Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09/08/2005 Historic Preservation Commission
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Thursday, September 8, 2005 City Hall, 410 E. Washington Street Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Public discussion of anything not on the agenda 3. Items of Consideration A. Certificate of Appropriateness: 1. 801 Bowery Street 2. 520 Clark Street 3. 1022 East College Street 4. 1143 Maple Street 5. 1027 East College Street 6. 228 South Summit #A-2 7. 328 Governor Street 8. 517 Grant Street 9. 415 Clark Street B. Minutes for August 15, 2005 and August 25, 2005 4. Other 5. Adjourn Al.alication for Historic Rc _ Aew 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 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at wwwicgov.org/HPhondbook. 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 in the PCD Office by noon on Wednesday the week prior to the meeting. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) ❑ Owner �T� �:....LTY �' Phone.........irt� .'.� cif# ........................................................ Address.......................................................................................... ......................................................................................................... email.............................................................................................. Contractor 64.n y . w P S �/.........� .... .S � �L .. ................... Addre4 ..... `�/ �1�0►ly dt��. ................. ........................... Phone........ ..:, /.................0 ... ...�........................................ 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: � r Date submitted .............. ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect Certificate of Appropriateness Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review Property Information Address of property J / �`�7r. ........................... ..... .............................. ..................................... p..............._............................................................... Use of property ...,14�.ft.1.......................................................... Date constructed (if known)............................................................. Historic Designation ❑ This property is a local historic landmark OR Vk!rThis 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 W 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 f 'fe �G4.111-f............3.X..........���............?.......�j.r.........�!..................................................,;, l.............. ... �q, ................................................................................................................................ . ............................................:..................................................................................................................................................................................... .... ....................... ...................................................................... ............................................ .......I.............. ................... .....:....... / ................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. Materials to be used .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Exterior appearance changes .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ppdadm/HP Handbook/App.p65 1' c we G, I I i , i--l.- � Q Y) I J_ I I e i I _- LAITd �— I I I I i i 1V k I I -j I I - 1 �� �l l ,,.-�'_� Staff Report August 31, 2005 Historic Review for 801 Bowery Street District: Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing Applicants, River City Property Management, are requesting approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations, partially completed without permit, at 801 Bowery Street, a contributing property in the Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District. This partially completed project includes replacement of concrete stairs on the side entry of the house, with wood stairs and installation of railing. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: Please refer to following sections: 4.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations, 4.10: Balusters Staff Comments The applicants (primary contact — contractor) replaced the stairs for the side entry without a permit and historic preservation review. The replaced stairs do not meet the building code, as a landing is not provided. The applicants were informed about the code requirements and advised to submit a revised proposal. Per the revised proposal a deck, measuring 5' x 3' will be constructed as the landing and per the sketch provided the landing is more than 30" above grade. Code requires a guardrail for such decks. Proposal does not include a guard rail for the landing. - The applicants have proposed a railing for the stairs with wood newel post and metal pipe for handrail. Staff recommends a simple wood guardrailwith posts that match the proposed newel posts on the stairs and balustrade made of wood square balusters. Please refer to a sketch attached. Or mgerl'a /S Application for Historic Revaew 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. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at wwwicgov.org/HPhondbook. 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 in the PCD Office by noon on Wednesday the week prior to the meeting. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact rson) ❑ Owner ... .\,�7 i'r .. .... ....... ......` ..................... Phone (t `— .� t........�.�?d.�................... , ..... .............. ...... Address...... .t ).........(.Z. K......... :.................... .c......... ........:1�:...................................... email............................................................................................... "f , Contractor.... ......... Address�c- .......6j/.+w a .< fdctt. ........ 'J'.................. :.�?!.t E.>........�-.x:....... ��G:7'14 .................................. Phone..................................................... email.............................................................................................. ❑ Consultant................................................................................. Address.......................................................................................... ......................................................................................................... Phone............................................................................................. ......................................................................................................... email............................................................................................... Application Requirements Attached are the following items: Site plan ,Q---F'Ioor 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:d. Date submitted ..........`...... ••••�. .. .......... ❑ ' Certificate of No Material Effect 0E� Certificate of Appropriateness --d Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review Property Information Address of property `���...C"` r'" �` �' *_4 .....✓.�...........1:' .!..`j..................................................... Use of property ....... 5}........................................ I....... 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 �L (4o. 'Longfellow Historic District ❑ Summit Street Historic District ` ❑ Woodlawn Historic District V-/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: ontributing ❑ in ❑ 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 ............................................... ............ .......................................... ........... ***,*** ...... ............. ................ .............. ................ ........... ..... OJ ............... ...................................... ..............................6 4.� ............ ............ ............. Q.:� ............ �:�ns . . ............. .................................... I ........ ............................................................ I ............................. ................................... I ................................................................................ I .............................. .............. I .......................................................... " .................................................................................................................. .................................................... ......................................... I ............................. I ................................................ I ....................................... I ................... I ........ ............................... I .................... ........................................................................................... I ...................................................................... I ........................................................... I ................... ............................................................................................. .... ............................................................................................... I ................................................. ..................................................................................................................................... I ................................................................................ 11 .......................... .................................................................................................................................. I .......................................................................................... I .................... .................................................................................................... I ............................................................................................. I ............................................... ........ I ............................... I ....................................................................................................................................................... I ........ ................................................................................................................................................................................................. I ....... .............. I ....................................................................................................................................... I ......... I ................................. I ...... Materials to be used ......... . ... ................ ............... ............. -��A ............ 4.1� ... N ...... ............. I ............................ ............. I ...................... I .................................................. ................................................................................................................................. . . .......................... ................. ............. ............ ............ A I. . ............................................... I ....... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... Exterior appearance changes ........... ) / )/ .............. ................. .......... ....... ey\ ...................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .......................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ... ...... I ............................................................................................................................................................................................... .............................. I .......................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................... I ......................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................... I ................................................................................................................. ........... I .................. I .......................................................................................................................................................................... ......................................... I ............................................................................................................................................................... ppdadm/HP Hand book/App, p65 PROPERTY: 520 CLARK ST, IOWA CITY. IOWA OWNERS ROGER K. AND ROSEMARY A. SHULTZ 319-338-6183 CONTRACTOR: MIKE LANGE CONST. SOLON. IOWA 321-0549 PREPARED BY: CLB PLANNING AND DESIGN IOWA CITY. IOWA 319-338-8256 7-14-05 ORTH SCALE:F = 20' II EYi� WG EX ST '_- `'� GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATTDN SCALE::/4' = E" _ 1 K I c —VINYL SIDING C 1 I— ' iIII I,� I f1Y�D I i ]Y } EXISTING ,I I xct~z J nuiv£ EXISTING 'OURE_DNCRETE 0. EAST ELON /4- - 1' 2GAB—: �1 ppp 23' 11' 3PA11 1 II � SCIBRtIII!ry1IIIR4 Ti I65 s I I�IInIIII /% G� ''1 I L<vRnN'n� .�i � 5/12 •g �g ' TM'M Rnf-ER Am CLG '(a' T r34 Rwe 6 GIST AT CLG LWE OIS� '1 N�H 'P'^ FAFM.R LI IIPuiE LWE.TS ETAIL WI L51pE io �E &� ^W wp �y7 .YLDOOR AND TRANSOM g FR 4 , ypy V-0 . 1 0 i%air, Sq E%ISi1NG BAM" 3._, - it F;R �SC�'Y SN RAFTER DETAIL SEIHEEN ENO VIE;, r 7pE N:NG A.-- -a ISTING AND PROPOSED EIETWEL IST:NG AND �eB 4S 8 ADDITION.a' o--.J..<' o'- -- 8' p'— --1 o- SCALE. 3/0" - i" 0" SCALE- 3 I 0_ 'S.asa �W I 13vsv oF, T �s r A—� o F �fi. pae T c 0o�£T� IO ~ 51"1 AREA nnpNsw j; }1STR 9c06. RN I � �S 9x QkW EXTERIOR ' qy ;:G DECK I 77 IInT i,. ZC T a• g 4 _ IS - 0 3��539$ eia 0C ZKllG�'ljj? S V. 9"« - - ° ° G-VTLLE i7 YF i -- - SOUTH WINDOW WALL 1/4' 1" 0' _ / mWc I.. N / p I r NEL.ATED NL Y �• � I � y. 1 h ➢ i A 0' 0� III q I 1 rA xe — N Ya cLLc�J`-t'- II p' SEAL ST,AL 1 1. O'NO 10 1/3- �'�'- M 314 TEv3 PLA'yPi� `i_ LINEN ..., i `n•.• EXISTING 1SEC RM / o NEW SATH4 .. I TILE EXISTING PROON ADDITION 1L 2 L fToo ALTT 1-JOIST n / / - ka s=T CI: s6c wnL i I ` L FIRSTIFGGOR EXISTING sae L SECTION THRIi AMON L _ _.. _.._- .__.._ Sp o'_..____--._... [A 1/4_= ' 0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED FLCOR PLAN Q 2648-2 �c pIm f f IV o � wF IV I { i 4 Yp yp 1 i� i a 3 �( - .._Poems.. � �-��'�• .1'}"..': _._\ , 1 . 3$ L� AM Kt`tt \ ff 1 , Staff Report August 31, 2005 Historic Review for 520 Clark Street District: Clark Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing Applicants, Rose and Roger Shultz, are requesting approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed addition at 520 Clark Street, a contributing property in the Clark Street Conservation District. The proposed project includes the addition of a second floor measuring 24' x 18' onto an existing one-story addition (added in 1970?) on the existing house. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: Please refer to following sections: 5.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Additions StaflComments The house was originally built with influences of Colonial style of architecture and design elements, particularly the symmetric three -bay facade and hipped roof. Previous additions have compromised the character of the house. The peak of the roof for the proposed addition will be higher than the roof of the original house and will visible on front elevation. The applicants have proposed using fiber cement board siding. This addition will further detract from the symmetric arrangement, as the house will be masked by the large addition and only one of the original windows on the second floor will be visible. If the addition is to be approved, it should be consistent with the Guidelines and Standards for Rehabilitation provided by the Secretary of Interior and the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines. Following are some of the issues that need to be addressed while considering the addition. 1. Preserving significant historic materials and features 2. Designing an addition so that it does not diminish the character of the historic structure 3. Distinguishing between the historic structure and the new addition 4. Matching key horizontal "fines" on the existing building, such as water table, eave height, window head height and band boards 5. Using windows that are of a similar type, proportion and divided -light pattern as those in the original structure 6. Installing French doors, or doors of a similar type, in additions where a large opening is desired. 7. The guidelines disallow leaving large expanses of wall surface uninterrupted by windows or doors 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 For Staff Use: Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of Date submitted ............................... the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect www.icgov.org/HPhandbook. ❑ 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 in the PCD Office by noon on Wednesday the week prior ❑ Minor review to the meeting. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) try" 3 ci 5-4 fi a Owner .!....� L- ... �....0..............I....................... ' J .Y�'krx Phone.....'.5.-4............................/........................................ Address....�.r`).`.'�.'. ...../`7 �' (�('. e, { , JLu <l. brit a! ...... _S ... r C' a email......................................+...._............................G.....'............... ❑ Contractor...... -...cc:. ......e. .................... 01 . 5 Address.....................�41.. ..............:..................................................... Phone.. ... ..J...................................................... email............................................................................................... ❑ Consultant................................................................................. Address................................................................................... Phone........................................................................................... email............................................................................................... Application Requirements Attached are the following items: ❑ Site plan ❑ Floor plans ❑ Building elevations d 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 /11 jr.f Address of 10 __ ` l T property..........................................:?...�'.�-:.............. Useof property ..... 6.�..`.Y!^� .................p............................. ............... Date constructed (if known) ............ /..b .1.................................. Historic Designation ❑ This property is a local historic landmark OR ❑ This property is located in the: ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District d 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 N/ Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance ❑ Other Project description L ..�` .Ve.4r......�.� 13 i........4 ..... CtCJc... r �Gt ..... ..... �'f? � •! f......4C-q-AA:ftC.Jf .....�.....1..�. b:.......................................... % ...�?�....... 43.........E ✓!� .......C.. �zC.... .... � ............................................ .... p. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. f (.4i �.....4.:�C �. .... !c,t.:4... t. -s .... � ....G t l�!.!% .. °.T...... � :lC-C.a .c ua!>...1 '!p ....c�....... 6?.!' a ..{ .47•(�.t.11t4C�.. +......dLf...o:.r?.�.�i .j +. r c o f cp r y 'ter° 7 a c �i ......f.....4:............. '.............., �. �.. ..................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................... Materials to be used :� .,...... ./' .1 .....� ..(lE +�.... ..................................................................................................................................................... Exterior appearance changes ...I f...... .e.... a. �f. I ................................. ............................... ........ 1. .: e+'.. a - r s e r-e ............... ..... �: �.i.���k. c >, ....r ....... ..�.............. .................... .................... .....-.......��.:.. ^^ ........� .{. 1 zG�. ��. cv- {5...... f �.....c �e ' r ............................ I cZ✓ . c �' c^LL� ........................... ' � � .............. ...................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ppdadm/HP Handbook/App.p65 ' E • • , � �,LL tg.K �♦fa �. i�•` 1, I S'Y' .• F .� M '''Till F N .w. e '��, ��' `^C. f ,l Y �y Fes• 4. t y • �r 1 awc -f �" .. .. rva' �.• � ,ice_ �~ h'. ` � �^a•^KiY( •�i' 4 ♦. � f' yt t 4 S /yts-n'S a '�. rt• ,j� ,. R T iY, 4 1 RS.µ:r j� `it's" > •�• .yt.x,, � t �, L . ♦ ixr fi�f' "r..�,. �'• t i5 +i-� ' ~ L ` �C 1`,. � 4,�,�. k a: r��x �i' �� f ..PF .rc ! J,. �•_ f'!`•. h r1;,� ..7 i'`��'.,,a .. T ;fit. Y�s�k J -�•' 7�,�i,! 'a ' `a • •:k t'' '.:"a +�\� .i" :� 1. y y� `�•!rr"'���l P}�',��,({��+�gy ^:..4..Y .s�•T.6 q• ".. _mil .'y .._ "'�.T _ {llt\._i.Y�3i'��w'f A � w � wl4x1 Staff Report Historic Review for 1022 E College Street District: East College Historic District Classification: Contributing August 31, 2005 Applicants, Michelle Campo and Esther Baker, are requesting approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed alteration at 1022 East College Street, a contributing property in the East College Historic District. The proposed project involves replacement of the roof on a small addition at the back of the house. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: Please refer to following sections: 4.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations 4.4 Mass and Roofline Staff Comments The project as described in the application is to remedy existing drainage problems for the addition and the original house. The proposed pitch change for the roof will be a minor change. In general, the proposal is consistent with the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines. Staff recommends approval. Application for Historic Rc ew Application for alterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City For Staff Use: Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of t Date submitted .........� the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation rf.; 1../...�'. �..y.. Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect www.icgov.org/HPhandbook. %,�Cer ificate of Appropriateness Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. JZ Major review During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. ❑ Intermediate review Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Wednesday the week prior ❑ Minor review to the meeting. Applicant Information j(Please check primary contact person) Phone ............ UY.............�a.. .....:-..S.Y.....7............. Address ........ 11.Y3.......... 1.V.�..... ST- .................. / wit G....... J .... ....... Z ........? ............................................ ...... email................................................ ❑ Contractor.,39,fNPp�i.V.... nP1b!?�,.p�i9Qfj �/�Tf(j� Address .... /-!- 73.?.... eroan e.... I�..airA..20 ...................i.aw....G'...... ,1 ............s z..Y.. PhoneC.3 .1..3 S�k o6'S ...................... r.............................................. email............................................................................................... ❑ Consultant................................................................................. Address.......................................................................................... Phone............................................................................................. email....................................... Application Requirements Attached are the following items: ❑ Site plan ❑ Floor plans ❑ Building elevations Photographs ❑ Product information ZOther........................................ 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 ....(.l..Y3.........l!¢p4ty- . r ................. .......................................... W. .... �r� $' ...................... Use of property ..............�?.! Date constructed (if known) ........t.. .r 1.....(............. I.................... Historic Designation ❑ This property is a local historic landmark —/OR 5 This property is located in the: ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District QI 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 dNonhistoric ect 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 Julie Ames and Daniel Gerwin 1143 Maple Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Application for Historic Review Project Description Two existing basement windows, each 32" wide by 13" high, are being replaced with larger windows. Two other existing basement windows of the same dimensions are being replaced with new windows of 32" wide x 13" high. On the south wall, an egress window will be installed with the dimensions 37" wide x 57" high (not including sill). The sill height will be 34" above the floor. The depth from ground level to the base of the window is 35". The total square footage of the window is 14.65 square feet, the net openable area is 6.03 square feet. The bottom of the sill is 37" below the adjacent finished grade. On the west wall, one existing window will be replaced with a slightly larger window with the dimensions 36" wide by 24" high. The remaining two windows, also on the west wall, will simply be replaced with new windows of the same dimensions. Materials to be used The two larger windows are Pella windows, the larger egress window are a double -hung Pella ProLine, and the smaller of the two is an Impervia Slider. The smaller windows are also Pella Impervia Sliders. The frames are wrapped with wolmanized lumber and aluminum clad. The window wells are aluminum. Exterior appearance changes Exterior appearance will be essentially unchanged. The existing windows are metal frames and will be replaced with wood framing wrapped in aluminum and painted white, the color of the existing window frames. The existing window on the south wall finishes at 22" above ground level, and the replacement window will finish at the same height. The existing windows on the west wall finish at 13" above ground level, and the replacement windows will all finish at the same height, 13" above ground level. The larger windows, one on the south wall, and one on the west wall, will both have window wells. �2A vir�U 7S NUi 1C i'C J�[ l s7" 5,2 tj2 A 6pve �gIfoVnd� a� V ✓24.�,n. r,. �✓v`r. 7.'� GAC a. 3 6 " t /U2tr> M i Ci 0V2 ,a�nJny �,; 42z4 Sunil Terdalkar From: daniel gerwin [cobaltblue68@msn.com] Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 10:49 AM To: Sun II-Terdalkar@iowa-city.org Subject: my application for historical review Dear Sunil, Thank you for your phone call this morning making me aware of some of the issues in the historical review of my proposal to replace existing windows in the basement at 1143 Maple Street. Please add this email to my documents for review by the committee. I wish to clarify the following points: 1. Replacement windows: The two windows that will replace existing windows without changing the dimensions are not sliders. They are "awning" style windows, that is, they swing open into the basement from the top, exactly like the windows that are currently in place. They will be purchased from Menards. 2. Exterior Appearance: All the current windows open into the basement, and the two non -identical windows being installed (the double hung and the slider) will therefore not affect exterior appearance because when they are open the house will look the same from the outside as it does when the current windows are open. 3. Identical Street Frontage: The windows being replaced do not face to the street. The windows face to the backyard (South wall) or to a fifteen foot space between this house and the next house (West wall). Passersby on the street will not be able to see any of the changes. 4. House is non -historic: This house was built in 1959 and is not relevant to the historical qualities of the longellow neighborhood. I would appreciate it if you would reply to this email to confirm that you have received it and that you will add it on to my existing application for review. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Daniel Gerwin 9/2/2005 (J IUwy„U IS N�� Y^ `-C 4CE 361, �2 R_ bOv2 grovnb'� 4� bent-2., . VmA ,� cem v4e,e- 6 K 73F,2 feQ wc>f u14.c4-- exT&K,loe Seu7?f Staff Report August 31, 2005 Historic Review for 1143 Maple Street District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Non -Historic Applicants, Julie Ames and Daniel Gerwin, are requesting approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed alteration at 1143 Maple Street, a non -historic property in the Longfellow Historic District. The proposed project involves replacement of four basement windows. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: Please refer to following sections: 4.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations 4.7 Windows Staff Comments The part of the replacement project will enable the applicants to create habitable space in basement. The existing windows to be replaced are awning -style windows of opening size 32" x 13". The existing windows on the house include double -hung, casement and awning style windows. One of the basement windows on the south facade of the house will be replaced with a double -hung style window (opening size 37" x 57") for egress purpose. Another basement window on the west facade of the house will replaced with a slider style window (opening size 32" x 24"). The other two awning -style basement windows will be replaced with awning -style windows of same size. Slider windows are not allowed per the guidelines if such windows are not original to the house or consistent with the architectural style. Staff recommends approval, provided that the replacement windows are consistent with guidelines and that match the existing windows on the house, in style, proportion and material. 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 For Staff Use: Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of Date submitted ..........06 ... 4)04 ........�..... the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at ,Z' Certificate of Appropriateness www.icgov.org/HPhandbook. Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. \_X Major review During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. ❑ Intermediate review Applications are due in the PCD Office by noon on Wednesday the week prior ❑ Minor review to the meeting. Applicant Information. (Please check primary contact person) tt Owner ..... 1 hi.-�a..gTt .1. �4-:�:.�......................... Phone ... C.2-...'.. y ...t �!.......?? Address...i..4?.�-1.....a. ................ ...C.......a�...........T........... .... . bW ........ �::t r..(........1. ....... � 2-.......r.�-}.......... email ...�.1LY11.i� ❑ Contractor................................................................................. Address.......................................................................................... Phone............................................................................................. email............................................................................................... ❑ Consultant................................................................................. Address......................................................................................... Phone............................................................................................ email............................................................................................... Application Requirements Attached are the following items: Site plan Floor plans §4 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 .....(.Qzj E.:...... G.L .r{. ...: . ...................................................f............................................................... Use of property.....i�.,.1.(.i�r9'j�.fq'........................................... Date constructed (if known)......1..5..1.0................................... 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 ❑ Other Project description .. t.3 ..................................................................... I..", ...... I ...... I ................................................................. ................................................. ..................................................................................................................................................................... I ... I ....... .................................................................................................................................................... " ............................................................................................ ...................................................................................................................................................................... I .... I ............................ I ......................................... .... I ................................... I .............. I ........................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................... I .................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................ .............................................. I ..... I ............................................................................................................... ........ I ................................................................................... I ............................................................ I ........................................................................................ ................................................................................................... ... ............................................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................. I ................................................................ I ....... ............................ I ........................................................................................................................................................................ ............................... I ................................................................................... I .............................................................. I ...................... ....... .... . ... ... .............. ... .. ... .. . ..... . ... .. .... .. ...... .. ... . ...... . ........ .. . ... ... ........ . ..... . ...... .... . ..... . ... ..... . ...... ... . . ... . . . ....... ............... ..... .......... .. .. ... ... Materials to be used ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................. I .................................................................................................... ...... Am ............................................................ ............ I ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................ I ................................................................................................................... I ..................................................................................... ... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... I ................................. .................................................................. ...................................................................................................................................... ....................... I .......................................... Exterior appearance changes ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................ .......... ........ :..I.b ......... ....... . ............................................. .............. I .......................................................................... I ........................................................... I ........................................................... I ................................ ...................................................................... I ......................... I ................................................................ I ....................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................ I ............................................................................................................ ..................................................... I .............................................. I ............................................................... I .................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................... I .................... .................................................................................................. -11 ........................................................................ I .......................... ..... ... ....................................................................................................................................................................... I ......................... ............... I ...... I ................................................................................................................................................... I .............................. ppdadm/HP Handbook/App.p65 Aug 30 05 02:39R TFF Inc. 3309979 p.2 i o 25' 5 1 /2" ' 11 Aug 30 05 02:39P TFF Inc. 3309979 P.1 Exixting house lx8 Cedar face board 10. -t-2X8 Joist @ 16" cc CctJ 6 - 2-/ 6 Jots-r e 01 eo To Rck US j- "A. 3-2 -31�S' —12'-11 1/2"4'7"- ---------- --------- ---------------- --- ---------------------------------- ------------ --'6 112"- Plan View Deck Framing Aug 30 05 02:40p TFF Inc. 3309979 low 2: lopm HA PLANNING IDEPT(402)444-6140 NO. 169 P. 3 p. 4 m A im av Vr-A-K 00,401,6 �(X )Z i�Os-t-= IMF Staff Report August 31, 2005 Historic Review for 1027 E College Street District: East College Historic District Classification: Contributing Applicant, Jennie Thielen, is requesting approval of Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed addition at 1027 East College Street, a non-contributing property in the East College Historic District. The proposed project involves construction of a deck measuring approximately 25'-6" x 10', on front facade of the house. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: Please refer to following sections: 9.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Additions Staff Comments The house, originally built in c. 1883, has been significantly modified since. For this reason, this house did not qualify as a contributing property in the historic district. The existing house appears to be an example to vernacular architecture with no or minimal stylistic/design influences. Apparently, this house was stripped off its original porch in 1950s. Design or profile of the porch is unknown. The project as described in the application however does not include a complete porch, but only an uncovered deck with guardrail. Staff recommends construction of a porch rather than a deck. In the absence of any defining character, the porch design should be based on other similar structures in the neighborhood. The balustrade for the deck as proposed would not be appropriate for this simple vernacular house. Please refer to the sketch attached for an alternative staff recommendation. * After the Design Review Subcommittee Meeting the applicant has agreed to revise the proposal to construct the porch. Sketches are attached with the application. 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 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at wwwicgoy.org/HPhandbook. 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 in the PCD Office by noon on Wednesday the week prior to the meeting. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) .Owner ..... 2aAn.....G..4^�%e Phone ......... T 7 - 7.f'J % ..................................................................... Address......?.L.�........... r rnr� d i 1 -2 ..........................I..................... ee... ................LI....,..................... • ��q "(ORC iI (A.i (�4ICr ,PEA �1 email ..... yt ............................_. �.................................................. ❑ Contractor................................................................................. Address.......................................................................................... ...............................................................................................:......... Phone................. ».......................................................................... email............................................................................................... ❑ Consultant Address............................................... _......................................... ............................................................................................ _........... Phone............................................................................................. email Application Requirements Attached are the following items: ❑ Site plan W Ploor 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 ......... P'>.!...�` r .off ........... ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect I/d Certificate of Appropriateness t.� Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review Property Information Address of ro ert 2 S un,A,r r,t, f: Use of property .....9'd. P e rca/:.:.'.!? ....................... Date constructed (if known) ...... ,.?2. 4.......................................... His'tt(y is 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 Proojject Type U- Alteration of an existing building lie. 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 k Project description .......... RhUn± ...... ....... &"3 .. . ................ . ........... % CI ................. ........ ............... ........... ................................................... t ........ ........... �g ZL .. ............ f.... � 11 r 4 A& z: ............ .............. : . ......... .. er2 Ale JAro� ---- --------------- — 11 A"" " -( A -3 t,, re "O� t; A ).7 l IF ?S-. Materials to be used ............ 7.-;4.e 6'. , .-, A �. n /�, ;? f, a. -'0 / a ....................................................... ............................. I....... ...... ................................................................................... ............ .. . .. .... 'Ot , ....... ............ ................. /0,/ ............................ ..... ....... in .. . ........... hfo) . ............ ................. ......... ............... 7�) ....................... .... ...... ....... .................................. ..................................................................................................... ............................. . .......... ...................................................... 0 e�46�. ... ... .................. .... I ....... I ......................................................................... . . . .................................................................................................... .............. Exterior appearance changes ................ 11 .................... ........ ...... - .............. C e? rc, "z -1) .... .... ................ I ................ I ................................................ 1-1 .......... ............ I ......................... I ....... I ..................................................... I ....... I ................................ . ........................................................ . .... ppdadrrVHP Handbook/App.p65 Wi hdovv yqeme4 /�; j ure 7. �-/-a"'l-7 ,i%�ro.,,,_ . , e 44 a Staff Report August 31, 2005 Historic Review for 228 S Summit Street # A-2 District: College Hill Conservation District Classification: Key -Contributing The applicant, John Cordell, is requesting approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed alteration at 228 South Summit Street, a key -contributing property in the College Hill Conservation District. The proposed project involves replacement of two double -hung style windows with casement style windows on a first floor unit of this multi -family structure. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: Please refer to following sections: 4.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations 4.7 Windows Staff Comments As described in the application, the proposed replacement windows are to enable egress windows for a proposed bedroom. Similar units in the building have casement windows. In general, the project is consistent with the guidelines. Staff recommends approval. 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 For Staff Use: Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of PP the process and regulations can be found in the fowa City Historic Preservation Date submitted ....�?.1�..�8� ................................ Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect www.icgoy.org/HPhandbook ❑ 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 in the PCD Office by noon on Wednesday the week prior ❑ Minor review to the meeting. Applicant Information. (Please check primary contact person) c ❑ Owner ............ ..... Phone................./........................................ &&........................................................................ Address ....... t.11ll.... ... o'a�....................... email.......................................................................................... ❑ Contractor.....'�.pp......................................�..d..}..................... Address .......... �..'AtiJl . ........... .......... !i!..................... Phone email ❑ Consultant Phone........SA..04. i..Q................................................... 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 �jgQ� Address of property ......3 4. .....'. .... .......................................................................................»............»........ Useof property ................................................... 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 (le. 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 AgAfAIA.) 6 M, Liaa IA It Materials to be used z 4x� I w1amis .............. - ............................ Exterior appearance changes '.4, .............................................................................. . . . ................................................. I ............ I ......... I. ................. ................................................. ............................................ ppdadn-dHP Handbook/App.p65 7 'Ali) � bet zndows, Inc. Knebel Windows Inc PO Box 1029 Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 319 338.1712 Fax: 319 338-1904 CQ Pd #: 1900 System #: 0 Dealer Pq #: 1900 Sold To: 21 Customer ID: CASH SALE Phone: Fax: Delivery Instructions: Shipping Instructions: Item Number: 1 Quantity: 6 Total Jamb To Jamb: 26 X 291/8 Total Rough Opening: 27 X 29 518 PO: JOB NAME: LOCATION: QUOTE.1900 Order Date: 7/6/2005 Ship To: 1 KNEBEL WINDOWS INC. 700 SOUTH CAPITOL STREET IOWA CITY. IA 52240 Phone: 319 338-1712 Drop Ship: QUOTE DETAIL Project Number: 1900 Printed: 716/2005 1:09:55 PM Valid Date: 8/6/2005 Weather Shield Mfg. Inc. Proposes to Furnish Products as Stated Below. All Units viewed from Exterior. Weather Shield Double Hung Tilt Rectangle Product Arrangement-1 Wide Sizing Method -Rough Opening Nominal Glass Size. Nominal Glass Wldlh-2011116 Nominal Glass Height-10 Overall Jamb Wldth-26 Jamb Height-29 118 Overall R/O Width-27 R/O Height-29 5/8 Glass Width-20 9116 Glass Height-9 11116 Operating Code -Operating Exterior Frame Finish -Prime Exterior Sash Finish -Prime Exterior Trim -No Brickmould w/Sill Nose J�5 O �.SCVPA1,vC� lrlT�kLW'��+ �y�JL, ( Fax: 319 338-1904 Sill Hom-Extended From Jamb Sill Horn Length-5 Glass Type -Insulated Lite Configuration-1 Lite Screen/Storm-Full Screen Screen/Storm Color -White Pkg Scr/Storm Separate -Yes Unit Price: Item prices and total prlces may not include all option charges. Per Unit Ext. Price: Net Amount: $1,432.80 State Taxes: $71.64 Cty Taxes: $0.00 Local Taxes: $0,00 Taxes(Other): $0.00 Mist; Charges: $0.00 Grand Total: $1,504.44 Refer to the Weather Shield Acknowledgement for updated pricing. Page 1 of 1 Weather Shield CustomQuote System" 2.7.0 Copyright 2002 Weather Shield Mfg., Inc. go A CO Prj #: Sold To: CASH SALE Phone: Delivery Instructions: Shipping Instructions: Knebel Windows Inc, PO Box 1029 Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone: 319 338-1712 Fax: 319 338-1904 1902 System #: 0 Dealer Prj #: 1902 21 Customer ID: Item Number: 1 Quantity: 1 Total Jamb To Jamb: 28 X 40 1/8 Total Rough Opening: 29 X 41 3/8 Fax: QUOTE: 1902 Order Date: 7/6/2005 Ship To: i KNEBELWINDOWS INC. 700 SOUTH CAPITOL STREET IOWA CITY, IA 52240 Phone: 319 338-1712 Drop Ship: y� r-�-t QUOTE DETAIL Project Number: 1902 Printed: 7/6/2005 2:10:28 PM Valid Date: 8/6/2005 Weather Shield Mfg. Inc. Proposes to Furnish Products as Stated Below. Weather Shield Casement Rectangle Product Arrangement-1 Wide Sizing Method -Glass Size Glass Size-24 X 36 Glass Width-24 Glass Height36 Overall Jamb Width-28 Jamb Height-40 1/8 Overall R10 Width-29 R/O Height-41 318 Operating Code -Left Exterior Frame Finish-Pdme Exterior Sash Finish -Prime Exterior Trim -No Brickmould w/Subsill Sill Horn -Extended From Jamb Sill Horn Length-5 Fax: 319 338-1904 Sill Horn Location -Both Sides Glass Type -Insulated Spacer Material -Warn Edge 1 Spacer Lite Configuration-SDL Bar Width-7/8 Cut Style -Rectangular Bar Material -Pine SDL GIA Material -Silver Anodized Spacer Number Lites Wide-2 Number Lites High-3 Hinge Type -Egress Hinge PO: Per Unit: Ext. Price: JOB NAME: < 0 Q- ^ , _ , ' (� LOCATION:0�11pv " AVM' Unit Price: $333.00 $333.00 Net Amount: $333.00 State Taxes: $16.65 Cty Taxes: $0.00 Local Taxes: $0.00 Taxes(Other): $0.00 Misc Charges: $0.00 Grand Total: $349.65 Page 1 of 1 Weather Shield CustomQuote System*" 2.7.0 din Copyright 2002 Weather Shield Mfg., Inc. Staff Report Historic Review for 328 S Governor Street August 31, 2005 District: Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing Applicant, Jim Buxton, is requesting approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed alteration at 328 South Governor Street, a contributing property in the Governor -Lucas Street Conservation District. The proposed project involves replacement of six inoperable fixed windows in the attic space. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: Please refer to following sections: 4.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations 4.7 Windows Staff Comments This cross -gabled house, originally built in 1890s, appears to be a vernacular design with some stylistic influence of Late Victorian — Queen Ann styles. The house has been added onto at least twice in the past, compromising its integrity. The original ornamental attic windows are one of the only remaining features of the original style on this house. The applicant intends to replace the windows for ventilation in the attic. Installing double hung windows as proposed would further compromise the integrity of the house. In staff's view, if operable windows are to be approved, the size and style of existing windows should not be changed. Staff recommends exploring the possibility of making the existing windows operable. '' i -' tz �' -" 3 Z � -I ,K �• ` Y i � ^- �'_-a. i� t r .. i ^ L� 1 � ,�` ��.. ,� ..F - �, �::� ��_ ., i$ "_- ��yy „ , �- i I ¢` ' ` �. ,to- r rhy 1` s } p r .y.: +.fit �� %� . � .. J r � a '1 - .. - s .-r w- �.1 'F' • _ , � i �.I -�Pu` I ` ice- � 'S�- ri - / d I r p. �.. .. � `..• �• _ .i., City of Iowa City r Historic Preservation Commission MEMORANDUM Date: September 2, 2005 To: Historic Preservation Commission From: Sunil Terdalkar, Associate Planner Re: Alteration project at 328 S Governor Street In a meeting held on June 30, 2005 the commission approved a certificate of appropriateness for the abovementioned property. The certificate approved the proposed construction of a dormer, provided that ifs designed to be compatible with the architectural style including appropriate eaves, trim, fascia and a wood egress window that simulates a double -hung window. The applicant was advised to submit a revised dormer design prior to the construction to be reviewed by the commission or staff. Attached herewith is the revised drawing for the dormer. In staff's view, the dormer as proposed would be very large and would not fit in the roofline or mass of the structure. This will effectively add another gable end to the roof changing the roofline significantly. The guidelines allow new dormers that are designed "...such that the face of the dormer is primarily composed of window area." Please refer to the Section 4.4 Mass and Rooflines in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines for details. �� [( wFmRm pravidod fi� reV;9AA) 1r 4L,,e-J u ne ..& I 'p-�T". r ; REAR ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION • WALL —.T TO MA'. E%IBTMO vRIR 8RE G ALL SRI - SITIE � BRANO aF unu ARE Ta BE oETEen. • ALL dMENSI. ARE PRAMS TO FRAME Pv ALL VNESSIDNB AT .. • �ERIFT ALL RI PITLMm AT SIM A R • NATcNEXISTI A .,T EMING . • ROOF IRUEBEE ARE TO RE D..E, Al f TRIED BY AN ENGINEER LICENSED IN THE .. OP CpSSTRIICTON E%TRKKL WALLS ARE." AT IV o �. E IMEPIGR ULLL ARE NA'6 AT IS' O.c .... Alb BEAMS 6Z ARE TO Q BE pET9i1'rIMEp IT, EAPRRR - M PLAMBINO moos a• REmIRm • 2 • STAIRS - M1IN. RAN W A MA% RISE �•�E E • 1 • Ai IS 1 Application for Historic Review Appncauon Tor aiterations to the exterior of historic landmarks or properties located in a historic district or conservation district pursuant to Iowa City Code Section 144C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at • wwwicgov.org/HPhandbook 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 in the PCD Office by noon on Wednesday the week prior to the meeting. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact . person Q8 Owner �06WIA......A...z... � ,.• Phone... 33?'32v . ........................................................... Address.../_2 ........ {...................... %�11�1....�i...1,......1%.... 5 .......... ...1-If J.<2.9......................... ❑ Contractor....i? Address.......................................................................................... Phone ........... email ............. ❑ Consultant Address........ Phone ........... ....................... email ............. Application Requirements Attached. are the following items: ❑ Site plan ❑ Floor plans ❑ Building elevations v❑ 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: f Date submitted ........6,41©2— 0� .................... ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect Certificate of Appropriateness kZ/Major review ❑ Intermediate review ❑ Minor review Property Information Address of property..��..(JC./......... y-l..,,... ........... 31 Useof property ..... ....................................................... Date constructed (if known) .....ly,21 .................................... Historic Designation ❑ This property is a local historic landmark OR j$ This property is located in the: ❑ Brown Street Historic District ❑ College Green Historic District ❑ East College Street Historic District M 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: k 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 J3 Repair or restoration of an existing structure that will not change its appearance 0 Other Materials to be ppdadm/HP Handbook/App.p65 z • e AK Vu �t rtt� wo Staff Report September 02, 2005 Historic Review for 517 Grant Street District: Longfellow Historic District Classification: Contributing The applicant, Maria Duart, is requesting approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an alteration addition at 517 Grant Street, a contributing property in the Longfellow Historic District. The project includes covering the existing built-in gutters on the house to remedy the existing problems. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: Please refer to following sections: 4.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Alterations 4.11 Gutters and Downspouts Staff Comments The guidelines allow covering of the built-in gutters, provided the roof slope at the gutters is maintained. The applicant intends to cover the gutters such that the slope at the gutter will be changed. Staff recommends using alternative method to cover the gutters. Alternatives to remedy the problems with gutters should also be explored as this would prove be the long-term solution. 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 For Staff Use: Code Section 14-4C. Guidelines for the Historic Review process, explanation of � � Date submitted.........Q.�l....j .:�.........,.?.r.......... the process and regulations can be found in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook, which is available in the PCD office at City Hall or online at ❑ Certificate of No Material Effect %A:f Certificate of Appropriateness wwwicgov.org/HPhandbook Major Meeting schedule: The HPC meets the second Thursday of each month. \ld review During the summer months, the HPC may also meet on the fourth Thursday. ❑ Intermediate review Applications are due In the PCD Office by noon on Wednesday the week prior O Minor review to the meeting. Applicant Information (Please check primary contact person) ❑ Owner...... ��... Q,'S`.................................. Phone ........ u3. [V..'.:....�fl^a Ye ......... ............................... Address......Yr` .....(,,./.t. .k.A..................... I......... Phone............................................................................................. email Application Requirements Attached are the following items: Site plan T Floor plans Wk Building elevations a 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 ......... . ................. G+.�'9�7e1C...._`r�...`........... Use of property ...... r01';Vi...... ........... I ....... ..... Date constructed (if known) ................................. ............ ............ . Historic Designation 0 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 .0 Clark Street Conservation District ❑ College Hill Conservation District O Dearborn Street Conservation District ❑ Lucas -Governor Street Conservation District Within the dlstrict, 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) .¢f 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 14aftrials to be used ................................................................................. ....................................................... I .............. .......... Exterior appearance changes 0& I I ....................... I ...................... I ........................ I "... ............ ....................................................... I ...... ........................... ................ . ................... . .. .................... ......... . ................ PPd**A*# kwWbWWAPp4O .W,5?72� is:LLI�lial 3 ;i .� Staff Report September 02, 2005 Historic Review for 415 Clark Street District: Clark Street Conservation District Classification: Contributing This is a revised application from Bill Dostal, the applicant, requesting approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an addition at 415 Clark Street, a contributing property in the Clark Street Conservation District. The revised proposal for the first floor addition, measuring approximately 26' x 18', is set back from the rear of the existing structure. Applicable Regulations and Guidelines: Please refer to following sections: 5.0 Iowa City Guidelines for Additions Staff Comments The addition is, in general, consistent with the Iowa City Historic Preservation Guidelines. Staff recommends approval. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 2005 CIVIC CENTER LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Jan Weissmiller, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Justin Pardekooper STAFF PRESENT: Chris Ackerson, Bob Miklo, Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Fran Blanc, Helen Burford, Pat Cincotta, Richard Wayne CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: There was none. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: Certificate of Appropriateness: 800 North Van Buren Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a listed national historic property, a local landmark, and a key, contributing structure in the Brown Street Historic District. Terdalkar said the proposed project is for the restoration of the barn on the property. The work includes the replacement of the masonry (stone) foundation with poured concrete foundation and finishing it with plaster to match the existing plaster. He said that the roof will be finished with asphalt shingles, and the missing wood shakes and other damaged wood work would be repaired as necessary. Weitzel said this project was discussed at the Commission's last meeting [due to the lack of quorum conducted as a work session], and the consensus was to approve the project as proposed. McCallum said he felt that the contractor working on this was using good sense. He said this is not an ideal situation, but the proposal is a reasonable one, as it would save the basic structure and general appearance of the barn. Ponto said that the rest of the barn and foundation is stable, but that repair using limestone would not be feasible to achieve a strong and durable foundation. Carlson stated that this is especially problematic because of the steep grade change. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposal to reconstruct a barn at 800 North Van Buren Street, as proposed. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 8-0. 533 South Summit Street. Terdalkar said that this is an application for the replacement of existing wood windows with metal -clad wood windows. He added that this is a contributing structure in the Summit Street Historic District. Terdalkar said the owner also plans to replace the wood shutters with PVC shutters. Weitzel stated that this item was discussed at the work session, and it was determined that the Commission may not be able to mandate the replacement or removal of the shutters. He said the consensus of the Commission was to offer a recommendation that it would be acceptable to simply remove the shutters but to also recommend that replacement shutters not be made of PVC. Carlson said that he ordinarily would not approve of a wholesale replacement of windows. He said, however, that pretty much all of the windows on the house are rotted. McCallum said that, however, the commission has been approached for suggestions in the past and this issue can be considered as request for recommendation. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 2 Gunn asked if the Commission could regulate the shutters. Weitzel said that because a permit is not required for shutters, the Commission has no enforcement ability with regard to shutters. Maharry said that the shutter replacement should actually not be part of the application. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of windows at 533 South Summit Street, as described in the application, with a recommendation against the use of shutters, specifically against the use of PVC shutters. McCallum seconded the motion. Brennan said he would like it to be clear that the recommendation is non -binding. Ponto said he felt that the recommendation is clearly non -binding by definition. McCallum withdrew his second of the motion. He stated that he feels it is important for property owners to know their rights but agrees that it is appropriate for the Commission to make recommendations. Gunn seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-2 with Brennan and McCallum voting no. Terdalkar agreed to inform the contractor that the recommendation regarding the shutters is non -binding. 422 Brown Street. Weitzel said this is the second application regarding this project. He said that the first application was approved to the owner's specifications, to allow egress windows on the two sides of the front porch. He said the owner would now instead like to put the egress windows on the front of the porch. Terdalkar said the owner would now like to replace two windows instead of installing two new windows on the sides. He said the proposal is to remove two frames of inoperable windows and replace them with double hung wood windows. Weitzel said that there is a large window well on one side of the porch that would prevent the installation of a window there without grading or some kind of walkway. He said the Commission discussed this at its work session, and the Design Review Subcommittee (DRS) also discussed it at its last meeting. Weitzel stated that the recommendation of the DRS was for the installation of four new windows across the front to give unity across the front fagade. He noted that this is a filled porch, therefore there is nothing original to the building here. Weitzel said the DRS proposed the four windows to at least match across the front. Maharry said this project is changing something that is pretty much a puzzle anyway. Weitzel said the owner still wants just the two windows on the front. Maharry said the Commission only has the option of approving or denying the proposal, which is to replace two non -opening windows with opening egress windows. McCallum said the owner is required to have egress windows for rental property, but this situation has been like this for years. Gunn asked if the front windows had separate sashes. Terdalkar said that there are four separate fixed -pane glass openings that appear as tow large tow large windows. Weitzel commented that it consists basically of eight barn sashes nailed to a frame. McCallum asked what the owner's options would be if this were denied, since he is required to install egress windows. Weitzel said the applicant could go with the previous certificate if this one is not approved. He said the owner could try to work with that or come back with something new. Weitzel stated that the Commission is required to work with the owner but is entitled to have design opinions. He said that if the situation is not immediately life threatening, then the Commission is obligated to work with HIS towards something appropriate here. Maharry said that what is supposed to be a porch here is now two apartments. He said that the two front openings look like windows. Maharry said he always tries to protect what is historic, and this is not. He said that the new proposal would not be a further detraction to the building. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 3 MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a proposal to install egress windows at 422 Brown Street, as proposed. Carlson seconded the motion. Carlson said he could see Maharry's point in that the house is a jumble already. Carlson stated, however, that even though this is not historic, he would like to see unity there, especially on the front fagade, which is the only part of the building visible from the street. Ponto commented that a person looking at the windows now would think they are double hung windows. He said that if one of each set is replaced, it will become obvious that they are not. Wayne, the owner of the house, distributed graphics of what the porch would look like with four replacement windows and with two replacement windows, one on each side. He said that with the replacement of only two openings, the remaining non -opening windows would flank and support them. Wayne said he is trying to put in egress windows in a manner that is least invasive. He said he would like to try to preserve whatever is there. Wayne said that his reaction to the two twin double hung windows on either side of the center is that it doesn't look good to him. He said it would also be a replacement of four of the five existing openings. Wayne said the openings are almost six feet high and the two sets would not be great looking. He said he thought the best arrangement would be to allow the inner two openings to remain and replace the outer windows with double hung windows. Carlson said the Commission's work is to decide if the four new double hung windows look much better than what the owner has proposed. He said that if the Commission is interested in preserving what Henry Black did, then it could agree to leave the two non -operable openings. McCallum pointed out that the style of Henry Black was to be non -conforming. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1. with Gunn voting no. 404 South Summit Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a contributing structure in the Summit Street Historic District. He said this project was discussed at the Commission's work session on August 2, 2005. Terdalkar said the project involves demolishing the glass workshed to the east and south, restoring the foundation and basement walls, closing existing openings in the foundation wall, which will be exposed as the work -shed is removed, re -grading the yard, repairing the kitchen foundation, construction of new peers under the sleeping porches, and restoring the chimney, including tuckpointing. He stated that the work is proposed to be completed in three phases and that the potential restoration of the sleeping porches will be considered in the third phase. Blanc, the owner of the house, introduced her contractor, Pat Cincotta. Blanc said she was available to answer any questions about the project. Weitzel said the DRS looked at the project. He stated that the workshop on the back doesn't fit the style of the house and was added on later. Weitzel said that the artist, Mauricio Lasansky, and his family lived in the house at one time and put on the addition, which was probably used primarily by one of the sons for his work as a metal sculptor. Weitzel said that the workshop was built in or after 1952 and is therefore on the 50-year cusp. Weitzel pointed out that the workshop doesn't match the house but said that the historic significance needs to be looked at. He said the issue of significance and the association Lasansky was consulted with the State Historical Society office. From what he understood, Lasansky not have lived or worked from there. Weitzel said that he received a comment from Barbara Mitchell, Architectural Historian of SHPO, who said that because Lasansky is still alive and productive, it is not possible yet to know his impact. Weitzel stated that the sleeping porches and kitchen are additions to the house. He said that the rest of the house is in the Greek revival style, with Italianate additions on the front and side. Carlson said that his research showed that Lasansky bought the house in the 1950s and may have lived there with his family. He said that Lasansky's sons were the primary users of the house. Carlson said that it should be determined whether the 1950s and 60s were a period during which Lasansky did important work. He said he did not know if the Commission should refrain from approval of demolition of the workshop, because Lasansky is still active and productive in his 90s. Weitzel said that it appears from the Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 4 letter of Barbara Mitchell that the criteria states that a living artist is to have a lot less historic significance than one who is no longer living. Blanc agreed that Lasansky is a major artist, but she said that there have been a lot of major artists who have lived in Iowa City. She said the focus should be on the difference between the significant artwork and the significance of what the Historic Preservation Commission devotes time to achieving for the community. Blanc distributed a letter from Mrs. Sloan, written in 1972, for Margaret and Emil Trott, to prevent demolition of the house. Blanc said that Sloan moved into the house in 1910. Blanc said that there was a major fire in the house in 1919, before the sleeping porches were added on. She said that at one time there was a large wraparound porch on the northwest side of the house. Blanc stated that the letter shows that the current kitchen was not the original kitchen but was on the north side of the house, and there was direct access from the kitchen to the yard. Blanc said that Lasansky moved here from South America and had six children. She stated that in later years, the sons were in the house exclusively. Blanc said that Lasansky had print shops at The University of Iowa and at his summer house in Maine, but not in the house on Summit Street. Blanc said that what was built as a workshop was probably for the benefit of his sons. Blanc stated that there are eight steel frames on each side [of the workshop], and the rest is brick, but not good brick. She said that the walls are soft red brick, and the house is made of soft brick stone. Blanc said that the house was a fraternity in 1927 and was later converted into three apartments. She stated that it again became a single-family home, probably one or two families before the Lasanskys lived there. Blanc stated that there was once a turret on the northwest quadrant of the house. She said that holes were punched out, and there are I -beams under the porch. Blanc stated that the roof is made of a barn material. She said that she could not believe that Lasansky's art work and his association with the house and the demolition of the workshop are related. She would think that state of dilapidation of the workshop is a result of his efforts to construct this addition without any professional help. Weitzel said that preserving the building would be an effort to preserve all facets of his life. Blanc said that Lasansky sold the house to a developer, who planned to tear it down and construct apartments. Blanc said it was the efforts of the neighbors that prevented the tearing down of the house. She said she did not think that Lasansky would have placed great value on the house. Maharry asked Blanc if she had an opinion as to whether or not the sleeping porches should remain on the house. Blanc responded that it is hard to decide until the project gets past a certain point. She said the nicest thing would be to keep the porches. Blanc stated that even 30 years ago, there was already a compromising situation on the southeast portion. Blanc said there are options with regard to the porches. She said she could try to bring them back, but then all of the windows would have to be redone. Blanc said that the porches could be taken off, but then the house and the roofline would have to be brought back. She said another option would be to rebolster and reframe the porches but not enclose them. Blanc said she really could not answer the question yet about what she would like to see done with the porches. Maharry said that her decision is then partly based on what the Commission decides about the workshop. He said it is his opinion that the sleeping porches should be removed. Maharry said that they would be very hard and costly to redo. He added that they are not original to the building and not consistent with the style of the building. Cincotta suggested that the best thing to do would be to bring it back to a porch and rail. He asked in case this option is not acceptable would the commission approve restoring the porch without the windows. Cincotta said that the floor is gone, the roof is okay, the panels are savable, but the structure on the inside is rotted. He said that the porch is supported by two I -beams that are also part of the workshop roof. Cincotta said there would be a small cost to construct new supports for the porch when the workshop is removed. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 5 Blanc said that there are three stages to the project and immediate need the partly collapsed structure, regarding the exterior to the east. She said that the porches could be stabilized and dealt with later. Maharry asked when the porches were constructed. Blanc stated that they were added on after 1919. Weitzel stated that the main priority of HIS is the workshop. He said that the next priority would be the sleeping porches and then the doorway. He asked Blanc for her preferences. Blanc said that she has received a directive from the City in that regard. Weitzel said that the Historic Preservation Commission is part of that process. Blanc stated that her intent is to comply before the end of the work season. She said the first work would be to replace the soffits and tear down the back addition. Weitzel said that the soffit replacement would be acceptable, as long as it was done with wood. He said the Commission should now focus on the workshop and the proposal to remove it. Blanc said she was working through this and hoped to get the workshop torn down. Weitzel said that, per the city Code, HIS should have talked to the Commission before issuing the notice to the applicant. The commission could then consult with the applicant and recommend appropriate solutions within 30 days of such communication. He said that if Blanc decides that she would like to have the porches removed from the back of the house, which is a different issue. Blanc said that the porches are part of phase three so that the Commission could look at the first two phases now to keep it simple. Weitzel said that would be acceptable if the rest of the house could be kept stable over the winter. Cincotta responded that it could. Weitzel said that a decision would not then have to be made now regarding the sleeping porches. Cincotta said that right now, a permit is needed for the soffit, the chimney work, and demolition of the workshop. He said that phase three could be removed from the application for now. Gunn asked about the exterior wall behind the porch. Cincotta said that it is still there however, some of the windows and door openings on this facade have been closed/filled in with glass block. He said that the plan is to change the doors to windows and do something to the roofline. Cincotta said that something needs to be done but that what is there would be very expensive to restore. Weitzel asked how much of that addition is tied together if it was all built at the same time. Blanc said that not much was tied together. Cincotta said that he would need to install peers to prop up the sleeping porches and remove the workshop. Maharry said this project really hinges on whether the glass workshop is historic. He said that if it is not, then the rest of this is a no brainer. He said this hinges on if the area is worth preserving. Maharry said this is either an application for a certificate for demolition or a certificate for approval of building plans. McCallum said the significance of the artist is at issue. He said he does not see any overwhelming evidence that says that the workshop should be saved, and he would like to help the owner get started on this project. Maharry said the issue is whether the evidence presented shows the workshop to be historic or not, and the Commission must decide if there is enough evidence to show it to be historic or enough evidence to contradict a historic status. He said that there does not appear to be enough evidence presented either way. Weitzel said the period of significance is considered to be a moving window, at least for National Register properties. He said the window continues to move forward in time, which would make the 50-year window for significance relevant to issues before 1955 at this point. Brennan asked if a non-contributing property would then become contributing when it becomes over 50 years old. Maharry said that only if it had a reason to become contributing would it become so. Weitzel said it would need to fit within the context of the district. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 6 Carlson suggested that the Commission did not have enough information yet to make a determination about the workshop. Maharry said that Lasansky is well known in Iowa but perhaps not well known outside of the State. Weitzel and Gunn stated that the significance can be a State-wide significance. Maharry said he didn't know if the fact that this is Lasansky's hometown makes a difference in the significance. Weitzel said that the only procedural difference with this application is that it was initiated by a City action. He said the item could be deferred to gather more information. Carlson stated that he would like to have the full 30 days from the time of the application, which Terdalkar stated was submitted on July 251h. Blanc stated that it is already late in the building season and said she would like to get started as soon as possible. MOTION: McCallum moved to defer consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for a proposal for 404 South Summit Street to August 25th, in order to determine the significance of a former occupant. Maharry seconded the motion. t McCallum said he is satisfied that the information and the letters show that there is not enough significance related to the workshop to delay a vote on this. Carlson said the issue is whether Lasansky is important, not whether the workshop per se is significant. Maharry said that while the artist is living, it seems that the artist would not be deemed significant enough to preserve the workshop. Weitzel said there are two related issues: whether there is enough information to make a decision on the significance and whether there is still enough integrity to the building to preserve it. Carlson stated that even though the workshop is in terrible condition, the integrity of it is still reasonably high. Cincotta stated that there is nothing left to the workshop that is useful. He said that the foundation and the timber are unusable. Blanc said that the workshop was a Rube Goldberg job. She said that Lasansky had no intent to preserve the building. Carlson referred to the criteria to decide whether this was worth preserving or not. He said, leaving aside the fact that Lasansky is still productive in his nineties, he assumed that one could still say that this is significant. Weitzel said the criteria include the word "generally." Carlson said that when the importance of an artist is considered, his studios are considered most important, but also to be considered are where his most important studio is, where he lived, and the integrity and where the house fits in. Maharry suggested that someone else would know what the workshop was built for and its significance. Carlson added that the Commission would not approve tearing down a porch on a famous writer's house, just because he did his writing in another room. Brennan commented that the workshop seems to be structurally unsound and unusable. Weitzel added that if the integrity of the building is so bad that it cannot be used, then the significance doesn't matter. Gunn agreed and said that if it is irretrievable, the significance doesn't mean much. The motion to defer failed on a vote of 1-7, with Carlson votinq no. Weitzel said (something about by proxy the decision is not significant.) Carlson said there is not enough information for approval. Weitzel said that Barbara Mitchell and (some other lady's) comments indicate that Criteria B and the integrity issue weigh against the significance issue. Terdalkar suggested that the Commission document the building before it is demolished. Maharry agreed that the workshop could be photographed, and the dimensions and description determined. He said this would not be demolishing anything of architectural significance. Terdalkar said that he thinks if the applicant wanted to build the same structure now, the commission may not approve such addition. He asked should a later addition such as the dilapidated workshop be saved if it is even possibly damaging the original structure. Carlson said the historic association is worth looking Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 7 at. He said, however, that he is in the minority on this issue and suggested that the Commission vote to approve or disapprove. Terdalkar referred to item three in phase one regarding closing off existing door passages in foundation walls with cement block masonry. Weitzel asked how much of the doors will be visible? Cincotta said the upper half, portion above grade will be visible. He said that it might look like a window with an archway. He said he would try to blend it with fieldstone. Blanc stated that the three on the east would not be visible. Cincotta said that he would use brick to fill in, if acceptable. Maharry said that the Commission will probably require skirting underneath the lower porch so that probably none of it will be seen. Cincotta said that one might see upper half on the back side. Gunn asked if the applicant could explain about the archway openings. Cincotta said that some are original but not the two that Lasansky did. He said he could do them all in stone or at least the part that shows. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve phases one and two for the project at 404 South Summit street, including the demolition of the glass house workshop, with the modification of item number three in phase one to use rubble stone as a filler above grade level for all visible areas. Weitzel pointed out that no action is to be taken regarding the sleeping porches at this time. Brennan seconded the motion. Gunn said he would vote in favor of this project, as he feels it is necessary and reasonable. He said that the demolition of a structure that is unusable and irretrievable is acceptable, regardless of its historic status. Weitzel agreed that this would be a different story if the roof had not collapsed. The motion carried on a vote of 7-1, with Carlson voting no. 922 East College Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a non-contributing structure in the College Hill Historic District that is an apartment building. He said the project involves the removal of window openings on the ground floor to install patios and to replace a mansard roof with vinyl. Terdalkar said that the proposal also includes installation of metal rails at grade to protect the wells created graded for the patio doors. He said that egress is provided by other windows. Weitzel said that the DRS discussed this, and the consensus was that the members would like to see uniform facades on buildings so that the impression on the neighborhood is less haphazard looking. He added that the DRS agreed that the intent of infill ... having no balconies far out. Maharry said that he would recuse himself from discussion on this item and would speak as a citizen. Weitzel said he would recommend against having window wells along the parking area. He said the DRS also discussed the possibility of disallowing vinyl. Weitzel said that in this situation, it is probably a moot point. He added, however, that if this were a new infill construction in the neighborhood, the Commission could deny the use of vinyl. Weitzel said that the guidelines state that the Commission 'may' allow exceptions. He said his point is that if this were new, infill construction, the guidelines say that it is within the Commission's purview to deny the use of vinyl if it had a reason. Weitzel said that he, however, has not made up his mind to apply it in this case. Carlson said that Section 3.2 applies to overall exceptions. Maharry said that they are about not patios or balconies, just doors and windows. Gunn referred to Section 3.2, and Weitzel said that section 3.2 applying to the materials to be used. Carlson said that 3.3 allows an exception for non -historic properties and states that the Historic Preservation Commission "may..." allow the exceptions and it is not binding on the commission to allow non -historic materials. Gunn pointed out that this property is in a conservation district. Weitzel said the Commission could grant an exception here to allow vinyl but doesn't have to. McCallum said that vinyl was allowed for the property Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 15, 2005 Page 8 in the historic district down the street in an earlier instance. Weitzel said it can be an exception if the Commission has a reason to allow an exception. McCallum said that overall, this would be a general improvement over what is there now. He said that the change of the rail style is an improvement. Maharry said this building faces a single-family home that is already there. He said the commission should not automatically approve all changes. Weitzel said that the intent of the infill guidelines is to not allow balconies on side elevations so that single-family dwellings are protected from nuisance such as noise etc. He stated that, in general, balconies are not allowed on the sides of buildings. Weitzel said that if this were new construction, this couldn't be done. He stated that the east side doesn't have balconies, but the west side does. Maharry asked if there would be a change in the east side fagade. Terdalkar responded that there may not be enough room to add balconies on the east side where there is a driveway. MOTION: McCallum moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a proposal for 922 East College Street as proposed, but without the lower level patio doors and wells and with the provision that all of the siding used to replace the mansard areas be consistent on the entire building. McCallum said that this would be a major improvement overall. Weissmiller seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0, with Maharry abstaining. MINUTES FOR JULY 14. 2005 AND AUGUST 2, 2005 July 14, 2005. Carlson said he had typographical corrections to submit for items on page five. He also stated that in the last paragraph before the final motion on page five, in the first line, the word "agreed" should be changed to "...took the applicant's word..." Carlson said that in the second to last paragraph on page five, in the first sentence, the words "saw and shingle" should be changed to "sawn shingle" MOTION: Maharry moved to approve the July 14, 2005 minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission, as amended. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. August 2, 2005. Maharry said it should be noted near the top in the headings area that this was a work session. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve the August 2, 2005 minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission, as amended. Maharry seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. OTHER: Maharry said he received an e-mail from a neighbor of the property at 420 South Lucas. Terdalkar stated that the owner received a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the roof but did not apply for a permit. He said the roof work has already been completed. Maharry asked if there has been an appeal of the Commission's decision regarding 946 Iowa Avenue, and Terdalkar said there has not. Burford said that the proposed new zoning code would change the CB-2 zone to multi -use zoning in the conservation districts. Miklo said the proposed zoning code would eliminate CB-2 zoning and would therefore rezone CB-2 properties to other appropriate zones, given the surroundings. He stated that there are two controversial areas: the area to the east of downtown that is proposed for the Mixed Use Zone and the area north of downtown in the vicinity of Pagliai's Pizza. Burford said this change would affect older neighborhoods. Burford asked if the Commission would want to issue an opinion regarding changing the character of these neighborhoods. xxoxxxox xx oxo>Cxxxx i ox OOox ; xxx ; xx xx���x0x;xx oo i xxox xC) ', xx xaox ', xoa ; ox xxox xox00 px xxxxxOOx ox x x x x x x O x 00 O M x x x x O x x x kn N xooxxoxxox N i x x O x x x x x O x .r xxxxxx000 00 x�xx�x�W� O O O O O yam„ OO O O 1 O 00 O �c O r- O O O O 00 O a, C , Q, a, C, Q, a, C, a, all orn Q, W M M M M M M M M M M M L Ci L zztititidtiH MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION EMMA J. HARVAT HALL AUGUST 25, 2005 Preliminary MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Brennan, Richard Carlson, Michael Gunn, Michael Maharry, Mark McCallum, Jim Ponto, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: James Enloe, Justin Pardekooper, Jan Weissmiller STAFF PRESENT: Sunil Terdalkar OTHERS PRESENT: Helen Burford, Rob Dipps, Bill Dostal, Jan Dostal, Ann Estin, Jim Estin, Kim Hanrahan, Ned Wood CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Weitzel called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: Burford said that the Planning and Zoning Commission took a vote on the new zoning plan at its last meeting. She said that any kind of action or recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission is really being put into the public arena to be brought as arguments to City Council. Burford said that now the Commission has an opportunity to discuss specific things that have been brought up through this process that may have an impact on older communities and older neighborhoods and go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and have a statement and request some changes. She said it won't happen before the plan goes to the City Council, and it may look like the process has ended but it hasn't. Burford said there have been good discussions on the part of the Commission, and she hoped that this reprieve would prompt the Commission to bring up these things as part of its future agenda. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION: 435 Grant Street. Terdalkar said that this is a contributing structure in the Longfellow Historic District. He said the proposal is to build a back porch on the house. Terdalkar said that after discussions with the Design Review Subcommittee (DRS), there was a revised proposal. He said the revision shows a central porch with one side to be built with a pergola. Terdalkar said the size would be about 20 to 22 feet by ten feet wide. He said he believes the applicant agrees with the DRS recommendations. Terdalkar said that one issue that needs to be addressed is the proposed decking material, EON, which the applicant describes as a composite material. Weitzel stated that the last page of the application is actually the plan that the DRS came up with, and everything else before that is off the table. He said that in the past the Commission has approved a plastic/wood composite material but not an all -plastic decking material. Hanrahan, the owner of the house, showed a sample of the composite material. She said she is very flexible, because she wants the porch to look like it was meant to be with the house. Hanrahan said she was considering the composite material for low maintenance purposes. Maharry asked if part of this would be exposed to the elements. Weitzel showed the current DRS proposal. He said that because this is a corner lot, there are setback requirements similar to a front yard. Weitzel said the decking would be just the lower level. Ponto asked how high the decking would be off the ground. Hanrahan said that she thought it would be about 12 inches. Terdalkar said he thought it should be as low as possible, because of the basement windows. He said that if the decking is high, it cannot be within eight feet of the basement window. Terdalkar said he would see this as about six inches above grade, and the decking below the pergola can be just a big bigger. Weitzel said that it can be at grade. Terdalkar said that if the pergola is detached from the structure, then the window wells can be built around there. He said the new proposal shows a pergola as sort of a porch with railings. Terdalkar stated Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 2 that the pergola would not be attached to the house, but the central porch would be attached so that water can be drawn from the roof. He said that the roof can have minimal slope for a flat roof, to drain off the water. Weitzel said the DRS was concerned about the decorative effect of the eave coming down. He said that after looking at that, the DRS realized that it would be really hard to attach something right to the fascia there, because it's projecting quite a ways from the actual structural members, because of the eaves. Weitzel said that is why the DRS is suggesting detaching the whole thing. He asked Hanrahan if she were happy with the revised proposal, and she confirmed this. Ponto asked Hanrahan if she plans to paint the upright posts. Hanrahan replied that she thought she probably would. She said that she chose not to have green treated lumber because she wants to paint it to be consistent with the trim on the house. Weitzel said another option, if Hanrahan uses the pressure - treated wood, is to wait until it grays and then stain it. He said there is an opaque, white stain available that looks like paint or whitewash. Maharry asked if the DRS resolved the issue of the composite material for the decking. Weitzel said the Commission has not approved this material in the past. Hanrahan pointed out that if the Commission has approved a different material, she would not mind changing. Weitzel said there is a material called Trex and similar products that look a lot like what Hanrahan has proposed, but they are paintable and are a little more like wood. He said the Commission has approved that material. Weitzel said the material approved by the Commission is a polyethylene/sawdust mix, and Trex is simply one brand of the material. McCallum stated that it looks like painted wood. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed revision from the Design Review Subcommittee for the addition of a porch at 435 Grant Street, with the provision that the deck boards be of a plastic/wood composite or wood. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Weitzel asked Hanrahan if she wanted the option of taking the proposal for a full pergola to the Board of Adjustment by filing for a special exception. Hanrahan said she is still considering that option but is waiting until spring to decide. Weitzel said the other option was discussed by the DRS until the zoning requirement was pointed out. Carlson said the DRS was just looking at the footprint of the original proposed porch and looking at how to get the same square footage with something more acceptable. McCallum said that this looks more balanced and said he would support this. Weitzel agreed that it looks more balanced and is more like the original plan, but it covers up more of the back of the building. He said that neither proposal actually covers a lot of the building. Carlson agreed and said that they are both detached from the house. Weitzel said the structures are separate, but the roof connects enough to direct water off the roof onto the covered part. He said the pergola does not touch the structure. Carlson said this is a fairly low impact solution. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the option of having the full pergola for the project at 435 Grant Street. Ponto seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. 415 Clark Street. Dipps said that he is the builder for this project and works for Mitchell Phipps Building. He introduced Bill and Jan Dostal as the owners of the house. Terdalkar said that this is a contributing structure in the Clark Street Conservation District. He said the proposal is for an addition of about 24 feet by 23 feet. Terdalkar said there are some things that need to be addressed: the window proportions and placement, the window material, the foundation material, the existing vent stack for kitchen exhaust that would be reattached, the roofline, and the massing of the new addition. Dipps said the plan is incorrect; he said that the vent is a chimney for a wood burning fireplace. Dipps said that the owners would like to reuse the existing large, four -panel window in the back. He said that when the new addition is put on, it will have a roofline that comes out to the edge of the garage. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 3 Dipps said that it will still have the metal railing, which is the first thing one would see, and behind that one would actually see siding to match the house, not shingles. Weitzel referred to the sketch that the DRS came up with. He said the DRS had a number of concerns with the plan, one of which was the alteration of the existing window, the dormer, because the dormers are so unique and characteristic of this house. Bill Dostal said that in terms of the back window, there is nothing visible from the street. Dipps said the plan is not to change the dormer but is to just shorten the window. Bill Dostal said he likes the window in its entirety, but it is something they would have to sacrifice if they want the addition. Jan Dostal said they love the house and have lived there since 1976. She said they have figured every angle that they could to try to get this to make the house look the way it was and to conform to the house as it was. Jan Dostal said this was the best they could come up with, and she thinks it is a good plan. Maharry asked the Dostals if, when they were working up the plans, they consulted the preservation handbook to see what guidelines they would have to work under. Bill Dostal said that they did not. He said they did know that their house was in a conservation district and were in favor of it, because they were concerned about the potential of commercial development in the neighborhood. Jan Dostal said that a lot of people living on Clark Street have had additions to the backs of their houses and haven't seemed to have had a problem. Carlson said the concern is not with the addition itself but is with what the addition looks like and making sure that it conforms more to the look of the house. Bill Dostal said the big window has been there since 1960. Dipps said that it is four windows mulled together. Bill Dostal said that the addition where the window is located was put on in the late 50s or early 60s. He said the window was a replacement of a window that was similar to it, with the same hole and same design. Weitzel said the concerns include loss of the lower portion of the dormer window, the spacing balance and proportion of the fenestration on the addition, and the chimney pipe, which the DRS had not realized was existing. He said the DRS drawing reflects a design that fits the style of the house a little better. Weitzel said the parapet would conceal the pitched roof and would leave the window intact. He said the drawing also rearranges the windows as they are shown on the plan. Weitzel said the DRS thought it would look better to have a central bar spacing two central windows for the large one with the four panes, because at the time the house was built, that is what it would have looked like. Jan Dostal said she did not think it would matter on the back of the house. She said that in the backyards of the people who have added on, the additions do not look like the front of the house. Gunn asked when the additions were put on, as this has been a conservation district for five to six years. He said many of the additions were put on before the conservation district designation. Jan Dostal said one was put on just recently. Gunn said there are additions put on all the time, but if they come through the Commission, they will look like they belong with the period of the construction of the house. He said that a major addition should fit with the original house, not with the 1960s addition. Weitzel said the Commission would like to see something that is more sympathetic to the existing house and that reflects the character of the unique house. He said the house is very unique and is a French - style house that is a very late, eclectic revival building. Weitzel said a 1950s addition doesn't do a lot to add to that house and may even detract from it. He said that adding on further to a 1950s addition only would serve to further detract from the look of the house. Weitzel said the Commission would want to make it look nice. He agreed that most of that addition area cannot be seen from the street, but the neighbors can see it, and someone walking by could see parts of it. Weitzel stated that the Secretary of the Interior Standards and the guidelines don't really make a specific distinction for rear elevations on buildings. He said that the fact that it cannot be seen from the street doesn't weigh really heavily on the Commission's decision. Weitzel said the Commission's job is to try to make these things match the house as it looks. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 4 Bill Dostal said that the window placement is really designed around use and the placement of furniture. Weitzel said the Commission looks at the balance and symmetry of window placement. He said that if the use of the room or layout of furniture in the room is changed, then the window might have to be changed. Dipps asked if it is an issue for the Commission as to whether a window is a casement window or a double hung window. Weitzel responded that it is a minor issue, although the Commission would prefer to have double hung windows. Dipps said there is one casement window that is original to the house. Weitzel said the rest are double hung so that the Commission might want to see a similar proportion in that regard. Dipps said the owners would like to use the four -paneled window but would not be opposed to using double hung windows in the other locations. Dipps said that on the north side of the house, there is a railing all the way around the garage. He said there is something drawn on the DRS plan that goes clear back to the back of the addition. Weitzel said that is the parapet, a low wall that would conceal the low-pitched roof behind it. Dipps said he did not think that would look good. He said it would not conform with the original design of the house and that it would not be in keeping with the design of the house at all. Weitzel said that it is something that would exist on a wing of a house of this style. He said that it would keep from truncating the window by having a lower -pitched roof. Jan Dostal said they wanted a higher pitched roof with an overhang so that they would not have water problems. She said the roof is not a good design. Bill Dostal said that the garage roof has had a habitual water problem. Carlson said the reason the DRS proposed the pitched roof and the parapet wall was because the flat roof addition would be the most appropriate to this house, but the DRS did not want to make the owners have another flat roof addition, as it could cause maintenance problems. He said that this was the solution to allow the pitched roof but also to give the appearance from the street of a flat roof. Dipps said the main part of the house has a pitched roof. Weitzel said that the addition's pitch does not match the pitch of the original roof in any way. He added that French houses of this style would have additions that would be a sort of sunroom that would be a square wing off the house. Maharry said that there seems to be a lot of decisions that need to be made on this particular project. He said that the Commission could vote on the proposal, but he was not confident that the outcome would be positive for the applicants. Bill Dostal said that this project is becoming more expensive every week that it does not move forward. Maharry said the Commission is frustrated by the fact that the guidelines and recommendations are not considered when the plans are being made and while the money is being invested in plans. He said that is why the Commission is trying to get the word out and why the Commission sent letters in February to all property owners who would be required to abide by the guidelines. Weitzel said that there needs to be more communication, and he did not know if it could be done at the current meeting. He asked the owners if they would be amenable to deferring this item. Jan Dostal said they did not have much time. Maharry said the Commission could vote on this item, but he thought it would be voted down. Dipps said that the issues need to be discussed; otherwise he will leave the meeting not knowing what needs to be done. Jan Dostal said she was unwilling to defer the proposal. She suggested considering the remaining applications first and then coming back to her application. MOTION: Maharry moved to table the certificate of appropriateness for a proposal for 415 Clark Street and to consider it later in the meeting. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 6-1, with Carlson voting no. 1016 East College Street. Terdalkar stated that this is a key -contributing structure in the East College Historic District. He said that the applicant has applied for a certificate of appropriateness after replacing wood stairs on a front porch. Terdalkar said that because of this replacement, the owner is required by the Building Code to install a railing. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 5 Weitzel said that the DRS recommended a simple, black pipe railing. Wood, the owner of the house, said he would prefer to make the railing minimal. He said that because this is a beautiful wooden rail and porch, he would like to make it out of wood. Wood said he would like to make it as simple as possible and have it be a simple railing coming down to something like just a four by four. Weitzel asked if Terdalkar contacted Wood about providing a design for the railing. Wood stated that he was contacted but did not have time to come up with plans. He showed a sketch of what he had in mind, which showed a very small board that the rail would land on. Wood said it would be a simple two by four that would be trimmed nicely but would come down and land on the bottom tread on the side, where there would be a short post to catch the railing. He said that because this is a wooden porch, that is the material he wanted to use. Weitzel said that a metal railing is the most neutral thing that can be built. He said that it has no style unto itself, it blends into the background, it doesn't call attention to itself, and doesn't try to mimic anything on the house that wouldn't have been there, because these houses didn't have rails. Weitzel said the Commission has to consider what a railing would look like on the house if one would have been built. Wood said that the railing itself would be about the dimensions of a two by four. Terdalkar said that the railing itself has to be grippable, according to the Building Code. Weitzel said that the Code that is being enforced is the IRC Code, and the brochure from the Building Department shows the three acceptable profiles, which are very limited and very non -historic. He said that the Commission was not consulted before the Building Department started enforcing this, and apparently it is being enforced retroactively for railings that the Commission had already approved. Weitzel said that is why the black pipe railing comes to mind as something that meets the Building Department guidelines and doesn't attract attention. Burford said she knew that the Building Department was following the International Building Code. She asked if, however, there was something in the Building Code that made provisions for historic structures. Weitzel said he thought there was something like that in the Building Code and said that there can also be local amendments to that. He said the main point is that the Commission has not been consulted about this, and the Building Department is enforcing it without the Commission's consultation. Weitzel said that technically if work was done on the stairs and it needed a permit, the owner should have come before the Commission. Wood said he expected to just have to replace the tread when he started the project. Weitzel said it is relatively new that the Building Department is enforcing building permits for anything with four stair heights, including the top stair being the porch. Weitzel said that the DRS felt that the owner would basically need a really wide thing with elaborate vase - like spindles to match the porch. He said that anything less than that would not have the right look. Wood said he would like to keep this as simple as possible. Carlson said that he thought a two by four would look flimsy compared to the porch. He said that this is a great porch, and a painted wood surface would detract from what is there, whereas a black pipe rail would be hidden and would not be as obvious. Gunn said that the pipe rail would not have to be black; it could be painted the color of the porch. Wood said that the color is not the issue; he would just really like to use wood. Gunn said he had not seen anything that would be an appropriate wood railing for this house. Wood said that the length of the railing would be relatively short so that it would not be flimsy. Weitzel said, however, that it would give the appearance of being flimsy. He said that it would be a minor piece of wood compared to the massive, grand sweeps on the porch railing. Maharry said the Commission really needs a tangible design to approve. Ponto said that it could be as simple as a sketch. Gunn said that it could be a photograph of an existing railing. Wood asked if, he could request to have a simple railing, but if later he really wanted to have a wood railing he could come back before the Commission. Weitzel confirmed this. MOTION: Ponto moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for a project at 1016 East College Street with the condition that a simple pipe railing be used. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 6 1039 East College Street. Terdalkar said that this is a key -contributing structure in the East College Historic District. He said that the proposal involves the replacement and repair of windows. Maharry said that Ann Estin, one of the owners of the property, contacted him regarding the guidelines and what the Commission has traditionally looked for in replacement windows. He said that he informed her that the Commission would like, as much as possible, to have windows the repaired. Maharry recommended that she also include photographs of the window deterioration. Ann Estin said that she and her husband, Jim, will be moving into this house in November and want to do some remodeling projects before they move in. She stated that the house was originally built in the late 191h century and had a really significant renovation in 1938. Ann Estin said that the house was originally a Queen Anne/Victorian. Ann Estin said that one of her goals is to preserve as much as possible of the old house but to also get some more mechanical and practical objectives served at the same time. She said that they have been told that the windows have significant deterioration, primarily dry rot, but the mortise and tendon joints at the corners are okay in some cases and in other cases would involve milling new pieces to actually construct a new window. Ann Estin said it will be difficult to know for certain until the windows are taken apart exactly how extensive the damage is. Ann Estin said one of the practical concerns is that the windows be weather -tight and airtight. She said they would also like the possibility of ventilation, particularly in the bedrooms and the bathrooms. Ann Estin said the structure has screens and storms throughout the house that they would like to continue to use. She said that to balance those goals, they would like to preserve, even if it means rebuilding the sash from scratch. Ann Estin said that most of the windows on the north and the west sides would be rebuilt, even if it means rebuilding from scratch; this would refer to windows one, two, three, four, and five. She said that they would keep windows nine, ten, and eleven. Ann Estin said that from the rear, eleven and twelve are modern windows. She said that there is a casement window in the middle that they would like to make match the others. Ann Estin said that is the only window for which they would want to replace the whole thing. She said that they would leave window eleven and replace window twelve. Ann Estin said that window thirteen is in the cellar stairway. She said that window fourteen is a bathroom window that they would like to replace, but windows fifteen and sixteen.... (she trails off here). Ann Estin said that on the second floor, window seventeen is a tiny window in a closet that they would like to keep. She said that they would like to also keep windows eighteen and nineteen. Ann Estin said that upstairs, they would like to keep window twenty-seven. She said that results in a total of 15 of the 27 windows in the house that they would propose to repair, as needed. Weitzel said that a permit is not needed for repair, although the Commission can give technical advice. Ann Estin said that on window number six, the window seat overlaps the bottom rail so that the window cannot be opened, and the top rail is in bad shape from people trying to open the window. Ann Estin said they would not mind returning a single -hung window with ropes and weights, but the window that is there is not very practical for this purpose. She said that it is just a single pane. Ann Estin said that is why window six does not seem like a straightforward rebuild situation. Ann Estin said that windows seven and eight are of similar dimensions to some of the windows in the front, although they are in worse shape. She said that on the first floor, it is on the windows in the back that they would want to be able to at least have the possibility of a sash replacement. Ann Estin said that besides that, the windows are on bedrooms and bathrooms, so that they would want to use safety glass and also use the windows for ventilation. Ann Estin said that the other issue upstairs is the window next to the back door and on each side in the back portion of the upstairs. She said there are four windows that have had metal jamb liners installed and the windows cut down to work with the jamb liners, but they are not very effective and don't really work. Ann Estin said that for those windows on the back of the house, they would like to do sash replacements, because the practical, functional issues there are more important in the balance of things than they are in the front of the house. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 7 Ann Estin said that the windows they would like to replace are marked on the document as windows six, seven, eight, fourteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, and twenty- six, and they would also like to replace the casement window, number twelve. Weitzel said that the window opening would obviously have to be modified for window twelve, and Ann Estin agreed. Ann Estin said that they would like to trim window eleven to match the other windows. Ann Estin said that they would like to keep the old screen windows, and she understood that one could put storm windows in for a combination storm/screen, but it seems that a better thing to do for the house would be to do the sash replacements on the inside and maintain the storms and screens. Weitzel said it depends on the window, its style, age, and condition. Jim Estin said that there is a fairly large difference in looking at the windows and looking at the screens. He said that from the outside, it is clear that it is the screens that give the windows their look, more than anything else. Ann Estin said that the last photograph of those included in the application shows that all that is seen is the storm window. Weitzel said it appears that at least some of the windows have been modified in a bad way. He said that unfortunately the jamb liner installation altered the original sash. Ann Estin said that refers to windows twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, and twenty-seven. She said that they will have to deal with this on window twenty-seven, which has the Plexiglas lower sash and the jamb liners but an upper sash that really needs to be kept. Maharry asked if the style of windows will be changed on any of these. Ann Estin said that she thinks that the existing windows are double hung, and every window they have proposed to install is a double hung window. Jim Estin said that he did not think that the upper sashes work on any of the windows. He said that he assumed that with the oldest windows, they will be lucky to get the bottoms working with ropes and will probably close up and block off the upper ones. Carlson stated that if it does not change the exterior appearance, it is acceptable to the Commission. Carlson asked about the proposal for window six, the cottage window in the living room. Ann Estin said that they would like to get the bottom sash to actually move. She said that it will only go up the 20 inches that it has to move. Jim Estin said that one option is to secure the upper sash as it is. He said that they will have to make a new bottom sash regardless, so that if the Commission doesn't approve sash replacement, they will have to have one made. He said that ideally what they would like to do is to get a thermal sash that can use cords. Jim Estin said that they may have to rebuild the channel enough to do that with that window, but the ideal thing would be to have an operable window, probably with weights or double weights. He stated that the idea about that one is to replace the bottom sash, but they don't yet have a good sense of what will happen there. Jim Estin said that one of the problems of rebuilding what is there is that there will still be the same problem with the upper rail. He said that if he can get a thermal sash that is of that size, then it would be okay to pull up by the top rail, because it would be a whole new construction. Weitzel asked what the material of the thermal sash would be. He said it would have to be either wood or clad wood. Jim Estin said that it would probably be wood and not clad wood, because it needs the ropes for the weight anyway. Weitzel said that there is a repair technique that involves not replacing the wood at all. He said that there is a two-part process involving a chemical that consolidates the existing woodwork, and then any holes are filled with an epoxy. Weitzel said that then the original sashes would not have to be removed at all. He said that a lot of windows can be repaired at a very reasonable cost using this method. Weitzel said that then the owners might not have to remill new rails. Ann Estin showed the product that Iowa City Window and Door quoted to them. She stated that since the application was turned in, Knebel Window has quoted for them a Weathershield product that is pretty similar in that it is a sash replacement of the same sort. Ann Estin said that they are looking for permission to use that or an equivalent product. Weitzel asked if the Estins would be using the Oralast, the treated sash. Ann Estin confirmed this. Weitzel said that it is pressure treated, and the website says that it is paintable. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 8 Jim Estin asked if the Commission would prefer that the outside be wood for a sash replacement. Weitzel said that it is taken on a case -by -case basis, although the guidelines allow for metal or wood. He said the Commission foresees opportunities where clad would not blend in with the rest of the house, especially if the rest of the house is still wood, although the Commission has never denied that. Weitzel stated that if the Commission had a preference, it would probably always go for wood. Gunn said that was probably the case but said the reason the guidelines allow clad wood windows is that the profile and appearance from outside is usually the same as a wood window. He said the profile all looks the same, and if it's paintable, it practically becomes the same to the Commission. Weitzel said that sometimes the clad is not paintable. Jim Estin said it sounds like the Commission's preference would be for non -clad in this case. Carlson stated that even if it's clad, it has to be paintable. Maharry asked if the DRS had reviewed this item. Weitzel said that all of the items were reviewed but said that the applicants were not coming to the DRS meetings. Terdalkar said that each applicant came in to see him, and he told them what the DRS had indicated about their projects. MOTION: Maharry moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for the repair and replacement of twelve of twenty-seven windows, as requested by the applicants; noting that the applicants have done their research and really tried to figure out which windows are salvageable, which should be replaced, and which did not need to be replaced; with the allowance for trim to match around window eleven and with an allowance to change the dimensions of non -historic window number twelve and to change it to a double hung window to match the existing. Ponto seconded the motion. Weitzel noted that work on window twelve is not a replacement but is an alteration of the wall; it is not a sash replacement but is a new window. Ann Estin confirmed that the request is for eleven sash replacements, one new window, and one with the trim outside. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. MOTION: Carlson moved to take up from the table consideration of a certificate of appropriateness for a project at 415 Clark Street. Ponto seconded the motion. Dipps said that the owners are opposed to a parapet wall. He said they would be willing to go to a flat roof on the new project. Terdalkar said the reason for the pitched roof was to not have such a big terrace, and the DRS thought it would be difficult to manage that big of a walkout terrace. Dipps said that the owners would like some overhangs for energy conservation. He asked if that would be acceptable. Bill Dostal said that he would not consider it essential, although he would like to have it. Gunn stated that it is hard to get enough overhang to shade the windows a lot. Dipps said he would like to have 18 inches to two feet. Maharry asked if there had to be a setback anyway, if that could work back into the setback of the addition. Dipps said he cannot do that, because he is so short on space for the bathroom right now that he has to go out to the end of the garage. Weitzel said one thing the Commission would be concerned about would be the roofline extending beyond the side of the garage. Dipps said that the existing window is tucked under the overhang and is boxed out. He asked if it would be okay to just have an overhang on the back end but not on the sides, to accommodate that boxed out window. Dipps said that it would not be seen from any angle, except if one is in the backyard. Weitzel said that from a lot of angles in the back, it would more or less fade into the profile. Dipps said they could then just keep the garage the way it is. He said they want to reuse the one window and then use double hungs for the other windows. Dipps said the remaining issue is the placement of windows. Ponto said that was acceptable to him so far. Carlson said that he was a little concerned about reusing that window that looks like nothing else on the house. Jan Dostal suggested putting panes in it. Maharry said that if the owners are willing to do that, it Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 9 might be an acceptable compromise. Dipps said that they could use the painted wood, clip -in muntin bars. Weitzel said his thought regarding the big window is that the division between it was the biggest thing that struck him as showing that it is a new window. He said, however, it was a window that was added on a long time ago, so he did not care if divisions were put in. Dipps said that there was some objection to the window that is in the nook next to the closet. He said that the owners would be okay with making that a double window. Weitzel said that part of the issue was the placement in the wall. Dipps said they could put in a double window by adding another window to the right. Weitzel said that would add some balance. Dipps said that they could install a twin double hung window. Weitzel asked how far the owners would be willing to set that south on the wall. Dipps said that making it a twin would be moving it in, and he would not want to move it in much more. Weitzel said that the plan already shows it as a double window, and the DRS thought it was perhaps too close to the wall. Gunn said he was not sure that this would look a whole lot better centered. He said that he was not sure that centered in that portion of the wall would be a whole lot better than moving it to the outside. Gunn said that if it crowds the outside, it's really tight, but if it can have about eight inches of siding, then it would not look like it is crammed to the outside and there would be some balance to it. Dipps said that it would be a four -foot tall window that would be 2'/ feet off the floor. Carlson asked if the windows would be the same dimensions as the other double hung windows on the house. Dipps said that they would be almost exactly the same. He said that the windows on the south elevation of the new addition would be within an inch of being the exact same size of the casements that are there. Dipps said that on the north elevation there is a small bathroom window that he could use a double hung window for. He said they would put a window similar to that size in the closet, so there would be two of the small double hung windows in that wall. McCallum said that would then break up the wall space. Weitzel asked if the windows would be metal clad wood windows. Dipps stated that they are Andersen vinyl clad wood windows. He said they are a very high quality window. Weitzel said that the Commission disallows vinyl clad windows. Dipps said that he could look for a different window. He said, however, that most of the better windows are vinyl clad. Dipps stated that the Andersen vinyl windows are paintable, and the vinyl is a solid piece so that water cannot leak into the window. Weitzel said that the issue is not the water leaking into the metal clad but is the condensation behind it. He said that the wood has moisture in it, and the metal has a different temperature and doesn't allow the moisture to escape, and it has condensation inside. Weitzel said that vinyl does that also. Weitzel said the guidelines disallow vinyl clad windows. He said that the guidelines are based on research. Dipps said that he could use aluminum clad windows but added that he would get information to the Commission to show that the vinyl clad windows are paintable. He said that the vinyl on the clad windows is not like vinyl siding. Gunn said that the Commission is always willing to consider new products and review product information. Dipps asked what the difference is in the regulations for a historic district versus a conservation district. Weitzel said that one difference is how they come into being, although they are essentially regulated the same way. Gunn said that there is a little more flexibility in a conservation district. Weitzel said, however, that there is not flexibility for the principle structures. He said the flexibility affects non -historic buildings, not in materials for contributing structures. Weitzel said that contributing structures in both types of districts are treated the same way. Maharry asked what type of siding would be used for the addition. Dipps said that it would be the same as is there now, wood siding. Gunn asked if there would be cornerboards on the addition. He asked if there was an outside corner on the original house. Jan Dostal said that there was not on the back. Dipps said that the addition would have cornerboards, and there would also be a wider piece between where the original house was and where the addition would be. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 10 Gunn said that he thought that less than a twelve -inch overhang would not look that drastically different on the house. He said that the casement window just needs enough overhang to protect it from water. Carlson asked if the eaves of the addition would project out beyond the plane of the garage wall. Dipps said he did not think that they would; he said the garage is like the house in that respect. Weitzel said that the garage has an overhang that appears to be modest but sufficient. Carlson asked if there would be a cornerboard to mark the division between the garage and the addition. Dipps confirmed this and said there would also be one on the south elevation. Carlson asked about the overhang on the west elevation. Dipps said that it would end up being the same overhang over the boxed out window as what is on the rest of the house. He said that the overhang won't be seen; it will only be an overhang that sticks out over the boxed window, and it will actually be the same overhang as on the rest of the house. Regarding the reuse of the four -paneled window, Carlson said it is the sort of thing that, if it were proposed as a new window, probably would not be allowed. Weitzel said the applicants cited the cost of that window replacement and the fact that it is not at the end of its useful life as reasons for the window's reuse. Ponto pointed out that it was added as part of an addition anyway and would continue to be used in an addition. Gunn said the Commission is trying to make the new addition sympathetic to the house, not to the 1960 addition. Carlson said that the casement window is dramatically different from the rest of the house. He said that the reuse of the window is the one part of the application that he is not comfortable with after the agreed -to changes. McCallum said that he would support the property owners on the reuse of the casement window in the addition. Gunn suggested that putting in mullions would make the window look almost like the design proposal. Carlson said that mullions would result in very small panes compared to anything else, smaller even than the bathroom casement on the second story. Gunn said it would also look more like one might have seen in a sun porch. Carlson said that he does not object to the use of casements per se, because they could have been on an addition like this, but the dimensions of these windows are narrower than anything one would see on the original structure. He did not know how the divided lights would look. Terdalkar pointed out that the Commission would currently be approving five different sizes and proportions as proposed now. Maharry suggested that the divided lights would be an appropriate compromise. Gunn asked if the window would be trimmed to match the rest of the windows. He said that the casement units could be trimmed with the same 3.5-inch trim. Dipps said that he could do that. Gunn said that part of the reason casement windows look funny is that they don't have any trim around them. Weitzel said that he thought that trim would help a lot. Ponto said that he would be okay with such a compromise. Regarding the window, Carlson said that in principle he would be willing to accept the simulated divided lights, in the spirit of using an existing, working window. Regarding the window cladding, Gunn said that Andersen is saying that it is not made of rigid vinyl so that is it paintable. Dipps said that the white can be painted any color. Gunn said he believed that Andersen made a painted metal clad window. Dipps stated that he would have the Andersen representative contact Terdalkar to get information to the Commission. The consensus of the Commission was to require muntins, horizontal bars, and mullions, vertical bars, in the four -paneled windows. Jan Dostal said there would probably need to be five horizontal bars across one vertical bar. Carlson asked what the existing foundation is made of. Dipps said that it is cement block. Terdalkar said that the cement block is on the addition, but the original house has brick. Bill Dostal said that all of the foundation is cement block except the garage, which was built on a slab. Terdalkar said it might be that the face of the foundation is brick. Bill Dostal confirmed that the front steps are brick. Bill Dostal stated that the basement is cinder block. Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 25, 2005 Page 11 MOTION: Gunn moved to approve a certificate of appropriateness for an addition at 415 Clark Street using the submitted floor plan, with the following changes: the overhang on the addition to match the existing garage and house everywhere except the beside the casement window on the west side, a flat roof, a paired double hung window on the west side of the northwest corner with ten -inch minimum siding exposure between the cornerboard and the window trimboard, the addition of a window to the closet on the ground floor, double hung windows for all new windows, the existing casement window to be reused should be trimmed to match the rest of the house with mullions and muntins added to simulate the upper story casement window, and with the foundation to match that of the original house. McCallum seconded the motion. The motion carried on a vote of 7-0. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Minutes submitted by Anne Schulte s: /Pcd/minutes/H P C /2005/08-25-05. doc