is not prominent from the street nor does it have any distinguishing characteristics. Moreover, it has been parged, which is in appropriate repair and has changed the chimney's historic appearance. The garden window which is to replace a historic window on the bungalow is a modern window type that is not characteristic of this style. Recommendation: The application for a certificate of appropriateness to constructed an 8' x 10' addition on the east side (rear) of the bungalow at 738 Dearborn Street be approved provided: 1. A frieze board is added above the column; 2. The square column is 2 to 4 inches wider than illustrated (8x8); and 3. The foundation is painted to match the bungalow foundation. Staff recommends removal of the chimney, but recommends denial of the replacement of the kitchen window with a modern garden window. Application for Historic Review The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. Applications are Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties due by Wednesday the week prior to the meeting. located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City / Code Section 14-4C. Date submitted. ,l/ � /d.X................... Applicant Information (Please check one person to contact for further information or reference) U Owner._C�e.tn , .....i4e..tncl.r..j.)4 ................................ .................... Phone..... 37.."................................................................ Address...738...�c�dT n ......................................................................................................... email ...S��l1fM ❑ Contractor .... L`.....SG(n ll.nGllnN .......................... Address ...... �.13 C AuL ............................................................... ................k../..S...................................................... Phone.....3!.a.�...6s.6.. Z6.3............................................... emial............ h2,^..+�......................n.......................1.......................... Consultant .... !... .. SM l� ......................................................... Address ... 5b:ip... - ...................................................................... ......\Nesk.,3van�lt.........R....................................I........... Phone....31-331-d562-�314..by3--S'864 ........................ ........................................II................................................................. email ..... OYO.r;5K �,v t*, ab( ,CV-rA Application Requirements Attached are the following items: Zl Site plan Floor plans �ZI Building elevations Photographs Product information ZIOther ...................................................... 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 elevatbns and photographs. Indicate all alterations and materorials on these plans. 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 back of this sheet Property Information Address of ro er i3� �CGtf vjd rri Si PP ty ................................................................. Use of property ............................................IZ25rr1GNC{� Date constructed (if known) ........� 9Z L. ............................................. 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 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 Conservation District Within the district, this property is: `6 Contributing U Noncontributing Project Information This project consists of: Demolition of A, building or portion of a building (ie. port chimney, ecorative trim, baluster or similar) ❑ Alteration o an existing building (ie. siding, window replacement, skylights, window opening alterations, new decks, porch reconstruction, baluster repair or similar) �( Addition to an existing building ❑ Setback addition to an existing building (located in rear and offset 8" or more from side walls) ❑ Construction of new building ❑ Alteration of the site ❑ Repair of an existing structure that will not change its appearance. ❑ Other ...........................- — - S. Hendrix/K. Copp 738 Dearborn St. 337-3621 Project Description: This project is a 10' X 8.5" kitchen addition at the rear of the property and will approximately double the size the existing kitchen. The addition will have a gable roof with roof supports that match the rest of house. The gabled roof will also create a covered entrance at the back of the house. The exterior of the addition will be fibered cement siding with a freeze board to match the rest of the house. The foundation will be concrete. The chimney passes through the kitchen in the northwest corner and will be removed to create space for the refrigerator and a pantry storage area. The present window over the sink will be replaced with a greenhouse window of the same dimensions as the present rough opening. A skylight will be added to the south side of the new gable roof over the addition. Materials to be used: Fiber cement siding with a freeze board (white to match house) Greenhouse window by Certain -Teed Garden Windows (www certainteed com) —same rough opening as present window (30" X 42") Other Anderson windows — approximate rough openings: North Side: 5'6" X 4' East Side: 5'6" X 4' South Side 3' X 4' (in new addition) Skylight 4' X 2' Shingles on new roof will match present roof. Exterior appearance changes: Chimney will be removed A Greenhouse window will replace the present double -hung window over sink on south side at the back. Visibility from the street is limited because of elevation of house and placement. i3g Dra�,��Y, bov97 Ae -5' 7 �- [10 DWIGHT'S CARPENTRY Dwight Schumann 113 C Ave. (319) 656-2637 p,D. Sox 283 Kelona, IA 522470283 Copp Hendrix addition East and North Elevatlons Scale 1/48 �. Mid North Elevation Emerson Andrlshok 4/9/2004 ❑0000aoa00000 ❑000000a0000a Em.. — E[ vg euildn4 Add\tia\n ivetl cement sldnp xi tlow Copp Hendrix addition South Elevation Scale 1 /48 Emerson Andrishok 4/9/2004 North Elevation /l Copp Hendrix addition East and North Elevations Scale 1 /48 Emerson Andrishok 4/9/2004 Cel-tt7l'nTeed Crartic a Window,-; ChOOSC the WilOO-W that Cl-sates 11 whole ncu., cnL)hohltllellt. Let the beauty of nature and the quality of Certaial'ceei brighten Your horse ilea r-rotnuL w The stlitlirig complements itt�i/ home. S1eck t `int lirre� iI"ce q <I «2 uie' � �u1�1 z r1 t r lt�ak. 1 Irrtl�li� Iit (1 GF04 rill� u5 i toli 1 — e 72CC- fttt�le ■ Top thermal efjicicncy is Standard,t'nwr'I, ,')f . t br 2 nrar- !H[ini'L' Oolcl, in 14WIPI eP' )J i 144S !ii fil" ifi;i ral,.S (or plant s)r„) th ■ Structurally sttoxg and wcother-tight. ;t trrwte rrr,�t i)tt,�rraar r�?I,et;mun rem! orf-Cow rt ` rn�t�tlrettt ��; rota te°c�l� fI �e Ire,I IOI� rranc:c. ■ Virtually no maintenance required. Vimly� Fiof rot, peel, e P _j, 01,i i r rep,"r rcie. ,lertls pmrllhl�,. So t) and .,ti a,,a1,,< .( IGOk lily rWZC. Ili,gG-clnahta lihrdivare is loa tit fire front ot`file erisduu" for Hrlsi{ operation. cquid,�Vres#crl[ia`rieii"a4fiseney it of climate regions A Q�Al l y Brand oT Ce tt)l 4 CaP� 4 littlr, world of slyle and li""ht. Certturileed , garden r. intiolv wtill t, a tear- . lot Iof Pleasille, Its sleek rya Mid ohtrr,lai gla,., aroa the r s W wide and is,ondert of � ciioi,c v✓ oI hits or t<riy plus a bush scsitI,oaui YOt4 c rn paint or starn, lets you III C.tch vour daeor. And of co r,c, YOUr choice A plant4andyour "peen thUMID snake u� "amen windu%v a hcr,onat ,tatenlent 7 Vierrnal c°jjiciotrcy anal protectiou for your plants. This garden windot� err 'tee a srror: nrg xur�nvi- n.n,�ni thlar� .tt keeps pt�, health tt s 1�cen tti'stcd to .",AMA standar 9, for air, water,and structural Mienikth and aclwvod a I,reenhou, o stilt'; of Cl HO) ). tt Ci Certain Iecd's prolnie:tritti Therm: Hest high Pet ionn<u7ce laiingsi,toni has file hignest itisulaticin x aln" Of am= double -pane gas -filled system atauahlr naiay. k%dd tilt' itr;ulatin" pro er1 csof ertainTecti'�horreteornb trams and sISIICy; pluW it 2-inch thick insulated Wood seatboar d, and the result iw l.c.t what you and YOM plant, need a cur rtt rtal-ltr, draft -free em ironment ,i. The iherniaHettFsystorndoliGers 9uuericr thet,nal perms riance without tinted E' Mass. And it allows the beneficialblueand viou� to the moist cm=ironmCit ' 4; : It lvon't rot, flake, t hip, or corrode: And it never have made CertainTeed a leader. • Fully fusion -welded construction for structural strength and to eliminate drafts and water leakage • Standard glazing is,a %" Thermaflect Low "B" double -pane insulating glass unit with argon gas and low - conductance spacer for superior thermal efficiency • Solid vinyl frames and sashes are virtually maintenance -free • Multi -point locking system for added security • 2" thick insulated seatboard with finish - able birch interior and maintenance -free exterior; extruded polystyrene foam core retards moisture penetration and improves thermal performance,, • Adjustable tempered -glass shelving system to maximize growing space • Internal aluminum frame support system ensures optimal stability and j structural support • Full screens for casement side panels • 22Yi' overall depth; M/8" projection • Available in white or tan lock Sizf G C,W'Ia 53'a x59Y 4'z' t V 6 6 55I'f x 35VV ` COf x;3� T ;iU'6012 60 x-12' 1`I : GS-V t,04A ' ws9 s z=4_;zt" ;60"' x -48" 1 . GW 6060 50"" x 591" 6tf"`x 00 I,rt sfr. x tot?"" MM { sfth 1 rl r CertainTeed ffl Ourality tnmrfe Certain. Satis adiongnarantecrl.T" , r.eorla, 11 tl�:,n, - ,}glt-21^ t I1*)C. n;Ll tt ilkd, Al, *1 LJ Staff Report April 22, 2004 Historic Review for 614 Clark Street District: Clark Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing This property is the old Mennonite Church, which was purchase by Mark and Diane Russo for use as a single- family home. At the August 8, 2002 meeting, the HPC reviewed an application to convert the south entry to a screened porch and add a garage entrance to the basement below the porch. The Russos have decided not to add the garage entrance, but would like to proceed with conversion and reconstruction of the south entrance for use as a screened porch. The HPC approved their original application subject to approval of the design of the final design. The applicants are proposing to match the historic construction details for the columns and eaves. Because of the expense of constructing a continuous brick veneer base (similar to the existing stoop) for the porch and the difficulty of matching brick, the applicant is proposing to use brick columns with traditional slat skirting. A concrete retaining wall will extend from the east wall at the same height as the foundation. A flat recessed panel balustrade will be used on the porch and the stair handrail will be similar to the existing iron handrail. Applicable Guidelines: Iowa City Guidelines for Historic Preservation 5.0 Guidelines for Additions 5.1 Expansion of Building Footprint • Preserving significant historic materials and features of the original structure such as decorative windows, brackets, porches, and trim. • Designing an addition so that it does not diminish the character of the historic structure. • Constructing new porches that are consistent with the historic building or similar to porches of the same architectural style. Secretary of the Interior's Standards 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Staff Comments: This request is unique and therefore is not specifically addressed in the Handbook. In your previous review of this proposal, it was determined that the church asp on the east side of the property and the front entry on the west side are significant features and should be preserved. The applicants preferred not to locate a sun porch on the north side because it would be close to the adjacent property and encroach on the occupant's privacy. Furthermore, the applicants intend to park their cars on the drive in this area where they will be less prominent from the street. Staff feels that given the limitations of the property and the uniqueness of rehabilitating a church for residential use, this is the most appropriate location and design for a sun porch that also meets the applicant's needs. Recommendation: The application for a certificate of appropriateness for the alteration/addition to 614 Clark Street to allow the enlargement of the south entrance structure for use as a sun porch as illustrated by the applicant be approved. This application complies with the Iowa City Guidelines for Historic Preservation and Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Application for Historic Review I For Staff Use: 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) (� ❑ Ownerlil N.A.Q.'V..g0........ Phone ..�.?.`�.....,.. ..4. ..... \_.a!i. �...�............................. Address ... 6...�..(1.....�g'.K-......a? .......................... Site plan ❑ Floor plans Building elevations XPhotographs ❑ 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. Date submitted........................................................ ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect ❑ Certificate of Appropriateness ❑ Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review Property Information Address of property ... .`...1.c�—� ........................ .............................................................................. Use of property S.v< Q... q 1 �.........Z.4.N.��o L!C 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 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 F L �sep QaFT¢n. TA�I�S ,rn ^nVvS (WOOp �4i+.+O4i�1tS Ciz& IRoo,Z r� �? ( 11 t� 1 Ql?gTloYv ; V f{ oRoSe�X S cRee•�¢ �, Q� V� 11 14 . MPW- Staff Report Historic Review for 621 S. Summit Street District: Summit Street Historic District Classification: Contributing April 27, 2004 The primary structure on this property is believed to have been originally constructed sometime in the 1860s and later in the 1920s it was moved and underwent a substantial remodeling. At this time the front portico and sunporch is said to have been added. Regardless, it is in the Classical Revival style and has a sun porch on the south side. The porch screens are removable and there are not any storms for the porch. The applicant is proposing to convert the sun porch to a four -season sun room by adding double -hung windows on all sides of the porch. The applicant is proposing to add double -hung windows with recessed panels below that match the windows and panels on the house. There will also be a recessed panel above the windows. The purpose of the panels above the windows is to set the head height of the windows at the same height as the house windows. Applicable Guidelines: Iowa City Guidelines for Historic Preservation 4.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations 4.9 Porches Disallowed: Enclosing front porches or other porches that are highly visible from the street with permanent windows and/or walls. Secretary of the Interior's Standards 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property._The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Staff Comments: The HPC received a similar request (before the adoption of the new Handbook) to enclose a sun porch at 512 Grant Street, which should be considered to ensure that preservation standards are applied equally. The property at 512 Grant Street was also constructed in a Classical Revival style. Characteristic of Classical Revival residential architecture is a side sun porch. In Iowa City, these sun porches may have either permanent windows or removable screens and/or storm windows. The guidelines for porches disallow the enclosure of significant porches that are highly visible from the street with permanent windows and/or walls. The intent of this guideline is to prevent these interstitial spaces from becoming entirely enclosed and lose their porch character. In the case of front porches, these historically did not have any window enclosure, though they may be partially screened. Classical Revival sun porches often had permanent windows on all sides. The expansive glass and operable windows served to allow the "outside indoors." The HPC denied the first application for the enclosure of the 512 Grant Street sun porch because it fully enclosed the sun porch with predominantly solid walls. This clearly changed the porch's use and character. The second application for this project was also denied because the proportion of the windows was different from the character of the original storm windows and the windows were made of vinyl. The HPC did agree that the porch could be enclosed provided the windows were of the appropriate size, proportion and material. Example of inappropriate enclosure of sun porch Staff feels that approval of this application to add windows to a sun porch could be consistent with this conclusion. Although the sun porch at 621 S. Summit Street is a feature that defines the character of the property, the enclosure of the porch with windows is not necessarily uncharacteristic of the architectural style, may not significantly change the character of the porch or alter the overall character of the house. However, in order to ensure that these objectives are achieved, staff has recommended some revisions, sketches of which are attached. These revisions include removing the proposed panels above the windows. Although the head height of the windows will not match the house, because the design of the porch is distinct from the house, staff feels that this is not troublesome. (See example B,UI President's Mansion). The less busy window configuration detracts less from the historic columns and frieze. Another recommended revision is to change the mullion pattern, make all the mullions the same dimension, and adding a horizontal mullion above the windows. This better simulates the look of removable window panels as opposed to permanent windows. The applicant also noted he would like to have a single door on the west side and a single horizontal muntin bar in each sash, with which staff agrees. Finally, the location of the windows in plan should be located on the same plane. The proposed plan shows the windows on the south elevation located flush with the columns. The windows and panels should be recessed at least a few inches from the frieze and columns to ensure that they are adequately expressed. Examples of Classical Revival houses with sun porch that have permanent windows Example A, 230 N. Clinton Street Example B, Ul President's Mansion Recommendation: The application for a certificate of appropriateness to add wood double -hung windows and recessed panels to the sun porch at 621 S. Summit Street be approved as recommended by staff. This application complies with the Iowa City Guidelines for Historic Preservation and Secretary of the Interior's Standards. 1 --7 E� u/ j" E-7_FVATio N (c ) - 5rlJr If_ _:Ih� III' _ -,� �JQC/�'f� �G�V/-4-�D� �� T/��"� m00%-�i�J��G�i-j?D/•� Application for Historic Review I For Staff Use. 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. j�-�,s...N!..... �..!✓a4... a.rK: .T r ...... Phone ...... 3.31m.+.`.b.3..... (RJ............ Address ... G1.4... 5....SK. ! .^^.S.T...S.!' ............................... Date submitted ....... `/Lll ).:::.......................... ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect Certificate of Appropriateness Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review Property Information Address of property....tr Sr t..T ...... Use of property ............. ...................................... Date constructed (if known) .... fZ rwis a ,r-L 15 3v email...... = ....................................................................................... Historic Designation ❑ Contractor... ❑ This property is a local historic landmark Address........................................................... .......................... OR ....................................- 0 C. �" A S'2z� o ...... ❑ This property is located in the: Phone................35 I - za`1 ?............................................... ❑ Brown Street Historic District email ............. :_ .................................................................... ............. ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District El Consultant ................................................................................... ❑ Longfellow Historic District Address........................................................................................... )4 Summit Street Historic District ........................................................................................................... ❑ Woodlawn Historic District Phone.............................................................................. ...................................................................... email............................................................ Application Requirements Attached are the following items: ❑ Site plan Floor plans Building elevations Photographs ❑ Product information ❑ Other.............................................................................. .••••.••••• ❑ 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: AContributing ❑ Noncontributing ❑ Nonhistoric 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. 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 ....... ...... Jr. � :� ...... P kt ......... ru ...... ......................... ..... 7--V .... 4,!.M.tA............................. FtLRF... . ..... ...... L'..1.1-10FA ....... A.F ....... ..... 4FX..� . . . ................................ ........ . > ....... ..... t-J.. .................................................................... I Materials to be used ................... .... . .. S!N.� ...... ... f4-:..W.4 ........... 4if ..................................................................................... ................................ ...... .0 ...... ...... ....... .................. J .. A .-.A�J ...... -S ....... ... .. ... ..... ... ... ...... ..... ...... . ..... ... ... ................... n. ISa .................. .. ft ..... H..YA& ......5*Ancf.m ...... r.9 ..... tsw .... ............. •✓............................................................................. Exterior appearance changes ............ H-40. ... r ..... q.A ..... !kq.IW..';4-A:TTeA: ..... T.-O ..... f!I�ft.:me ..... ..... . 2J ............................ J W� ... J,.Khaw. M...T.M.t.1 ........................ ................................................. ........ I ..........rr,.................. .... ? . ..... ........... EX' Sr-qej 1. e� ......... ................................... 3 49 / o ...................... # ri ............. .. ........... ................................ ..................................... IV .................. ....................... AV.e�+. .... !t .. .... -r,.. � 6 ... ... ... W .. ......................................... ... R..A4r .................. 6,Of=r..-7v . 4.�J ..................................................................... ............................................................................................................................. 0 EXISTING COLUMNS TYP. OF 8 4C A2 13'-11" PROPOSED 5'-0Y FRENCH DOORS PROPOSED WOOD FRAMED WALLS WITH INTERIOR PANELING 0 -PROPOSED WINDOWS SIM. ALL 3 SIDES 00 EXISTING BRICK FOUNDATION H 3 EFF"mtwn ■, Construction Services Panancvn rneirrwini, PROPOSED HEAD HEIGHT TO MATCH EXISTING HEAD HEIGHT ON FRONT OF HOUSE TO MATCH EXISTING PANEL ON HOUSE ELEVATION A mOrknafton ., Construction Services EXISTING 13' WOOD COLUMNS ROPOSED DOUBLE UNG WOOD WINDOWS llio 111vu "RICK z L7 H Q� Q3 H U H U W Q Q ❑ 3H w DRAWN BYt ASB DATE, 4/15/04 2OF4 =1' z H H q Q Q3 PROPOSED WOOD = H PANELS SIMILAR TO PANELS AT BOTTOM U OF WINDOWS H - EXISTING 13' (� WOOD COLUMNS PROPOSED DOUBLE HUNG PROPOSED HEAD HEIGHT WOOD WINDOWS--LJ TO MATCH EXISTING HEAD 3H HEIGHT ON HOUSE 00 W F V Z O N PROPOSED WOOD PANEL PROPOSED S'-D" EXISTING BRICK FRENCH DOORS ELEVATION C 0 Z DRAWN BY. ASB DATE, 4/15/04 � /� PAGE1 4OF4 AIIa�n SCALE; Construction Services �m PTA -Awl LA kil 4pi 3 . . . . . . . . . . ------- MINUTES DRAFT Historic Preservation Commission April 8, 2004 — 7:00 P.M. Emma Harvat Hall — Civic Center CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Maharry called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: James Enloe, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Amy Smothers, Paul Sueppel, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Gunn, Justine Zimmer STAFF PRESENT: Shelley McCafferty OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Carlson PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Maharry announced that the City Council had appointed Justin Zimmer to the Commission for the at -large position. He said that Gunn and Ponto were re -appointed. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificate of Appropriateness for 617 Brown Street. Maharry said he originally considered the possibility of granting this application a certificate of no material effect. He said that since he could not decide, he believed that it should come before the entire Commission. McCafferty said the property is a Foursquare house on Brown Street. She showed a photograph of the dormer that was added sometime in the 1960s. McCafferty said the windows now leak, and the owners would like to replace the wide siding with siding that has the same exposure as the rest of the house and also replace the windows with wood, double -hung windows of the same dimension as the existing. MOTION: Weitzel moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the project at 617 Brown Street. Enloe seconded the motion. Enloe said he felt this was a good idea, and Maharry agreed. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Certificate of Appropriateness for 728 Dearborn. McCafferty said this item was to be deferred. ELECTIONS: Chair. Enloe said he has been impressed procedurally with the current chair for keeping the meetings on target and on time. MOTION: Sueppel nominated Maharry for the position of chair. McCallum seconded the motion. Maharry agreed to accept the nomination for chair. MOTION: Enloe moved to elect Maharry as chair by acclamation. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Vice -Chair. MOTION: Sueppel nominated Smothers for the position of vice -chair. Enloe seconded the motion. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 8, 2004 Page 2 Smothers declined the nomination, saying she might not be able to serve for an entire year. MOTION: Enloe nominated Weitzel for the position of vice -chair. Sueppel seconded the motion. Weitzel agreed to accept the nomination for vice -chair. MOTION: Sueppel moved to elect Weitzel as vice -chair by acclamation. Enloe seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Historic Review Subcommittee. McCafferty said the subcommittee would consist of three Commission members and an alternate could also be appointed. She added that staff would also be present at the meeting. The Commission discussed appointing members to the subcommittee. McCafferty said the subcommittee would meet, at most, once between regular Commission meetings, which could result in four meetings per month during the summer. She read from the by-laws, "The Commission shall have the authority to establish a Historic Preservation Design Review Subcommittee to review and make recommendations to the Commission regarding applications for certificates of appropriateness. Said subcommittee shall consist of three members of the Commission, appointed annually by the Commission, to serve one-year terms." Enloe asked exactly what would go through the subcommittee. McCafferty said she discussed this with Gunn, who felt that items that clearly complied with the guidelines would not need to go through the subcommittee, but items that are less clearly compliant, such as additions, new construction and may not be as straightforward would go through the subcommittee. Enloe said it seems that items that are troubling and controversial should go through the full Commission. McCafferty said the entire Commission would have input and would make the final decision. She said the purpose of the subcommittee is to make the Commission meetings more efficient. McCafferty said that with other commissions, an application that comes before them has a staff report and a recommendation. She said that staff analyzes each case relative to the applicable laws and regulations and makes a recommendation to the board or commission. The subcommittee would be responsible for this analysis in order to streamline the consideration process. Enloe said that was acceptable. He said he had recalled that the plan was for the subcommittee to deal with minor issues. McCafferty said that State law requires that within historic districts any item, other than an application for no material effect, that comes before the Commission has to be approved by the full Commission. She said that Enloe may be thinking of a conservation district, for which there is intermediate review and minor review. McCafferty said that in the future for conservation districts, the subcommittee would approve applications that require intermediate review, and staff and the chair would do the minor review. Sueppel said that basically the subcommittee will not be making any rulings that the entire Commission is not required to vote on. McCafferty confirmed this. Enloe said he is okay with that. Maharry added that a lot of the design changes that are discussed in the regular meeting will already be resolved at the subcommittee level. McCafferty said the owners would have the opportunity to meet with the subcommittee. She stated that the subcommittee would hold public meetings, and the meetings would be posted. Maharry said he would be willing to serve on the subcommittee. McCallum said he would also be willing to serve. Enloe suggested appointing Zimmer as the subcommittee alternate to give her an exposure to the design review. MOTION: Sueppel moved to appoint Gunn, Maharry, and McCallum to the Historic Review Subcommittee and to appoint Zimmer as an alternate. Enloe seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Maharry said there may not be an application for the first meeting, but the subcommittee could meet to at least discuss the process. McCafferty said she anticipated several applications, with at least one that could be reviewed by the subcommittee. She said *that the subcommittee process would require that applications be due sooner than they are currently. McCafferty added that there is a full Commission meeting on April 22°d. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 8, 2004 Page 3 NORTHSIDE NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS: Brown Street Historic District McCafferty said the probably final draft of the nomination was distributed to members in their packets. She said the nomination has gone to the State Historical Society. McCafferty said the document in the packet is the nomination form to put these districts on the National Register. Sueppel asked if property owners were asking to be put on the National Register or if they were aware of the nomination. McCafferty said all property owners were notified, and there was one neighborhood meeting for the districts. She added that property owners will be notified a second time. McCafferty said Marlys Svendsen would speak about these districts at the Historic Preservation Awards, and all property owners in the proposed districts would receive invitations. McCafferty said that after the awards there would be a question and answer session for property owners to ask questions and express any concerns. Sueppel said he knew quite a few property owners in the area who did not know anything about the nomination. McCafferty replied that they were all notified that the Commission is proceeding with the National Register nomination. She said the National Register nomination itself does not have any regulations with it unless a homeowner is using federal funds. McCafferty said the Commission will then likely look at proceeding with a local district, at which point regulations would apply. She said the local district designation would require at least seven meetings in the process of moving from Historic Preservation Commission level to the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council. McCafferty said City Council approval is not needed for a National Register Historic District. She said that the body that approves it is the State Nomination Review Committee (SNRC). McCafferty said that SNRC reviews the application and then sends it on to the National Park Service with a recommendation. McCafferty said that property owners will be notified regarding the local designation at least twice by mail, and there will also be postings regarding the series of meetings. Enloe said the local designation is an entirely separate process from the National Register nomination, although the paperwork to be used is the same. McCafferty said the nomination paperwork determines the historic significance, defines the boundaries, contains the research as to why the area is significant, describes the context and history, etc. McCafferty said that if a property owner wanted to use State or Federal tax credits or County tax abatement, any key or contributing property within the districts would be eligible for such tax benefits. She said she believed that there is also a lesser level of tax credit for non-contributing properties. MOTION: Ponto moved to recommend approval to the State Historical Society of the proposed Brown Street Historic District National Register nomination. Enloe seconded the motion. Ponto asked about the district boundary. McCafferty referred to the map in the back of the packet. She said Svendsen originally intended to do a separate district here, but the State pushed for adding the extended area to the Brown Street Historic District. The motion carried on a vote for 6-0, with Smothers abstainine. Smothers said she did not realize this was the final draft, and therefore had not reviewed the nomination completely. Gilbert -Linn Street Historic District. Maharry said this nomination would go through the same procedure as the previous item. Sueppel said he had some reservations about this district. He said that he had reservations in terms of the size. Sueppel said there are a lot of houses he would like to see in there and also a lot of other places that he does not believe belong in there. Maharry asked for addresses of properties that Sueppel did not feel would belong in the district. Enloe said Svendsen found 115 out of 143 to be contributing. Maharry added that 12 properties were found to be key. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 8, 2004 Page 4 McCallum said this district will be interesting in that a lot of the property owners are investors. He said that fact may also make this area more at risk. Maharry asked if there are questions about whether this is historic. He said the local designation would involve whether this should be a local district but asked if there was any contention with the research that found this to be historic. McCafferty said that is the key issue. She said during the local district process, if there is a property owner on the edge who wants out, the Commission might want to consider removing the property from the district, even though at this point all the national districts coincide with the local districts. McCafferty said, however, that the Commission is not discussing the viability of this as a local district but is discussing whether the historic research conclusion is correct. McCallum said he supports this district. McCafferty said that Svendsen put a lot of thought into the district and tends to be very thorough. Weitzel commented that Svendsen has done this for a long time. Sueppel said he goes agrees with the historic findings. MOTION: Ponto moved to recommend approval to the State Historical Society of the proposed Gilbert -Linn Street Historic District National Register nomination. Weitzel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0, with Smothers abstainine. Smothers said she did not realize this was the final draft, and therefore had not reviewed the nomination completely. Jefferson Street Historic District. Maharry said this would be a smaller district, with only 44 properties. McCallum noted that University buildings are also included in this district. Sueppel asked what the effect would be of having the University buildings and the four churches in the district. McCafferty said two of the churches are already landmarks, so there will be no effect on them. McCafferty said the University can basically do whatever it wants with its buildings. Sueppel asked about the effect on the Newman Center. McCafferty commented that it is non-contributing. She said National Register status would not have an effect unless federal funds are used, but if and when the district becomes a local district, the Newman Center would still have to go through the process but there would be a lot more latitude because of its non-contributing/nonhistoric status. MOTION: Enloe moved to recommend approval to the State Historical Society of the proposed Jefferson Street Historic District National Register nomination. Weitzel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-0, with Smothers abstainine. Smothers said she did not realize this was the final draft, and therefore had not reviewed the nomination completely. MINUTES: February 12. 2004. McCafferty stated that Carlson had submitted amendments to the minutes, since he had attended the meetings. Maharry said that on page one in the fourth paragraph, second sentence, the clause "...and there were three criteria for that" should be deleted, since it doesn't mean anything in context with the rest of the minutes. Maharry said that on page four in the fifth paragraph, the second sentence should be deleted. The Commission discussed the concept of ex parte contact. Maharry said if a member goes to someone's home to look at some particular feature of a project, it should not be discussed with the homeowner, because then technically that is information that the two parties are privy to but the public is not. Weitzel said if there are no discussions, then that would cut out all the beneficial information as well. Maharry said he would distribute copies of information he received regarding Commission meetings to Commission members. He said there is one page on ex parte communication. McCafferty said she forwarded Maharry's concerns to Mitch Behr, one of the city attorneys, and said he would be getting back to her with his opinion. She read from the Commission's by-laws, which were approved by the City Attorney, "A member who has had a discussion of an Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 8, 2004 Page 5 agenda item outside of the public meeting with an interested party shall reveal the contact prior to staff report, naming the other party and sharing specifics of the contact, copies, if in writing, or a synopsis, if verbal. Enloe said ex parte contact is therefore not forbidden but must be revealed to the rest of the Commission in the public meeting. McCafferty said the important element is to make certain the party knows that only the full Commission can make a decision. She said it should be noted to any party to whom a Commission member speaks that the Historic Preservation Commission makes all decisions and that if the person requests recommendations about how to work with an issue, he should be referred to staff. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve the February 12, 2004 minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Febmary 26. 2004 McCafferty said the spelling of "Section" should be corrected, and the address of the property under review should be corrected to 1501 Crescent Street. McCafferty said that Carlson has suggested that the fourth paragraph be amended to, "Carlson stated that he researched the possibility that this house is significant under National Register Criteria B. He stated that Carter Holt, the former owner of this house, appears to have occupied this property from the late 1940s until his death in 2002. No evidence uncovered during the research on Holt suggests that he was sufficiently prominent in any of his activities, including his work as a shoeshiner and later custodian at The University to meet National Register criteria." McCafferty pointed out that clause in the motion was inappropriate. She suggested changing the word "because" to "but". MOTION: Sueppel moved to approve the February 26, 2004 minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Sueppel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7- March 11, 2004. McCafferty stated that on page two, in the eleventh paragraph, the word "nee" should be changed to "need", and the word "inched" should be changed to "inches". Maharry said that on page three, in the fourth paragraph, the last sentence should read, "In contrast, staff feels the kitchen window,..." Carlson suggested that in the first sentence on page three, in the fifth paragraph, the word "definitive" should be changed to "character -defining". MOTION: Enloe moved to approve the March 11, 2004 minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission meeting, as amended. Weitzel seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Historic Review Procedures McCafferty asked Carlson if he had any suggestions for improvement of the Commission's procedure. Carlson said one thing he would change would be to only have public discussion during the time designated for such. He said the Commission should not take up the time of those waiting to speak, and the Commission could discuss items of interest to Commission members at the end of the meeting. Carlson said he had enjoyed his time on the Commission and enjoyed working with all of the other members. McCafferty said there is a handout on procedures for Commission review. She said her point in including the handout was to keep the Commission on task and to clarify the process so that questions and clarifications come before the motion and so that discussion by the Commission comes after the motion. Ponto said he found the staff reports in the current packet to be very helpful. He said a report would also be important as a good summary if an application's approval or disapproval should be challenged. Sueppel said he agreed but said he would also like to see what applicants are proposing to be spelled out more thoroughly on the application. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes April 8, 2004 Page 6 McCafferty said she would try to ensure that the submitted applications are thorough. McCafferty said one other thing that would be helpful would be to have a brochure to briefly outline the process. Historic Preservation Week. McCafferty said she would have a list of nominees for awards prepared for the next meeting for the Commission to vote on. She pointed out that the awards ceremony would be held May 5`s, not May 6 s as listed in the packet. Maharry said that Commission members should consider possible applicants for the Nowysz Award for submission at the next meeting. Sueppel suggested the Commission consider presenting the award to Carlson. CLG Trainins: McCafferty reminded Comrnission members that CLG training with Kerry McGrath is tentatively scheduled for May 20 at 5:30 p.m. before the regular Commission meeting. McCafferty asked any Commission members who might have a conflict to let her know so that she could reschedule the training, if necessary. Certificate of No Material Effect for 633 S. Governor Street. Maharry said this project involved the repair of a porch and is included for the Commission's information. Certificate of No Material Effect for 304 S. Summit Street. Maharry said this project involved reroofing with asphalt shingle and is included for the Commission's information. McCafferty commented that for multi -family dwellings, a permit is required to replace the shingles. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte data on citynt/pcd/rniouteApcY20041hpc04-08-04.dw l - I i Residential: Paint & Exterior Finishes Residential: Addition in a Historic Setting 818 N. Linn Street 424 N. Van Buren Street 811 Brown Street 1231 E. College Street 1016 College Street 623 Dearborn Street MEOW Li 707Wainut 712812003 1;! NP; Al I